South Africa’s funereal silence over the illegal use of its Mamba 4x4 Armoured Personnel Carrier vehicles by the Ukrainian armed forces in the war against Russia is a risky diplomatic egg dance.
In 2014, South Africa sold the Mambas to Estonia under the designation: “For internal security purposes”. They were reportedly sold to Estonia under the name of Mamba MK2 EE.
The meaning of the sale in accordance with international law meant that the Mambas were for use solely by the Republic of Estonia. This restriction is contained in the “End User Certificate (EUC)”. In accordance with international practice, the EUC serves “as a written undertaking provided by the end user that the conventional arms would only be used in accordance with the conditions set out in the EUC”.
The long and short of it, in simplified terms, is that Estonia as the buyer of the military equipment was supposed to be the sole user of the purchased goods. Any further sale of such goods to a third party is prohibited in terms of the EUC and international practice. Third-party users or purchasers may not use such weapons unless, and until, the originator (in this instance South Africa) extends the licence condition to multiple users.
In international law: “An end user statement (Estonia) is required from a person registered in a foreign country (Estonian government representative) where conventional arms are exported.”
This is particularly important “for re-export to an identified third country. An EUC is required prior to the export of conventional arms, irrespective of origin”, according to international law.
In instances where the purchaser of any military goods needs to sell or export to a third party, permission from the original seller or manufacturer of such goods and services must be sought beforehand.
Since last June, there had been reports about the Mambas forming part of Ukraine’s arsenal against Russia, a key ally of South Africa in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bloc.
The Department of International Relations and Co-operation (Dirco) has previously referred all enquiries about the matter to the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. However, lack of clarity about whether South Africa has ever demanded any explanation from Estonia persists. South Africa has a legal right to demand accountability where Estonia could have broken its sales agreement. South Africa can further lodge a case with the International Criminal Court. However, no action taken, if any, appears to have been publicly communicated.
Meanwhile, the Ukraine war continues, having entered its second year on February 24. Thousands of lives have been lost, and no official death toll is known as propaganda dominates media reports from the battlefield.
Although Ukraine has been flooded with weapons from the US and Nato countries involved in a proxy war against Russia, South Africa's Mambas are a bone of contention as Pretoria has steadfastly maintained a non-aligned stance in the conflict.
President Cyril Ramaphosa reiterated this stance in his Africa Day message this week. It is a position to which the US and the EU are vehemently opposed, albeit unable in international law to force South Africa’s hand. At the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, South Africa has consistently maintained its diplomatic stance of neutrality, despite hovering threats of dire consequences from the country’s powerful traditional Western allies.
This week, Ramaphosa noted while speaking at the government ceremony at the Cradle of Humankind on the West Rand: “We are now also witnessing Africa being dragged into conflicts far beyond our own borders. Some countries, including our own, are being threatened with penalties for pursuing an independent foreign policy and for adopting a position of non-alignment.” He added: “As African countries, we have painful memories of a time when proxy wars were waged on the soils of Africa by foreign superpowers.”
The biggest diplomatic fallout could be if the Mambas are evidently deployed in any annihilation of the Russian forces by the Ukrainian forces. In such an event, it would pit Pretoria against Moscow – historically strong allies whose ties continue to be strong to this day.
The US has actively worked to “prove” that South Africa is not a neutral observer in the ongoing conflict. Recent unsubstantiated claims by the US ambassador to South Africa, Reuben Brigety, that the country had supplied arms to Russia for use in the Ukraine war is a case in point. The threat of economic sanctions against Pretoria by Washington, albeit in hushed tones at this stage, remains real.
But Ramaphosa was unwavering in his insistence on the country’s non-aligned stance, saying: “South Africa has not been, and will not be, drawn into a contest between global powers. We will maintain our position on the peaceful resolution of conflict wherever those conflicts occur.”
The issue of the Mambas is one that could place the country between a rock and a hard place. It could compel Pretoria to have to choose between the West and the East – between Washington and Moscow.
In truth to Pretoria, it would be grossly unfair to be thrown such a conundrum. As a sovereign state, South Africa has a right to pursue its bilateral relations in line with the ethos of the country’s national interest as espoused in the government’s foreign policy.
However, it is incumbent upon South Africa to communicate clearly and publicly where matters of public interest arise. A retreat into the quietude of the government offices at the Union Buildings does not help in any public relations endeavour.
The matter of the Mambas in the Ukraine conflict needs to be addressed in the best interest of South Africa and its foreign relations. It is vitally important that foreign nations entering into any deal with South Africa must adhere to international law and practice. It is the least Pretoria can expect from all global partners.
Any shortcomings in this regard ought to be addressed without delay, fear or favour. The country’s national interest must always prevail as a matter of top priority. The public deserves an explanation as to any consequences that the Republic of Estonia is likely to face, if any. If there is nothing to answer, still, let it be. But the least that the electorate deserve is an explanation, not a long silence of the lambs.
According to the military database collector in the conflict – Ukraine Weapons Tracker – the Mamba 4x4’s were handed over to the Ukrainian armed forces by their Estonian allies after the vehicles were refurbished.
After refurbishment the vehicles were renamed Mamba MK2, an improved version of the original SA-made Mamba 4x4.
According to the Ukraine Weapons Tracker, “the Mamba MK2 has a conventional design for a 4x4 armoured vehicle with the engine at the front, commander and driver position in the middle, and troop compartment at the rear”.
In addition, “nine troops are carried, five seated on the left side and four on the right side facing each other on individual seats with a full harness seat belt”.
The Mambas are understood to possess a capability to run at a maximum road speed of 102 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 900km by road and 500km off-road.
According to a report in Ukraine’s “Defense Express”, “the Mamba was designed for internal security purposes during the late 1980s to replace the Buffel in service with the South African military and security forces.”
It elaborates as follows: “The first models were built on a 4x2 Toyota Dyna chassis, which was subsequently replaced in production around 1994 by a more reliable Unimog chassis. All marks of the Mamba were designed to be mine-resistant and blast-proof.”
The Ukraine conflict continues to drag on despite hugely punitive US-led economic sanctions against Moscow, which has repeatedly decried the expansion of Nato eastwards, citing Nato’s proximity as a threat to Russia’s national security.