WESLEY SEALE
Recent reports from Ukraine suggested that pressure was mounting from Russian troops making headway in Bakhmut.
As the Ukrainian troops destroyed two bridges in the same area, the Institute for the Study of War, an American think tank, reported that these troops may also “conduct a limited but controlled withdrawal from particularly difficult sections” of Bakhmut.
At the same time, Washington remains silent on whether it will send fighter jets or sophisticated remote-controlled drones to Kyiv.
It has already supplied Ukraine with weapons, including Javelin missiles and HIMARS rocket launchers.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the British press reports that the UK has spent more than £200 million on weapons sent to Ukraine.
While the US and UK are mulling more weapons to the conflict area, the Belarusian president has been visiting Beijing.
The visit by Alexander Lukashenko came on the heels of Beijing presenting its 12-point position paper on a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.
While hosting his Belarusian counterpart, President Xi Jinping emphasised the need to advance a political settlement of the crisis, abandon Cold War mentalities, and respect the legitimate security concerns of all countries while ensuring an effective, sustainable but balanced security architecture in Europe.
South Africa has taken a similar approach to the war in Ukraine, with Minister of International Relations and Co-operation Naledi Pandor suggesting that the war should end in a similar way to how apartheid ended.
Speaking on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in New Delhi, she sadly also reminded the international community of the “many conflicts in Africa that are totally ignored at the moment”.
But Beijing’s 12-point plan for a political resolution of the conflict makes for interesting reading. The first two points deal specifically with principles of international relations which include all countries respecting the sovereignty of all countries as well as abandoning a Cold War mentality.
Under the first principle of the position paper, China reminds the international community that “the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community.”
Simultaneously, China dismissed the idea of the security of a region being achieved by the strengthening or expanding of military blocs.
Points three and four deal with ceasing hostilities and resuming peace talks respectively, while points five and six speak to issues of resolving the humanitarian crisis and protecting civilians as well as prisoners of war.
Keeping nuclear power plants safe, reducing strategic risks and facilitating grain exports are points seven, eight and nine, whereas lifting unilateral sanctions, safeguarding the stability of industrial and supply chains, as well as advancing post-conflict reconstruction are points 10, 11 and 12.
In fact, China called upon “all parties to implement the Black Sea Grain Initiative” and went further in reminding countries of “the co-operation initiative on global food security proposed by China (which) provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis”.
The Beijing political settlement position on the conflict in Ukraine is therefore holistic and China must be complimented for once again playing a leading role in the international community.
It would not be a far stretch to suggest that the conflict in Ukraine has divided South Africa as much as it has divided the world. Yet the conflict, started as early as 2014, has also affected almost all of us.
As a result, all affected parties, especially Russia and Ukraine, must not to be given more arms and ammunition, but rather be encouraged to sit down and negotiate a peaceful settlement.
Seale has a PhD in international relations.