At long last, on the eve of his retirement, South African President Nelson Mandela has come to Moscow on an official visit. His goodwill trip is designed to express his gratitude to Russia for its support during the struggle against apartheid. It could also mark a strengthening of relations between countries that won freedom from communism and apartheid, respectively in the early 1990s, and have subsequently become two of the world’s most important emerging democracies.
Mandela’s visit has been long planned but frequently postponed. He originally intended to visit to Russia in 1995, but had to change his plans because of political tensions at home. Mandela was again due to meet Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996, 1997 and 1998, but the meetings, for one reason or another, did not materialize.
Moscow, a strong supporter of Mandela’s African National Congress during the years of apartheid, is keen on deepening economic relations with both South Africa and other African regions. Russia removed its remaining economic sanctions against South Africa in 1994, after the United Nations Security Council scrapped the 17-year arms embargo against Pretoria.
Since then, however, the relationship has languished, and the heads of other African states such as Presidents Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Sam Nujoma of Namibia and Jose Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola have seemingly overtaken South Africa in the marathon race to the Kremlin. Now, as one senior Western diplomat put it, President Yeltsin realizes that the time has come to start building new, diversified post-communist relations between Russia and South Africa.
The relationship between Moscow and Pretoria has not been without tensions, some of which manifested themselves in the walk-up to President Mandela’s current official visit. An article in the Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta accused Mandela of deliberately making the visit impossible. It claimed that the South African president had given priority to visiting various Western countries and that his foreign policy advisors were responsible for giving him bad advice and for diplomatic blunders.
South African diplomatic sources, however, say such allegations are groundless, and that it was Russia that made Mandela’s visit impossible, by giving the South African side insufficient notice that the Kremlin was ready to receive him. In addition, Russia in recent years has increased its diplomatic relations with China, Japan, India, Middle Eastern and Western countries, while, in the view of some African diplomats, backing away from engagement with Africa.
Some Russians, meanwhile, have noted that relations with Africa have foundered, and have made efforts to address the problem. In March 1997 and May 1998, the State Duma, in conjunction with foreign policy academics from various African studies institutes, held special sessions on how to improve the decaying relations between Russia and African countries. Yeltsin, meanwhile, praised Mandela’s contribution to developing cooperation between Russia and South Africa in a goodwill message on the occasion of Mandela’s 80th birthday.
With Mandela now in town, Russia is likely to boost and expand trade ties and seek comprehensive approaches toward improving the overall relationship with South Africa. Trade ties between the two states have been growing over the past several years. Russia has been negotiating for a new agreement between Almazy Rossii-Sakha, or Alrosa, Russia’s largest producer and exporter of diamonds, and the South African diamond corporation, DeBeers.
A deepening of the relationship between Russia and South Africa could also serve to show other African nations the value of a relationship with post-Soviet Russia.
“The major problem with African countries stems from the fact that African political elites are still oriented towards the West and maintain a strong belief that Russia is still pursuing communist ideals,” Dr. Edmundo Manicah, a Mozambican researcher and political analyst, said.
African politicians need to realize that Russia possesses resources, a sound technical base, a well-developed infrastructure and economic potential. Southeast Asia and India have taken advantage of Russia’s market liberalization and economic reforms, and African states might well consider the possibility of re-establishing their Soviet era interstate committees, which were responsible for developing bilateral economic relations between the two continents.
In any case, as Manicah noted, Africa could benefit from the “progressive changes” that have taken place in Russia. African states should consider strategically reviewing relations with democratic Russia. This is especially so given that Africa’s integration into the global political and economy depends largely on devising dynamic and progressive international political strategies and methods. Africa’s leaders must make a conscious effort to open their doors to the Kremlin instead of looking exclusively westward.
Mandela’s visit could now open the way for the whole of Africa to begin a real and aggressive drive into Russia’s emerging market. The visit could also redefine Russia’s overall relations with the countries of Africa. These relationships must be pursued vigorously. They are one way of ensuring that the century we are about to usher in will be a better one.
*Kester Kenn Klomegah is an independent researcher and writer on African affairs based in Moscow. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times. Copyright@TMT30April,1999.
South Africa on the right side of history or captured by Cold War allies?
Authors: Professor Gerrit Olivier and Michèle Olivier*
A seemingly non-negotiable principle of SA’s foreign policy, is to be on the side of autocrats and dictators and habitually anti-West, irrespective of the issues. Cosy relations with the likes of Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam, Sudan‘s Omar al Bashir Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, characterised our foreign policy under all presidents since Nelson Mandela. With the present government being enamoured with a rabid war criminal like Vladimir Putin, we see a continuation of this policy.
Obsessed with a myopic partisan ideology and habitual hop-nobbing with dictators, of course, come at a high price, particularly degrading SA’S erstwhile high international prestige, role and status as well as stunting our all-important economic development. In short, this means that SA’s prevailing foreign policy is totally out of zinc with its intrinsic national interests.
According to ANC declarations, SA would ’stick to its principles‘ and not take sides in this war in spite of blatantly illegal and murderous Russian war crimes. Hence, it abstained from voting against Russia together with a motley minority of 34 other UN members in the 2 March General Assembly resolution (only 5 states voted against whilst 141 voted in favour).
The minister of the department of international relations and development (DIRCO), Naledi Pandor, issued a statement demanding Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. This clearly upset the Marxist, anti-West faction in the ANC policy establishment who subsequently prevailed upon president Ramaphosa, to denounce the statement, no doubt to assuage Russian and local communist’s displeasure.
For many, both inside and outside the country, this was a controversial decision resulting in a rare local public debate about our wayward foreign policy. What emerged was a conflict of opinion between the ideologues and realists in the foreign policy establishment. A hopeful sign, but unfortunately of little consequence in our fossilised ANC foreign policy establishment.
All along, the ideologues accepted that being in cahoots with war criminal Russia was in SA’s best interests notwithstanding the normative constitutional dictates and founding moral principles concerning respect for human rights, sovereignty, democracy, and territorial integrity.
What followed was indeed a case study of expedient, if not downright ’Walter Mitty’ diplomacy. First, president Ramaphosa rushed to telephone Putin, obviously to bask the reflected glory and honour of speaking to the ‘great man’. Afterwards, he subserviently thanked ‘’his excellency president Vladimir Putin‘’ for taking his call. At the same time, our ’great negotiator’ refused official engagement with the local Ukrainian ambassador as well as with ambassadors of the European Union, our biggest trading partners.
In the latest General Assembly meeting on Ukraine, SA persisted with its pro-Russian pseudo-neutrality but got a humiliating bloody nose after presenting a draft resolution, excluding the country of all blame. No wonder as this resolution was strictly in line with Kremlin propaganda lies casting doubt as to where exactly SA’s UN diplomats got their instructions from.
Ramaphosa’s aim, it seems, is to push himself forward as facilitator in the conflict, recalling at length in parliament his past experiences a negotiator.
‘Illusions of grandeur’, it may be called, as SA ’s international status and role during about 3 decades of uninterrupted misrule has declined close to being almost insignificant. While most of the world reached out to end the horrible and unthinkable human and material misery inflicted upon Ukrainian people, he offered them naught for their comfort, except portending to be a great negotiator reporting for service.
Belatedly, after strong criticism he rejected war as an instrument of policy, and signalled his wish to also speak to Ukrainian pres Volodimyr Zelinskiy, impressed perhaps by the latter‘s sterling performances addressing the American senate and the British, Canadian, Israeli, Italian and Japanese parliaments and the German Bundestag. The pièce de résistance of his kindergarten diplomacy, was to blame NATO for being deaf to earlier warnings against eastward expansion, ignoring the Russian brutal invasions, of inter alia, Finland, Latvia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, in the previous century not realising that NATO membership was their safeguard against future Ukrainian-type of invasions. Theirs was a wise decision. Indeed, Mr President, ignorance is bliss….!
Of course, good relations with countries like Russia are important provided they are based on pragmatism and national interest rather than sentimental ideological predilections. However, the ANC still acts as being a captive of the Cold War and, as if it still owes permanent a feudal fealty to Russia at a time when Soviet Union is passe and with communism on the ash heap of history.
While the world must perforce deal with a totally different and dangerous Putinist Russia, the ANC obstinately refuse to accept that its subservient posture vis-a- vis that country is not in SA’s best interest. Lamentably, the global moral imperatives that saw them to power no longer guide its foreign policy. Like the apartheid regime, Putinist Russia today commits a crime against humanity in Ukraine with the support of the ANC government.
The war in Ukraine may yet lead to unthinkable consequences for the world at large. What happens there is really a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Putin does not want a democratic Ukraine at his doorstep exposing his bland authoritarianism and precipitating a ’colour revolution’. Given the solidarity in the democratic West and the sluggish performance of the Russian forces in Ukraine, he will probably end up losing. SA policy makers are demonstrably myopic not realising the consequences for being on the side of a war autocratic war criminal war criminal. Like apartheid SA it would probably end up as an isolated global pariah.
An independent SA foreign policy is called for rather than one subservient to the preferences and dictates of Moscow and Beijing. This is the best way in which SA can regain international respect. The way in which it has handled the Ukraine crisis once again laid bare its diplomatic deficiencies, particularly lack of clear headed leadership. This will not change unless foreign policy making is democratised and professionalised rather than being monopolised by a small clique of badly trained and inexperienced ideologues with the help of a few advocating stand-patters.
* Michèle Olivier is a consultant of international law
Reviewing Russia-Mali Strategic Partnership
After withdrawing from the Joint Military Force of the G5-Sahel group which the United Nations described as “unfortunate” and “regrettable” middle of May, Malian Foreign Minister, Abdoulaye Diop, made a snapshot visit, for the second time under the new military administration to Moscow, intended to review various aspects of strategic partnership deals with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
“We paid special attention to the practical aspects of organizing deliveries from Russia of wheat, mineral fertilizers and petroleum products that are so much needed by the people of Mali today in conditions of illegitimate Western sanctions,” Lavrov said at a press conference after talks with Diop in Moscow.
The sound pace of military and military-technical contacts between the two countries was noted during the talks, according to Lavrov, and thanked his Malian counterpart for support for Russia’s resolutions at the latest session of the UN General Assembly. Lavrov made to explicit reference to the meeting of the UN Security Council the Western countries that consistently tried to “put their blame at Russia’s door” and to shirk responsibility for the food crisis.
“It goes without saying that we discussed the situation in Ukraine and around it, including the meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to world food security issues, where the Western countries tried to put their own blame at somebody else’s door. They argued that the crisis, which by and large is a result of their own efforts, allegedly stems from the crisis in Ukraine. Of course, they blamed it entirely on Russia,” Lavrov said.
Russia reaffirms its readiness to render Mali support in raising the fighting efficiency of its armed forces. “We reaffirmed Russia’s readiness as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to further contribute to normalizing the situation in Mali, render Bamako comprehensive support on a bilateral basis, in particular, in the sphere of raising the combat efficiency of the Malian armed forces, training troops and law-enforcement personnel,” Russia’s top diplomat said.
France’s decision together with Western allies to end the anti-insurgent Operation Barkhane and the European special forces mission Takuba does not contribute to restoring security in Mali and the entire Sahel region. Reports say France has approximately 5,100 troops in the region under Operation Barkhane, which spans five countries in the Sahel – Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.
With the final exit and the vacuum created by France, Russia now sees Mali as an excellent conduit to penetrate into the Sahel by pushing the much-criticized Wagner Group that organizes private military for countries in conflict. It is aggressively targeting the Sahel region, an elongated landlocked territory located between north Africa (Maghreb) and West Africa region, and also stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea.
“There is an obvious danger of the emergence of enclaves of power vacuum where militants of various outlawed armed gangs will feel free at hand and they have already prepared for such acts. This threatens the country’s territorial integrity and we repeatedly told our French counterparts about that,” Russia’s top diplomat said.
On March 2 at the United Nations General Assembly, African representatives and their votes were considered very interesting, and have geopolitical implications for study and analysis. Some 17 African countries abstained from the vote at the UN General Assembly to deplore the Russian invasion of Ukraine while some other 28 countries in the continent voted in favour. Mali was among those that abstained from vote. Eritrea was the only African country that voted against the resolution. It opposes all forms of unilateral sanction as illegal and counterproductive.
“All our initiatives were supported by Mali. We agreed to enhance coordination on the UN platform and in other international organizations. We are determined to work for this in earnest, including in the recently created Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations,” Lavrov assured.
During his first official visit in November 2021 to Moscow, Abdoulaye Diop and Sergei Lavrov, in fact, focused on increasing bilateral cooperation in economic sectors. But particularly significant was Russia’s military assistance to strengthen the position of the new military government and to fight rising terrorism in the Sahel region.
As developments explicitly show, Mali already stands in isolation there as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union, the United Nations, and the bilateral and multilateral partners endorse and support the implementation of sanctions and other strict measures to ensure a peaceful return to constitutional and democratic government in Mali.
Mali, a landlocked West African state with an impoverished population, faces increasing isolation from the international community over the political power grab. Even as the African Union (AU), the continental organization, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the regional bloc, both suspended the membership of Mali following military coups in August 2020 and May 2021, the ruling military officials are still holding onto political power by delaying the proposed elections in February 2022.
The African Union, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and foreign organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) have requested a quick transition to a civilian government. They further urged that efforts are taken to resolve outstanding issues relating to sustainable development and observing strictly principles of democracy in the Republic of Mali in West Africa.
Moscow is still planning to hold the second Russia-African summit. The “special military operation” approved by both the Federation Council and the State Duma (legislative chambers) to “demilitarize and denazify” the former Soviet republic of Ukraine has pushed the United States and Canada, European Union members and many other external countries to impose sanctions against Russia.
Mali’s withdrawal from G5 Sahel, Joint Force ‘a setback’ for the region
Mali’s decision on 15 May to withdraw from the G5-Sahel group and its Joint Force is “unfortunate” and “regrettable”, a senior United Nations official told the Security Council on Wednesday, as she urged countries in the region to redouble efforts to protect human rights, amid protracted political and security crises.
Martha Ama Akyaa Pobee, Assistant Secretary-General for Africa in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations, said the Joint Force was created in 2017 by the “G5” Heads of State – Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger – to counter terrorism in the Sahel “head on”.
However, the challenging political and security dynamics in the Sahel – and uncertain outcomes of transitions in Mali and Burkina Faso, in particular – has already slowed Joint Force operations. The G5 Sahel, meanwhile, has not convened a high-level political meeting since November 2021, while its Defence and Security Committee has not met in over six months.
Thanks to Commander General Oumar Bikimo, she said, the Joint Force has been able to carry out operations in all three of its sectors since the Council last met in November, despite the absence of Malian battalions.
How Mali’s decision to leave the G5 and the Joint Force will impact the dynamics in the region remains to be seen. “It is most certainly a step back for the Sahel,” she said.
MINUSMA on hand
For its part, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) will continue to provide support to the Joint Force long as it is mandated to do so by the Council. It has been working with contractors to deliver life support consumables to the contingents and will honour requests received by the other four contingents outside of Mali.
Cycle of radicalization
“Protecting the most vulnerable has become ever more important,” she stressed.
She cited reports of serious violations committed against civilians – by terrorist armed groups, as well as reportedly by armed and security forces.
To be sure, uprooting terrorist groups deeply enmeshed or embedded within communities is “uniquely challenging” in the Sahel, she said, making counter terrorism operations immensely difficult to carry out.
But if civilians fall victim to these groups, “those very efforts are going to be pointless”. Terrorist operations cause immeasurable human suffering, seriously undermine trust in the State and fuel radicalization.
Time for a re-think
“It is perhaps time to rethink our approaches and change the way we do our work” she added. “We need innovative approaches in the face of the constantly evolving tactics of terrorist groups, whose influence keeps expanding”.
She noted that for the last five years, the international community, donors and partners have struggled to reach a consensus on the most effective support mechanism for a collective security response in the Sahel.
And the lack of consensus persists – despite the recognition by all, that the terrorist onslaught in the Sahel constitutes a slow-burning, mortal threat to international peace and security.
Holistic approach needed more than ever
“It is now more urgent than ever to act,” she said.
She called for a holistic approach that honours “the primacy of politics”, addresses the causes of poverty and exclusion, and provides opportunities and fulfilled lives for the many young people in the region.
The African Union Commission and the United Nations Secretariat will jointly carry out a strategic assessment of security and governance initiatives in the Sahel, she said, with the goal of strengthening support to the G5-Sahel, its Joint Force and other security and governance initiatives in the region.
Zimbabwean peacekeeper selected as UN Military Gender Advocate of the Year 2021 Award
A Zimbabwean peacekeeper who recently completed her assignment with the UN Mission in South Sudan, will receive the 2021 United...
Anglo-American Axis Needs Common Market, not Common Alliance
With the eruption of the war in Ukraine, and considering the post-war situation, the alliance system in the West and...
China will aim to plant and conserve 70 billion trees by 2030
Xie Zhenhua, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change announced the country’s active response to the World Economic Forum’s 1t.org initiative,...
Why We Need to Acknowledge Russia’s Security Concerns
At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the United States was able to avoid nuclear war over...
Global CEOs Commit to Collective Action on Cyber Resilience
For the first time, leading oil and gas stakeholders are calling for industry to come together to stop harmful cyberattacks....
New Initiative to Strengthen Cross-Border Investment in the Digital Economy
A pioneering effort to facilitate cross-border investment in the digital economy was launched this week at the World Economic Forum...
Post-COVID, Latin American Leaders Say their Countries Are Open for Business
Rising food and energy prices and a migration crisis are posing significant economic and social challenges in Latin America, according...
Economy3 days ago
The Politics of New Global Borderless-Class
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Return of the Marcos and Great-Power Competition
Economy4 days ago
Effective Investment in China: What Should Be Done When the Situation Gets Complicated?
Middle East3 days ago
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s heady days
Defense4 days ago
U.S.’ Unperturbed Response to Indian BrahMos Launch in Pakistan: Aberration or New Normal?
Economy2 days ago
Education Must Come First in our Global Economic Agenda
South Asia3 days ago
When Politics turns Personal; The Toxic Allegations & Accusations become a Norm
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Reclaiming our future