Analysts, writers and so-called public intellectuals aren’t good at giving credit where it’s due. It’s almost as if they want to prove true the misguided notion that to be “critical” is to be perpetually in pursuit of wrongs.
Yet there is nothing wrong with giving credit where it’s due — even if the person getting the credit is President Cyril Ramaphosa, whose relationship with the media is at an all-time low.
The visit this week to South Africa by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a testament to the prudence of the country’s non-aligned position.
This stance was unpopular at the beginning of a war Russian President Vladimir Putin characterised as a “special military operation” that would be wrapped up in weeks. Years later, we are still using the war to explain all manner of global phenomena.
Many experts this week said our country’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine had “evolved” to the point where Zelensky could now move beyond merely contemplating a visit to Pretoria.
Our earlier position, they contended, had been pro-Russian, despite Pretoria’s protestations it was non-aligned. The bone of contention was Pretoria’s decision not to condemn Putin — something that earned the country global scorn and angry denunciations.
Today ... Ramaphosa is one of the few presidents in the world able to get the attention of both Zelensky and Putin
The truth is that when “experts” get things wrong, they often come up with tedious quasi-explanations that enable them to save face and keep their positions as the nation’s chief pontiffs. When an outcome contradicts their prediction, it’s labelled “a surprise outcome” — when in fact it’s simply a surprise to them. This happens a lot in respect of sports matches and electoral contests.
The performance of Jacob Zuma’s MK party, which became the country’s third-largest political entity just six months after it was launched, is one of these surprise occurrences.
When the results are out, the expert community must have the humility to accept they didn’t apply their minds properly. It’s OK not to see things coming from time to time, and sometimes they are caught sleeping on the job. Finding clever ways to explain their poor performance away is rank intellectual dishonesty.
Ramaphosa and former international relations minister Naledi Pandor were slated ad nauseam for South Africa’s refusal to condemn Russia for its aggression, incursion into Ukrainian territory and flagrant violation of international law. Indeed, the horrors the country has visited on children is unforgivable.
Pretoria was told South Africa should either get behind the powerhouse economies of the US, the UK and the EU, as well as the many others who have condemned Russia, or we would be isolated for not supporting Ukraine in its hour of need. Being non-aligned seemed an aberration. Today, though, Ramaphosa is one of the few presidents in the world able to get the attention of both Zelensky and Putin.
His sharing a stage with the Ukrainian leader at the Union Buildings, the two of them addressing the world together, is an accomplishment that should not be taken lightly. It matters not that our country is unable to help Zelensky with arms to help him defend his country or, in Donald Trump’s parlance, give him (Zelensky) cards to play with.
Even Trump, who pretends to believe the worst about us, has now been forced to call Ramaphosa ahead of Zelensky’s arrival, apparently in a bid to influence him.
Trump has deliberately spread lies about our country without having the common courtesy even to give our president a call to discuss the issue. But not last week.
Even pariah-state Russia felt the need to drop 200 bombs this week just in time for Zelensky and Ramaphosa’s meeting. Never mind Putin’s hoped-for outcome; what is clear is that he couldn’t ignore that this meeting was getting under way. The point is that, despite South Africa having been described as a midget with diminishing influence on the world stage, the country still commands the attention of global leaders — even the demented Washington, DC demagogues.
What is disingenuous, though, is the recent narrative that South Africa has suddenly developed a newfound sense of duty towards Ukraine and Zelensky simply because he was ridiculed by Trump during a trip to the US several weeks ago.
The genesis of this creative commentary is to be found in analysts’ inability to accept that perhaps Ramaphosa was right much earlier in carefully choosing the contours of his relations with Putin and Zelensky.
Some will remember that Zelensky has previously praised Ramaphosa for his shuttle diplomacy. This came after Putin praised Ramaphosa at the end of the Brics summit held in Johannesburg.
“I would like to thank our South African friends for the efforts they have made during our joint work,” said Putin. “As it turned out, this was challenging work, and President Ramaphosa showed diplomatic mastery as we negotiated all the positions, including when it came to Brics expansion.”
When Ramaphosa has scored a victory, we should say so without demur, just as we do when he misses a step. And when we point out what is wrong, we do so as patriots, motivated by a need to get those in authority to correct the manifold wrongs in the government. In the end, Trump might force through an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, not because it’s just, but because he’s trying to put an end to US expenditure on the war.
Zelensky might also cave in, not because he agrees with the terms of the deal, but because he has run out of cards to play. However this saga unfolds, the past week has demonstrated that there was some wisdom, with its attendant limitations, to the initial South African approach, which has led to what we witnessed this week.
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.