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

Shack study holds research and social upliftment opportunities
2015-02-10

Photo: Stephen Collett

When Prof Basie Verster, retired head of the Department of Quantity Surveying at the University of the Free State (UFS), initiated an alternative form of housing for Johannes - one of his employees - a decision was made to base research on this initiative. This research project in Grasslands, Heidedal focused on the cost and energy efficiency of green and/or sustainable shacks.

Esti Jacobs from the Department of Quantity Surveying, together with an honours student in Quantity Surveying, a master’s student in Architecture, and young professionals at Verster Berry, helped with the project.

The physical goals of the project were to create a structure that is environmentally friendly, and maintains a comfortable interior climate in winter and summer, as well as being cost-effective to erect. The structure also had to be socially acceptable to the family and the community.

“The intention was to make a positive contribution to the community and to initiate social upliftment through this project. Structures such as the ‘green shack’ may serve as an intermediate step to future housing possibilities, since these structures are relatively primitive, but have economic value and could be marketable,” she said.

Esti explains the structure of the building, which consists of gum poles and South African pine bearers, with a timber roof and internal cement block flooring. The building is clad with corrugated iron and has a corrugated iron roof finish. Additional green elements added to the structure were internal Nutec cladding, glasswool insulation in walls, internal gypsum ceiling boards with ‘Think Pink’ insulation, internal dividing wall and door, polystyrene in the floors, and tint on the windows. A small solar panel for limited electricity use (one or two lights and electricity to charge a cellphone) and a Jojo water tank for household consumption by the inhabitants were also installed.

Esti said: “Phase one of the research has been completed. This phase consisted of an investigation into the cost of an alternative form of housing structure (comparing traditional shacks with the planned structure) as well as the construction process of the physical housing structure.

“Phase two of the research, commencing in February 2015, will last for two to three years. This phase will include the installation of temperature and relative humidity logging devices inside the existing traditional shack and the new green shack. The logs will be regularly monitored by the UFS Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management.

These data will enable the researchers to measure the differences in comfort levels inside the two different structures. The data, together with other information such as building materials and methods, are then processed by software programs. Through the simulation of different environments, building materials, and alternate forms of energy, software models can be used to come up with conclusions regarding more energy-friendly building materials and methods. This knowledge can be used to improve comfort levels within smaller, low-cost housing units.

The UFS will be working with Prof Jeff Ramsdell of the Appalachian State University in the USA and his team on the second phase of the project.

“This research project is ongoing and will be completed only in a few years’ time,” said Esti.

The results of the research will be published in accredited journals or at international conferences.

 

For more information or enquiries contact 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