The Peace Train continues: building the record

At the end of the day, there will be negotiations of some kind regarding Ukraine.  Hence it is a positive discussion on the whole, that the RoW is interested in peace talks. It is just a crying shame that very few of the callers for peace have an inkling of the historical reasons for the Russian SMO. They travel to Ukraine, they travel to Russia, but they do not travel to US/NATO/EU.

What impact did the recent African peace mission to Ukraine and Russia have on SA-US relations? UJ Centre for Africa-China Studies director Dr. David Monyae says there has been consistency in finding solutions.

Watch: https://t.co/T0C5Bw4LtQ#Newzroom405 pic.twitter.com/Eq5h7yWAUw

— Newzroom Afrika (@Newzroom405) June 22, 2023

The only delegation that did that, and consistently followed up, was the various Chinese groups, who had the humbleness to say that first, they did a fact-finding mission. They are still calling for peace and their structure of a peace plan is a structural document, where they do not place specific actions within their structural peace document. That is how it should be, a structural path, in other words a plan, and the rest is negotiable.  China drew up a plan.  Russia said it is a good plan and usable, but the conditions do not exist to continue.  China accepted that and they’ve been busy creating conditions and not very successfully.

Most if not all of the other delegations traveled to Ukraine and Russia, with a basic prescriptive list of things to do without demonstrating a shred of knowledge of the structural reasons for the current SMO or the conditions necessary to solve matters of security.

Let’s take a look at what happened since the very high-profile African peace delegation to Ukraine and Russia and then we will take a look at the list of African things to do, and Mr.Putin’s response.

Beijing has commended South Africa and other African heads of state for their recent peace missions in Russia and Ukraine, with Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning saying that her country supports all efforts aimed at resolving the conflict diplomatically.  In a statement on Tuesday, Ning expressed China’s willingness to work with all parties, including African countries, to end the fighting between Russia and Ukraine, saying negotiations and dialogue are the only visible ways out of the crisis.

However, Chair Professor at Soochow University Victor Gao told RT that as long as the US was involved, achieving peace in Ukraine would be “very, very difficult.”

“Washington is still very much bent on prolonging the war and achieving its own geopolitical gains against Russia through the war in Ukraine” at the cost of Ukrainian lives, he argued.  “This is actually very dangerous,” Gao said, urging Moscow and Kiev, as well as countries backing Ukraine, to “heed the calls for peace by the African leaders.”

The problem to achieve a state of peace, according to this Chinese comment, most certainly is situated in Washington, and not in Ukraine or Russia.

Brazil’s Lula again calls for Ukraine peace talks. It is interesting to note how Lula’s calls for peace changed since he started this during his previous visit to China. He is less prescriptive, in terms of a wish list, but still holds to his initial view, that a group of countries need to get involved.

Russia and Ukraine both need to compromise to achieve peace, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Thursday, adding that mediation would be best coming from parties not involved in the fighting.

“It’s not fair [to the needy people] to spend billions of dollars and euros on an unnecessary war, when we could be living in peace,” he told a press conference in Rome.

He noted that the EU’s capacity for mediation in the conflict is limited because it is involved in it, as is the US, naming India, Mexico and African nations as potential neutral peace brokers instead.

India and Mexico may be good brokers, but African nations? Never will they be accepted. Here is what Ukraine had to say and I quote but a few paragraphs. The rest of this article deals with Poland’s kidnapping of the larger South African contingent, traveling with quite a weapons cache and many countries refusing overflight to the South African airplane. It is impossible to find whether the South Africans really had documentation for all on the plane, and documentation for weapons, or was this a display of sheer logistical incompetence?  Poland took one look at the weapons and would not give permission for an ongoing flight into Russia saying that the South Africans are transporting weapons to Russia.  True or not, this is however still a hot topic in South Africa itself and it is clearly said that Ramaphosa made a laughing stock out of South Africa.  This is right through the media domain, all pros and all cons.

Russian commentary follows:

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs magazine, has doubts that the African peace plan by itself could bring any specific results; however, it is indicative of the ambition of countries on the continent to play a role in resolving global issues.

The African peace initiative ideally could lead to dialogue and potentially a de-escalation, says Natalia Piskunova, associate professor at Moscow State University’s Department of World Politics. “The call for abandoning the armed conflict suggested by the African group also reflects the long-standing universal approach to settling conflicts under UN auspices,” she says. So far, the African peace initiative appears to be the most well-thought-through and balanced as compared to those plans previously proposed, the expert thinks.

Since the Ukrainian crisis is a logical development of worsening relations between Russia and the West, beginning back in 2011, however, any peace plan, even the most thought-out, is doomed to fail, says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS). The fighting will end only when Western countries, and the US in particular, are disabused of the idea that their political goals can be attained by further stoking the conflict.

This is what Ukraine had to say post peace mission visit:

Ukraine advisor rejects Africa’s involvement in European affairs – https://www.iol.co.za/the-star/news/ukraine-advisor-rejects-africas-involvement-in-european-affairs-096a9236-86a1-493c-91f0-22f1711884cd

Mykhailo Podolyak, said in an interview that Ramaphosa and his delegation of African leaders, had no business being in their country to negotiate a peace settlement between the two countries.

Podolyak is known as one of the advisers to the Chief of Staff of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

He said African leaders had neither the capability nor the power to get involved in matters they knew nothing about, adding that this was beyond their understanding.

“The African delegation had no goal of settling the conflict or finding a solution. Obviously, this is not their task. It is not at their level or competency. They just want to be on the misinformation agenda and resolve their own issues, like the increasing resources they receive from Russia, including food supplies,” he said.

Podolyak said the trip was a mere fishing expedition for information on behalf of Russia.

These comments are quite staggering, bearing in mind that Zelenski begged for a hearing from the African Union. The delegation included the head of the African Union. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/12/ukraines-zelenskyy-requests-address-with-africa-union

Ramaphosa stubbornly holds to this: both Russia and Ukraine’s presidents had shown a willingness to listen to African leaders regarding the impact of the ongoing war between the two countries.  The photo shows a different reality though.  It is cold!

To say the least, there was not much trust in this peace mission. Internally inside of South Africa or externally. I saw a very sad report from one of the reporters on the plane stuck in Poland. She was excited about reporting on the peace mission but said that not even once during the time that they were stuck in Poland, did President Ramaphosa pay them any attention. Not a note, not a comment, and no attention was paid. This is pretty sad.

Before we go on to the Russian part of this mission, let me ask a question: How many of the presidents involved in the mission have shown any interest in the war in Sudan? How many urgent calls for peace have you seen for the Sudan, from this peace delegation? Interesting, no? Ramaphosa has expressed ‘deep concern’ on the sidelines of other meetings, but I have not seen him lead a peace mission, and this in his own continent?

“We call upon the warring armed forces to put down their weapons for the sake of preserving human life, and to begin dialogue and negotiations without delay.

“We further call on the Sudanese authorities to swiftly work towards the restoration of civilian-led government, in line with the Political Framework Agreement signed in December last year.”

Sudan’s warring sides resume fighting after latest ceasefire ends – https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/21/sudans-warring-sides-resume-fighting-after-latest-ceasefire-ends

Here are the countries with some or other warfighting going on:

After the visit to Ukraine, the delegation arrived in St. Petersburg and President Vladimir Putin hosted it. The delegation was led by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and consisted of Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema, Comorian President Azali Assoumani (current chairman of the African Union), Senegalese President Macky Sall and Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, as well as special presidential envoys Florent Ntsiba (Republic of the Congo) and Ruhakana Rugunda (Uganda),.

Commenting on the meeting’s results, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that, although the African initiative could prove difficult to implement, Putin displayed an interest in hearing it out.

President Putin listened to the presentations of the Chairperson of the African Union, the President of the Comoros Azali Assoumani, the President of the Republic of Senegal Macky Sall. and the President of the Republic of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, who presented the ten points in their plan. These were:

• the necessity of achieving peace through talks and diplomatic means;
• a cessation of military operations “as soon as possible”;
• a bilateral de-escalation of hostilities;
• respect for the sovereignty of countries and peoples in accordance with the UN Charter;
• security guarantees for all countries involved;
• Russia and Ukraine ensuring the export of grain and fertilizers under the grain deal for African countries in need;
• humanitarian assistance for those suffering from the conflict;
• prisoner swaps and repatriation of displaced persons, including children;
• a process for rebuilding Ukraine;
• and deeper involvement for Africa in the peace process.

Then, Mr Putin called a definitive halt to the proceedings – he stopped it and from my checking the videos, he stopped it almost rudely, certainly harshly, but still displaying basic good manners, i.e., please and thank you.  His demeanor however was Enough of this! 

The readout reads:  ” … after the remarks of three of our esteemed guests, let me say a few words about why we have gathered here and what we are discussing today.”  And then Mr.Putin lectured the proceedings because the ten points were way off track and basic familiarization of the conditions would have told the delegates that.  I would hate to be in a meeting where Mr.Putin tells me that I am way off track.  Here it is:  http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71451

First. You are well aware, I am confident about this, that all the problems in Ukraine were conceived after a state unconstitutional armed and bloody coup in Ukraine in 2014. This coup was supported by Western sponsors. As a matter of fact, they have been pretty much open about this. They even specified the amount they spent on the preparations for and execution of the coup. And this coup is the source of power of the current leaders in Kiev. That is the first thing.

Second, after the coup, part of Ukraine’s population did not support it and declared that the population of those areas would not submit to the people who came to power following the event. Russia was forced to support these people, bearing in mind our historical ties with the areas, and the cultural-language bonds with the people living in those areas.

For a long time, we tried to restore the situation in Ukraine via peaceful means. If you have heard, you must have heard something about this, corresponding agreements were signed between the opposing parties in the capital of Belarus – Minsk. In this way, the so-called Minsk settlement process was launched.

As it turned out, the western countries and the Kiev government authorities were simply leading us by the nose, then they declared practically publicly that they would not adhere to our peaceful agreements and they actually withdrew from that peaceful process.

It was after this, friends, that Russia was forced to recognise the independent states that had been formed in Ukraine, which we had not been recognising for eight years: the Lugansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic.

Now I am moving to the international-legal aspect of this case. Question: did we have the right to recognise the independence of these areas? We did, in full compliance with the UN Charter, because pursuant to the corresponding articles of the UN Charter these areas had the right to declare their independence. This gave us the right to recognise them and we did.

Then, after signing the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation [and Mutual Assistance], we had the right to render assistance to them in full compliance with the UN Charter. Because the Kiev regime made numerous attempts to resolve the issue using arms and, in fact, launched military actions in 2014 using aviation, tanks and artillery against civilians. It was the Kiev regime that sparked this war in 2014. And in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter we had the right to render assistance to them citing the self-defence clause.

This is why, colleagues, the logic which I have just set forth, is irreproachable in terms of the international law and the UN Charter, both in my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues and experts. This is the first thing.

The second matter, which worries all of us, is undoubtedly connected with the global economy, food and everything that is involved with it, inflation and so forth.

I would like to emphasise that the crisis on the international food market was not caused by Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. It began to develop long before the situation in Ukraine and emerged because the western countries – both the United States and the European countries – began printing money in a way that was unjustified, not justified economically, to deal with their problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

And by printing this huge amount of money – in the United States, I think it amounted to around nine trillion US dollars and about five trillion euros in Europe – they sucked up all the commodity goods in the world market, to their benefit, just like a vacuum cleaner, abusing their monopolistic position and putting developing countries at a disadvantage. I will not go into details but this is, as we say, a medical fact, an obvious thing.

Now, I would like to move onto the grain deal. Yes, we surely understand that no matter what, despite any issues connected with the conflict in Ukraine and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the developing countries, including the African countries, which need food, must not suffer.

We do not believe that supplies of the Ukrainian grain to the global markets resolve issues of poverty and hunger. No, this is not so. Nevertheless, we conceded to proposals of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and did everything possible to, just as he said then, ensure supplies of Ukrainian grain to, first and foremost, the poorest African countries. We agreed to that.

What is the result, ladies and gentlemen? Let me cite the figures. Figures are dry and impartial.

As of June 15, 31.7 million tonnes of agricultural products were exported from Ukrainian ports with our assistance and the assistance of Turkiye – President Erdogan put a lot of effort into this; 31.7 million tonnes – quite a figure.

Only 976,000 tonnes out of 31.7 million were shipped to Africa’s needy countries, that is Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia. This is only 3.1 percent, ladies and gentlemen, friends. These European neo-colonial powers, technically the US, have once again deceived the international community and the African countries in need: 31.7 million tonnes were exported and only three percent reached Africa’s needy countries.

Is this not deception? They got used to lying to the entire world for centuries and they continue to do it today. Meanwhile, 38.9 percent – 12.3 million tonnes – was shipped to the EU states, 11 percent to Turkiye, and the rest to other countries.

This is why I draw your attention to this: supplies of Ukrainian grain to the global markets do not solve the issues of African countries needing food. I will get back to this again.

Now as for the talks.

Mr President Ramaphosa, friends,

Russia has never rejected any talks. I would like to underline that, with the assistance of President Erdogan, as you know, Turkiye hosted a whole series of talks between Russia and Ukraine to work out confidence-building measures, which you have just mentioned, and draft the text of the treaty. We never agreed with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be confidential yet we never showed it to anyone or commented on it.

The draft treaty was initialed by the head of the group of negotiators from Kiev – he signed it. Here it is, it exists. It is called: The Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Guarantees of Security of Ukraine. Namely, the guarantees, which you mentioned, dear friend, President of South Africa, 18 articles.

Moreover, there are addenda to it. You know – I will not even dwell on this – they deal with armed forces and other things. Everything is written down: up to weaponry units and armed forces personnel. This is the document, and it was initialled by the Kiev delegation. It bears the signature.

But after we withdrew our forces from Kiev, as we had promised, the Kiev authorities, just like their masters usually do, dumped it into the dustbin of history, let’s put it mildly, I will try to avoid any foul expressions. They rejected this. Where are the guarantees that they will not withdraw from other agreements? But even amidst such circumstances, we never refused to hold talks.

Friends,

It was not us, it was the Ukrainian leadership who announced they would not hold any talks. Moreover, the incumbent Ukrainian President signed a corresponding decree prohibiting any talks. This is why I understand your concerns, share them, and of course we are ready to consider any of your proposals. But we never rejected talks – it was the Ukrainian side, they even published a decree. What do they want from us?

Regarding prisoners of war. This is an ongoing process. I am very thankful that you mentioned this. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as our other partners and friends have put a lot of effort into this. We are ready to continue this process.

As for children, children are a sacred priority. We evacuated them from the conflict zone, saving their lives and protecting their health, that is what happened. No one was going to separate them from their families. We evacuated entire orphanages, and it was done legally because directors of those orphanages were legal guardians of the children. We were never against the reunion of children with their families, if, of course, their relatives turn up. There have never been any obstacles to this and never will be. I want to assure you of this.

This is what I would like to say in the middle of our discussion. I apologise for taking your time.

That was the cold end of the readout as nothing more needed to be said.

A large part of the South African press cried about Putin the Dictator not hearing out the full delegation. It is a diplomacy issue though. Mr Putin speaks to Presidents and Heads of State and he had heard enough.  I noted in the Daily Chronicles the almost overnight change in the South African press as a whole calling the complete peace mission an embarrassment for South Africa.

Now let us look at a few statements from President Ramaphosa upon his return and published in the record.

Dear Fellow South African,

I have just returned from Ukraine and the Russian Federation as part of a delegation from seven African countries on a mission to promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

(Data about the details)

We presented a ten-point proposal that we as African leaders believe can contribute to various efforts that have been made by various parties to bring the conflict to an end.

Included in the proposal being put forward as part of the African Peace Initiative are calls for a de-escalation of fighting and for negotiations to commence with urgency; for the release of prisoners of war and return of children; for greater humanitarian support; and for reconstruction efforts to be prioritised.

We affirmed that the sovereignty of countries should be respected in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter. We highlighted the urgent need that the security of both nations should be guaranteed.

One of the key achievements of the Peace Mission was the positive reception we received from both sides, which we found encouraging and which provides cause for optimism that the proposals will be given consideration.

As African leaders, our primary concern is for the lives of the people directly affected by the conflict. We believe that everything should be done to end the fighting to prevent further loss of life, injury, displacement and destruction. As the international community, we need to work together to prevent any further suffering.

There is a misconception that this conflict is far-removed from the realities of our own country. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is having a very real effect on African countries and economies.

We made the point to the Ukrainian and Russian Presidents that while we undertook this mission as members of the international community committed to peacebuilding, we as the African continent also have a material interest in seeing a resolution to the conflict.

Both Russia and Ukraine are major suppliers of grains and producers of fertiliser destined for African markets. According to the African Development Bank, the conflict has “triggered a shortage of about 30 million tonnes of grains on the African continent, along with a sharp increase in cost.” As a result of this conflict African countries are negatively affected by the rising costs of food and energy.

Supply chain disruptions have caused a shortage of farming inputs such as fertilisers threatening the food security of a number of African countries.

Another point of the peace proposal being put forward by African leaders is for the opening up of the movement of grains across the Black Sea for grains from Russia or Ukraine to reach world markets.

This initiative has been historic in that it is the first time African leaders have embarked on a peace mission beyond the shores of the continent. Although the delegation comprised countries that have taken diverse positions on the various UN resolutions on the conflict, the countries represented have all taken a non-aligned stance on this issue. This has lent credibility to the mission and engendered trust from both sides.

As South Africa we continue to maintain our position that this conflict should be settled through negotiation and by diplomatic means, in line with founding principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, and that it is in the collective interest of everyone that it come to an end soon.

The toll on human life, the extensive destruction and the ripple effect it has had on the global economy mean that no country has been shielded. The conflict has caused instability, precipitated a humanitarian crisis and sent shockwaves through vulnerable economies.

Just as we as African leaders visited Ukraine and Russia to explain the impact the conflict is having on our citizens, we also believe we can contribute to international efforts to bring about the conditions for a lasting peace.

Both Presidents Zelensky and Putin agreed to further engagements following this initial visit.

As engagements with both parties and African leaders continue, it is our hope that as the process moves forward, a foundation can be set for a de-escalation of the conflict and negotiation, the two crucial preconditions for a lasting peace.

The South African on-the-ground response:

Sanctions are going to be most exciting!  (of course highly sarcastic).

Mr.Putin will not attend BRICS and neither will he send a personal envoy.

The train of peace initiatives is not our ’60’s Cat Stevens Peace Train.  They are cold and calculated political maneuvers and cold and calculating Russia uses them as platforms for education.  There is nobody here that can be negotiated with, as the west does not want peace.