By : Gideon Chitanga
The conflict in Ukraine has become the latest flash point for international relations and diplomatic stereotypes and innuendos against growing bi-lateral relations between China and South Africa, and China and African countries.
Such diplomatic and public posture deny independent autonomous agency and existence from countries in the Global South in addressing global crisis outside Western leadership and dominancy.
There is no doubt that the world faces unprecedented security uncertainty from the conflict in Ukraine requiring urgent attention from global peacemakers. After two months of the conflict, there is global consensus on one fact, that the conflict may take longer than projected by mostly Western pundits.
According to the IMF, the seismic economic tremors from the conflict in Ukraine will slash global economic growth by half, with severe consequences on global value chains and food security.
The conflict has also unleashed shocking humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, with far reaching socio-economic global consequences. The use of sanctions to contain Russia will trigger medium to long-term economic crisis in the Russian Federation, with severe socio-economic global impact given that the Russian economy is well integrated into the global economy.
Undoubtedly, such looming global crisis warrants high level diplomatic engagements and consultations amongst critical global players.
The convergence of South Africa and China in proposing constructive diplomacy, as opposed to war in resolving the conflict in Ukraine is commendable.
As reported in the media, on March 18, Presidents Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, and Xi of China, held a telephonic meeting to discuss various issues of national and global interest, drawing critical attention in South Africa.
The meeting affirmed the position of the two countries to seek dialogue and mediation to end the conflict in Ukraine.
Although this may not be uncommon for such high-profile engagements in the context of looming crisis, it is important to understand why this specific diplomatic meeting between two major powers from the Global South provoked such polarised debate, particularly the hostile perceptions, stereotypes, innuendo and what feeds into them.
China and South Africa were criticised for abstaining three times from resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly condemning the role of Russia in the conflict in Ukraine.
Secondly, both countries have rejected concerted pressure to publicly condemn, criticise, isolate and blame Russia for the conflict in Ukraine, opting to push for constructive dialogue and mediation. Russia is an important member of the BRICS.
Both China and South Africa have argued that they believe in a balanced approach, which is objective and impartial to find sustainable diplomatic resolution to the conflict by addressing the concerns of all the conflict parties.
The convergence of China and South Africa on mediation and dialogue as the most suitable solution to the conflict in Ukraine has been undermined without much thought, in spite of their huge global diplomatic influence and leverage.
The call between President Putin and Ramaphosa was scandalised, with insinuations of partiality on the side of both China and South Africa. However, as reported by Al Jazeera, President Ramaphosa reportedly spoke with President Zelensky on April 21, restating his call for a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine.
Despite the criticism, South Africa, and China continue to make a case for dialogue to end a potential international crisis. That the two major powers from the Global South discussed mediation and dialogue as an alternative solution to war is demonstrative of their willingness and role in addressing threats to global peace and security.
Fundamentally, the global south is defining its path, autonomously carving its role in global affairs seeking and providing solutions to global threats as equal global partners.
According to a statement released by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China and South Africa held “a very similar position on the Ukraine issue”, rooted in constructive engagement characterised by dialogue, mediation and negotiations. The two countries believe that “sovereign countries are entitled to independently decide on their own positions”.
The statement further stated that, “Both sides support Russia and Ukraine in keeping the momentum of peace talks and settling disputes through dialogue and negotiations. The two leaders said they are ready to strengthen communication and co-ordination in this regard,” the ministry added.
In the same statement, China rejected any form of arm twisting and misrepresentation of its position, stating that, “China will continue to make independent judgments based on the merits of the matter and in an objective and fair attitude. We will never accept any external coercion and pressure, and we also oppose any groundless accusations and suspicions against China”.
China has openly stated its official position about the conflict in Ukraine, in spite of wild speculation fomented by Western officials and media.
The West has cast potent aspersions and doubts on the growing robust partnership between China and South Africa in confronting contemporary global challenges from the agency, perspective and solidly united cohesive front bringing together developing nations from the Global South.
The characteristic arrogancy embedded in Western coercive diplomacy, the general fear of China manifested in baseless or unsubstantiated suspicions, against cohesive multilateralism in the Global South is detrimental to global peace, and broader efforts to find peaceful solutions to the conflict in Ukraine.
China and South Africa have taken an impartial posture to the conflict, refusing to be drawn into megaphone criticism, condemnation and ostracization of any one of the conflict parties. China profoundly seeks to foster a peaceful global architecture for remaking and improving the international system, maintaining fairness and justice, based on the respect to self-determination and national sovereignty.
Its promising international posture rooted on the principles of peaceful coexistence and respect to territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence offers a compelling foundation for a peaceful international order than unilateral combative -coercive Western diplomacy.
China has maintained the quest for peaceful diplomacy in ending the conflict in Ukraine in line with its principles and international posture.
As reported by Al Jazeera, President Xi told President Biden in a telephonic meeting that war, ‘is in no one’s interest’, emphasising the need for honest dialogue to address the critical causal concerns to end the conflict in Ukraine in the interest of sustainable peace and stability.
China has also rejected sustained Western pressure to implicate the country in the conflict, emphasising the need for peace, based on dialogue.
According to the Business Insider, China's ambassador to Ukraine said his country will “never attack Ukraine”, refuting any suggestions, directly or implied, to draw China into the conflict.
He emphasised that, “China…. will help, particularly in the economic direction”, to help Ukraine to develop, further stating that in the situation of the conflict, China will act responsibly.
In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the US, stated China’s stance and desire on Ukraine, saying it only wanted an end to the conflict.
He further asserted that “China will continue to coordinate real efforts to achieve lasting peace. We stand ready to do whatever we can and work with other parties. Our ultimate purpose is the end of war and support regional and global stability.”
Media reports on April 5 suggested that China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke with his Ukrainian counterpart, Dmytro Kuleba, during which Beijing again called for talks to end the conflict in Ukraine.
During the call, Wang reportedly said China’s “basic attitude towards the Ukraine issue is to promote peace talks”. China reportedly “stands ready to play a constructive role in this regard in an objective position”.
China has consistently opposed conflict, promotes dialogue, continues to support peace talks and aims to play a constructive role.
South Africa knows better, having suffered historical vagaries of the violent apartheid system, which was ended through dialogue and negotiations.
While the ultimate prize of any war is understood in terms of defeat and victory, the power of dialogue is located in the divisibility of outcomes, win-win solutions as opposed to winner-takes-all, fight to death aggressive interventions.
As agreed by all parties, the war in Ukraine will ultimately end with dialogue which comprehensively and genuinely addresses the concerns of the warring parties.
The South African experience in confronting conflicts in Africa through dialogue, however painstaking, demonstrates the virtues of patient diplomacy in facilitating political stability, working in collaboration with other global powers.
Unfortunately, the reluctancy of Western powers to support dialogue, coupled with strident criticism has tended to undermine such processes. South Africa has contended with the same Western criticism for consistently subscribing to dialogue as a means to end conflict, defying unilateral coercive diplomacy and war, from Libya to Zimbabwe.
Conversely, coercive Western diplomacy has left ashes of war and trails of festering instability across globe.
South Africa and China are within their rights to choose to be objective and impartial, refuse to be arm-twisted into directly getting involved in the conflict by way of condemning either parties, apportioning blame, or taking sides.
Both China and South Africa have been subjected to subtle and explicit illegitimate Western pressure, some of which verge on stereotypes, downright unfounded fear, speculation and exclusive geo-political calculations. However, peaceful diplomacy driven from the Global South, based on genuine multilateral dialogue is probably the missing link in fostering national and global stability.
The comprehensively evolving and growing holistic relations between China, South Africa, and much of Africa, are critical in fostering a more peaceful global order.
The call for mediation, dialogue and negotiations, as supported by both countries is an important consideration that could serve lives, and maintain sustainable peace, and a more stable global order. Indeed, as expressed by President Xi, war is of no interest to anyone.
Gideon Chitanga is a Research Associate at the African Centre for the Study of the United States (ACSUS)