The African “peace” mission in Ukraine and russia failed. Why did this delegation come anyway?
And did it have a chance of success?
June 16th and 17th were marked by a visit to Ukraine, and later to russia, by a collective delegation from Africa. The initially declared goal was to facilitate (or at least attempt to do so) conflict resolution in the war of russia against Ukraine. Mind investigated: what did the African 'peace plan' envision and did it stand a chance of realisation?
Who was part of the “African alliance” and who was its leader? Overall, the delegation that visited Ukraine on June 16th and russia the day after, consisted of seven leaders of African states – South Africa, Egypt, Senegal, Congo-Brazzaville, Comoros Islands, Zambia, and Uganda.
Despite the fact that the delegates broadcast a common position and present a united front on equal terms, the recognised leader of the initiative is the president of the Republic of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa. It was he who began to prepare the groundwork for the peace plan several months ago, raised the issue of war in Ukraine in his speeches, and also called presidents Zelensky and putin, agreeing on the details of the visit, as well as conveying his position to UN officials.
How expected was such a “political move”? The President of South Africa, who is trying on the role of peacekeeper between two opposing sides in a conflict far from him in Europe, is not the most obvious or expected choice. Especially if one considers that his country has repeatedly distanced itself from this "conflict".
The Pope, with his similar calls, was organic due to his humanitarian function; the mediation of Turkish President Recep Erdoğan is explained by his dominant influence in the Black Sea, and China's involvement can be justified by the scale of the state. However, the delegation, consisting of seven African leaders who visited Ukraine and russia last week with a 'peace plan', did not have such an obvious mandate at first glance.
But that's only at first glance.
So why did the Africans come? African countries – both the poorest and the relatively prosperous ones (like Egypt) – are the main sufferers from the russo-Ukrainian war, apart from, of course, Ukraine itself. Being dependent on food imports and having limited budgets for their purchase, they are extremely sensitive to even the slightest fluctuations in global grain prices.
Remember that at the start of the russian invasion of Ukraine, the cost of wheat reached a record $500/tonne due to the blockade of the Black Sea ports and the overall global shock from the situation, making it inaccessible to countries of the African continent and exposing the population to a real threat of starvation. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that for most of these nations, accessible food also ensures political stability. As a rule, it is quite fragile in the countries of this region.
According to FAO, food prices have been falling for 13 consecutive months after last year's shock. In May, the FAO Food Price Index fell another 2.6% compared to April and 22.1% against the record high level in March 2022.
However, this does not allay the concerns of African leaders. To reduce dependence on expensive grain imports, even cheaper ones, countries are trying to increase domestic agricultural production. It is not easy to do this, given that the region is a risky farming zone where efficient agriculture is impossible without fertiliser and active ingredients.
Last spring, the supply of fertilisers to the world market also turned out to be blocked – partially artificially by russia itself, which raised their prices. Although fertilisers are not subject to sanctions, moscow asserts that logistical and financial constraints make their trade impossible. Thus, both components of the African continent's food security turned out to be hostages of russian aggression, which the leaders of these states themselves prefer to certify as a 'conflict'.
Are all participants equally neutral? No. There is an opinion that South Africa and Uganda are leaning towards russia, while Zambia and the Comoros Islands are more Western-oriented. South Africa is also suspected of supplying weapons to russia. These suspicions are so grounded that the USA is considering the possibility of imposing sanctions on South Africa, or at least depriving it of trade preferences.
Egypt, Senegal and Congo-Brazzaville can be classified as neutral.
Is the attempt to “deconflict on the spot” just a simple tactic of African countries? No, it is not. Furthermore, this voyage is an unprecedented case when African leaders show such diplomatic activity on another continent.
Due to Africa's isolation, its agenda is little known to Europeans, and African residents pay in kind. For example, one of the main topics in the African Twitter segment right now is the mass shooting of schoolchildren in Uganda, which resulted in the death of over 40 people. Few in Ukraine heard about it. Therefore, it is difficult to blame African countries for not perceiving the war in Ukraine as a civilizational one and considering it solely from the perspective of its impact on their own economy and well-being.
The most likely version regarding the background of the visit, besides the economic one, is an attempt to increase their international weight and convert it, among other things, into an increase in votes in the UN. The scheme works: Recep Erdoğan previously improved his international prestige in this way.
What was discussed? One of the points, which actually justified the defining the visit as peacekeeping one, was the possible exchange of Ukrainian and russian prisoners of war "all for all". There was also a voiced desire to return Ukrainian children to their families.
But pragmatic interests dominated: African leaders sought guarantees for the supply of grain and fertilisers. In particular, thanks to the continuation of the Istanbul Agreement, within which Ukraine exports, albeit with interruptions, grain by sea.
"This conflict is affecting Africa negatively," said the South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, which is the most honest communiqué resulting from the visit. The war in Europe affects 1.2 to 1.3 billion people in Africa.
"We have come to listen to you and through you to hear the voice of the russian people, and encourage you to enter into negotiations with Ukraine, to put an end to this severe ordeal. We gave ourselves this mission because, as Africans, unfortunately, we have had to manage numerous conflicts, and it’s through dialogue and negotiations that we have succeeded at resolving them," said Comoros President Azali Assoumani, speaking in st. petersburg on 17 June. He was added by Mr. Ramaphosa, saying that the war "must be settled" through negotiations and through diplomatic means.
What were the main motives of russia and Ukraine during the visit of the delegation from Africa? No one was planning to reconcile. However, it seems that none of the visitors had counted on this from the very beginning.
For russia, the visit of such a large-scale and high-ranking delegation in the midst of the st. petersburg economic forum was an opportunity to show the world that it is not so isolated.
For Ukraine, it is an opportunity to make up for lost ground and to at least minimally defend its interests in Africa, which were incompetently wasted in previous years of inactivity. The main diplomatic goal is to dissuade African guests from participating in the relevant russian-African summit in July. The chances of success, frankly, are not too high.
What's the official summary of the mission? It's worth emphasising once again that the peace plan is nothing more than a pretext for the visit, albeit a completely worthy one.
Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukraine needs real peace, which entails the withdrawal of russian troops from its territory.
vadimir putin did not even let the guests finish their introductory remarks, stating that "russia has never refused to negotiate with the Ukrainian side".
Overall, the peace part was a total failure.
As for the Istanbul Agreement – did it strengthen at the request of Africa? Quite the opposite.
The officially voiced position of russia is that "the export of Ukrainian grain from the Black Sea ports does not help to alleviate Africa's difficulties with high food prices, because it mostly went to rich countries." russian president’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, later clarified that the grain agreement had little chance "in his opinion".
The term of the agreement may end on July 17th. According to the UN, more than 31 million tonnes of grain were exported within its framework, of which 43% went to developing countries. russia believes that less than 4% of supplies fell to Africa. The World Food Programme of the UN has sent over 625,000 tonnes of grain for operations to aid starving Africans.
"The road to peace is not an easy one," South African President Ramaphosa concluded.
If you have read this article to the end, we hope that means it was useful for you.
We work to ensure that our journalistic and analytical work is of high quality, and we strive to perform it as competently as possible. This also requires financial independence. Support us for only UAH 196 per month.
Become a Mind subscriber for just USD 5 per month and support the development of independent business journalism!
You can unsubscribe at any time in your LIQPAY account or by sending us an email: [email protected]
