EUSEBIUS MCKAISER | The opposite of pointing out Western moral viciousness isn’t to let Putin off the hook

It is an absolute disgrace that the South African government should even think of ignoring the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin should he come to South Africa. The arguments for doing so are identical to, and as weak as, those for not arresting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir many years ago when he was here in South Africa. Sadly, we also then have to rehearse why those arguments were weak to remind the current lot in government why they should be sensible. It also wouldn’t help to think (again) of possibly withdrawing from the Rome Statute. That, too, requires explanation again. 

There have been some excellent critiques already of the South African government’s position on Russia, including Sunday Times columnist Barney Mthombothi’s necessary and cogent evisceration of minister of international relations and co-operation Naledi Pandor. But most critics are focusing on the potential economic cost of our position, should countries like the US punish us on the investment and trade fronts. While that is a real risk to take into account when deciding our foreign policy position — after all, all countries engage in economic diplomacy and no-one has a wholly moral foreign policy — nevertheless I think there are equally serious legal and ethical problems with Pandor’s position that Putin would never be arrested here. These legal and ethical problems deserve as much attention as fears about disinvestment. 

The legal problem is simple. We have domesticated the Rome Statute. It is part and parcel of South African law. If we do not arrest Putin on our soil we are breaking South African law. If the state deliberately tramples on the rule of law, that constitutes an inherent constitutional crisis. The state needs to role-model being law-abiding. The opposite is to role-model intentional law-breaking. How can that be acceptable in a constitutional democracy founded on the lofty ideal of constitutional supremacy? I am shocked that minister Pandor brazenlyproposes that her government should ignore South African law. How on earth did we get to a situation where neither a cabinet minister nor citizens are fazed by the suggestion that our state should disregard its laws? 

If we do not arrest Putin on our soil then we are breaking South African law. If the state deliberately tramples on the rule of law, that constitutes an inherent constitutional crisis.

Public debate is mostly about the economics of the decision to not arrest Putin, should he come here, but there is almost no debate about the meaning and effect of a government position that is unlawful. Is it because the rule of law is so badly eroded already that rule-following is no longer expected as the norm? The integrity of our legal system is at stake in this debate in fundamental ways that are not adequately highlighted. This is why we must enter this debate with full awareness that the economic threats from the global North do not exhaust the range of factors that should bother us. There may, in fact, be legal and ethical considerations the West do not care for that are salient for us. We should be guided by own moral compasses and not the faulty ones of the global North. 

This brings me to the ethical crux of the matter. I cannot for the life of me make sense of a practical contradiction at the heart of Pandor’s moralism about the International Criminal Court. She points out how selective they are in who they hold accountable for war crimes. We heard this argument before, to the effect of, “Until they drag George Bush and Tony Blair before the ICC, we will not arrest al-Bashir! We will grant him diplomatic immunity as a guest of the African Union!”

Here’s the problem with this reasoning. It simultaneously (correctly so) judges the West for moral inconsistencies on their part but then proceeds to emulate that very inconsistency by turning a blind eye to the human rights of African citizens being trampled on by their leaders. Pandor thinks she is calling out the global North but in the end she is taking her moral cue from the US and the UK. Those countries have no regard for moral consistency in how they conduct their affairs globally nor in how they relate to the rest of the world. Pandor, similarly, wants to ignore the rights of vulnerable groups such as queer Africans in Uganda or innocent citizens of the Ukraine whose right to sovereignty was violated by Russia with an invasion that lacked legality and which has left dead victims in its wake. Where is Pandor’s moral compass? It seems no more workable than that of her counterparts in the UK and the US. 

Which brings me finally to public responses to her position. Some on the left have lauded the ANC-led state on this issue while continuing to be disappointed with the ANC on the core business of effective and responsive government. I think we should be careful to not be caught up, inadvertently, in a false binary, choosing to either love the West uncritically or to suck up to Putin as a middle-finger to Western hegemony. The logical opposite of pointing out Western moral viciousness isn’t to let despots in the rest of the world off the hook. We can and must both hold the West accountable for profound moral indecency, and set our own standards for what counts as minimal moral decency in international relations.