Last week, when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, South Africa abstained from the vote, as it had done in early March.
One of the largest democracies on the African continent and with its past tied to the struggle for human rights, the country still tried, without success, to approve a text that did not treat Russia as an aggressor.
The South African position can be interpreted, firstly, from the participation of South Africa in the BRICS, a group of emerging economies, which still includes Brazil, India, China and Russia itself. With the exception of Brazil, the group’s members have adopted neutrality in the confrontation – China and India also abstained from voting at the UN.
In practice, however, according to analysts interviewed by the sheetthe explanation is historical: the memory of the second half of the 20th century predominates in the South African political elite, when the Soviet Union was the only country to supply arms and train the African National Congress (ANC), a party in power since 1994, but which at the time was considered a guerrilla.
“The Soviets provided AK-47s, grenades, bombs and other military equipment. From 1960 to 1990 [período em que o ANC era banido]there were also rumors that the CIA [agência de inteligência dos EUA] gave, in 1962, information to the South African government to arrest Nelson Mandela. Those memories persist in the current government,” says Keith Gottschalk, a political scientist at the University of Cape Town and a member of the ANC.
The same sentiment, according to Gottschalk, prevails in the politics of Angola, Namibia and Mozambique, countries that are led by parties that in the 20th century were also supported by the Soviets. All abstained in the two votes of the General Assembly.
At least in South Africa, nostalgia for the relationship between the ANC and the USSR, however, did not always reign pragmatically in the country. Russia, the main heir to Soviet power, has little representation in the African country’s imports and exports. According to the South African government, its biggest economic partners are China, the United States and the European Union.
Russia, in turn, as highlighted by economic analyst Mandla Lionel Isaacs, a member of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, in an article published in early March, does not even appear among the 30 main destinations for South African exports.
“This relationship [entre África do Sul e Rússia] it has been dubious. After the end of apartheid and the beginning of democracy in 1994, the government developed a good atmosphere with NATO members and rejected a Russian offer of military equipment at half price. This was an interesting decision,” says Gottschalk, recalling the stance of then South African President Nelson Mandela.
The name of the historical activist against apartheid is also essential to understanding narrative disputes within the ANC itself. According to Philippe-Joseph Salazar, French philosopher and professor of law at the University of Cape Town, there are three groups today in the legend, in relation to the war in Ukraine: 1) those who defend that South Africa must adopt a moral and condemnation of human rights violations; 2) those who defend Russia, attached to the historical relationship between the parties; 3) those who argue that the country has nothing to do with the conflict.
It is precisely in the third group that, theoretically, the South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, fits, although he has presented himself as a possible moderator between the parties. Recent statements by him, however, have gone in a different direction. On the 17th, in a speech to Parliament, he blamed NATO for the war in Ukraine.
“The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings of its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region,” Ramaphosa said, pondering, for on the other hand, that South Africa “cannot tolerate the use of force and the violation of international law”.
Days earlier, Ramaphosa had published a series of tweets in which he thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for speaking with him over the phone about the conflict.
In the same line of repudiation of the Western military alliance, the foundation created by former South African president Jacob Zuma – who was arrested for corruption – published a statement in early March saying that Russia should be applauded for resisting pressure. Western powers and considering the Kremlin’s military actions to be “justifiable”.
In the text, the foundation cites the impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff (PT) and the arrest of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), implying that these were events conducted in the interests of the West.
According to Salazar, the country’s financial market has embarked on neutrality and “been careful in its relations with Moscow.” One of the reasons would be the economic sanctions applied to Putin’s country, which could consequently affect the South African economy, in particular fertilizer imports — 11.3% of the product comes from Russia.
In the midst of the country’s attitude towards the conflict, one point of inconsistency is clear to Keith Gottschalk: South Africa does not have very modern armed forces, compared to those of military powers. “In this sense, in case of being invaded by a large country, South Africa’s only protection would be the UN letter that says that invading another country is wrong”, he emphasizes.
