Fikile Mbalula: No Arms to Ukraine, South Africa Stays Committed to Peace
Image: X/ANC
By Bayethe Msimang
South Africa has reaffirmed its longstanding commitment to neutrality and peace in international conflicts, including the war in Ukraine. This stance was underscored by African National Congress Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula during his address at the recent summit of Southern African liberation movements. Speaking to an audience of political veterans and representatives from across the region, Mbalula emphasised that no South African arms manufacturer, whether public or private, will be permitted to export weapons or ammunition to any party involved in the war.
'As the ANC, we have taken a decision – consistent with South Africa's constitutional values and foreign policy traditions – that South African arms manufacturers will not be allowed to export weapons or ammunition to the war zone in Ukraine,' Mbalula said.
His remarks were not presented as a new policy initiative, but rather as a public reaffirmation of South Africa's deeply rooted principles in international engagement. For decades, South Africa's foreign policy has emphasised peaceful conflict resolution, respect for sovereignty, and a strong commitment to international law. Mbalula's words served to restate that approach at a time when the global arms trade and its implications for ongoing conflicts are under intense international scrutiny.
Over the past several years, public interest in arms transfers has steadily grown, both within South Africa and abroad. This has been driven by a broader international dialogue around transparency, ethics, and the unintended consequences of global weapons flows. Within this climate, South African defence manufacturers — including well-known entities such as Rheinmetall Denel Munition — have occasionally appeared in investigative reporting and academic research exploring the complexities of modern arms production and end-user accountability.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
It was in this context of heightened awareness that Mbalula's remarks were made. Rather than responding to any specific incident, his statement served as a principled reminder of the frameworks that already guide South Africa's approach to arms exports. Reassuring both local and international observers, Mbalula emphasised that the decision not to authorise exports to the Ukrainian war zone was not an exceptional case, but a confirmation of South Africa's broader diplomatic posture. The guiding principle remains consistent: military goods should not be exported to regions experiencing active conflict, particularly when there is a risk that such exports could contribute to further escalation.
In this way, South Africa continues to walk a path defined not by alignment with global power blocs, but by its own moral compass and legal obligations. The government's position reflects its historical role as an advocate for dialogue, mediation, and peaceful coexistence values that have shaped its diplomatic identity since the end of apartheid.
Mbalula's message thus serves a dual purpose: it reassures domestic audiences that South Africa's defence industry remains under firm legal and ethical guidance, and it signals to the world that the country remains committed to its role as a bridge-builder in times of war. At a moment when the international order is marked by volatility and mistrust, South Africa's quiet consistency may well be its greatest diplomatic strength.
IOL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
17 minutes ago
- IOL News
'Propaganda masquerading as strategic realism'
Palestinian children clamour for a meal at a charity kitchen in the Mawasi area of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. Image: AFP Ziyad Motala There is a certain predictability in the Sunday Times' editorial arc of late, an increasingly tired soliloquy in praise of empire, veiled in the language of pragmatism and national interest. But even by its declining standards, the paper's recent conduct reveals something altogether more disquieting: an abdication of journalistic integrity in favour of ideological alignment with Zionist hasbara and Washington's punitive caprice. For months, the Sunday Times stonewalled a public inquiry, refusing to disclose that its columnist, S'thembiso Msomi, had taken a trip to Israel and written an article in April 2025, a reverent portrayal of Israeli resilience masquerading as impartial analysis, which was funded by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. This silence was not inadvertent. It was calculated. Only this past Sunday, after a formal complaint was lodged with the Press Council, did the paper grudgingly acknowledge this inconvenient fact. The admission came in the form of a subdued notice buried deep within the paper, accompanied by the usual euphemisms of 'clarification' and 'apology.' One suspects the intent was plain: to bury the admission and hope the public would move on, none the wiser. This is no minor infraction. The Press Code is unambiguous: publications must disclose when a third party finances the cost of news gathering. Failure to do so compromises not only the perceived neutrality of the journalist but the editorial independence of the publication itself. The Sunday Times, one of South Africa's prominent newspapers, violated this basic tenet of ethical journalism and only confessed months later when cornered. But Msomi's subsidised propaganda piece is merely the tip of a much larger ideological iceberg. For some time now, the Sunday Times has become a dependable sanctuary for pro-Israel apologetics and the exculpation of American imperial tantrums. William Gumede's April 27 supplication for normalisation with Israel was not just intellectually lazy; it was ideologically revealing. That his organisation, Democracy Works, has itself been the recipient of funding from several dubious foreign entities raises questions about whether we are reading South African analysis or something concocted in the backrooms of Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Not to be outdone, David Bruce, in a piece on July 18, urged the ANC to 're-engage' with Israel, as though genocide were a minor irritant to be filed under diplomatic collateral. This week, Richard Gumede once again joined the chorus with a patronising lecture about South Africa's 'anti-American' posture, couched, of course, in the language of concern for ordinary South Africans. He argues that the ANC's refusal to grovel before Donald Trump's grotesque 'America first' foreign policy is somehow an affront to rational diplomacy. It is a line of reasoning so bankrupt, so wilfully ahistorical, that one wonders whether Gumede has mistaken State Department press releases for political philosophy. To Gumede, the refusal to embrace the punitive actions taken by the United States against its adversaries, China, Russia, and Iran, is symptomatic of ideological recklessness. That these are states with whom South Africa has longstanding economic and strategic ties is brushed aside. That they are themselves frequent targets of American hostility for daring to act independently of Washington's diktats is of no concern. And that Donald Trump's America is perhaps the least principled, most corrupt and least coherent United States government in recent memory is something Gumede conveniently omits. Let us be clear. No state, regardless of its alliances or ideological pretensions, should enjoy impunity for violating international law or trampling on human rights. Those who commit war crimes or persecute their people must be held accountable without exception. Yet to invoke China, Russia or Iran as stock villains to deflect from the horrors in Gaza is not only evasive, it is intellectually bankrupt. Any person possessed of even modest moral clarity can see what is unfolding there: a sustained campaign of collective punishment, bolstered by the silence and acquiescence of the self-styled democratic West. Only a fool believes the United States has a principled interest in human rights. The historical record is unambiguous. So long as the foreign despot salutes the American flag and pledges fealty to Washington, tyranny becomes tolerable, and repression conveniently overlooked. It is particularly rich that Gumede offers up corruption as one of the United States' primary concerns with South Africa. One must ask: Is this the same United States whose president auctioned off foreign policy to the highest bidder, made his inaugural visits to the gilded palaces of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, and returned with real estate contracts for his family? Is this the America whose transactional foreign policy includes deals with murderers and autocrats in exchange for arms deals and hotel licences? If so, Gumede's invocation of corruption is not just misguided. It is obscene. Equally revealing as what the Sunday Times chooses to publish is what it deliberately leaves out. While major newspapers across the globe devoted front pages this Sunday to the deepening famine in Gaza, where Israel stands credibly accused of weaponising starvation against a besieged population, the Sunday Times offered not a single article on the subject. Instead, readers were served yet another polemic lamenting South Africa's supposed diplomatic 'missteps' for refusing to placate the unplacatable. At the very moment when two respected Israeli human rights organisations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, joined the growing international consensus that Israel is committing genocide, the Sunday Times chose to publish yet another piece dismissing South Africa's ICJ application as nothing more than political 'lawfare.' This posture is part of a broader pattern of editorial capture. In an earlier column by Rowan Polovin on May 18, the Sunday Times provided a platform for the chair of the South African Zionist Federation to distort history, sanitise Israeli apartheid, and peddle neocolonial binaries between the "West" and global irrelevance. Polovin's article was not journalism. It was propaganda masquerading as strategic realism, replete with the ugliest strands of ethnic chauvinism and settler-colonial nostalgia. This is not journalism. It is ideological mimicry. The Sunday Times' descent into apologetics for Zionist repression and American belligerence reflects a broader pattern among certain elite opinion-shapers in South Africa. They dress up subservience and Israeli apartheid as realism, and fealty to empire as prudence. But the effect is the same: the slow domestication of South African political discourse in service of foreign powers whose only consistent principle is the ruthless preservation of their interests. In an age when facts are politicised and justice is routinely subverted, affectations of neutrality serve only to mask complicity. The Sunday Times has not simply abdicated its duty to inform. It has aligned itself with the architects of obfuscation, giving comfort to power, to oppression, and Israeli apartheid, something unimaginable in a democratic South Africa bending to the whims of Donald Trump. * Ziyad Motala, Professor of Law, Howard Law School ** The views expressed in this article are necessarily those of The African, IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
31 minutes ago
- IOL News
Anger mounts as Trump's tariffs set to bite
Demonstrators burn a US flag and a picture of US President Donald Trump during a protest in defence of national sovereignty following the US government trade taxes and sanctions on Brazil, near the US consulate, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on August 1, 2025. Thabo Makwakwa Analysts warn that the path ahead is fraught with challenges, including potential irreversible damage to sectors already under pressure following the recent imposition of a 30% tariff by the United States on key South African exports. They raised concerns about long-term economic stability, job security, and export revenue. Effective August 1, 2025, the new tariffs target key industries, including citrus, macadamia nuts, automotive components, steel, and aluminum. South Africa's citrus industry, which supports over 35,000 jobs and contributes more than R38 billion annually, faces disproportionate risk. Speaking to Sunday Independent on Friday, Dr. Iraj Abedian, Chief Economist at Pan-African Investments Research Services, highlighted the severity of the situation. "The tariffs will have a dire impact on our automotive and citrus industries. We're looking at an initial loss of around 100,000 jobs, especially in motor manufacturing, which feeds into a broader supply chain of tire, component, and leather producers." Abedian further explained that the Western Cape's citrus sector is uniquely vulnerable due to its climatic resilience against certain citrus diseases like black spot, which restricts exports to the US. Other regions lacking this advantage could see prices plummet, affecting the entire supply chain. "When the Western Cape exports are constrained, it affects prices and volumes in other markets like the Middle East, Europe, China, and Russia, creating a ripple effect across the industry." Beyond immediate impacts, industry experts warn of potentially permanent damage. Wandile Sihlobo, Chief Economist, emphasized that the tariffs threaten the fabric of South Africa's manufacturing sector, particularly those producing vehicles tailored for the US market. "When factories close due to these tariffs, they don't reopen easily, even years later. The investment required to establish a foothold in the US market is extensive, and once lost, it's nearly impossible to regain." He pointed out that industries such as automotive manufacturing, which produce both right- and left-hand drive vehicles for export, face the risk of shuttering facilities entirely. The consequences extend beyond jobs, impacting revenue streams and the country's long-term industrial capacity. Sihlobo also highlighted the broader implications for South Africa's trade relations. The US's move increases the vulnerability of South African agricultural exports, such as ostrich products, table grapes, nuts, and wines, to competitors from nations like Peru and Chile, which face lower tariffs. "South Africa now faces a significant disadvantage, as our exports are taxed at around 30%, while Peru and Chile enjoy tariffs closer to 10%. This disparity undermines our competitiveness." He noted ongoing negotiations between South Africa and US officials, with the government actively seeking more favorable terms. However, Sihlobo cautioned that such talks are complex and protracted, especially given the US's recent trade tensions with other major partners like the European Union and Japan. "The negotiations are challenging, and the current environment of global uncertainty makes it difficult to predict outcomes. Still, we continue to support our government's efforts to advocate for our industries," he said. With the US accounting for approximately 8% of South Africa's total exports, particularly in vehicles (17%) and agriculture (5%), the impact of these tariffs could be profound. Higher costs for US buyers are expected to reduce demand, threaten supply chains, and diminish South Africa's export earnings. Economic analysts warn that the tariffs could accelerate job losses, depress public revenues, and deepen existing economic vulnerabilities. "This is not just a short-term setback. The damage could be long-lasting, and reversing it will require years of concerted effort and strategic investment, said Abedien. The experts warned that South Africa's industries must brace for a challenging period ahead. The Federation of Unions of South Africa (Fedusa) said that while it did not subscribe to alarmist projections of a 'jobs bloodbath,' it was mindful that implementing such measures could profoundly impact South Africa's export-led industries, particularly the automotive sector. 'The proposed tariff would render South African automotive and manufactured goods significantly more expensive and less competitive in a vital export market. 'A contraction in demand would almost certainly force firms to scale down production, with downstream effects that include shift reductions, deferred investments, and potential job losses over time,' Fedusa said. The president of the General Industries Workers Union of South Africa, Mametlwe Sebei, said the country risks losing access to the US market due to unmet requirements influenced by shifting global politics and policies. 'When you look at AGOA, the US Congress has specific requirements for Africa, and many US Congress members have pointed out that South Africa is not meeting these. This has been an ongoing issue, even in the past. 'Secondly, given policies on Israel-Palestine, and the current focus on China and Russia as a bloc, the global economy is shifting, and it's unlikely that South Africa will maintain the privileged access it currently enjoys to the US market,' said Sebei. He argued that if South Africa wants to transition toward manufacturing vehicles, it must mobilize resources and industry capacity to meet the country's transport and manufacturing needs. However, he expressed skepticism about current ambitions and the capacity to achieve these goals. Meanwhile, President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced that negotiations with the United States will continue over the next week. Ramaphosa said that ongoing communications between South Africa and US officials continued on Friday, adding that the government has submitted a Framework Deal to enhance mutually beneficial trade and investment relations.
IOL News
33 minutes ago
- IOL News
Liberators in Dire Need of Political, Moral Cleansing
(From left) Swapo president Nutembo Nandi-Ndaitwah, ANC president Cyril Ramaphosa and former Frelimo president Joaquim Chissano at a working dinner held at Mahlamba Ndlopfu, Pretoria on July 26, 2025. The ANC hosted a Liberation Movements Summit in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng on July 25-27, 2025. Image: GCIS Zamikhaya Maseti The ruling African National Congress convened a landmark Liberation Movements Summit from 25 to 27 July 2025, gathering six Southern African liberation parties including MPLA (Angola), SWAPO (Namibia), FRELIMO (Mozambique), ZANU PF (Zimbabwe), and CCM (Tanzania) to deliberate on the theme: 'Defending the Liberation Gains, Advancing Integrated SocioEconomic Development, Strengthening Solidarity for a Better Africa.' Conspicuously absent, however, was Zambia's United National Independence Party (UNIP), the liberation movement led by the late President Kenneth Kaunda. This party offered refuge to the exiled leadership of the African National Congress and embraced thousands of young South Africans who crossed borders to join the national liberation struggle against apartheid. The ANC, as a liberation movement, had its headquarters in Lusaka under the protection of UNIP, and the Zambian people sustained its operational lifeline. The organisers of the summit have not explained this omission, and it stands as a glaring historical oversight in any attempt to reconstruct the liberation narrative of Southern Africa. Any honest retelling of Southern Africa's liberation history is incomplete without recognising Zambia's indispensable role, under the leadership of the United National Independence Party (UNIP) and President Kenneth Kaunda. While not always armed with material abundance, Zambia carried the weight of regional liberation with unmatched moral clarity and unwavering solidarity. Lusaka was not just a geographical refuge for exiles; it was the beating heart of a pan-African revolutionary conscience, hosting the ANC's headquarters, training camps, political schools, and underground logistics. The Zambian people paid a heavy price, including economic sabotage, border raids by the apartheid regime, and relentless pressure from the West. Yet Kaunda's government never wavered. It chose principle over profit, and African unity over diplomatic convenience. That such a pivotal liberation movement was absent from this summit should not be taken lightly; it reflects a growing trend of selective memory that must be confronted if we are to truly reclaim and revitalise the liberation legacy. The summit made several significant resolutions. It reaffirmed support for the liberation of Western Sahara, condemned all forms of foreign domination and neocolonial interference, and called for deeper ideological and practical cooperation between liberation movements. The parties committed to revitalising South–South solidarity, advancing youth mobilisation and political education, and accelerating regional economic integration through shared development frameworks. In addition, the summit called for party-to-party diplomacy beyond state platforms, recognising the strategic value of liberation movements coordinating across borders to influence global governance, trade, and peace agendas. These resolutions, if translated into action, could mark a turning point, shifting these movements from commemorators of the past to architects of the African future. This was not a nostalgic gathering of revolutionaries trading memories over aged slogans. It was a solemn reaffirmation of purpose, a strategic recalibration of the post-colonial project amidst a volatile global order. What emerged was clear: the legacy of liberation is not a finished chapter; it is an unfinished struggle, and those who led us into freedom must now lead us into transformation. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The liberation movements in the Southern African region have not been able to dogwatch one another, to speak frankly, honestly, and without diplomatic pretence. At no point did SWAPO, FRELIMO, CCM, or MPLA rise with principled courage to say, for instance, to President Robert Mugabe, how you are governing Zimbabwe is unjust and unsustainable. The ANC, however, attempted what it called quiet diplomacy in Zimbabwe, urging the Zimbabwean leadership and people to resolve their problems internally and to avoid relying on externally imposed solutions. Unfortunately, that quiet diplomacy did not yield the desired results. The suppression of opposition parties and the stifling of democratic space persisted. This absence of honest, fraternal correction among liberation movements has weakened the moral centre of the liberation tradition itself. One hopes that this revived Party-to-Party diplomacy will correct that historical failure. It must not be reduced to celebratory declarations and performative solidarity. It must have political dog watching as a central tenet, a principled, fraternal mechanism through which liberation movements hold one another to the revolutionary values they once embodied: honesty, people-centred governance, democratic integrity, and moral courage. Not loyalty to incumbency, but loyalty to the people. The liberation movements must be brave enough to confront the objective reality of the evaporation of the liberation heritage. The fact of the matter is that across the African continent, the very parties that ushered in political freedom, that dismantled colonial rule, and held the dreams of the masses, are no longer the governing parties. In Ghana, the Convention People's Party (CPP) of Kwame Nkrumah, the first to proclaim African independence, has faded into political obscurity. In Zambia, UNIP, once the bastion of Southern African solidarity under Kenneth Kaunda, has been swept aside. In Kenya, KANU (Kenya African National Union), the liberation party of Jomo Kenyatta, has long ceded power. Here at home, the ANC of Nelson Mandela, once the symbol of global moral authority, has been partially dislodged from power. It now governs in coalition with its ideological and historical adversaries, a profound moment that should signal not a tactical adjustment, but a generational reckoning. The liberation movement, as we know it, stands at a precipice. The question these Parties must collectively ask is not cosmetic or electoral, it is existential: Why has this occurred? Why have the liberation movements, once cherished as the custodians of the people's hopes, been relegated to electoral decline, coalition compromise, and in some cases, outright irrelevance? And more importantly, what should be their collective response to this objective reality of downward swings, fractured mandates, and the political displacement of liberation itself? This is no longer a theoretical concern. It is an urgent summons for introspection, ideological recalibration, and coordinated strategic renewal across the continent.
