If holding a gun to a nation’s head may be justified on the grounds of avoiding human death and suffering, where was their gun when the Rohingyas were murdered and fled from their homes in Myanmar or when a US drone killed Afghan civilians? (Photo by Anastasia Vlasova/Getty Images)
Last week the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution condemning Russia for its military aggression in Ukraine. South Africa was one of 40 countries which did not support the motion.
South Africa’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has proven to be divisive. The government, while initially hinting at support for Ukraine, has subsequently flip-flopped and settled upon a comfortable perch on top of a high fence. Similar fissures are also visible among civilians. While some view the South African government’s position on Ukraine as an abnegation of its international responsibility, an attack on the liberal order and urge stronger action, they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of all their countrymen. South Africa’s abstention from the UN vote has also attracted criticism abroad.
Setting aside my personal views on South Africa’s official response to the crisis in Ukraine, I cannot help but take exception to the comments made by Riina Kionka, the European Union ambassador to South Africa.
“Sitting on the fence is not an option,” Kionka said in an emailed response to questions. “Once we figure out what the South African government’s stance really is, “the EU will consider what the repercussions are”.
My grievance is not that the member states of the European Union (all of whom are members of the United Nations) are threatening a democratic nation for exercising its right to vote. I, like Kionka and the countries that she represents, seemingly agree that in the world of realpolitik — the one in which people die and suffer — it may occasionally be necessary for political power to grow out of the barrel of a gun in the interest of a greater good.
Rather, my displeasure with Kionka’s comments takes aim at a much more mundane offence — that of inconsistency.
If holding a gun to a nation’s head may be justified on the grounds of avoiding human death and suffering, why are these countries only unholstering their weapon now? Where was their gun during the invasion of Iraq? Where was their gun during the slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda? Where was their gun during the Syrian war? Where was their gun when the Rohingyas were murdered and fled from their homes in Myanmar? Where was their gun when a US drone killed 10 innocent Afghan civilians (seven of which were children)? Where is their gun that will defend the Uyghurs in China or the millions that live in a constant state of deprivation under the dynastic boot of Kim Jong-un?
Alas, it is déclassé to speak of such things, especially during a time of crisis. “Now is not the time”, as the refrain goes. Better that we set aside matters of the past (and also their potential to illuminate what is happening today, and what might happen again in the future) and focus on building back better towards a more equal and sustainable world. “All that is in the past”, as Stalin quipped, “and the past belongs to God.”
Let’s pray that God is not vengeful and that he has a very short memory.