Bola A. Akinterinwa
South Africa and Russia are both members of the BRICS. BRICS is the acronym for the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa who are all protesting the Bretton Woods system and seeking an alternative to the current International Economic Order. The acronym was first used in a report entitled, ‘Building Better Global Economic BRICS’, and written by Jim O’Neill (vide Global Economics Paper No. 66). The original membership of the BRICS when informal meetings of the BRIC Foreign Ministers began in 2006 did not include South Africa until December 2010 as from when the acronym changed from BRIC to BRICS. Indeed, the first BRIC meeting took place in Yekaterinburg on 16 June 2009, a date generally considered as the founding date of the group. South Africa became a full member at the BRIC Foreign Ministers meeting held in September 2010 in New York.
The importance of the group is first explained by the fact that all the five countries account for 42% of the global population. They also account for more than 31% of the world’s GDP. Thus, the economic size of the BRICS and the objective of seeking to replace the current international monetary system has become a major source of economic threat to the US-led Western world. The United States has been more threatened because, one of its most reliable and important allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, has also been reported to be seeking membership of the BRICS. More disturbingly, the BRICS wants to replace the dollarization of international economic relations with another currency.
Perhaps more importantly, when the relationship of each Member State of the BRICS with one another is considered, it can be observed that East-West alliance is being re-defined by force majeure, Africa’s dependence on the West is also gradually being redefined. In fact, Russia-South African ties are now more threatening to the United States, an important trading partner of South Africa. The same is true of the entente between China and Russia, especially in light of the implications of the Russian-Ukrainian war which have become the main centrifugal factor in BRICS relations with the United States. The United States frowns at any relationship with Russia that strengthens Russia’s military power to the detriment of Ukraine, but also that can bring shame to US efforts in the war. In this particular case, South Africa is on record to have been hobnobbing with Russia in the areas of joint military exercises and supplies of arms and weapons, a case the South African government has technically denied and promising to investigate. Regardless of the denial, the matter has already led to a diplomatic row that the United States is currently also finding difficult to handle.
South Africa and Russian Cooperation
South African and Russian relations have been generally warm for three main reasons. First was the role played by the former Soviet Union and particularly the Russians during the anti-apartheid war. It should be recalled that in 1896, the Transvaal Republic established ties with Russia and that the national anthem of the Transvaal, ‘Transvaal, Transvaal, My Country,’ was frequently played by Russian orchestra. Besides, various committees were created to raise money for the Transvaal in addition to the many church services that offered prayers for a British defeat.
Russian support for South Africa has been better explained in the observation made by a British historian, R. W. Johnson: ‘Russian conservatives were pro-Boer not only for the usual nationalist anti-British reasons, but because they thought the Boers were like the best sort of Russians – Conservative, rural, Christian folk resisting the invasion of their land by foreign (especially Jewish) capitalists.’ What is particularly noteworthy about the foregoing quotation is the aspect of Christian folk resisting capitalist invasion. Even though the opposition elements in South Africa were hostile to communism in South Africa, Russian relations with South Africa still remained generally cordial until the dismantlement of apartheid in 1994.
In support of the anti-apartheid struggle, Russia withdrew its ambassador following the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960. More interestingly, during the South Africa Border War, the Russians not only supplied arms but also trained the SWAPO and the MPLA fighters. In fact, following glasnost and perestroika and the eventual demise of the Soviet Union, South Africa recognised the Russian Federation in December 1991. This was followed by the establishment of diplomatic missions on 28th February, 1992. By so doing, South Africa became the first African country to establish diplomatic ties with the Russian Federation.
Secondly, The Russian Federation, particularly under the current president, Vladimir Putin, has one foreign policy objective of taking out South Africa from the orbital influence of the US-led western world, surely in an attempt to undermine US influence and interests in Africa. And true enough, Russian supportive attitude towards South Africa is part of the initial strategy to increase Russian presence in Africa. When this objective is likened to the Chinese objective in seeking to strengthen better relations with South Africa, the primary strategic interest is to use South Africa as means of strengthening Chinese quest to establish a naval base and active presence in the Indian Ocean. This strategy has an ultimate objective of containing the Americans in the South China Sea in the event of military hostilities over Taiwan. These are some of the untold strategic calculations behind the formation of the BRICS.
And true enough, in response to the official visit of President Nelson Mandela to Russia in April 1999, President Putin visited South Africa in 2006. Thereafter, South Africa began to distance itself from the hostile activities of the US and its allies toward Libya after the death of Muammar Gaddafi. And true again, South Africa joined the BRICS in 2010 with the active support of the Russian Federation. Within this context, military understanding and cooperation increased substantially under President Jacob Zuma. Closer ties were developed with the South African Security apparatus. For example, members of the South African State Security Agency travelled to Russia for special training.
Thirdly, South Africa wants to build its own satellite surveillance capabilities with Russian assistance, but this strategic objective cannot be achieved by working with the United States against Russia. This is a matter of protection of the national interest which underlies the current misunderstanding and irritant in the South Africa-American relations. It cannot but be illogical to expect South African hostility vis-à-vis Russia if Jacob Zuma was frequently going to Russia for medical treatment. It cannot but be also absurd for President Zuma to have successfully struck a deal for a $100bn nuclear power plant with Russia and for Western observers to expect South African hostility towards Russia.
This is why the US attitude towards South Africa on the issue of joint military exercises between Russia and South Africa, on the one hand, and among Russia, China and South Africa, on the other, should be seen as an exaggeration and an unnecessary attack on the political sovereignty of South Africa. Without any jot of doubt, Russia’s Admiral Gorshkov frigate arrived in Richards Bay on February 20, 2023 with sporting war symbols. And expectedly, the deployment of hypersonic missile Zircon-armed frigate warranted condemnation by Ukraine and western allies. It was against this background that in May 2023, the US Ambassador to South Africa, Reuben Brigetty, had to accuse South Africa of arming Russia, alleging that weapons were actually loaded onto a Russian commercial vehicle, the Lady R, which was docked at a naval base in Simon’s Town in December 2022.
As explained by Ambassador Brigetty at a press conference, ‘we would like South Africa to start practising its non-alignment policy.’ This statement is quite interestingly from two perspectives. First, the United States does not want South Africa to be aligned with the Russians but is not against South Africa’s alignment with the United States and its allies. This necessarily makes a non-sense of the notion of non-alignment. Non-alignment cannot be invalid for one and made valid for another. This brings us to the second perspective, the real meaning of non-alignment at the level of intra-African and Africa’s external relations.
The origin of Non-alignment policy is traceable to the founding fathers, Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharla Nehru of India, Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. Non-alignment policy is actually a principle predicated on five pillars of mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in domestic affairs, sovereign equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence. The principle of peaceful co-existence still requires the non-use of force to settle disputes: diplomacy, reconciliation processes, arbitration, negotiation, judicial approach, adjudication, etc., are recommended rather than use of force.
The objectives of non-alignment policy are to enable maintenance of peace, promotion of economic growth, nipping in the bud colonialism and imperialism, opposition to military alliance and acquisition of nuclear weapons, protection of human rights, and assist the United Nations in the maintenance of global peace. But in this regard, what really is the meaning of non-alignment? Is it that, in absolute terms, there should not be alignment? Speaking grosso modo, many observers believe that non-alignment is about not taking side with disputants. This is not always the case.
From the example of Nigeria, non-alignment policy is the exercise of political sovereignty to decide whether to align or not to align. The decision to align must be a resultant from the need to protect the national interest. Aligning or not aligning is therefore a function of national interest needs. Consequently, the long-term implication of the request and advice of US Ambassador Brigetty is nothing more than an encouragement to South Africa to seek the protection of its own national interest. Put differently, nothing can be wrong if Russian and Chinese vessels docked at the Richard Bay Port in South Africa’s Kwazulu-Natal Province for a ten-day joint military exercise beginning on 20th February, 2023. As rightly observed by many, the joint military exercises coincide with the one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The joint exercises also appear to be more significant diplomatically because it was on 28th February, 1992 that Russo-South African diplomatic ties were established. Thus, it is a general week of anniversaries.
Russo-American Cold War
Sooner than later, the Russo-American cold war cannot but have the potential to be transformed into a hot war. The beginning of the transformation is, in fact, the current Russian-Ukraine war. US foreign policy interest is not simply to promote democracy, defend capitalism and human rights, and ensure economic vibrancy in the United States, but particularly to tell the whole world about the superiority of western civilisation, and the unsurpassed greatness of the American people. In other words, the United States sees itself as the leader of the world and wants to be seen and considered as the primus inter pares.
True, following the end of World War II, the former Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the two most powerful countries in the world. To differentiate the two of them from other great powers, the use of ‘superpowers’ was reserved for them. Following the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, only the United States remains and the most critical challenge for the United States is how to continue to sustain the status of the only superpower. Professor Jean-Baptiste Duroselle of the University of Paris 1, Pantheon-Sorbonne has argued that ‘tout empire périra,’ that is, ‘every empire shall perish.’ This means that there cannot but be an end to the United States’ leadership of the world.
However the Americans do not want to subscribe to this theory.
On the contrary, the Russian Federation strongly believes that it is impossible, if not
unacceptable, for the United States to remain the leader of the world beyond this time. The United States should not be talking about leading the world for eternity. As a matter of fact, President Vladimir Putin was, and still is, against the dismantlement of the former Soviet Union. He now wants to reunite the former Soviet empire. This simply means that the Russian foreign policy interest is directly in conflict with the United States foreign policy interest. The Americans want to dominate and direct all global affairs. Russians are vehemently opposed to this type of agenda. This is a situation of order and counter-order amounting to disorder.
This disorderliness is well captured in the Russo-Ukrainian war. Following the
Collapse of the Soviet Union, agreement was reached that both the NATO and the Warsaw
Pact should be dissolved. The Russians complied with the gentlemen agreement by taking life
out of the Warsaw Pact. On the side of the US-led western world, it has been total disregard
for the agreement. Additionally, Russia made it clear that she is vehemently opposed to the
expansion of NATO membership, especially to its international borders. The United States
and all its allies disregarded this. Many countries of Eastern Europe have been persuaded to
join the NATO, and they have, indeed, joined the NATO.
This angered Russia to a great extent. Russia in reaction, annexed Crimea 2014 and
also supported the pro-Russia secessionists by fighting the Ukrainian military in the Donbas war. All the founding members of the NATO (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and the United States) actively support Ukraine. For example, the Canadian Defence Minister pledged the deployment of 150 Canadian Armed Forces staff to Poland on a philanthropic mission to help Ukrainians. Australia took sanctions against Russian state-possessed endeavours. The European Union individually and collectively took several sanctions aimed at incapacitating Russian war effort
Belarus, the biggest of the Russian supporters, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan and possibly a few invisible others who can be said to be supporting Russia indirectly. For instance, Syria supported the recognition of the newly created republics in Eastern Ukraine. In the eyes of Iran, Russian special military intervention in Ukraine is in response to US provocations. In the same vein, Armenia voted against the removal of Russia from the Council of Europe. Many countries have also claimed to be neutral and therefore not taking side with anyone. They include UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan. What is noteworthy about all the positions is that neither of them has lessened the tension. On the contrary, the prosecution of the war has been made more complex. It is deepening day after day.
The Sino-American dimension to the Ukrainian conflict cannot be ignored. The United States does not want China to be associated with Russia in its war against Ukraine but US misunderstanding with China is more complex than the Ukrainian saga. For instance, China is actually planning to take over as the next leader of the world from the United States in the conduct and management of global questions. The United States wants to maintain the status quo and is therefore is against the Chinese dream.
Another aspect of the relationship is US-Chinese trade misunderstanding which has generally been fraught with US accusing China of technology theft. The United States has taken a number of sanctions against China. But to a great extent, to no avail. Again, in terms of politico-diplomatic ties, the United States wants Taiwan to be separated from China and exist as a sovereign state. The Beijing authorities see the American option as a joke and have therefore proposed only one option: ‘One China, Two systems.’
In the context of the international politics of the Ukrainian war, the merger of Russians in Eastern Ukraine with the Russian Federation is quite consistent with the Chinese quest to have Taiwan remain with one China. Again, it cannot but be in the interest of China’s long term calculations to have Russia win the war, in which case, the ‘Russian win’ will become a fait accompli. The punitive measures being taken against Russia by the European Union cannot but become useless if Russia wins the war. So, in the event of a similar Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the Russian experience will not be anything new. Explained differently, China prefers to be a silent supporter of Russians in her invasion of Ukraine. China is remaining silent to learn lessons from international politics of the war, and then use the lessons to prepare for likely worst scenarios in the event there is war over the future of Taiwan. Meanwhile, there is nothing to suggest that the Chinese authorities want to bend their position. Beijing is quietly insisting that Taiwan must remain a part of Mainland China. Whether tactical nuclear weapons will be used by Russia to defeat Ukraine and also used by China in the event of a war over Taiwan, it is only time that will tell. What can be said as of today is that the conflict in Ukraine is deepening. The increasing support given to Ukraine by the European Union is unnecessarily strengthening Ukrainians to suffer the more for a longer time. If the Europeans want to fight Russia, the fight should not be by proxy. They should take the battle directly to the doorsteps of Kremlin. Using Ukraine as an instrument for military experimentations is a direct threat to the maintenance of international peace and security. As it is today, Russia, because of the European support for Ukraine, has not been able to defeat Ukraine, thus creating a military lull. As such, the natural question is quo vadis? When and where is the next manifestation of the Russo-American and Ssssssino-American proxy war? Where will South Africa be in all these? Again time will tell.
