The war in Ukraine sent shockwaves through international relations. Wednesday March 2, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the Russian invasion. But the Moscow regime has some support, sometimes very far from its geographical zone of influence.
South African support for Russia
South Africa is among the countries that abstained in the vote at the UN General Assembly. Before that, the government had waited until February 23, the day before the outbreak of the conflict, to worry about the escalation of tensions between Ukraine and Russia.
When the war broke out, a new communiqué came out, which this time demanded the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The tone had changed, did South Africa dare to lecture its Russian ally? No, it was an isolated act, a blunder by the Minister of International Relations. President Cyril Ramaphosa was angry and his entourage made it known in the press.
Since then, South Africa has taken care to pick up the pieces with Russia, as evidenced by this abstention at the UN. The government considers that the resolution does not provide an environment conducive to diplomacy, dialogue and mediation.
This closeness of the ANC, the ruling party in South Africa, with the Russian regime dates back to the struggle against the apartheid regime. Until 1994, South Africa was ruled by a white, segregationist and anti-communist minority. Nelson Mandela’s ANC was at war with this regime. 2,000 of its militants in exile received military training in the USSR, notably in Ukraine. After the break-up of the USSR in 1991, Russia, unlike Ukraine, maintained ties with South Africa. On February 28, the Russian Federation and South Africa celebrated 30 years of friendship.
This loyalty to Russia also took a political turn: the ANC was accused of blind loyalty to its former allies. The Democratic Alliance, the first opposition party, accuses the ANC of being in the pay of Moscow and wants its financiers to prove it. A Russian oligarch, close to Putin, is among the donors to the ANC, via a mining company in South Africa. Yesterday evening, the town hall of Cape Town, which is led by the Democratic Alliance, was illuminated with the colors of the Ukrainian flag… Choosing sides and taking public opinion to task is the strategy of the opposition to weaken the government through the war in Ukraine.
The Iraqi ras-le-bol
Iraqis are used to pejorative comparisons when conflict breaks out in another country, such as “It’s like being in Iraq”. But they are annoyed, because these comments trivialize in their eyes the conflicts that have taken place here. As if it were logical that a war takes place in Iraq and not in another country. The remark obviously applies to Afghanistan, which is also regularly cited in public debate, or to Syria.
These Iraqis remind us that the situations are absolutely not comparable. “They want to compare the suffering of displaced Ukrainians with our sufferingsaid Fatma Qassem, a resident of Baghdad. I sympathize with them, but Ukraine did not experience a quarter of what happened here. If they knew what we went through here… they would be sorry I think.” Indeed, the crises have been linked for four decades in Iraq. The country has experienced several wars, including civil wars, an embargo in the 1990s, and terrorism from Al Qaeda and the Islamic State group.
On the American channel CBS, a journalist spoke, in particular, about Kiev, “of a relatively civilized, relatively European city, a city where you wouldn’t expect it”. In a British newspaper, we also read: “They look so much like us. That’s what makes it so shocking.” These kinds of comments obviously provoked a lot of reactions in Iraq. “I felt a lot of aggression and anger when I heard that.acknowledges Abdul Rahman, 31. We don’t deserve this. We are human beings, just like them, and we hate all wars, in all countries.”
A lot of emotion among these Iraqis, who feel dehumanized by these remarks. The Association of Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists also issued a press release denouncing “racist and orientalist allusions” which implies “that a country or a population would be worthy of a conflict”. Faced with the controversy, some journalists, authors of these remarks, publicly apologized.