Johannesburg - Critics of South Africa’s foreign policy often argue that it is based on the lame Shakespearian epistemology whose dictum is: “See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.”
But that’s a myopic assessment, nay, surreptitiously mischievous. This week’s visit to Pretoria by veteran Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov drew attention to the enduring South Africa-Russia relations.
Last year, the two countries celebrated 30 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties, the ties Pretoria insist remain super strong. Unapologetically, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) Minister Naledi Pandor swiftly described Russia as SA’s “valued partner”.
Of course, the sentiment is premised on special historical ties between the erstwhile Soviet Union and the majority of sub-Saharan liberation movements. They include South Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, Namibia’s Swapo, Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF, Mozambique’s Frelimo and Angola’s MPLA, among others.
At the time when the West, led by the US, the former West Germany and the UK were vocal in their campaign to discredit the liberation movements as perpetrators of terrorism, it was the Soviet Union that offered them training and sanctuary.
When ANC and SACP big guns Moses Kotane and JB Marks died in exile in Moscow, the Kremlin gave them some kind of state funeral with all the trappings of pomp and ceremony.
Kotane and Marks were laid to rest in a special part of the prestigious Novodevichy cemetery that was home to fallen Russian heroes and heroines. Marks died in 1972 and Kotane six years later, in 1978. The remains of the two Struggle icons were repatriated and reburied in South Africa in 2015.
The Soviet Union practised what they preached, so to speak. Their material support for the liberation movements, characterised by the training of liberation armies such as the ANC’s Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), was never done half-heartedly.
It is in this context that mischievous foreign relations analysts elect to practise selective amnesia due to their ideological subjectivity. They have conveniently forgotten that it was the UK’s Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan of the US and West Germany’s Helmut Kohl who actively protected the apartheid government of the National Party and the ubiquitous remnants of colonialism across our beleaguered continent that continues to be a playground of unscrupulous Western interests whose motive is to loot the natural wealth of Mother Africa.
South Africa has remained steadfast in Mandela’s founding ethos of an unwavering and independent foreign policy. Remember a time in the early days of our democracy, soon after April 27, 1994, when Madiba, in a veiled reference to the West, declared that “no one will choose who our friends are, or should be”, to paraphrase the great man.
He was referring to the ANC’s policy position to publicly embrace old allies such as Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Palestine’s Yasser Arafat. But the big elephant in the room cannot be ignored: It is the Ukraine war, its ramifications for all sides as well as its impact on the reconfiguration of global power relations.
In a nutshell, the effects of what Lavrov and the Kremlin are referring to as a “special military operation” in geopolitics and the extent of the impact thereof. Inevitably, the rapidly growing threat to the US hegemony and neo-liberalism in the wake of Russia’s major shift in Moscow’s foreign relations coupled with China’s silent rise in world affairs both militarily and economically.
The emergence of power blocs such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is a major threat to the geopolitical landscape at this juncture, particularly as the probability emerges of a possible expansion of the emerging bloc through the acceptance of countries such as Iran, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba and Algeria, among others.
“BRICS should play a pro-active role in emerging processes to ensure it is part of redesigned global order,” Pandor said this week. She added: “The current global geopolitical tensions signal the need to create institutional mechanisms that will have the stature, form and global trust to promote global peace and security.” South Africa is the the rotational chair of BRICS this year.
Lavrov commented: “We all agree that this structure (BRICS) is an example of truly multilateral and multipolar diplomacy, based on a search for a balance of interests.”
Steven Cruz, head of the Russia-Africa research programme at the SA Institute of International Affairs, concurred as follows: “There’s a strong affinity in the group (BRICS) that the world should not have one superpower, and that one superpower should not be the US – there must be multipolarity, there must be other centres of power.”
Lavrov’s eventful stop in Pretoria this week was part of a Southern African tour that includes Botswana, eSwatini and Angola. Remarkably, the diplomatic mini-whirlwind takes place at a time when the US and Nato have tried hard to isolate Russia through unilateral sanctions the West have dubbed “international”, coupled with a sly campaign of threats and coercion of weaker nations deemed friendly to Russia.
And then, there was a bombshell at the Lavrov-Pandor meeting: South Africa will host joint naval exercises with Russia and China for 10 days from February 17 to 27. The operations with what Pandor said would be held with “friends” would be part of a “natural course of relations”.
The event will also noticeably coincide with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or special military operation – depending on which side one chooses – which started on February 24 last year.
This is a bold move by South Africa. It is a brave declaration of independence of thought and regard for the country’s sovereignty. Paraphrased, Pretoria’s foreign policy objectives are purely based on the country’s national interest, instead of being bullied into submission to the geopolitical goals of Russia’s enemies.
The continuous patronising attitudes of the Western nations, plus their role in the colonisation and remorseless theft of African wealth from dozens of colonies, serve as a constant reminder of the cruelty and impunity of the West at all material times.
Conversely, Russia, like China, has no history of ever colonising African countries and is largely seen as a major buffer against Western imperialism. The strong culture of anti-Western sentiments permeates many aspects of life on the continent. Africa is no longer prepared to be the playground of the thieving Western leaders masquerading as philanthropists.
South Africa’s non-aligned stance in global conflicts is influenced mainly by the country’s push for human rights as the core of foreign policy. At the UN vote for the adoption of a resolution to condemn Russia’s activities in Ukraine, South Africa was one of 15 African countries that abstained from voting.
Pretoria’s moral high ground stems from the country’s attainment of a democratic order through a negotiated settlement. Dialogue is therefore at the centre of engagements in international forums and through all forms of multilateralism.
The violent confrontation between Russia and the West is likely to last a lot longer than initially anticipated. Speaking during his South African visit, Lavrov said the West were no longer involved in a proxy war against his country.
“They are now almost in a real war,” Lavrov said, referring to the large amounts of military weapons and personnel that Western countries continue to dispatch to Ukraine in addition to billions of dollars pledged to fund Kyiv’s military.
“When we speak about what is happening in Ukraine – it is a war, not a hybrid one, almost a real war that the West has been plotting for a long time against Russia,” Lavrov said, before adding: “The goal is to destroy everything Russian, from language to culture, that has been in Ukraine for centuries and to prohibit people from speaking their mother tongue.”
He concluded by claiming that whereas Russia had been prepared to sit at the negotiating table with Ukraine in the early months of the conflict, Kyiv was ordered by its Western backers to shun the talks.
Said Lavrov: “It is well known and was published openly that our American, British and some European colleagues told Ukraine that it is too early to deal, and the arrangement which was almost agreed upon was never revisited by the Kyiv regime.”
His parting shot was a warning: “Those who refuse (to negotiate) must understand that the longer they refuse, the more difficult it is to find a solution.”