Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 July 2023 | Story Dr Sunday Paul C Onwuegbuchulam | Photo Supplied
Dr Sunday Onwuegbuchulam
Dr Sunday Paul C Onwuegbuchulam is from the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State.


Opinion article by Dr Sunday Paul C Onwuegbuchulam, Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State.


It has been more than a year since Putin declared his pogrom in Ukraine, which he termed a ‘special military operation’. The war – which Putin envisaged to last a few weeks – is now going into the second year, with lots of people killed on both sides, including civilians. It is also notable that the war has seen the destruction of several key civilian infrastructures in Ukraine, and different human rights abuses carried out by Russian soldiers and their Wagner Mercenary Group. It suffices to say that the bloodletting and destruction in Ukraine have been great, and up until now, there seems to be no solution at hand to stop this war. As the war drags on, with Ukraine engaging in counter-offensives to reclaim its stolen lands, the question on the mind of many is when and how this is going to end. Several countries, including China and South Africa, are making efforts to broker peace in Ukraine. China, for example, proposed a twelve-point political settlement framework, which, among other things, suggested that the Western countries relax their sanctions against Russia and called for a cease-fire and peace talks. In more recent times, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa led an African group to Ukraine on a peace mission in yet another effort to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine.

Brokering peace in Ukraine and Russia while their backyard is burning

My issue in the article concerns this move by African countries, especially South Africa. Firstly, I am wondering how these so-called African leaders can jet off to Ukraine and Russia to broker peace while their backyard here in Africa is burning with conflicts. One wonders why this delegation considers the Ukrainian conflict more serious than, for example, the ongoing war in Sudan. Secondly, I have a gripe against South Africa’s efforts to broker peace in Ukraine, when some of its leaders, politicians, and educated elites have come out categorically to enunciate the phrase, ‘We stand with Russia’. It is the same thing as China (which has clearly stated its alignment with Russia) now proposing a peace plan for stopping a war that Russia is complicit in starting. I am okay with countries aligning themselves with other countries. It is a norm in international relations and is good for cordial relationships among nations of the world.  My issue is with the double standards being played out by nations and that exist in the contemporary international relations arena.

The double standards being exhibited by countries around the world regarding Putin’s war against Ukraine will be an albatross that will ultimately lead to the failure of the peace talks and peace proposals. Notably, both China and South Africa have not been frugal with words against the West and have come short of blaming the whole war on the West and NATO, arguing that NATO’s expansionism agenda in Eastern Europe has led to the war. They further argue that Russia has the right to protect its territorial integrity (against the perceived NATO threat), hence the reason for Putin’s war. But these leaders also fail to condemn the fact that Putin invaded a sovereign country at peace, thereby going against the UN Charter (Article 2, 4) on sovereignty and the maintenance of territorial integrity of nations. They have not condemned Putin’s war, which is a threat to global peace and world order. Furthermore, the hypocrisy is evident in the condemnation of America and the West for the atrocities committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world (rightly so), but these countries have not been vociferous in condemning Putin for doing the same in Ukraine. South Africa, for example, has been vocal against the plight of Palestinians under Israel’s ‘apartheid repression’, but the country and its leaders have been indolent in calling Putin out regarding the war crimes going on in Ukraine, in which he has been implicated personally. Hence, in my view, this war has revealed the double standards by different countries of the world when it comes to the issue of maintaining the values enshrined in international humanitarian law and the fundamental principles of human rights as encapsulated in different UN documents. In more recent times, there have been denied reports that South Africa is supplying Russia with arms to aid its war in Ukraine; if true, this is the highest form of hypocrisy from a nation that trumpets respect for human rights and the need to maintain international order.

War in Ukraine is a war of choice

Rather than telling Putin to get out of Ukraine as a way of ensuring a genuine cease-fire, China and South Africa, for example, are going around in circles using some diplomatic approaches such as peace talks that propose peace plans, which they know Ukraine will reject. It should not be forgotten that this war in Ukraine is a war of choice, and it was Putin’s choice to invade a nation he saw as helpless and thought he could conquer within weeks. One wonders whether Putin did not foresee that America and NATO – which supported Ukraine even before this war – would come to Ukraine’s aid. On this, I think it is rather disingenuous that some argue that America and NATO could stop the war by ending the supply of arms to Ukraine to defend itself. The insincerity in this proposal is that these people are saying – just fold your arms and allow Putin to have what he wants and grab as much land as he wants in Ukraine. The hypocrisy also plays out here; they assert that Russia has the right to engage in this war to protect its territorial integrity against NATO’s expansionism, but it is not right for Ukraine to engage in the war to defend its territorial integrity. This kind of thinking is what ultimately led to WWII, because world leaders at the time turned a blind eye to Hitler's first land grabs (Czechoslovakia and Austria for example) until it was too late.

It may sound rather simplistic, but there is truth in the proposal that those who want true peace in Ukraine and Eastern Europe should just advise Putin to withdraw from Ukraine and stop this NAZI-style land grab he has engaged in since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. In my view, this war in Ukraine is going on today because some countries did not condemn that first flaunting of the stipulation of international law on the sovereignty of nations. This, in my view, emboldened Putin, hence his engagement in this war against Ukraine. Putin started this war. He can easily stop it, and the nations that have aligned themselves with Russia (including China and South Africa, and other African countries) can genuinely assist in stopping the war by jettisoning the double standards that are rife in the international relations arena, advising Putin to withdraw from Ukraine. We must not forget that if they keep quiet and Putin’s expansionist move is allowed to stand, it is open season for such a scenario to replicate itself elsewhere in the world. The big elephant in the room remains China, with its eye on Taiwan.

News Archive

SRC visits the US as part of Global Leadership Preparation Programme
2012-06-07

The Student Representative Councils (SRC) of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Bloemfontein and Qwaqwa Campuses will be travelling to the United States from 10-24 June 2012 on an intensive leadership development programme.

The Global Leadership Preparation Programme, initiated by the Vice-Chancellor and Rector, Prof. Jonathan Jansen, has been designed to ensure that South Africa’s next generation of leaders understand their unique place in a global context, the interconnectedness of global and local society and various possibilities for change.
 
The group of 36 students will be visiting Washington DC, Boston and New York.
 
“As a university we recognise that students who lead on campus must be prepared to also lead the country, which requires amongst others greater understanding of the impact and influence of global developments (social, economic, political) on nation states and campuses. This includes knowledge to deepen democratic participation and real representation – issues we know that often are contested in important student governance structures such as SRCs,” says Mr Rudi Buys, Dean of Student Affairs.
 
The group will be studying among others the impact, influence and limits of the United Nations in global leadership; the impact of transnational companies on economic policies of African countries; the impact of American universities on African leadership; the impact of international philanthropy on African development and the impact of American public institutions on learning among the disadvantaged: lessons for South Africa.
 
The programme complements and strengthens other leadership preparation programmes of the UFS, such as the Leadership for Change Programme and the Gateway College Programme – an intensive orientation programme for all undergraduate students. It will give students a competitive advantage in leadership over more local programmes and initiatives that seldom look beyond the campus, or even beyond the country, in preparing the next generation of leadership.
 
“We value this initiative by the university leadership to give us the opportunity to explore and spread our wings and gather as much knowledge as we can get to raise the bar in terms of student governance and leadership. The university is amongst the few in the country that sees the need to strengthen and develop its student leadership by exposing it and allowing it to understand its role in a global context. This is a chance that we take seriously and we intend to use it to the betterment of the institution,” says Bongani Ngcanga, President of the Central SRC.
 
“While we welcomed the initiative taken by the university to design this programme, the SRC questioned and debated heavily on the merits and real contribution of such a programme. Only on approval of the academic and development profile of the programme did we accept its merits and now are excited about the value thereof. This opportunity goes beyond the term of the SRC and will develop and equip us for the great positions we will hold in the future. I am looking forward to meeting influential lobbyists, profound academics and strong politicians,” says Richard Chemaly, SRC President of the Bloemfontein Campus.
 
Upon their return, the SRCs will set a new benchmark for future councils, raising the bar to that of internationally acclaimed student leadership. One of the objectives of the programme is to produce written, reflective statements about the learning that resulted from the trip and to start dialogues in order to improve student governance and governance as a whole. Workshops will also be presented for aspirant student leaders on leadership lessons learnt from an international perspective.
 
Members of the SRCs are covering part in the cost of the programme and generous contributions have also been received from outside the university.

Media Release
07 June 2012
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Director: Strategic Communication
Tel: +27(0)51 401 2584
Cell: +27(0)83 645 2454
E-mail: news@ufs.ac.za

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept