Financial Times: South Africa’s Russia stance shows it losing moral high ground

According to an article by Financial Times, from ethical non-aligned foreign policy, Pretoria has shifted to a might-is-right position. Caliber.Az reprints the article.

South Africa used to be a moral heavyweight when it came to foreign policy. Shortly before the fall of apartheid in 1994, Nelson Mandela laid out the guiding principles of an ethical, non-aligned approach, including promotion of human rights, democracy, justice and international law.

That vision won the country much goodwill. The ruling African National Congress had captured the world’s imagination by overthrowing the racist apartheid regime and committing itself to a Rainbow Nation. For a smallish economy, South Africa punched far above its weight.

That seems a long time ago. This week, in what amounts to a diplomatic coup for Vladimir Putin, South Africa is conducting joint naval exercises with Russia and China off its coast. Pretoria has become an exponent of the view that the war in Ukraine is more complicated than the west would have it. In its version, the US and Europe bear responsibility for pushing Russia too far with threatened Nato expansion. The west, so it goes, is waging a proxy war on Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Pretoria’s position has drifted gradually Russia-wards. After the invasion, Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s foreign minister, called for Russia’s immediate withdrawal and emphasised her country’s “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states”. That view changed. In later iterations, Pretoria warned the west against pushing Putin into a corner. “A sustainable solution”, Pandor said, “will not be found in isolating one party or bringing it to its knees.” Last month, she warmly welcomed Sergei Lavrov, her Russian counterpart, describing calls for withdrawal as “simplistic and infantile”.

South Africa’s position smacks not of respect for human rights or non-alignment, but rather for might is right. Its call for a negotiated peace implicitly offers to reward Russia for its aggression.

In truth, much of the shine came off South African exceptionalism long ago. Thabo Mbeki, president from 1999 to 2008, first undermined his country’s international standing with his stance on Aids, which he denied was caused by HIV. South African civil society was instrumental in helping to redefine international law to permit patent-free production of antiretrovirals, an intervention that saved millions of lives. That reflected magnificently on South Africa. But in some respects, it came in spite of the ANC, not because of it.

In the early 2000s, as Zimbabwe slipped into tyranny and economic collapse, South Africa lent a fig leaf to Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship. It rubber-stamped fraudulent elections. Solidarity with a fellow liberation movement trumped human rights. Under Jacob Zuma, the ANC began to loot the country and it became harder to see it as a moral arbiter of anything.

As South Africa became a member of the Brics countries, with Brazil, Russia, India and China, Pretoria began to see itself as a big player, part of an alternative power structure to the west. It is probably betting on China rather than Russia. But they come as a package.

In 2015, Pretoria watered down its commitment to multilateralism when it allowed the Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide, to attend a Johannesburg summit. It ignored a subsequent high court order to prevent him from leaving.

Once a champion of pan-Africanism, the ANC’s flirtation with xenophobia has damaged its moral authority with other African countries, many of which bravely supported it during apartheid. It has not shied away from whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment when it suits. These days fewer African countries look to Pretoria for leadership.

South Africa objects to what it calls lecturing by the west, particularly by former colonial powers. It points the finger at western hypocrisies, blunders and travesties. The US and UK both branded Mandela’s ANC as a terrorist organisation. The west invaded Iraq, a war that South Africa tried to avert, and Libya; it has refused to reform multilateral institutions to reflect a changing world. The list goes on.

Such criticism is fair. But whataboutism does not absolve South Africa of its own decisions. Nor should Ukraine be punished for the sins of the west.

In theory, a foreign policy could be idealistic. In practice, it is more likely directed to serve the national interest. South Africa’s risks being neither. Its stance on Russia is partly motivated by the memory of Soviet help in fighting apartheid. But Pretoria confounds non-alignment with providing cover for despots. Nor, unless it thinks Russia will win the war, is its stance pragmatic. South Africa once really did occupy the moral high ground. No more.