There are three possible explanations for the diplomatic storm that erupted between South Africa and the United States after Washington’s ambassador said armaments had been loaded onto a ship docked in South Africa and bound for Russia.
Two of these reflect miserably on Pretoria and the ruling African National Congress. The first is that the government of Cyril Ramaphosa really had no idea that the weapons were being loaded into the Ms R at Simon’s Town last December. That would be a shocking admission, since it’s supposed to be a secure military base. But given the dysfunctionality of the ANC and the levels of corruption and crime that have permeated key state institutions, that’s not entirely far-fetched.
The second explanation is that South Africaknew full well that he was exporting arms to Russia, both out of a misplaced loyalty to Moscow that dated back to the days of the Soviet Union, which supported the ANC’s liberation struggle more than 30 years ago, and because he felt obligated to stay on from another Brics country. This would mean that South Africa knowingly supplied arms to Moscow in defiance of Western sanctions.
The third explanation is that US intelligence is wrong. Given how many satellites the US may have aimed at Lady R, this seems unlikely. The US ambassador said he would “bet his life” on the truthfulness of the information. Skeptics will point to him later apologies, although this seems to have been more about tone than content. They will also remember the fake US intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Yet Washington has learned its lesson. Recent US intelligence reports relating to Russia’s intentions in Ukraine have proven depressingly accurate.
Embarrassingly, Ramaphosa felt compelled to do so order an inquiry in what happened in his country’s naval base. Even if this somewhat clears him, South Africa’s foreign policy will remain in shambles.
Pretoria has declared itself neutral in the Russia-Ukraine war, saying it would prefer a peaceful solution to taking sides. Yet her actions clearly lean towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In February, South Africa conducted joint naval exercises off its coast with Russia and China. The ANC has done little to distance itself from the conclusions of its youth league that Russia has become accustomed to from crooked referendums attached parts of eastern Ukraine last September was a “wonderful and wonderful process”. Ramaphosa has been flattering in his public dealings with Putin.
The contortions that South Africa has gone through highlight a larger issue. Developing countries have a legitimate aspiration to push for a new world order that better represents their interests in a multipolar world. They are right to point out that the institutions created after WWII – from the IMF and the World Bank to the United Nations – no longer reflect the world we live in.
But whatever South Africa is doing is clearly not the right way to do it. The reversal and blurring of Pretoria in relation to the Russia-Ukraine war reflects the reality that it will not be easy to replace the US-led rules-based order with something coherent and credible.
Defenders of South Africa’s position stress that it is a sovereign country with a sovereign foreign policy. This does not mean that Pretoria can pass off a pro-Russian position as somehow neutral. South Africa has benefited from much international goodwill, born out of its overthrow of the apartheid regime. As such, it enjoys preferential access to the US and European markets, a huge boon for its automotive manufacturing and other industries. If Pretoria wants to side with Putin, that’s his choice. But he should realize that such choices have consequences.
—————————————————-
Source link