South Africa has long and enthusiastically championed a multilateral order in which Big Powers are seen to submit to collective decision-making. Big Powers let loose from an international rules-based order are simply undesirable. Nelson Mandela lambasted George W. Bush for his invasion of Iraq. Similarly, South Africa should take Vladimir Putin to task and insist on the respect for international norms, a respect for sovereignty, self-determination, and the legitimacy brought by open democracy. As such, the focus of South Africa’s foreign policy ought to decry the use of war and advocate for an inclusive and democratic multilateral world order which gets on with the urgent business of collectively and sustainably promoting new forms of equitable and sustainable development. 

In a Western-led international order, indirect imperialism with its use of soft power in the strategic pursuit of geo-economic and geo-political goals has been the predominant mode of global political power. The USA, its main protagonist, on occasion, however, unilaterally reverts to war, as with Serbia over Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Iraq. The use of Russian military force in Georgia, Syria, Crimea and the Donbas in the last few years and the present attempt to subjugate a democratic Ukraine and its people, are a comparable exercise in war that demonstrates imperial behaviour. For Putin’s fiercely nationalist state, it is to expand its multinational state to encompass previous parts of the Soviet Union in a retro-fashioned Russian-centred order. Georgia, Moldavia and Kazakhstan (as well as the Baltic Republics) most fear this new-found expansionism, should Russia succeed in Ukraine. 

It cannot be that Big Powers ride roughshod over international norms or international (humanitarian) law because of some self-declared right to spheres of influence at the expense of ordinary peoples’ lives, livelihood, and right to national self-determination. Here the recent charge of the commission of war crimes is a serious indictment. In the face of the values enshrined in our constitution on which our national identity depends, South Africa needs to take a principled stand to oppose all neo/imperial behaviour, including that of Russia. 

While a critical stance towards the USA and the West remains pertinent, any new imperial behaviour elsewhere needs to be condemned. The African continent over many decades deliberately worked to impress its norms and values on opposing colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, and racism to achieve independence and obtain sovereign respect on the world. Amy Niang reminds us that Africa’s struggles in the past contributed to present-day notions of freedom, human rights, and solidarity amidst the ethical collapse of a dying imperial world in the West at the time. Russia in Ukraine denies a young democracy the right to nationhood, to determine its own affairs and exercise its sovereign rights. The invasion has targeted civilians and their homes. This wanton, imperial behaviour against 

Ukraine should have all of Africa openly question or sanction Russia. On this the African record is mixed. On the UN General Assembly vote on Ukraine, twenty-eight African states (52%) voted for the resolution condemning the Russian invasion while seventeen abstained (31%) and one state, Eritrea, voted with Russia against (2%). The remainder did not attend the session. 

In 2017 Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov pronounced that international politics is entering a new phase in which the present Western-led rules-based multilateral world order is being overtaken by a “a post-West world order, if you will, in which each country, on the basis of its sovereignty in the framework of international law, will strive to balance their own national interests with those of their partners, with respect for each country’s cultural, historical and civilisational identity.” Russia’s brutal 2022 attack on Ukraine’s civilian population, military, economy, and cultural heritage elicited massive and brave sustained popular-national resistance across the country. Russia’s rhetoric on respecting sovereignty and cultural identity lies brutally contradicted by its invasion. Russia’s actions infringe on BRICS own rules of non-interference. 

South Africa’s own abstention and calls for ‘neutrality in a conflict’ is partly explained by the need to demonstrate unity within BRICS where, as its smallest privileged member, in a club that contributes 25% to global GDP demands the world’s attention. With China leading in BRICS, the view is that BRICS may help drive the eventual transformation of an entire Western-led international order, help bring about a more equitable world order where members of the Global South will have a far greater say. However, Russia’s imperial behaviour in disregard of the United Nations targeting a small state like Ukraine and China’s lack of open opposition to this act of war, imperils any such hope. Ukraine has brought to the fore the complex dynamics at play in the very diverse membership of BRICS. Russia’s long-standing penchant for talking up strategic matters inside BRICS in an ostensibly economic club, now lies exposed by Russia’s military failures and humanitarian excesses in its military attack on Ukraine. 

For China, observance of sovereignty as non-interference and the respect for territorial integrity is rooted in the UN Charter and central to international order. China whose appeal to Africa and elsewhere has been based on its foreign policy mantra of upholding mutual benefit and respect for sovereignty and non-interference, is left exposed by its ally Russia and its violation of Ukraine. As such, while China has acknowledged geopolitical concerns Russia may have, it abstained from the votes on Ukraine at the UN, China’s ambassador to Ukraine acknowledged the steadfastness of the Ukrainian people following the invasion and China is seemingly shying away from helping Russia evade international sanctions. 

India’s stance within BRICS and on Ukraine is determined by its considerable military and energy dependence on Russia and its use of Russia as leverage in its territorial and political dispute with China; otherwise, a Hindu-nationalist Modi government intent on turning India into an exclusive nation-state that erodes principles of citizen rights, has little real humanitarian concern for Ukraine. Brazil, caught up in persistent political turmoil pursues an erratic foreign policy that gives it little credibility. While, in support of President Putin, 

President Bolsanaro visited Moscow before the invasion, Brazil ended up voting to condemn Russia at the UN. 

South Africa perennial foreign policy ambiguity was demonstrated over Ukraine: At first it demanded Russia withdraw from Ukraine, then moderated its position when it abstained from condemning Russia at the UN General Assembly. In the name of neutrality, statements assumed a false moral equivalence between the two parties while at the same time, one of Russia’s explanations, that NATO’s eastward expansion was a principal cause for the ‘conflict’ was given credence. Unable to demonstrate neutrality, after February 24th, the Ukrainian ambassador for weeks on end could not get an audience neither with DIRCO Minister Naledi Pandor nor President Ramaphosa. In consequence, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Selensky seemingly stalled on South Africa’s exploratory efforts to mediate (after South Africa’s President received a nod from President Vladimir Putin to do so). 

In the aftermath of the invasion, what is clear is that a new Cold War is not in Africa’s interest. South Africa as an important African middle power, cannot have world politics drift back into the indulgence of rival bloc politics. What it suggests is for the Global South not to have to opt to have to choose one or the other bloc, but to rethink a new form of non-alignment as a strategy. 

An international rules-based order centred on the United Nations should not be undermined further. New neo-/imperial Great Power behaviour whatever its source, needs to be openly resisted. Africa cannot afford competitive bloc politics where resources are spent on arms to foment militarised nationalisms, proxy wars to cause mass humanitarian suffering. The world in a concerted and collective way needs to focus on sustainable development efforts at a time of a climate emergency. South Africa and African governments, in alliance with global civil society, ought vigorously promote good global citizenship towards an inclusive, rules based world order where the focus is on the collective crafting and implementing of green and environmentally sustainable solutions in which the Global South has a real say. 

Without deferring to the West, South Africa and Africa can condemn the Russian invasion and stay non-aligned. Non-alignment in turn must be given new content: It ought to point to the need for survival by decrying the use of force in breach of international law and international humanitarian law, promote disarmament, as well as the concerted and common effort to find new forms of sustainable development using the parameters of a rules based, democratising and ever more inclusive international order. Like during the days of the Cold War, Non-Alignment is not just another word for neutrality as Pretoria wants us to believe. Today Non-Alignment is about pushing back those who engage in war and ensure the survival of the Global South and the world in a time of existential crisis.