MSINGATHI SIPUKA | African leaders should invest their resources and time to resolving own conflicts

On June 15, reports came out that a group of African heads of state were collectively travelling to Europe as part of African efforts to bring an end to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The reports were animated by a video of the African presidents travelling on a train from Poland to Kiev for the first round of discussions, thereafter they would travel to Moscow to meet with the Russians. The end game being to bring the two conflicting countries to the negotiating table.

The reports and emerging images bring to the fore critical questions for Africa ranging from its place in the world, responding to its own conflicts and the need to reform global governance instruments like the UN Security Council.

This piece considers the efforts of the African heads of state from five lenses, appreciating that a combination of these could be the actuality of things.

Lens 1

African heads of state should be investing their resources and time to resolving African conflicts. About 30% of Africa’s population was affected by unstable political events such as coups that brought instability in the 2010 – 2019 decade, compared with 4% in the preceding decade. Conflict in the continent is a serious challenge to development, both from a perspective of creating the conditions for development and sustaining it in the long run. It is unprecedented that African leaders converge in this way, feet on the ground, attempting to mediate in a conflict. If we were to see as much commitment, beyond Peace and Security Council meetings, perhaps we could deal with our own problems in the continent.

Lens 2

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has had tremendous impact on African countries, with specific effect on food prices, runaway inflation, increasing fiscal deficits and threats to food security. To mitigate some of these threats it is incumbent on African leaders to try and find some resolution to this challenge. Sitting back is not an option because the continuation of this conflict will further threaten the prospects of recovery for the continent.

Lens 3

The action taken by African leaders to mediate is in fact a very progressive position which fundamentally alters the established notions that Africa cannot bring solutions to global problems - that Africa must be at the receiving end of the solutions of the world to its problems because it has nothing to offer the world. If the efforts by African leaders could yield any positive movement in resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it could be groundbreaking - representing a paradigm shift on the place of Africa in the world. In fact, it could even bolster the African voice on the reform of the the UN Security Council and other bodies of global governance.

Lens 4

Any effort to intervene or play a mediation role in the Russia-Ukraine war is fundamentally undermined by our inability to respond to our own conflicts in the continent. This reality, with the best of intentions, places the African heads of state undertaking this mission on the back foot. Inevitably, the question will arise: why do you think you can resolve complex international conflicts when you cannot even resolve your own?

Lens 5

SA is in a diplomatic conundrum as it relates to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. From observation, more so than any African state. From a bread and butter perspective, the South African government understands that its immediate economic interests are tied to the pro-Ukrainian global alliance -mainly through western Europe and the US. However, it cannot afford to shift away from the rising bloc of states aligned to China and Russia - a global alliance that could represent the future of the world. Of course, the Russian link is also consolidated by history and the the strong heritage of national liberation that still hovers over South African politics.

The South African position has been made more difficult by recent events, namely: the growing antagonism of the US towards Pretoria evidenced by the accusations of the ambassador of the US to SA that the South Africans provided arms to Russia and the attitude of the US congress towards SA on its participation in Agoa. Based on this complex reality of being stuck between the west and the east, SA has had to act to preserve its position. For maximum effect, Pretoria’s action is to build a global posture that it is neither supporting Russia nor Ukraine. It is neither with the east nor the west, instead it is committed to peace and its efforts are fundamentally orientated towards finding a peaceful solution.

After all, that has been the message coming out of Pretoria, therefore what better way to reaffirm that than to physically be seen working for peace between Ukraine and Russia. That builds a solid narrative for SA in rebutting the western accusations that it has chosen a side. If that is indeed a deliberate strategy from Pretoria, it’s a smart move.

What is even smarter, if it is the case, has been its ability to successfully co-opt key continental leaders in this global exercise to project it as an African initiative rather than a South African initiative. Through this lens, certainly SA has been able to build a strong base to counter the US narrative.

Dr Sipuka is the chief of staff at the African Union Development Agency – Nepad