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

‘Sola Scriptura’ — Does Scripture still reign as authority?
2017-02-21

Description: Theology Open Day Tags: Theology Open Day

Thania Labuschagne, Nico Oosthuizen, and
Suthea van der Westhuizen.
Photo: Supplied


Reformation 500: Sola Scriptura [scriptural authority] and contemporary conflicts of interpretation was the theme for the Faculty of Theology and Religion’s official opening and annual Open Day on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). The faculty was recently renamed to be more inclusive of other denominations, as well as to be sensitive to the impact religion has on society, both in the past and presently.

In his welcoming address to first-year students, Prof Fanie Snyman, Dean of the Faculty of Theology and Religion, said, “I hope that you indulge in the theological dish served to you, and that it will create in you a deep hunger to know more.”

One first-year, Neo Kgaje, had this to say, “I first wanted to do Archaeology, but then I decided to follow my calling as a missionary and study Theology. I would like to serve in my own community in Botshabelo.”

Thania Labuschagne, former chairperson of the Sola Gratia student association, said, “The annual opening is always very special for me. We become part of a family here.” Her message for first-years was, “Maintain your passion for what you do. Make sure of your calling, and everything else will fall into place.”

Prizes awarded
Prizes were awarded to several students who excelled in the previous year. The best third-year student in 2016 was Suthea van der Westhuizen; best fourth-year BTh student, Thania Labuschagne; and Nico Oosthuizen was recognised as the best Master of Divinity in the fifth year.

The Director of Shepherd Centre for spiritual leaders, Dr Gerhard Botha, awarded certificates for the completion of a 9-module short learning programme presented by the centre.

"May you hunger to know more"—
Prof Fanie Snyman, Dean of the
Faculty of Theology and Religion

Current affairs addressed through scriptural analysis
While acknowledging that the debates around the authority of Scripture are complex and not easily resolved, Prof Hendrik Bosman from the Faculty of Theology at Stellenbosch University (SU) argued that it is an indispensable precept of Christian theology. However, it can no longer be taken as a given, since the authority of Scripture is increasingly vulnerable. He said, “Sceptic academics and critical theologians are challenging the more traditional ways of accepting the authority of Scripture.”

Prof Bosman highlighted the negative impact that certain claims of scriptural authority have had on the marginalised and vulnerable groups in society — “the suffering endured by people of colour, Jews, the LGBTQI community, and women due to prejudice and hatred. … [When reading the Bible], one must also be held accountable by the marginalised and the vulnerable in society.”

Prof Juliana Claassens (Faculty of Theology, SU) presented Beyond Revenge: Responsible Bible Reading Practices in a Traumatised Land. “As a community of believers who hold dear the principle of Sola Scriptura, what do we do with texts that revel in the downfall of the enemy and propagate revenge as a viable solution to the hurt and pain people are experiencing?”

Prof Claassens continued, “This question is particularly relevant given the deep wounds that many in this beautiful country of ours carry. … There is thus a real danger that expressions of violence survive and grow ever stronger with each utterance, until the violent ideas they propagate are considered to be normal.” Her recommendation? “Foster communities of care, focused on breaking down walls, instead of erecting them.”

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