Naledi Pandor has been eagerly pressing the self-destruct button lately. Cerebral, cultivated and effortlessly articulate, the minister of international relations & co-operation — a rare dab hand in an otherwise mediocre cabinet — has been trashing her reputation as she tries in vain to justify her government’s discredited policy of supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Pandor has always been a dependable minister, going about her duties without much fanfare, doing a creditable job in many of her portfolios — in education, home affairs and science and technology, where she was instrumental in South Africa winning the bid to host the Square Kilometre Array project in the Karoo.
Unlike some of her colleagues, she's not given to shooting from the hip or making extravagant statements. She didn't seem at all beholden to ideology — until recently.
Ironically, for somebody so cosmopolitan, her nous seems to have deserted her at Dirco. As the face of the government’s shambolic policy on the war in Ukraine, she has appeared indignant, irascible and self-righteous
A rarity in her party, she's untainted by scandal or wrongdoing. Pandor’s reputation has been such that when then ANC presidential candidate Cyril Ramaphosa chose her as his running mate ahead of the 2017 elective conference, the news was warmly welcomed even by people outside the party. She was seen as smart and a breath of fresh air. She was, however, pipped at the post by Lindiwe Sisulu, who went on to lose to David Mabuza.
Ironically, for somebody so cosmopolitan, her nous seems to have deserted her at Dirco. As the face of the government’s shambolic policy on the war in Ukraine, she has appeared indignant, irascible and self-righteous. She has not been herself. And yet, her initial instincts on the invasion were spot-on. Her department berated Russia for the attack, and called on it to withdraw from Ukraine — a statement which apparently annoyed Ramaphosa and some of the troglodytes in the party. She was forced to eat humble pie.
Encouraged by Ramaphosa, she then started selling the figment of South Africa as a possible peacemaker in the conflict. Predictably, there were no takers. The Ukrainians were outright contemptuous. They saw it for what it was — a ruse to conceal South Africa's support for Russia.
Now, Pandor, like a true convert, has taken to her task of defending and pleasing the Russians with some relish. When Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov came visiting in January she did everything, except bend a knee, to assure him of our undying support. That joint naval exercise in January further cemented the relationship.
We're now in bed with a country murdering innocent people as a matter of choice, which is completely out of kilter with what this country stands for.
This week, hosting yet another Russian ministerial delegation — it seems we're the only credible friends they have — Pandor, a slight smirk betraying her irritation, said South Africa had made it clear Russia was a friend and that the two countries wouldn't suddenly become enemies “on the demand of others”.
One wonders though what the demand of her conscience says. Do the slaughter and abduction of children sit well with her?
The idea of a country eagerly embracing a mass murderer in Vladimir Putin without any discernible benefit in return must count as one of the imponderables in world affairs.
Putin, wanted by the International Criminal Court, will be packing his bags to attend a Brics meeting here in August. Our rules-based government will have to either have him arrested or defy our courts.
Instead of giving a reasoned defence of her position, Pandor resorts to whataboutism, a strategy of false moral equivalence, to defend the indefensible. It's as if the supposed wrongdoing by the other side somehow justifies your own unlawful or unethical conduct
In defending our right to be Russia's apologists, Pandor lists all the sins committed by the West — in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and more. These are important issues but they should not be used as a red herring. The government’s argument seems to go like this: “The West has been plundering and killing for years. Now it's Russia's turn. So just chill, and enjoy the slaughter.”
Pik Botha used to have a ready-made jibe at American critics of apartheid: at least, he'd say, the whites in South Africa didn't exterminate the native population.
The question is not what other countries are doing. It is whether we’re being true to the values that guide our conduct both at home and abroad. Instead of giving a reasoned defence of her position, Pandor resorts to whataboutism, a strategy of false moral equivalence, to defend the indefensible. It's as if the supposed wrongdoing by the other side somehow justifies your own unlawful or unethical conduct. Maybe we've learnt the practice from “our friends” because, as one expert put it, whataboutism was “a sacred Russian tactic”.
To say Russia or the Soviet Union never invaded other countries also flies in the face of history. They did, and they were quite ruthless about it. The Red Army rolled into Hungary in 1956, executing its leader. In 1968, the Soviets marched into Czechoslovakia and got into Vietnam and Afghanistan too. In fact, their costly involvement in Afghanistan marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.
By attacking countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, Putin is walking in the footsteps of the old Soviet Union, whose demise he's lamented and which he harbours ambitions to recreate. South Africa is giving succour to such expansionist tendencies. Ultimately it's this country which risks paying a heavy price for such a misguided policy, with absolutely no merit.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.