South Africa’s Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber, representing the Democratic Alliance (DA), announced an agreement granting visa-free access for Ukrainian diplomats. His decision, made without the authorization of President Cyril Ramaphosa, has underscored growing divisions within South Africa’s coalition government and prompted sharp criticism from the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and other political entities. This article explores the unfolding saga, its political context, and what it signifies for South Africa’s international relations, particularly concerning its historical alignment with Russia.
Background and Context of the Visa-Free Deal
On Sunday, Schreiber announced via social media that he had signed an agreement allowing visa-free entry for Ukrainian holders of diplomatic, official, and service passports, citing Ukraine as a “valued ally.” The move was celebrated by some as a diplomatic step toward enhancing relations with Ukraine, which supported South Africa during its struggle against apartheid. However, the announcement came with significant backlash from the ANC and other political entities in South Africa.
President Ramaphosa’s office quickly countered Schreiber’s announcement. Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya stated that the agreement had not received formal approval, rendering the announcement “premature.” This lack of coordination in the government’s diplomatic stance illustrates a broader tension between the DA and ANC over South Africa’s foreign policy direction, particularly given the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
ANC and DA: A Split in South Africa’s Coalition Government
The ANC has governed South Africa since the end of apartheid in 1994. However, in the recent general election, the party lost its outright majority, forcing it into coalition with smaller parties, including the DA, its largest partner. This coalition, however, has proved to be a challenging marriage of ideologies. The ANC has historically held ties with Russia dating back to the anti-apartheid struggle, a relationship that many within the party continue to view as a cornerstone of its international alliances.
The DA, on the other hand, has openly criticized Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, distancing itself from the ANC’s diplomatic stance on Russia. At the recent BRICS summit in Kazan, President Ramaphosa’s remarks referring to Russia as a “valued friend” drew ire from DA representatives, who view the invasion of Ukraine as a fundamental violation of international law. Schreiber’s decision to extend visa-free access to Ukrainian diplomats is seen by many within the DA as a necessary signal of solidarity with Ukraine, aligning with the party’s anti-Russia stance.
This political tug-of-war has reached new heights as a result of Schreiber’s unilateral announcement. By sidestepping the presidency, Schreiber exposed a governance gap that highlights the challenges of coalition politics. The ANC has interpreted this move as not only diplomatically unaligned but also emblematic of the DA’s disregard for long-standing ANC-led policies on foreign relations.
Broader Implications for South Africa’s Foreign Policy
South Africa’s foreign policy has historically been one of non-alignment, seeking to maintain relationships across competing global powers. However, the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has placed South Africa in a precarious position, forcing it to reckon with its historical affiliations and emerging political divisions. The ANC’s criticism of the DA’s unilateralism in this matter reflects a broader apprehension about how the DA’s foreign policy stance might affect the country’s long-standing alliances.
Minister Schreiber defended his decision by highlighting Ukraine’s historical support for South Africa’s liberation efforts. But within the ANC, many see this as an attempt to rewrite history. From the ANC’s perspective, this move could signal a shift away from South Africa’s traditional diplomatic stance on Russia, a stance that ANC members argue aligns with its core principles of solidarity with historical allies. Magwenya’s statement that Schreiber lacked authorization underscores the ANC’s position that such a shift should not be decided unilaterally by a single minister but through a consultative government process.
Reactions from Other Political Factions
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a left-wing political party that is not part of the coalition government, voiced strong opposition to the visa-free agreement with Ukraine. EFF spokesperson Leigh-Ann Mathys denounced the deal as a “betrayal” of South Africa’s long-standing solidarity with Russia. The EFF’s stance reflects an ideological alignment with anti-imperialist rhetoric, viewing Russia as a counterbalance to Western influence.
Similarly, former President Jacob Zuma’s new opposition party, uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), has condemned the agreement, calling on President Ramaphosa not to sign it. MK spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela characterized the visa-free deal as a mechanism for “facilitating an influx and quasi-evacuation of defeated right-wing Ukrainians to South Africa by the racist pro-white imperialist DA.” This perspective not only criticizes the deal but also paints it as a neo-imperialist maneuver facilitated by the DA, casting the party as prioritizing Western interests over South Africa’s historical alliances.
The Diplomatic Stalemate: Schreiber’s Premature Announcement
The internal discord escalated as Minister Schreiber’s announcement of the agreement clashed with the formal diplomatic process. International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola, who hosted Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha on Monday, clarified that the agreement was still in negotiation and had yet to be signed. “Once all the diplomatic processes have been concluded, the agreement will be signed and we will announce once all those processes have been followed,” said Lamola.
Lamola’s comments suggest a strong pushback from the ANC-led administration against unilateral actions that could jeopardize South Africa’s diplomatic stance. The ANC’s criticism of Schreiber’s announcement emphasizes the need for unity in government when dealing with international relations—a unity that, in this instance, appears to be lacking. The premature announcement also raises concerns over the extent of authority wielded by ministers in the coalition government and whether they should act independently of the president.
What This Means for South Africa’s Future Foreign Policy
The controversy surrounding the visa-free agreement for Ukrainian diplomats raises pressing questions about South Africa’s approach to foreign policy under a coalition government. As the ANC grapples with maintaining its diplomatic approach while managing a coalition, this incident serves as a litmus test for the feasibility of a balanced foreign policy in a politically diverse government.
The DA’s bold stance on the Ukraine issue signifies an emerging ideological clash within the government that may shape South Africa’s foreign policy in the coming years. This is particularly significant as the BRICS bloc, of which South Africa is a member, increasingly exerts influence on global issues, challenging Western hegemony. For the ANC, maintaining close ties with Russia aligns with the bloc’s broader objectives and South Africa’s historical alliances. However, the DA’s stance indicates a willingness to pivot away from these traditional ties, especially in the face of Russia’s controversial actions in Ukraine.
Conclusion: A Country at a Crossroads
The controversy surrounding Schreiber’s announcement illustrates the complexities and challenges that South Africa faces as it seeks to maintain a balanced, non-aligned foreign policy. The ANC’s criticism of the DA reflects a government wrestling with the competing demands of coalition politics, historical alliances, and the global implications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
As the ANC, DA, and other political parties navigate these divisions, the outcome will not only affect South Africa’s international standing but also test the country’s ability to operate as a cohesive coalition government. How South Africa manages this controversy could set a precedent for handling future diplomatic issues under a divided government, especially as it continues to play a pivotal role in global coalitions and forums.
For now, the question remains: Will South Africa continue to prioritize its historical alliances, or will it adapt its foreign policy to align more closely with the values espoused by its coalition partners? This diplomatic conundrum may be a defining moment in South Africa’s foreign policy journey, as it stands at the crossroads of tradition and change.
