Research Director of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Professor of Comparative Politics at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy
Source: News 24 (South Africa)
The visit of African leaders to Ukraine and Russia is an important step that shows the African continent is trying to play a role internationally. The question though is whether the mission will lead to peace or become just blah-blah talks, which could be used as a smokescreen for the aggressor, writes Olexiy Haran, Research Director of the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Professor of Comparative Politics at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy .
While several African leaders were in the Ukrainian capital on Friday with their peace initiative, Kyiv was bombarded. Like thousands of Ukrainians since February 2022, African leaders had to go to a shelter.
African leaders' braveness in visiting Ukraine during the time of war was well received by ordinary Ukrainians. During that shelling, seven people were wounded, including a four-year-old girl. Such shelling is very telling about the "Russia’s will to peace". Is this "the positive reception we received from both sides" mentioned later by President Cyril Ramaphosa in his weekly newsletter?
In November 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky presented a peace plan. The overlapping points of the Ukrainian and the African peace plan are:
- Food security and grain export,
- Release of all war prisoners and deportees, including children deported to Russia.
The deportation, abduction and separation of children from their families is the basis for an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) earlier this year.
Russia has not released the names and whereabouts of many deported children to the Ukrainian government, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or any other international organisation.
Ukraine had identified and provided the ICRC with the names of almost 20 000 deported children. Of this less than 400 were released to return to their families in Ukraine. Russian authorities claim to have received more than 700 000 Ukrainian children in Russia. If African leaders succeed in receiving the names and whereabouts of all children Russia deported, the African peace mission could have an immediate positive effect for thousands of Ukrainian families.
During the peace mission to Ukraine and Russia, African leaders talked about the necessity to stick to the UN Charter, sovereignty and territorial integrity. And that’s exactly what Ukrainians are fighting for: the territorial integrity which Moscow guaranteed in many international treaties and which was brutally violated by the 2014 aggression against non-aligned and de-nuclearised Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent invasion into Donbas.
The African suggestion about territorial integrity of Ukraine was immediately rebuffed by Putin, who demanded they "accept new realities", that is, the occupation of Ukrainian lands. In this situation, the calls for ceasefire, which at first glance are logical, in reality, will freeze the occupation of Ukrainian lands (which would totally correspond to Russia's aim). It would mean continuing terror, repressions, deportations of civilians, including children.
Russia should be asked to withdraw
If African leaders seriously stick to the UN principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, then they should logically call Russia to withdraw its soldiers from Ukraine. But there is no mention of "territorial integrity", not to say the withdrawal of Russian troops, in Ramaphosa's newsletter on 19 June. And the largest war in Europe, unseen since the Second World War, which caused every third Ukrainian (around 14 million) to leave their homes, is "diplomatically" called a "conflict".
With regards to calls for "de-escalation from both sides", how can you put equal responsibility on an aggressor who denies the very existence of Ukrainians as a separate nation from Russia, and the victim of aggression which defends its freedom? Don't forget that Kyiv is at least 600 years older than Moscow, but in the Russian empire, we, Ukrainians, were officially called "Little Russians" and our language was banned from public use.
Since 1991, Ukrainians tried very hard to have a dialogue and even make concessions to Russia, but all the agreements were violated. If the aggressor is not rebuffed, he will move further. This is very well known from the policy of "appeasement" of Hitler. When Saddam Hussein in 1990 declared Kuwait "Iraq's province", the whole world, including Arab and many non-aligned countries, united and liberated Kuwait. Contrary to the often-heard banality that "all wars end by negotiations", the aggressor was defeated.
But Putin was not stopped in Georgia in 2008, so he moved into Syria, then attacked neutral Ukraine in Crimea, Donbas and finally the whole Ukraine. So do not believe any Russian statements about giving respect to the "neutrality" of Ukraine. Since February 2022, even when negotiations were held in Istanbul, Russia never stopped bombardments of Ukraine and continued massacres. A month later in a small town of Bucha near Kyiv, more than 400 massacred civilians were discovered. If a gangster occupied your house, raped your wife, killed your relatives, deported your children, and then is "ready to negotiate if you recognise new realities", what would you do?
Ukraine should be supported
One can hear from South Africa that its neutrality derives from non-alignment. As a historian of international relations, I remember pretty well that non-aligned countries fought against colonialism and aggressors, denounced apartheid, trained ANC fighters, fought for economic sanctions against the apartheid regime and for its exclusion from the Olympic movement etc. So why should these principles of solidarity change regarding Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Vice versa: Ukraine should be supported in its "long walk for freedom".
And do not forget that it was Ukraine (not Russia), a founding member of the UN, which was a member of the UN Special Commission against apartheid and which co-sponsored many anti-colonial resolutions. In early 1960s, 300 hundred ANC fighters were trained on a base near the Ukrainian city of Odesa. When I studied at Kyiv University with African students, I remember how we were happy about the collapse of the Portuguese empire in Africa and the approaching freedom for Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Logically, we expect African solidarity with our own anti-colonial fight.
In this sense, the visit of the mission led by President Ramaphosa is an important step that shows that African leaders are trying to play a role. It remains to be seen if it will lead to peace or become just blah-blah talks which in reality may be used as a smokescreen for the aggressor. And there would be no safe supply of Ukrainian grain to Africa while Russia continues its occupation and blockades, creates unbelievable ecocide by blasting the Kakhovka Dam, and occupies Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station (NPP), the largest NPP in Europe – never ever in history of mankind has NPP been occupied by a foreign military.
The real road to peace is the withdrawal of Russian troops. And if Putin does not want to do it, then we need to put pressure on him, in the same way pressure was put on the apartheid regime.
Therefore, instead of calling for "de-escalation from both sides'', the call should be to immediately stop bombardments of Ukrainian civilians and critical infrastructure, to stop the blockade of the already signed agreements on "grain corridors", and a call to withdraw Russian military from Zaporizhzhia NPP immediately. This is easy to do; no need for long negotiations – just one word from Putin.
And do not embrace war criminal Putin at the BRICS summit in South Africa. It will be against the ICC's warrant. It will be a humiliation for the thousands of Ukrainians who were killed, tortured, raped and deported.
Or would you prefer to stay "neutral"?
