A nation grappling for answers — and words of comfort — about a tragedy that happened far from home, had to listen to a foreign leader describing its president in terms that were not only caustic but close to the bone. Paul Kagame has not only called President Cyril Ramaphosa a liar, spineless and untrustworthy, but he’s also thrown down the gauntlet, daring him to make good his willingness to go eyeball to eyeball.
A nation tends to close ranks in times of crisis or in the face of imminent danger. But that requires a leader who can capture the national mood, and be the consoler-in-chief. Ramaphosa was found lamentably wanting this week. It took almost a week for him to express an opinion or offer condolences to the bereaved families. And when he did, it was through an anodyne statement on social media. He doesn’t seem to be cognisant of the power of the spoken word. A man who used to convene so-called “family meetings” to hold forth on trivial matters was suddenly non-committal, unavailable or too busy to lead the nation in mourning the death of 13 young lives sent to the slaughterhouse by his own hand.
The government's response to the tragedy has been less than satisfactory, to say the least. A briefing by defence minister Angie Motshekga to the portfolio committee was suddenly cancelled without explanation. A press conference briefed by Motshekga and Ronald Lamola seemed to throw up more questions than answers. They were more interested in covering their own backsides than the death of the troops. No, the soldiers had enough food. No, they had enough ammunition. And as for the military top brass? They couldn’t be bothered, it would seem. They were living it up at a sumptuous golfing event at an exclusive estate as families were steeling themselves to receive their loved ones in body bags. No doubt a good time was had by all. But this sort of uncaring, almost contemptuous, attitude by those who lord it over us is no surprise at all. It neatly sums up the times we live in — the new elite having the time of their lives while the rest suffer or pay for their mistakes.
Apart from walking into and filling the vacuum left by a slothful South African government, Kagame’s intervention was striking in its passion and anger — the sort of animated engagement that’s missing from our side. It’s almost as if it’s Rwanda that’s needlessly lost 13 soldiers on the battlefield. Such forthrightness is foreign on our shores. We beat about the bush most of the time. Which is why Kagame must have struck a chord, because he described Ramaphosa in a manner that would have sounded familiar to many people in this country. Our president often seems to want to hunt with the hounds and run with the hares. It’s his desire to please, or not to offend, which often marks him out as either a liar, spineless or even a coward.
But it was still a bit unnerving to hear Kagame, president of a country the size of Gauteng, daring South Africa to do its damnedest. He knows from experience that South Africa is a toothless bulldog that won’t bite. On several occasions he’s sent his henchmen to kill his opponents who sought political asylum in this country — and got away with it. Instead of taking a firm stance, the government has either grovelled or sought to appease him. He has South Africa wrapped around his little finger. Or so he’s been made to believe.
South Africa and Rwanda are, in some sense, already at war. While Rwanda is using its proxy M23 militia, which it’s training and funding, South Africa is sending its own flesh and blood to die in the swampy forests of eastern Congo. These deaths will ultimately force the government to confront difficult questions. Why are we sending our soldiers to be slaughtered while protecting tyrants from the wrath of their own people? What’s in it for us? Where is our national interest in all of this?
This is not to suggest that Kagame is an angel or without blemish. He’s a nasty piece of work and rules his country with an iron rod. His political foes are either rotting in jail or dead. He’s dispatched hit squads to some parts of the world, including South Africa, to eliminate his enemies. Despite his repeated denials, the whole world knows he’s the aggressor in this conflict and that he harbours territorial ambitions for parts of the DRC.
The trouble is South Africa and its people never seem to gain anything from these adventures, not even goodwill from the recipients of our charity. In some instances, South Africa gets blamed when things go wrong
But at some point the government will have to decide what kind of persona it would want to sell or project to the outside world. South Africa is a constitutional democracy steeped in a human rights ethos — the rule of law, freedom of speech including a free press, and an independent judiciary. Either we live up to our declared values or — as we seem to be doing at the moment — we simply go along in order to get along. In fact, in certain instances we seem embarrassed to proclaim what we stand for. We’ve adopted, especially in Africa, a kind of a broerskap type of foreign policy. We want to be nice and inoffensive, and we go out of our way to be helpful or protective even if that’s at the expense of our own values or interests. We’ve expended our currency defending detestable regimes — from Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir to Muammar Gaddafi — perpetrating the sort of atrocities we claim to be firmly against here at home. Sometimes we act like Father Christmas with an unlimited bag of goodies. Former Haitian leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide was for years our honoured guest after he was overthrown.
It’s interesting that Thabo Mbeki this week saw the need to sound off on the tragedy in the DRC. He is after all the author of the current policy. It’s his template that’s survived to this day. In November 1995, after publicly scolding the Nigerian strongman Sani Abacha for the murder of the Ogoni environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nelson Mandela sent his deputy to deliver a stern lecture to the butcher to his face. Mbeki decided, instead, to go rogue. In fact, he turned Mandela’s declared policy on its head, from chastising offending tyrants to making common cause with them. It’s been downhill ever since.
The trouble is South Africa and its people never seem to gain anything from these adventures, not even goodwill from the recipients of our charity. In some instances, South Africa gets blamed when things go wrong. At the time Cape Town was bidding to host the 2004 Olympics, African members of the International Olympic Committee came here, were wined and dined, and then went back to vote for Athens, the eventual winner. When Mali was struggling to host the 2002 Africa Cup of Nations, Mbeki offered them material assistance, even dispatching Ngconde Balfour, his sports minister, to help with the organisation. But Mali, along with other African countries, never came to the party when it came to voting for South Africa to host the Fifa World Cup.
South Africa has perhaps invested more of its resources on resolving the political crisis in the DRC than on any other country. In 2002, we hosted a conference of political parties from the DRC for months at Sun City, after which the delegates, including representatives from the Rwandan army, agreed on how the transition was to be managed. But more than 20 years later, the problems remain unresolved, and South Africa is still paying dearly with the blood of its people.
The country will continue to meander aimlessly and its people will be sacrificial lambs on the altar of convenience unless its foreign policy is firmly guided by its values and interests.
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.