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

Legal elite tackle thorny issue of corruption
2013-01-24

 

Our Faculty of Law brought together top experts and judges for a Symposium on Corruption, to investigate one of the most pressing concerns of South Africans.
Photo: Stephen Collett
24 January 2013



   YouTube Video

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng yesterday (24 January 2013) concluded the proceedings of the first day of the International Symposium on Corruption, hosted by the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State (UFS). In his address Justice Mogoeng made no excuses as to the magnitude of the threat corruption presents to South African citizens.

“Urgent action and efficient measures are called for to arrest this scourge, for the sake of our constitutional democracy,” he warned. “Our vibrant constitutional democracy will not and cannot survive in the face of rampant corruption.”

Justice Mogoeng said the spate of civil and labour unrest erupting throughout the country can be attributed to corruption. According to him the scope and far-reaching implications of corruption drives South Africans to “boiling point” and evokes “anger, frustration and a don’t-care-attitude that often manifests in widespread protest actions” and disrespect for the rule of law.

“South Africans, irrespective of race or creed, must identify and focus on their common enemies and find a conciliatory and unifying way of dealing with what divides them, including the lingering prejudices of the past,” Justice Mogoeng urged.

Despite the threat corruption poses, he stressed that all South Africans have a role to play in the fight against corruption and that there are different role players that can become involved in the process. Especially important is the media and faith-based agencies which, according to Justice Mogoeng, can regenerate morals and secure a “national moral code.” The State must further ensure enforcement of anti-corruption measures and preside over the selection of individuals of “solid character” to reside in agencies meant to fight corruption.

He highlighted the need for an unbiased and independent judiciary, one immune to outside influences controlled by powerful forces, as well as personal agendas.

Although Justice Mogoeng believes that the private sector is most guilty of transgressions based on corruption, he stated that a “well-coordinated war” against it must be waged in all sectors in order to stamp it out.

Justice Mogoeng presided over the unveiling of the redesigned foyer of the CR Swart Building and praised the Faculty of Law for its innovation with regard to the symposium.

“I look forward with great optimism to more well-organised symposiums that strike at the nerve-centre of the well-being of our constitutional democracy,” he concluded.

Symposium seeks answers and solutions

The Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) concluded its International Symposium on Corruption on Friday 25 January 2013. The event featured a stellar cast of speakers, including the Chief Justice of South Africa, three current Supreme Court of Appeal judges, high-court judges, advocates, prosecutors, journalists, as well as local and international legal academics.

Throughout the two-day symposium, corruption was dissected as a severe problem in the South African socio-economic landscape and solutions were sought to alleviate the pressing concern.

The main attractions of the symposium were undoubtedly the attendance and presentations delivered by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, as well as Prof. Leon Wessels. Prof. Wessels was described as “one of the founding fathers of the constitution of South Africa” by Judge Fritz Brand, a current Appeal Court judge and the third-longest serving judge in the country.

“Corruption is stealing the constitutional dream of this country. Corrupt leaders are fearless, those who expose corruption, are fearful,” Prof. Wessels warned.

Judge Brand closely trails the second longest serving judge in the country in former Kovsie, as well as former UFS Council Chairman, Judge Faan Hancke. Both judges addressed the symposium and chaired sessions, along with Prof. Johan Henning, Dean of the Faculty of Law, and Judge Ian van der Merwe, Chairman of the UFS Council.

It was, however, not all doom and gloom, as several of the speakers offered tangible ideas in what was often termed the “war on corruption”. Celebrated Sunday Times journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika who has been arrested following the police leasing scandal which he exposed, urged South Africans to stand together in their fight against corruption, before it is too late.

People on the front lines in the day to day fight against corruption also spoke at the symposium, giving the audience a better understanding of the intricacies and challenges involved in the process. The Head of the National Prosecuting Authority’s Asset Forfeiture Unit, Mr Willie Hofmeyer, as well as Advocate Xolisile Khanyile, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Free State, elucidated this struggle.

The symposium also hosted Prof. Chizu Makajima, a celebrated academic from the United Kingdom.

The two-day symposium ended in style as the delegates gathered in the Centenary Hall on the Bloemfontein Campus for lunch, with a further address by Prof. Leon Wessels


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