On June 28 2023 the ANC held a dialogue on the “Russia-Ukraine Conflict — SA’s Nonalignment Approach to Peace & Security”. I participated in the event along with other representatives of diplomatic missions accredited in SA.
Responding to the moderator’s point that “nonalignment is outdated and new world order demands that there’s no neutrality,” I said: “I do not think that in the modern world there is place for neutrality. For a very simple reason... you will be punished by secondary sanctions if you do not apply sanctions against Russia. So you are either with Russia and you’re being punished, or you’re with the West.”
Regrettably, the majority of media participating in the event lost (or simply ignored) the essence of what was said. In particular, Business Day falsely claimed that “Russia told SA to pick a side in Ukraine war” and even attributed some nonexistent implications to my words — “in a push to persuade SA towards changing its neutral stance” (“Russia tells SA to pick a side in Ukraine war”, June 29).
Let me clarify this issue once again. This “either you are with us, or you are against us” principle in world politics was first proclaimed by George Bush of the US, applicable to the struggle against international terrorism. “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” he said, speaking nine days after the 9/11 terror attacks.
Yet the current establishment in the collective West has made this principle an absolute. Remember 2013, when then Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych tried to negotiate the EU Association Agreement with the West? He was told quite directly that he had to make a choice — either Ukraine was with Europe or with Russia.
To me, this looks more like an ultimatum, leaving Ukraine with no option to uphold ties with both Russia and Europe. Yanukovych proposed postponing signing the agreement, and the West responded by staging a coup in Kyiv.
That was a manifestation of this “either/or” policy. The West can’t do the same with every country that doesn’t want to line up in its support, but it applies all efforts to make them join sanctions, twists their arms so they vote “in the right manner” in the UN, and lobbies the decisions it needs through their pocket representatives in international organisations.
In other words, the West would rather neutralise neutrality under current circumstances. This is exactly what is happening across the globe: formerly neutral Austria, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden have all sided with Washington-Brussels’ anti-Russia policy and joined sanctions.
Given the influence of the collective West that prevails today, most sovereign countries will have trouble resisting its pressure. Quite possibly, completely banned ploys will be used under the no-holds-barred principle. This is the logic. They will not allow you to remain neutral and equally distanced.
Ilya Rogachev
Russia's ambassador to SA
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.