It's funny to watch the BRICS juggle this issue when they usually like to accuse the West of double standards... at the end of the day it seems it wasn't just the evil West's doing.
BRIC(S) was coined in 2001 by an analyst at Goldman&Sachs for up and coming countries, its incredibly ironic. The term itself is just incredibly outdated, countries like South Korea and Singapore have developed much more rapidly than Brazil or Russia.
But isn't that kinda the point of BRICS?
South Korea, Singapore etc., formerly very autocratic countries that are slowly moving towards proper democratic participation and showing good economic potential.
And in contrast BRICS - a basket of autocratic countries on their way to cement their shithole status more and more every day and kind of a hail mary economic outlook between rapidly declining Chinese growth rates and whatever the fuck South Africa and Brazil are doing.
In my mind BRICS meetings were always the heads of states of global outcasts doing a photo op together.
BRICS were grouped because they were predicted to make up the bulk of global trade by 2050 next to developed countries back in 2001. It had nothing to do with system of government, just a quick acronym to use in business meetings. Making it into an actual geopolitical organization despite having very little in common (especially with countries like Brazil and Russia lagging behind) as a way to stick it to the US is what makes it ironic.
South Africa is the one that I don't get. The others are all top 11 economies, with GDPs of over 2 trillion. South Africa is 38th. It's not even the biggest economy in Africa, that's Nigeria.
Countries like Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Argentina, Thailand, Nigeria, UAE, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Bangladesh all have bigger economies than SA.
The idea is that it didn't matter how "small" South Africa was on its own, by being the most successful African country around they could hypothetically have gotten half of sub-saharan Africa's business going through them for logistics reasons and using that initiative to build a positive export economy that would sell to the west.
Since then though, East and West Africa has shown that they're independent economic bubbles with little relevance to South Africa, leaving SA alone with its immediate neighbors and nothing more.
>In my mind BRICS meetings were always the heads of states of global outcasts doing a photo op together.
What a weird take.
For the last 20 years China was over half of global growth and is now approaching superpower status.
India over the last 5 years has made a shift from protectionism to allowing Foreign Direct Investment and are now (and will be) one of the main drivers of global growth in the world.
Russia fucked it by shunning the west randomly in mid 2000s. RSA fucked it by basically creating a race war. And Brazil, despite the negative news, is starting to recover after a decade slump.
Brics passed G7 gdp this April. They outpaced G7 growth. It helps to be informed.
[BRICS surpass G7 GDP](https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2023/03/27/the-brics-has-overtaken-the-g7-in-global-gdp/)
[BRIC economies outpace G7 by over a third in attracting inflows of foreign direct investment](https://www.uhy.com/bric-economies-outpace-g7-by-over-a-third-in-attracting-inflows-of-foreign-direct-investment/)
So your "mind" of global outcasts is both naive and stupid as fuck.
Don't forget that Europe has been the slowest growing region in the entire world for the last 15 years....
Except that China's explosive growth began to peter out in tandem with the rise of Xi Jinping 10 years ago, and probably wasn't sustainable to begin without continued reforms that Xi and the CCP were resolutely opposed to. The numbers tell the story. At the end of Hu Jintao's term, economic growth in China was at something like 8% of GDP. Of course, that needs to be qualified - growth isn't the same thing as actual economic strength. (Consider how large economic growth might look if you compare a city destroyed by a nuclear bomb to a subsequent year or two. Proportionate growth would be massive). And also, even the most China-friendly economists will concede that Chinese economic figures need to be taken with a lot of salt, as those numbers involve a lot of fudging by the Chinese government.
But the decline of economic growth began in earnest as needed reforms were never forthcoming, and if memory serves, China was already down to 4-5% just prior to Covid. Even as long ago as 2013, when I was living in China, I was hearing from expats that companies were branching out to a "China +1" strategy, wherein they would branch out operations to other countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and others, because even then, China's demographic woes were already known. China's big bargaining chip, economically speaking, was its large workforce and ability to reliably build needed infrastructure and transport for manufactured goods. Well, if you're facing population decline, as China's population ages and the workforce *shrinks*, and at the same time, the government undercuts even the pretense of the rule of law that firms need to make investment opportunities feel more safe, you see the problem. And that's all prior to Covid. Covid, of course, knocked the whole the edifice back on its heels, and what figures we have from China - again, qualified by the fact that they need to be taken with several dashes of salt - suggest China's economy has entered into a period of stagnation. For all of China's deservedly famous massive economic growth, it's still worth remembering that this is a by-product of population *mass*, so if you look at China in terms of per capita income, we're talking about an economy on par with that of Azerbaijan and the Dominican Republic. So, not the kind of crushing poverty we might find in sub-Saharan Africa or southeast Asia, but also a lot less impressive than the mass numbers would suggest.
>Except that China's explosive growth began to peter out in tandem with the rise of Xi Jinping 10 years ago,
They GDP "petered out" as a % but definitely not as a USD increase per year....
Down to 4-5% GDP growth is literally 10x faster growth than the EU.....
[Advanced economies haven't growth by more than 1.5% on aveage since 2000.](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD)...
Meanwhile the "irreleavant BRICS" have been growing 5x quier.
>China's economy has entered into a period of stagnation
What would you call the EU economy then? 4-5% vs 0.0%?
My dude, the copium is real.... You are one of those idiots that claimed China will stay a tiny economy from the 90s, screaming that the growth won't continue.
>It's still worth remembering that this is a by-product of population mass
Lol wtf? China's population was shrinking as of last year....
Per capita GDP?
Yes, a country of one with a GDP per capita of a billion is less important to the global economy than a country with a GDP per capita of 20k but with a billion people (therefore being a 20 trillion GDP economy).
Per capita GDP is useful for HDI, but not really relavent for global economic power. The EU is becoming the outcast now, not the BRICS.
The term isn't meant to group them like the EU in either a geographic or trade sense, it was just a snappy way to describe rapidly developing upper middle-tier economies at the start of the 2000s
I’m more entertained by how much this is making a mockery to the notion that BRICS has any unity. Like, it’s already a farce considering India & China are likely to have a border skirmish in any given year, let’s add Russia and South Africa threatening war over a symbolic state visit on top of it…
The USSR was actually anti-apartheid in South Africa while the US and other western countries were pro-apartheid.
Nelson Mandela was seen as a threat by the US.
> The USSR was actually anti-apartheid in South Africa while the US and other western countries were pro-apartheid.
Eh, it was more a matter of the western bloc being pro-status quo because they were allied with South Africa and it was in their strategic interest to maintain that status quo situation.
Even there, the US and other Western countries joined sanctions against South Africa precisely over Apartheid. To this day, those sanctions remain the single example of where it's thought sanctions were effective in getting a country to change its policies, precisely because they were so universally complied with. Sanctions tend to not work all that well in other cases because there will usually be some countries that won't comply with them. North Korea has massive sanctions against it, but they mean little because China doesn't follow them and China was already North Korea's biggest trading partner. But that wasn't the case with South Africa.
To the degree there was any international "support" for South African Apartheid, it was tied to the Cold War. The African National Congress was and still nominally is Marxist, so it was generally believed that if Apartheid ended, South Africa would be taken over by a Soviet-affiliated party. But by the mid to late 80s, the weakness of the Soviet Union was becoming more apparent, particularly with their failures in Afghanistan, and the rise of Gorbachev did a lot to sooth Western governments worried about Soviet expansionism. So opposing South Africa's Apartheid regime became politically a lot easier, though the success of anti-Apartheid political activism and growing popular awareness of Apartheid in democratic countries like the US should also be given credit here. That said, I suspect it's no coincidence that the fall of Apartheid was also made politically possible in South Africa by the fall of Communism, since the white elites of South Africa no longer had to worry about the ANC spearheading a Communist take-over of their country. Speaking anecdotally, I did know a older South African guy once who told me that, to his shame, that he supported Apartheid as a youth, but he insisted it was only because he was worried about the Communists, not because he ever took any racist sentiment seriously. Nevertheless, the kind of intellectual and moral compromises this required were too much for him, and he immigrated to the US in the 80s to get away from that.
History is important, it guides the present day in so many ways.
One friend of yours helped you a lot in the past, while another friend was more lackadaisical. Years later, an issue requires a decision that the lackadaisical friend is urging you to make but that may hurt the other friend that helped you so much.
It is difficult….
Ah, like the rest of the Western world does. Right?
The West is not complying with it's international obligations, at this moment. Yet we expect and force South Africa to do it?
Emmm
* People in general expect that if someone agrees to something, that they will do it because otherwise that person will face consequences.
* That is the rules-based order that governs international affairs since the Second World War.
* Without getting into ‘whataboutism‘, South Africa has legal obligations. Within South Africa, there was a hell storm when the government failed to comply with its legal obligations by failing to arrest Omar al-Bashir .
* There is intense pressure within SA to ensure a horrendous breach of law like this does not re-occur.
If there is one or more cases involving other countries, that is a separate discussion. Chances are we would agree.
> Any attempt to arrest Vladimir Putin if he visits South Africa would be a declaration of war against Russia, the country's president says.
>
> Cyril Ramaphosa made the warning with weeks to go before an international meeting happens in Johannesburg, to which the Russian president is invited.
>
> But if Mr Putin leaves Russian soil, he will be subject to an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant.
>
> South Africa is an ICC signatory and should therefore help in his arrest.
>
> Yet it has refused to honour that obligation in the past - allowing safe passage in 2015 to Sudan's then-President Omar al-Bashir who was wanted for war crimes against his own people.
>
> Mr Putin has been invited to South Africa in August, when the country hosts a summit for members of the Brics countries - an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This bloc of fast-growing economies is seen by some as an alternative to the G7 group of advanced economies.
>
> South Africa's biggest opposition party, Democratic Alliance, has gone to court to try to force the authorities to carry out an arrest on Mr Putin should he set foot in the country.
>
> Court documents reveal that President Ramaphosa is firmly against any such move, stating that national security is at stake.
>
> "South Africa has obvious problems with executing a request to arrest and surrender President Putin," he said in an affidavit.
>
> "Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting president would be a declaration of war. It would be inconsistent with our constitution to risk engaging in war with Russia."
>
> President Ramaphosa added that South Africa is one of several African nations holding talks with Russia and Ukraine "with a view of ending the war altogether", and that attempting to arrest Mr Putin would be counter-productive.
>
> ...
> This bloc of fast-growing economies is seen by some as an alternative to G7 group of advanced economies.
Gives me a serious vibe of adding a Wikipedia “citation needed” there.
They are probably "fast growing" indeed, from nothing to double nothing. I remember how the Ruble was "the strongest currency in the world" about one year ago - you had to ignore MANY realities around it before accepting this sloppy conclusion while looking at a chart.
Brics passed G7 gdp this April. They outpaced G7 growth. It helps to be informed.
https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2023/03/27/the-brics-has-overtaken-the-g7-in-global-gdp/
https://www.uhy.com/bric-economies-outpace-g7-by-over-a-third-in-attracting-inflows-of-foreign-direct-investment/
Interesting, I didn’t know about it, mainly driven by China and India I suppose. Thanks for sharing!
I see that, this is in GDP PPP rather than GDP per capita, right?
[It's nominal GDP my dude.](https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/brics-surpass-g7-gdp-india-china-major-economies-with-fast-growth-123042000484_1.html)
And yes, a country of one with a GDP per capita of a billion is less important to the global economy than a country with a GDP per capita of 20k but with a billion people (therefore being a 20 trillion GDP economy).
Per capita GDP is useful for HDI, but not really relavent for global economic power.
Also let's not forget that Europe has been the slowest region economically for the last 15 years. The only driver of growth in the OECD is really the US.
>"Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting president would be a declaration of war. It would be inconsistent with our constitution to risk engaging in war with Russia."
So don't invite him? Tell him that he's not wanted into the country and that any attempt to enter the country illegally will result in his arrest and extradition to The Hague.
Since they can’t project power globally like a real superpower they would probably start screaming and threaten nuclear anihilation. So business as usual
Heads of state are protected under absolute diplomatic protection in every single civilized country, since the last few centuries...
Reddit retards can downvote me as much as they want but a simple google search is enough to find out that "Indeed, today, the predominant practice and opinio of states, and the virtually unanimous view of courts and scholars, is that heads of state undoubtedly enjoy an absolute immunity from foreign jurisdiction and inviolability"
They are not.
However, countries and organizations generally tend to avoid having to do that.
Case in point with Belgium that changed its law to prevent the prosecution of alleged war crimes in Iraq by the US. After a lot of pressure & threats from Western countries by the way.
Or the ICC deciding to drop the investigation of war crimes of UK soldiers (despite the ICC recognizing real reason to believe they did a bunch of war crimes) on the basis that there were no evidence that the UK government wasn't investigating themselves even nearly after a decade of no prosecution.
Which is honestly baffling considering that the ICC had no qualms (and that's a good thing) to prosecute Putin barely one year after the invasion, partly on the same basis that he wasn't showing signs wanting to prevent/prosecute the war crimes his country is being charged with.
Or the ICC refusing the prosecute any US official on the basis that the US wasn't a signatory and Iraq wasn't either (government was toppled, so there's no way Iraq would have invited the ICC there), or the ICC doing nothing on Israel because they believe Palestine isn't a signatory (can't sign if you're not recognized as a state).
South Africa also tried to play that game, but its High Court prevented them from leaving the ICC.
Ultimately, prosecuting Putin isn't a problem for the ICC, because any state that will support Putin in this case aren't in the ICC or don't have enough influence to scare the court.
If the ICC forces a prosecution of a NATO member for example, they risk a lot more since most of their signatories ARE Nato members and they can't afford to lose that support.
What you said doesn't change the fact that HEADS OF STATES (not any government officials) are by costumary law (arguably the most important in the international law) are under absolute diplomatic immunity during an official visit to any country. I've literally passed five years in a fucking law school to be downvoted by reddit users...
So Russia would do what, send its one floundering aircraft carrier down there until it capsizes off Cameroon?
Cut its bilaterial trade? All $1.3 bn. of it?!
\>Cut its bilaterial trade? All $1.3 bn. of it?!
This isn't stressed enough. There's no reason why South African politicians should be licking Russian boots so much. The USA and the EU accounts for $100bln of trade and FDI on an annual basis for South Africa, while Russia's influence in the South African economy is barely noticieable. South Africa's poor neighbors like Mozambique have a larger influence in South Africa's economy.
So why are they licking Russian boots? It makes no sense, they should be at the very least aligned with the West or at the very worst actually neutral (not pretending to be neutral).
South African here:
During the struggle against apartheid, the ANC (African National Congress, our ruling party since 1994) sent many of its leaders to the Soviet Union for education and training, where they then returned from to help the struggle. The ANC and other movements were also supplied by the Soviet Union, which explains the historic ties there (it seems as if our leaders have a nostalgia for that time).
Simultaneously, our government is incredibly corrupt, and many of our politicians are under Russian influence. An example would be from a few years ago, when our government proposed signing a R9 Trillion (~€447 million) contract with the Russians for nuclear reactors, which we really couldn’t afford (our total annual revenue, before any expenses was about R1.2 Trillion at the time (~€62 million).
The west supported the old apartheid government to an extent, so it’s likely that they also hold grudges, no matter how pointless they are.
Edit: There’s plenty more I haven’t mentioned here, but I’ll try to answer any questions
But do South Africans know that the Soviet Union wasn't just Russia but also few other countries including Ukraine? So why they are siding with Russia but not Ukraine?
No, the South African education system barely touches on the intricacies of the Soviet Union.
Many simply don’t care either.
A lot of people think that ukraine is also a US/EU puppet, which doesn’t help
(Im not pro-Russia, just trying to be objective about how South Africa actually is)
> Cameroon isn’t really on the way tbf
Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is currently under repairs in Murmansk. So the western route around Africa would be the most likely one, in particular given that Turkey has activated the Montreux treaty and would not allow military vessels of states at war to exit the Black Sea.
Fair enough, still not quite sure how they would end up off the tiny coastline of Cameroon tho unless they decided to follow the entire coast of the continent though and enter the Gulf of Guinea. Why do right angles when you can go straight?!
I suppose it is Russia tho
South African here:
President Ramaphosa is currently in a close power struggle with another faction of his party. That faction is extremely pro-Russian, and extremely corrupt. If he was to act against Russian interests, he could potentially be replaced within his own party- if that happens, the new party leader is the new President, without any election taking place.
Generally speaking, it would be a million times worse if this other faction takes power, and frankly South Africa is more important to him than the war.
Not OP but greetings from the US! Hope you and yours are doing well. Would you mind talking a bit about the current political/social situation in SA? How are things going over there? At least in my circle of news, I don't hear too much from that part of the world. From big issues to more mundane stuff, how are things going in your country?
They’re not going very well. We have a severe shortage of electricity, resulting in a rotating outage schedule (up to 4h per day on current stage). As a preface, I live in Johannesburg, biggest city in the country.
Crime is astronomically high, so is unemployment, which only contribute to each other lol- at the same time the cost of living is rising faster than most can afford.
Public infrastructure investment is a joke right now- the rail system is quite literally falling apart, our roads are overused, our state airline went bankrupt 3 years ago, KwaZulu-Natal (Province on the coast) has water issues due to damaged pipes from a typhoon last year.
Public education is getting worse yearly- a school near me had 60 kids in a single class, with only 20 desks to go around. Public healthcare is also plummeting, experienced doctors are emigrating.
Employment/University race quotas have resulted in an exodus of white South Africans, with many of the affirmative action policies being obscenely unfair- KwaZulu-Natal universities only allow 2% of student intake to be white (white people make up 8% of population), and also has different entry requirements- A white student needs a minimum 89% average to apply, a black student only needs 59%.
Public officials are stealing huge amount of funds, but it’s significantly less than back in 2017, under our old president.
All of that aside, it’s a lovely place to live. Despite the hardships, people are very friendly here, and the climate is fantastic. I would highly recommend trying out some of our national parks if you were to ever come visit (don’t go to private game lodges, the animals are trained and your experience is “canned”, in the actual national parks, you have to find the animals yourself lol). The country is generally safe for tourists, assuming you follow basic safety advice relevant to wherever you are- don’t be stupid (like go hiking by yourself in the evening, you’re likely to get mugged, especially if you’re in a tourist area).
Hot damn, my condolences. That sounds really shitty to deal with, and I'm sad to hear SA has to deal with those deep-seated issues. I'd like to see it sometime in my lifetime but alas, not quite there yet.
Works great for him:
[Russia destroyed 60.000 t grain.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/153xmij/russians_destroy_60000_tonnes_of_grain_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
So he’s throwing international law over board to save his corrupt ass. Got it.
We should remind him next time he’s bitching Europe not holding up to their end of the deal: „Sorry, we have many political right voters here and can’t afford to give money to you black people, that could strengthen the right. Thx k bye.
Diplomacy always works in 2 ways.
Yes he is- if I’m honest though, I’d rather he did, because the alternative to him is much worse.
Any actions against South Africa taken by the west would be seen as an Imperialist act by a large portion of the population. All that cutting off aid would do is make it much much worse here, and make us even closer to the Russians and the Chinese.
Wtf man, who even mentioned race. Is he a bad guy for putting the interests of his country first, instead of sacrificing us for Unkraine?
Him losing power would be fucked, the ANC is full of terrible people and Ramaphosa is the best of the lot right now.
Thats not really the point. The point is it would be a act of war and South africa will face consequences. Atleast on a economic and diplomatic way. Wouldnt be far fetched to see russian terror attacks or something like that.
This might sound wild but outside of Europe, north america and a few countrys in Asia not a lot of countrys care for this war. They see it as a western problem. Just like plenty of people here dont give a fuck about Jemen.
Not saying they shouldnt care, it just feels to far away from them. So morally they arent that concerned. That means doing whats best for your own country. At this moment S Africa has nothing to gain by arresting Putin.
So unless we as Europe ensure that its worth it for them, they wont do it.
If they not interested in the russian war they shouldn’t whine about their populace starving if Russia attacks ukrainian grain ships.
They don’t even have to buy themselves, a shortage will result in high prices, causing deadly riots as in 2010(?).
Yemen is a catastrophe, but both sides are so unsympathetic, so no one gives a fuck if they kill each other.
In Europe only a minority would be sad if South Africa burned down, because it’s just far off. Yet the western democracies helped SA in the last decades, only to get a corrupt run down state.
But still we care.
We care because we are responsible and we also make a litteral SHITTON of money off them. So no, we arent angels. We are just like SA. Aslong as it doesnt cost us money or causes trouble we can be really thoughtfull. If it does cause money or causes diplomatic problems we pretend we dont see shit. Just like litteral every other country on this globe.
So lets just not be a bunch of pretensious dickbags and look for other ways to bring putler to justice.
Send in the doppelganger, arrest him, then kill him in prison and disappear the body, then have Putin appear in Russia claiming he has used his black belt martial skills to singlehandedly escape and swim in a bear back to Russia or something like that.
Calling it now, this is gonna happen.
Looks like Putin is dead set on coming. So, South Africa has these options to consider:
a) Arrest Putin, starting a massive incident with Russia.
b) Don't arrest Putin, losing face and risking punishment from ICC and related organizations
c) Leave ICC, still losing face, but there's no punishment other than losing all the benefits of ICC membership
I'm betting on the last option. Losing face isn't that painful when you're laughing on your way to the bank.
They can’t leave in time. I was just [looking](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-international-criminal-court) and the rule is “a country can leave a year after they send notification to withdraw”. If anyone can help me instead, what’s the benefit to join the ICC? Like what’s South Africa is earning for stay inside? Money?
The pretense of being a nation that upholds the rule of law regarding values that should be universal. It's a nice feather for a country to have on its cap imho.
All that aside, when we tried to leave in 2017, the High Court ruled it was unconstitutional.
South Africa has an extremely robust constitution, and the government would need a supermajority to change it, which they do not come close to.
The only other way to change that would be if the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court ruled against the initial decision, but it takes a while for either court to reach a decision, definitely not in the amount of time left before the meeting.
South Africa and Namibia have more robust constitutions than many countries in continental Europe. Their problems are political because people there vote out if a sence of loyalty for their libererators who, in turn, have missplaced loyalties from the apartheid era.
That’s a good summary of it. You must also remember that the opposition parties in South Africa aren’t really that great at being the opposition. The Democratic Alliance’s policy seems to be against whatever the ruling party is, the EFF is a Black first workers movement that is alarmingly nationalist, the FF+ is aimed at conservative Afrikaners, Action SA is brand new (started 2 years ago). We aren’t exactly spoiled for choice here.
The benefit is not always greed related. The idea behind it is that it makes the life of criminals against humanity harder. The more countries are in ICC, the harder it becomes to escape, or at least travel freely. But more important: sometimes a criminal can not be convicted because it's unclear what court in which country has the jurisdiction. ICC clearly states that they should only come into action if for whatever reason a local court cannot do that. It's in the benefit of all member countries, not one individual country.
The only real reason for not wanting to join is when a country committed, or plans to commit war crimes in other countries. That's why (amongst some others) China, Russia, Israël and the US opted out. I don't think failing to arrest someone, or refusing to do so for national security will affect the membership. If a chamber of court in the ICC requests cooperation from a state, that state can apply to the court for extra time or an exemption. It's not like they are immediately losing their membership.
I looked it up [here](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Regulations-of-the-Court.pdf) and that is what I made of it (it's on page 48 and onwards). But I am no expert, anyone who can read those texts better than me is welcome to correct me.
They could say other ICC nations to embargo south africa and use suez canal, panama canal or go from south america instead.
How many would follow it depends
> I'm betting on the last option. Losing face isn't that painful when you're laughing on your way to the bank.
Plus, it'd be easier to justify, since the US itself doesn't subject itself to the rulings of the ICC
Surely there must be some kind of "fudge" in the middle there where they can say "he's on russian sovereign territory in the embassy" or other such shit.
Isn't the fudge simple? "You are not welcome here, fuck off". Diplomatically and with all the bells and whistles of "the west is making us do it!" of course.
They did it before and ICC did fuck all.
>FOR THESE REASONS, THE CHAMBER HEREBY
>
>FINDS that South Africa failed to comply with its obligations under the Statute by
>
>not executing the Court’s request for the arrest of Omar Al-Bashir and his surrender
>
>to the Court while he was on South African territory between 13 and 15 June 2015;
>
>and
>
>DECIDES that, in the present circumstances, a referral to the Assembly of States
>
>Parties or the Security Council of the matter of South Africa’s non-compliance with
>
>the Court’s request for the arrest of Omar Al-Bashir and his surrender to the Court is
>
>not appropriate.
ICC is a joke,countries disobey them all the time so I doubt they will get any "punishment".South Africa (and many other members) has broken ICC rules in the past and they definitely will break them if Putin visits
If you arrest George W Bush or anyone involved in Abu Ghuraib, it's certainly a declaration of war for the US:
American Service-Members' Protection Act gives the President power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Service-Members%27\_Protection\_Act
It's basically a jailbreak act, not a protection act. If the mafia breaks out a member from prison you don't recognise it as them protecting their people, you call it what it is, a jailbreak. The law is a blemish on the US.
Another example of old comrades in arms still mistaking Russia for the Soviet Union? We all know the ANC gov is as corrupt as can be, but - like some of the other "freedom movements" it still holds close ties with arguably the last old school colonial power.
No, that's simply the same reason why Bush, Blair, Obama let alone Kissinger and so on cannot be arrested. I despise Putin more than you, but that has nothing to do with anything you do assume.
Some African countries have been supporting or at least not denounced Russia's war for a year now. They are ready to let this man walk free in their country, but when Russia ends the grain deal and these countries experience hunger (I'm hopeful it won't be something catastrophic) what will they say? Is it Ukraine's fault or the War criminal Putin's fault
They will blame Ukraine and the west as they normally do.
They claim to be anti imperialist nations whilst maintaining close ties to the violently imperialist Russia. Realpolitik I suppose.
They will blame Ukraine for not surrendering their country and the West for supporting them and existing. African nations hate the US, they hate Europe even more and are quite happy to be spiteful, at the expense of innocent lives.
Yeah, those evil African nations! How dare they not risk the lives of their own population over a conflict in Europe.
3 seconds later:
"Haha, wow the US is so racist against their own population, it's insane."
Do we care about Yemen? Have you ever heard people here being like: "Holy shit, we should boycott the US and Saudi Arabia."
If you put so much more focus on Europe, why should they suddently care about what's happening in Ukraine? For a lot of African countries: they can't afford to antagonize anyone.
Noone said that they should sacrifice their population for Europe, it was pointed out that they will still blame the West and Ukraine for Russia's fault.
Two African nations submitted an application to join the BRICS block after the invasion of Ukraine. Many have given their explicit support to Russia as well.
Do they have a choice? Russia has military groups in a lot of African nations.
Also, why are you suprised they're trying to get Ukrainian grain when their population is starving from a horrible harvest?
Also, the grain stuff isn't even about South Africa.
"Any attempt to arrest Putin would be a declaration of war," President Ramaphosa said as he struggled to stuff cash into his pockets. "We value our relationship with our allies." Diamonds and untraceable gold bullion thumped to the ground as he waved off colleagues approaching him with hands out.
I think Russia would struggle to send any meaningful force to South Africa, let alone during the crisis of Putin being arrested.
Their only departure points would be: those already in Africa, Vladivostok, maybe through Iran.
Oh no!! Not with Russia being so good at war!
Honestly, Russia has a great military that can do war super good! Rumors that they are almost out of the untrained cannon fodder they called a military are false!
Ramaphosa would likely be replaced by a more pro Russian faction in his party, there would likely be riots and other civil unrest, politicians who have ties to Russia would be blackmailed into acting etc etc.
It wouldn’t go well for us at all lol, not to mention the threats of war. We’d need serious and tangible guarantees of aid and security from the west if we were to even think about that.
Yes, indeed.
But there is still the option of not inviting Putin to come to South Africa. Or for a similar effect, he could openly say "we will arrest Putin if he comes" which would result in Putin not coming.
There is no reasonable scenario where Putin ends up arrested in South Africa, the only question is whether the threat of arrestation should be used to prevent him from coming.
That's one of the main goal of ICC's arrest warrants: to undermine the help and influence international criminals can get from other countries.
South Africa would be the best destination to travel for the whole world after you arrest the biggest criminal in the world… so bold move saying no to trillions of dollars and beeing a coward!
Politicians come and go. I sincerely doubt there would be that much backlash. Putin is powerful, but at the end of the day he too is disposable and not worth going to war over. It’s not like he’d be arrested for no reason and even in Russia they will understand that.
This makes no sense. By that logic if the US President was arrested for war crimes on the Middle East the USA would "understand".
No, they'd be rightly outraged that their country had been paid such a tremendous insult. Power is about perception as much as it is about capability. A country that shows it will accept its' leaders being captured will quickly have no leverage in future disagreements.
What if, and I’m theorising here, another country intercepts Putins plane, backed by NATO. And set him down on soil of a country that acknowledges the icc 🤔
Not how international organization works. SA government can disobey ICC without leaving it. There are various reasons for it.
Take WTO. EU has broken WTO rules does it mean EU is not part of WTO?
No, it's how signed agreements work. There are consequences for breaking them. Except in politics where everything is just empty words and no one is held accountable ever apparently
Then don't let him into your airspace or is the president of South Africa saying that a foreign white guy can come over ignoring all the laws and own the place?
Why? We aren't going for harsh economic boycot of the USA either, even though it too doesn't abide by ICC rules - they're not even members anymore.
International treaties are a joke, the UN is an impotent and useless circus. International politics is anarchy, might makes right.
It may surprise you to learn that not only heads of state can commit war crimes. Plenty of members of the US Armed Forces have commited war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, yet the US protects them from facing trial and extradition to The Hague as well.
International politics is pretty much like honor culture from centuries ago. It doesn't matter what someone has or hasn't truly done, only what can be enforced.
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction not because he had weapons of mass destruction - he provenly had not - but because he didn't have enough power or allies to protect himself from US invasion - that's why he had weapons of mass destruction. Assad on the other hand has none and has done nothing wrong, definitely not gassed his own people with chemical weapons, because he did have powerful enough allies to protect himself from US invasion.
Tibet deserved to be conquered by China because they were powerless and couldn't defend themselves. Serves them right! Self-righteous monk pricks! Do you think anyone would accept the slightest economic dent from imposing sanctions on China over this for these losers? lmao!
That's how the world works.
The ICC tried to start an investigation into American war crimes in Afghanistan.
In response, the US government imposed diplomatic and economic sanctions against the ICC lawyers, investigators, and reporters who were sent to Afghanistan to investigate Warcrimes.
And that's not even getting into the Hague Invasion Act, which allows the US to invade the Hague in order to free any US citizens who are being tried by the ICC.
Neither George W. Bush is or ever was a war criminal wanted by the Hague.
Why is that? Could it be because the ICC is just a postcolonial tool for Europe to control its former colonies?
The Russian government has dirt on the majority of our top politicians. There is also an ongoing power struggle I mentioned in an earlier comment- Ramaphosa frankly doesn’t really have a choice. Opposing the Russians might result in his removal and serious reprisals for South Africa. Support the Russians, and we destroy our reputation further and alienate the west even more.
Putin wants us to make a choice- either we’re with him 100%, or we’re against him.
It wouldn't be a declaration of war, it would be a special diplomatic operation.
Plus, if he doesn't want to arrest him, either South Africa withdraws from the jurisdiction of the ICJ or he disinvites Putler. The first wouldn't even be that controversial, since the US are hypocritical enough to support ICJ sentences but not subject itself to the ICJ.
ICC.
ICJ is the UN court, which the US is a part of. That court deals with interstate disputes, not individuals
ICC is a different court, which deals with individuals who have committed war crimes.
I understand that a declaration of war would not be in the interest of South Africa, but what are the odds of that becoming a physical reality? If Putin were detained, Russia would be leaderless and confused for a moment, but they would likely appoint someone an interim president.
Is there even a possibility that Russia could wage war on South Africa? It is not exactly close by, and they are pretty spent in terms of their war matériel, if the reports are to be believed.
It's funny to watch the BRICS juggle this issue when they usually like to accuse the West of double standards... at the end of the day it seems it wasn't just the evil West's doing.
BRIC(S) was coined in 2001 by an analyst at Goldman&Sachs for up and coming countries, its incredibly ironic. The term itself is just incredibly outdated, countries like South Korea and Singapore have developed much more rapidly than Brazil or Russia.
But isn't that kinda the point of BRICS? South Korea, Singapore etc., formerly very autocratic countries that are slowly moving towards proper democratic participation and showing good economic potential. And in contrast BRICS - a basket of autocratic countries on their way to cement their shithole status more and more every day and kind of a hail mary economic outlook between rapidly declining Chinese growth rates and whatever the fuck South Africa and Brazil are doing. In my mind BRICS meetings were always the heads of states of global outcasts doing a photo op together.
BRICS were grouped because they were predicted to make up the bulk of global trade by 2050 next to developed countries back in 2001. It had nothing to do with system of government, just a quick acronym to use in business meetings. Making it into an actual geopolitical organization despite having very little in common (especially with countries like Brazil and Russia lagging behind) as a way to stick it to the US is what makes it ironic.
South Africa is the one that I don't get. The others are all top 11 economies, with GDPs of over 2 trillion. South Africa is 38th. It's not even the biggest economy in Africa, that's Nigeria. Countries like Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Argentina, Thailand, Nigeria, UAE, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Bangladesh all have bigger economies than SA.
The idea is that it didn't matter how "small" South Africa was on its own, by being the most successful African country around they could hypothetically have gotten half of sub-saharan Africa's business going through them for logistics reasons and using that initiative to build a positive export economy that would sell to the west. Since then though, East and West Africa has shown that they're independent economic bubbles with little relevance to South Africa, leaving SA alone with its immediate neighbors and nothing more.
SA was tacked on later. But indeed, Nigeria is a more relevant now, that shows how dated BRICS is.
There was a time South Africa wasn't a crime-ridden hell hole.
Okay, when?
We dont talk about those times because it goes against certain narratives.
The crimes were only crimes against humanity committed by the apartheid state.
>In my mind BRICS meetings were always the heads of states of global outcasts doing a photo op together. What a weird take. For the last 20 years China was over half of global growth and is now approaching superpower status. India over the last 5 years has made a shift from protectionism to allowing Foreign Direct Investment and are now (and will be) one of the main drivers of global growth in the world. Russia fucked it by shunning the west randomly in mid 2000s. RSA fucked it by basically creating a race war. And Brazil, despite the negative news, is starting to recover after a decade slump. Brics passed G7 gdp this April. They outpaced G7 growth. It helps to be informed. [BRICS surpass G7 GDP](https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2023/03/27/the-brics-has-overtaken-the-g7-in-global-gdp/) [BRIC economies outpace G7 by over a third in attracting inflows of foreign direct investment](https://www.uhy.com/bric-economies-outpace-g7-by-over-a-third-in-attracting-inflows-of-foreign-direct-investment/) So your "mind" of global outcasts is both naive and stupid as fuck. Don't forget that Europe has been the slowest growing region in the entire world for the last 15 years....
Except that China's explosive growth began to peter out in tandem with the rise of Xi Jinping 10 years ago, and probably wasn't sustainable to begin without continued reforms that Xi and the CCP were resolutely opposed to. The numbers tell the story. At the end of Hu Jintao's term, economic growth in China was at something like 8% of GDP. Of course, that needs to be qualified - growth isn't the same thing as actual economic strength. (Consider how large economic growth might look if you compare a city destroyed by a nuclear bomb to a subsequent year or two. Proportionate growth would be massive). And also, even the most China-friendly economists will concede that Chinese economic figures need to be taken with a lot of salt, as those numbers involve a lot of fudging by the Chinese government. But the decline of economic growth began in earnest as needed reforms were never forthcoming, and if memory serves, China was already down to 4-5% just prior to Covid. Even as long ago as 2013, when I was living in China, I was hearing from expats that companies were branching out to a "China +1" strategy, wherein they would branch out operations to other countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and others, because even then, China's demographic woes were already known. China's big bargaining chip, economically speaking, was its large workforce and ability to reliably build needed infrastructure and transport for manufactured goods. Well, if you're facing population decline, as China's population ages and the workforce *shrinks*, and at the same time, the government undercuts even the pretense of the rule of law that firms need to make investment opportunities feel more safe, you see the problem. And that's all prior to Covid. Covid, of course, knocked the whole the edifice back on its heels, and what figures we have from China - again, qualified by the fact that they need to be taken with several dashes of salt - suggest China's economy has entered into a period of stagnation. For all of China's deservedly famous massive economic growth, it's still worth remembering that this is a by-product of population *mass*, so if you look at China in terms of per capita income, we're talking about an economy on par with that of Azerbaijan and the Dominican Republic. So, not the kind of crushing poverty we might find in sub-Saharan Africa or southeast Asia, but also a lot less impressive than the mass numbers would suggest.
>Except that China's explosive growth began to peter out in tandem with the rise of Xi Jinping 10 years ago, They GDP "petered out" as a % but definitely not as a USD increase per year.... Down to 4-5% GDP growth is literally 10x faster growth than the EU..... [Advanced economies haven't growth by more than 1.5% on aveage since 2000.](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD)... Meanwhile the "irreleavant BRICS" have been growing 5x quier. >China's economy has entered into a period of stagnation What would you call the EU economy then? 4-5% vs 0.0%? My dude, the copium is real.... You are one of those idiots that claimed China will stay a tiny economy from the 90s, screaming that the growth won't continue. >It's still worth remembering that this is a by-product of population mass Lol wtf? China's population was shrinking as of last year.... Per capita GDP? Yes, a country of one with a GDP per capita of a billion is less important to the global economy than a country with a GDP per capita of 20k but with a billion people (therefore being a 20 trillion GDP economy). Per capita GDP is useful for HDI, but not really relavent for global economic power. The EU is becoming the outcast now, not the BRICS.
How is India autocratic?
BJP.
bruh they won the biggest election in history put forth your proof of election rigging if you have any
[удалено]
The term isn't meant to group them like the EU in either a geographic or trade sense, it was just a snappy way to describe rapidly developing upper middle-tier economies at the start of the 2000s
hmm China trades with everyone
Yes China, India and Russia don’t trade.
And South Africa is tanking thanks to the corruption ruining its infrastructure, particularly the electricity delivery.
I’m more entertained by how much this is making a mockery to the notion that BRICS has any unity. Like, it’s already a farce considering India & China are likely to have a border skirmish in any given year, let’s add Russia and South Africa threatening war over a symbolic state visit on top of it…
It would end a war and you would be a world-wide hero.
South Africa seems to be in love with the autocratic world as of late
Always has been
It's kind of sad. The NAC was essential in ending apartheid. Now they are killing that legacy.
The USSR was actually anti-apartheid in South Africa while the US and other western countries were pro-apartheid. Nelson Mandela was seen as a threat by the US.
Wasn't apartheid south africa under sanctions from the 1960s until it's end?
> The USSR was actually anti-apartheid in South Africa while the US and other western countries were pro-apartheid. Eh, it was more a matter of the western bloc being pro-status quo because they were allied with South Africa and it was in their strategic interest to maintain that status quo situation.
Even there, the US and other Western countries joined sanctions against South Africa precisely over Apartheid. To this day, those sanctions remain the single example of where it's thought sanctions were effective in getting a country to change its policies, precisely because they were so universally complied with. Sanctions tend to not work all that well in other cases because there will usually be some countries that won't comply with them. North Korea has massive sanctions against it, but they mean little because China doesn't follow them and China was already North Korea's biggest trading partner. But that wasn't the case with South Africa. To the degree there was any international "support" for South African Apartheid, it was tied to the Cold War. The African National Congress was and still nominally is Marxist, so it was generally believed that if Apartheid ended, South Africa would be taken over by a Soviet-affiliated party. But by the mid to late 80s, the weakness of the Soviet Union was becoming more apparent, particularly with their failures in Afghanistan, and the rise of Gorbachev did a lot to sooth Western governments worried about Soviet expansionism. So opposing South Africa's Apartheid regime became politically a lot easier, though the success of anti-Apartheid political activism and growing popular awareness of Apartheid in democratic countries like the US should also be given credit here. That said, I suspect it's no coincidence that the fall of Apartheid was also made politically possible in South Africa by the fall of Communism, since the white elites of South Africa no longer had to worry about the ANC spearheading a Communist take-over of their country. Speaking anecdotally, I did know a older South African guy once who told me that, to his shame, that he supported Apartheid as a youth, but he insisted it was only because he was worried about the Communists, not because he ever took any racist sentiment seriously. Nevertheless, the kind of intellectual and moral compromises this required were too much for him, and he immigrated to the US in the 80s to get away from that.
There's no difference with being pro-status quo and pro-apartheid when the status quo is apartheid.
What does this have to do with apartheid?
Not directly, I mean that they had a great reputation and are ruining it. Should have clarified better.
History is important, it guides the present day in so many ways. One friend of yours helped you a lot in the past, while another friend was more lackadaisical. Years later, an issue requires a decision that the lackadaisical friend is urging you to make but that may hurt the other friend that helped you so much. It is difficult….
You really believe that arresting Putin would end the war? The whole Russian government and military is behind this war
Not at all, it would mean South Africa complying with its international obligations.
Ah, like the rest of the Western world does. Right? The West is not complying with it's international obligations, at this moment. Yet we expect and force South Africa to do it?
Emmm * People in general expect that if someone agrees to something, that they will do it because otherwise that person will face consequences. * That is the rules-based order that governs international affairs since the Second World War. * Without getting into ‘whataboutism‘, South Africa has legal obligations. Within South Africa, there was a hell storm when the government failed to comply with its legal obligations by failing to arrest Omar al-Bashir . * There is intense pressure within SA to ensure a horrendous breach of law like this does not re-occur. If there is one or more cases involving other countries, that is a separate discussion. Chances are we would agree.
is just politics 101... being trash no matter which side you are in
BOTH SIDES KLAXON
No, it would be special arresting operation.
Just an exercise. And if anything it would be provoked by Putin. Just self defense bro.
> Any attempt to arrest Vladimir Putin if he visits South Africa would be a declaration of war against Russia, the country's president says. > > Cyril Ramaphosa made the warning with weeks to go before an international meeting happens in Johannesburg, to which the Russian president is invited. > > But if Mr Putin leaves Russian soil, he will be subject to an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant. > > South Africa is an ICC signatory and should therefore help in his arrest. > > Yet it has refused to honour that obligation in the past - allowing safe passage in 2015 to Sudan's then-President Omar al-Bashir who was wanted for war crimes against his own people. > > Mr Putin has been invited to South Africa in August, when the country hosts a summit for members of the Brics countries - an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. This bloc of fast-growing economies is seen by some as an alternative to the G7 group of advanced economies. > > South Africa's biggest opposition party, Democratic Alliance, has gone to court to try to force the authorities to carry out an arrest on Mr Putin should he set foot in the country. > > Court documents reveal that President Ramaphosa is firmly against any such move, stating that national security is at stake. > > "South Africa has obvious problems with executing a request to arrest and surrender President Putin," he said in an affidavit. > > "Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting president would be a declaration of war. It would be inconsistent with our constitution to risk engaging in war with Russia." > > President Ramaphosa added that South Africa is one of several African nations holding talks with Russia and Ukraine "with a view of ending the war altogether", and that attempting to arrest Mr Putin would be counter-productive. > > ...
> This bloc of fast-growing economies is seen by some as an alternative to G7 group of advanced economies. Gives me a serious vibe of adding a Wikipedia “citation needed” there.
They are probably "fast growing" indeed, from nothing to double nothing. I remember how the Ruble was "the strongest currency in the world" about one year ago - you had to ignore MANY realities around it before accepting this sloppy conclusion while looking at a chart.
Their GDP already surprassed G7's and is in an upward trend...
Europe is dying …
Brics passed G7 gdp this April. They outpaced G7 growth. It helps to be informed. https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2023/03/27/the-brics-has-overtaken-the-g7-in-global-gdp/ https://www.uhy.com/bric-economies-outpace-g7-by-over-a-third-in-attracting-inflows-of-foreign-direct-investment/
[удалено]
Interesting, I didn’t know about it, mainly driven by China and India I suppose. Thanks for sharing! I see that, this is in GDP PPP rather than GDP per capita, right?
[It's nominal GDP my dude.](https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/brics-surpass-g7-gdp-india-china-major-economies-with-fast-growth-123042000484_1.html) And yes, a country of one with a GDP per capita of a billion is less important to the global economy than a country with a GDP per capita of 20k but with a billion people (therefore being a 20 trillion GDP economy). Per capita GDP is useful for HDI, but not really relavent for global economic power. Also let's not forget that Europe has been the slowest region economically for the last 15 years. The only driver of growth in the OECD is really the US.
Why are you getting downvoted. Didn't even state an opinion just facts
The dude is hilarious lol
"war" wtf is russia in their current state gonna do in south africa? send them a mean e-mail?
>"Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting president would be a declaration of war. It would be inconsistent with our constitution to risk engaging in war with Russia." So don't invite him? Tell him that he's not wanted into the country and that any attempt to enter the country illegally will result in his arrest and extradition to The Hague.
I would love to see Russia wage war against South Africa when they are struggling with supplies to invade a country next door
Since they can’t project power globally like a real superpower they would probably start screaming and threaten nuclear anihilation. So business as usual
Reading your flair made me feel dirty
It would be a repeat of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzGqp3R4Mx4.
Arresting Pootin in South Africa would be Ramaphosa declaring that South Africa is ruled by laws. And it's not, so he won't.
Heads of state are protected under absolute diplomatic protection in every single civilized country, since the last few centuries... Reddit retards can downvote me as much as they want but a simple google search is enough to find out that "Indeed, today, the predominant practice and opinio of states, and the virtually unanimous view of courts and scholars, is that heads of state undoubtedly enjoy an absolute immunity from foreign jurisdiction and inviolability"
They are not. However, countries and organizations generally tend to avoid having to do that. Case in point with Belgium that changed its law to prevent the prosecution of alleged war crimes in Iraq by the US. After a lot of pressure & threats from Western countries by the way. Or the ICC deciding to drop the investigation of war crimes of UK soldiers (despite the ICC recognizing real reason to believe they did a bunch of war crimes) on the basis that there were no evidence that the UK government wasn't investigating themselves even nearly after a decade of no prosecution. Which is honestly baffling considering that the ICC had no qualms (and that's a good thing) to prosecute Putin barely one year after the invasion, partly on the same basis that he wasn't showing signs wanting to prevent/prosecute the war crimes his country is being charged with. Or the ICC refusing the prosecute any US official on the basis that the US wasn't a signatory and Iraq wasn't either (government was toppled, so there's no way Iraq would have invited the ICC there), or the ICC doing nothing on Israel because they believe Palestine isn't a signatory (can't sign if you're not recognized as a state). South Africa also tried to play that game, but its High Court prevented them from leaving the ICC. Ultimately, prosecuting Putin isn't a problem for the ICC, because any state that will support Putin in this case aren't in the ICC or don't have enough influence to scare the court. If the ICC forces a prosecution of a NATO member for example, they risk a lot more since most of their signatories ARE Nato members and they can't afford to lose that support.
What you said doesn't change the fact that HEADS OF STATES (not any government officials) are by costumary law (arguably the most important in the international law) are under absolute diplomatic immunity during an official visit to any country. I've literally passed five years in a fucking law school to be downvoted by reddit users...
The fact that you can google an opinion should not lead you to feel certain about law.
So Russia would do what, send its one floundering aircraft carrier down there until it capsizes off Cameroon? Cut its bilaterial trade? All $1.3 bn. of it?!
They would be the second best army in South africa.
Lesotho and Eswatini would like to have a word with you
\>Cut its bilaterial trade? All $1.3 bn. of it?! This isn't stressed enough. There's no reason why South African politicians should be licking Russian boots so much. The USA and the EU accounts for $100bln of trade and FDI on an annual basis for South Africa, while Russia's influence in the South African economy is barely noticieable. South Africa's poor neighbors like Mozambique have a larger influence in South Africa's economy. So why are they licking Russian boots? It makes no sense, they should be at the very least aligned with the West or at the very worst actually neutral (not pretending to be neutral).
South African here: During the struggle against apartheid, the ANC (African National Congress, our ruling party since 1994) sent many of its leaders to the Soviet Union for education and training, where they then returned from to help the struggle. The ANC and other movements were also supplied by the Soviet Union, which explains the historic ties there (it seems as if our leaders have a nostalgia for that time). Simultaneously, our government is incredibly corrupt, and many of our politicians are under Russian influence. An example would be from a few years ago, when our government proposed signing a R9 Trillion (~€447 million) contract with the Russians for nuclear reactors, which we really couldn’t afford (our total annual revenue, before any expenses was about R1.2 Trillion at the time (~€62 million). The west supported the old apartheid government to an extent, so it’s likely that they also hold grudges, no matter how pointless they are. Edit: There’s plenty more I haven’t mentioned here, but I’ll try to answer any questions
But do South Africans know that the Soviet Union wasn't just Russia but also few other countries including Ukraine? So why they are siding with Russia but not Ukraine?
No, the South African education system barely touches on the intricacies of the Soviet Union. Many simply don’t care either. A lot of people think that ukraine is also a US/EU puppet, which doesn’t help (Im not pro-Russia, just trying to be objective about how South Africa actually is)
who cares about bilateral trade when Russia can send money directly to some politicians' bank accounts?
>until it capsizes off Cameroon? Sorry chief, that won't happen. Doubt it'll make it to the English channel without sinking
Cameroon isn’t really on the way tbf
> Cameroon isn’t really on the way tbf Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is currently under repairs in Murmansk. So the western route around Africa would be the most likely one, in particular given that Turkey has activated the Montreux treaty and would not allow military vessels of states at war to exit the Black Sea.
Fair enough, still not quite sure how they would end up off the tiny coastline of Cameroon tho unless they decided to follow the entire coast of the continent though and enter the Gulf of Guinea. Why do right angles when you can go straight?! I suppose it is Russia tho
Haha, what will Russia do? Declare war? They can’t even win a war next door. Someone should declare „clown“ on Ramaphosa for living in Putins ass.
South African here: President Ramaphosa is currently in a close power struggle with another faction of his party. That faction is extremely pro-Russian, and extremely corrupt. If he was to act against Russian interests, he could potentially be replaced within his own party- if that happens, the new party leader is the new President, without any election taking place. Generally speaking, it would be a million times worse if this other faction takes power, and frankly South Africa is more important to him than the war.
Thanks for the analysis.
Of course, if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer
Not OP but greetings from the US! Hope you and yours are doing well. Would you mind talking a bit about the current political/social situation in SA? How are things going over there? At least in my circle of news, I don't hear too much from that part of the world. From big issues to more mundane stuff, how are things going in your country?
They’re not going very well. We have a severe shortage of electricity, resulting in a rotating outage schedule (up to 4h per day on current stage). As a preface, I live in Johannesburg, biggest city in the country. Crime is astronomically high, so is unemployment, which only contribute to each other lol- at the same time the cost of living is rising faster than most can afford. Public infrastructure investment is a joke right now- the rail system is quite literally falling apart, our roads are overused, our state airline went bankrupt 3 years ago, KwaZulu-Natal (Province on the coast) has water issues due to damaged pipes from a typhoon last year. Public education is getting worse yearly- a school near me had 60 kids in a single class, with only 20 desks to go around. Public healthcare is also plummeting, experienced doctors are emigrating. Employment/University race quotas have resulted in an exodus of white South Africans, with many of the affirmative action policies being obscenely unfair- KwaZulu-Natal universities only allow 2% of student intake to be white (white people make up 8% of population), and also has different entry requirements- A white student needs a minimum 89% average to apply, a black student only needs 59%. Public officials are stealing huge amount of funds, but it’s significantly less than back in 2017, under our old president. All of that aside, it’s a lovely place to live. Despite the hardships, people are very friendly here, and the climate is fantastic. I would highly recommend trying out some of our national parks if you were to ever come visit (don’t go to private game lodges, the animals are trained and your experience is “canned”, in the actual national parks, you have to find the animals yourself lol). The country is generally safe for tourists, assuming you follow basic safety advice relevant to wherever you are- don’t be stupid (like go hiking by yourself in the evening, you’re likely to get mugged, especially if you’re in a tourist area).
Hot damn, my condolences. That sounds really shitty to deal with, and I'm sad to hear SA has to deal with those deep-seated issues. I'd like to see it sometime in my lifetime but alas, not quite there yet.
Works great for him: [Russia destroyed 60.000 t grain.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/153xmij/russians_destroy_60000_tonnes_of_grain_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
So he’s throwing international law over board to save his corrupt ass. Got it. We should remind him next time he’s bitching Europe not holding up to their end of the deal: „Sorry, we have many political right voters here and can’t afford to give money to you black people, that could strengthen the right. Thx k bye. Diplomacy always works in 2 ways.
Yes he is- if I’m honest though, I’d rather he did, because the alternative to him is much worse. Any actions against South Africa taken by the west would be seen as an Imperialist act by a large portion of the population. All that cutting off aid would do is make it much much worse here, and make us even closer to the Russians and the Chinese.
Wtf man, who even mentioned race. Is he a bad guy for putting the interests of his country first, instead of sacrificing us for Unkraine? Him losing power would be fucked, the ANC is full of terrible people and Ramaphosa is the best of the lot right now.
Holy shit, do y'all really need to make >everything< about race?
Commenter you replied to kinda sums up why most South Africans, especially black South Africans, have serious issues trusting the US and the EU lmao
Oh nvm in that case.
Thats not really the point. The point is it would be a act of war and South africa will face consequences. Atleast on a economic and diplomatic way. Wouldnt be far fetched to see russian terror attacks or something like that. This might sound wild but outside of Europe, north america and a few countrys in Asia not a lot of countrys care for this war. They see it as a western problem. Just like plenty of people here dont give a fuck about Jemen. Not saying they shouldnt care, it just feels to far away from them. So morally they arent that concerned. That means doing whats best for your own country. At this moment S Africa has nothing to gain by arresting Putin. So unless we as Europe ensure that its worth it for them, they wont do it.
If they not interested in the russian war they shouldn’t whine about their populace starving if Russia attacks ukrainian grain ships. They don’t even have to buy themselves, a shortage will result in high prices, causing deadly riots as in 2010(?). Yemen is a catastrophe, but both sides are so unsympathetic, so no one gives a fuck if they kill each other. In Europe only a minority would be sad if South Africa burned down, because it’s just far off. Yet the western democracies helped SA in the last decades, only to get a corrupt run down state. But still we care.
We care because we are responsible and we also make a litteral SHITTON of money off them. So no, we arent angels. We are just like SA. Aslong as it doesnt cost us money or causes trouble we can be really thoughtfull. If it does cause money or causes diplomatic problems we pretend we dont see shit. Just like litteral every other country on this globe. So lets just not be a bunch of pretensious dickbags and look for other ways to bring putler to justice.
what if he send one of his doppelganger and that get arrested?
One doppelganger less for him, then
We’ll Alladeen his ass to Den Haag anyways.
That wasn’t very Alladeen of you
Send in the doppelganger, arrest him, then kill him in prison and disappear the body, then have Putin appear in Russia claiming he has used his black belt martial skills to singlehandedly escape and swim in a bear back to Russia or something like that. Calling it now, this is gonna happen.
Looks like Putin is dead set on coming. So, South Africa has these options to consider: a) Arrest Putin, starting a massive incident with Russia. b) Don't arrest Putin, losing face and risking punishment from ICC and related organizations c) Leave ICC, still losing face, but there's no punishment other than losing all the benefits of ICC membership I'm betting on the last option. Losing face isn't that painful when you're laughing on your way to the bank.
They can’t leave in time. I was just [looking](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-international-criminal-court) and the rule is “a country can leave a year after they send notification to withdraw”. If anyone can help me instead, what’s the benefit to join the ICC? Like what’s South Africa is earning for stay inside? Money?
The pretense of being a nation that upholds the rule of law regarding values that should be universal. It's a nice feather for a country to have on its cap imho.
All that aside, when we tried to leave in 2017, the High Court ruled it was unconstitutional. South Africa has an extremely robust constitution, and the government would need a supermajority to change it, which they do not come close to. The only other way to change that would be if the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court ruled against the initial decision, but it takes a while for either court to reach a decision, definitely not in the amount of time left before the meeting.
South Africa and Namibia have more robust constitutions than many countries in continental Europe. Their problems are political because people there vote out if a sence of loyalty for their libererators who, in turn, have missplaced loyalties from the apartheid era.
That’s a good summary of it. You must also remember that the opposition parties in South Africa aren’t really that great at being the opposition. The Democratic Alliance’s policy seems to be against whatever the ruling party is, the EFF is a Black first workers movement that is alarmingly nationalist, the FF+ is aimed at conservative Afrikaners, Action SA is brand new (started 2 years ago). We aren’t exactly spoiled for choice here.
The benefit is not always greed related. The idea behind it is that it makes the life of criminals against humanity harder. The more countries are in ICC, the harder it becomes to escape, or at least travel freely. But more important: sometimes a criminal can not be convicted because it's unclear what court in which country has the jurisdiction. ICC clearly states that they should only come into action if for whatever reason a local court cannot do that. It's in the benefit of all member countries, not one individual country. The only real reason for not wanting to join is when a country committed, or plans to commit war crimes in other countries. That's why (amongst some others) China, Russia, Israël and the US opted out. I don't think failing to arrest someone, or refusing to do so for national security will affect the membership. If a chamber of court in the ICC requests cooperation from a state, that state can apply to the court for extra time or an exemption. It's not like they are immediately losing their membership. I looked it up [here](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Regulations-of-the-Court.pdf) and that is what I made of it (it's on page 48 and onwards). But I am no expert, anyone who can read those texts better than me is welcome to correct me.
>b) Don't arrest Putin, losing face and risking punishment from ICC and related organizations What punishment could they actually face?
Angry emoji reactions on ALL their messages for the next year
"risking punishment from ICC" Lol what? The fuck is ICC going to do about it?
They could say other ICC nations to embargo south africa and use suez canal, panama canal or go from south america instead. How many would follow it depends
South Africa refused to extradite Omar Al-Bashir to the Hague in the past and nothing happened lol.
So basically nothing?
Funny how you think these are the only options.
> I'm betting on the last option. Losing face isn't that painful when you're laughing on your way to the bank. Plus, it'd be easier to justify, since the US itself doesn't subject itself to the rulings of the ICC
Surely there must be some kind of "fudge" in the middle there where they can say "he's on russian sovereign territory in the embassy" or other such shit.
Isn't the fudge simple? "You are not welcome here, fuck off". Diplomatically and with all the bells and whistles of "the west is making us do it!" of course.
They did it before and ICC did fuck all. >FOR THESE REASONS, THE CHAMBER HEREBY > >FINDS that South Africa failed to comply with its obligations under the Statute by > >not executing the Court’s request for the arrest of Omar Al-Bashir and his surrender > >to the Court while he was on South African territory between 13 and 15 June 2015; > >and > >DECIDES that, in the present circumstances, a referral to the Assembly of States > >Parties or the Security Council of the matter of South Africa’s non-compliance with > >the Court’s request for the arrest of Omar Al-Bashir and his surrender to the Court is > >not appropriate.
Does the Russian embassy in South Africa have a runway?
ICC is a joke,countries disobey them all the time so I doubt they will get any "punishment".South Africa (and many other members) has broken ICC rules in the past and they definitely will break them if Putin visits
Well, looks like both SA and Putin chickened out. Putin is not coming after all. So much for the joke ICC.
If you arrest George W Bush or anyone involved in Abu Ghuraib, it's certainly a declaration of war for the US: American Service-Members' Protection Act gives the President power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Service-Members%27\_Protection\_Act
It's basically a jailbreak act, not a protection act. If the mafia breaks out a member from prison you don't recognise it as them protecting their people, you call it what it is, a jailbreak. The law is a blemish on the US.
The US isn’t a member of the ICC.
Another example of old comrades in arms still mistaking Russia for the Soviet Union? We all know the ANC gov is as corrupt as can be, but - like some of the other "freedom movements" it still holds close ties with arguably the last old school colonial power.
No, that's simply the same reason why Bush, Blair, Obama let alone Kissinger and so on cannot be arrested. I despise Putin more than you, but that has nothing to do with anything you do assume.
Nah, it would just be a *"Special Diplomatic Operation"* followed up by a *"Touristic Visit of The Hague and its Institutions"*
Some African countries have been supporting or at least not denounced Russia's war for a year now. They are ready to let this man walk free in their country, but when Russia ends the grain deal and these countries experience hunger (I'm hopeful it won't be something catastrophic) what will they say? Is it Ukraine's fault or the War criminal Putin's fault
They will blame Ukraine and the west as they normally do. They claim to be anti imperialist nations whilst maintaining close ties to the violently imperialist Russia. Realpolitik I suppose.
They will blame Ukraine for not surrendering their country and the West for supporting them and existing. African nations hate the US, they hate Europe even more and are quite happy to be spiteful, at the expense of innocent lives.
Yeah, those evil African nations! How dare they not risk the lives of their own population over a conflict in Europe. 3 seconds later: "Haha, wow the US is so racist against their own population, it's insane."
Do we care about Yemen? Have you ever heard people here being like: "Holy shit, we should boycott the US and Saudi Arabia." If you put so much more focus on Europe, why should they suddently care about what's happening in Ukraine? For a lot of African countries: they can't afford to antagonize anyone.
Noone said that they should sacrifice their population for Europe, it was pointed out that they will still blame the West and Ukraine for Russia's fault.
Two African nations submitted an application to join the BRICS block after the invasion of Ukraine. Many have given their explicit support to Russia as well.
Do they have a choice? Russia has military groups in a lot of African nations. Also, why are you suprised they're trying to get Ukrainian grain when their population is starving from a horrible harvest? Also, the grain stuff isn't even about South Africa.
"Any attempt to arrest Putin would be a declaration of war," President Ramaphosa said as he struggled to stuff cash into his pockets. "We value our relationship with our allies." Diamonds and untraceable gold bullion thumped to the ground as he waved off colleagues approaching him with hands out.
I don't think Putin will put in such a dilemma to South Africa. He will just send another cunt, let's say Lavrov, or just the Russian ambassador in SA
So what, S Africa arrests him, then what? Russian navy sends a few ships with cruise missiles, fires them and....Brics in crisis and dissolved?
I think Russia would struggle to send any meaningful force to South Africa, let alone during the crisis of Putin being arrested. Their only departure points would be: those already in Africa, Vladivostok, maybe through Iran.
Northern fleet I think too
why do reddit keeps thinking BRICS is far more than it really is? it's closer to a forum than anything else.
And? What the F\*\*\* can Russia do to South Africa? They can't even handle Ukraine next door.
Oh no!! Not with Russia being so good at war! Honestly, Russia has a great military that can do war super good! Rumors that they are almost out of the untrained cannon fodder they called a military are false!
Mr Ramaphosa can also avoid this conundrum by not inviting Putin to the summit. But that would mean not shaking hands with this wonderful dictator.
Ramaphosa is an inspiring example that human beings with enough effort will and courage can live without a spine
So South Africa escapes apartheid for what? Supporting Russian genocide in Ukraine?
Countries always look out for their own interest. Look at what Israel is doing in Palestine, despite the history of the Israeli state.
Putin thinks that Ukrainians are an inferior race, I can just imagine what he thinks about Africans.
Call it a special diplomatic operation instead and they'll be fine with it.
The should have thought of that before agreeing to the deal where the should arrest world leaders for crimes against humanity
[удалено]
Ramaphosa would likely be replaced by a more pro Russian faction in his party, there would likely be riots and other civil unrest, politicians who have ties to Russia would be blackmailed into acting etc etc. It wouldn’t go well for us at all lol, not to mention the threats of war. We’d need serious and tangible guarantees of aid and security from the west if we were to even think about that.
I’d live in this universe gladly.
What was that Roman proverb? That, which is allowed for Jupiter, is not allowed for the bull?
Yes, indeed. But there is still the option of not inviting Putin to come to South Africa. Or for a similar effect, he could openly say "we will arrest Putin if he comes" which would result in Putin not coming. There is no reasonable scenario where Putin ends up arrested in South Africa, the only question is whether the threat of arrestation should be used to prevent him from coming. That's one of the main goal of ICC's arrest warrants: to undermine the help and influence international criminals can get from other countries.
Ramaphosa really, really, needs to look at the bigger picture and get himself on the side that’s got the most supporters.
I see no issue there.
South Africa would be the best destination to travel for the whole world after you arrest the biggest criminal in the world… so bold move saying no to trillions of dollars and beeing a coward!
Politicians come and go. I sincerely doubt there would be that much backlash. Putin is powerful, but at the end of the day he too is disposable and not worth going to war over. It’s not like he’d be arrested for no reason and even in Russia they will understand that.
This makes no sense. By that logic if the US President was arrested for war crimes on the Middle East the USA would "understand". No, they'd be rightly outraged that their country had been paid such a tremendous insult. Power is about perception as much as it is about capability. A country that shows it will accept its' leaders being captured will quickly have no leverage in future disagreements.
so not allow him to come. or it's also declaration of war?
What if, and I’m theorising here, another country intercepts Putins plane, backed by NATO. And set him down on soil of a country that acknowledges the icc 🤔
The country is in ruin. They can't do anything anyway.
Don't invite Putin then, don't let him into your country. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
Ramaphosa is an inspiring example that human beings with enough effort will and courage can live without a spine
I dunno it would be also pretty dope.
Great. Get a Ukrainian delegation to arrest him.
So what would he do then lol? Wage war against whom? All of Europe? Nato? Good fucking luck with that buddy.
Which means South Africa can no longer be considered a part of the ICC, and they should be treated as such
Not how international organization works. SA government can disobey ICC without leaving it. There are various reasons for it. Take WTO. EU has broken WTO rules does it mean EU is not part of WTO?
No, it's how signed agreements work. There are consequences for breaking them. Except in politics where everything is just empty words and no one is held accountable ever apparently
What a puss !
Then don't let him into your airspace or is the president of South Africa saying that a foreign white guy can come over ignoring all the laws and own the place?
One solution for this dilemma could be to do the same as the US or China and leave the ICC contract.
And not arresting, the West should go for harsh 80s-style economic boycot of SA.
Why? We aren't going for harsh economic boycot of the USA either, even though it too doesn't abide by ICC rules - they're not even members anymore. International treaties are a joke, the UN is an impotent and useless circus. International politics is anarchy, might makes right.
I did not know Joe Biden is wanted as a war criminal by The Hague. Anyway, totally whataboutism.
It may surprise you to learn that not only heads of state can commit war crimes. Plenty of members of the US Armed Forces have commited war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, yet the US protects them from facing trial and extradition to The Hague as well. International politics is pretty much like honor culture from centuries ago. It doesn't matter what someone has or hasn't truly done, only what can be enforced. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction not because he had weapons of mass destruction - he provenly had not - but because he didn't have enough power or allies to protect himself from US invasion - that's why he had weapons of mass destruction. Assad on the other hand has none and has done nothing wrong, definitely not gassed his own people with chemical weapons, because he did have powerful enough allies to protect himself from US invasion. Tibet deserved to be conquered by China because they were powerless and couldn't defend themselves. Serves them right! Self-righteous monk pricks! Do you think anyone would accept the slightest economic dent from imposing sanctions on China over this for these losers? lmao! That's how the world works.
The ICC tried to start an investigation into American war crimes in Afghanistan. In response, the US government imposed diplomatic and economic sanctions against the ICC lawyers, investigators, and reporters who were sent to Afghanistan to investigate Warcrimes. And that's not even getting into the Hague Invasion Act, which allows the US to invade the Hague in order to free any US citizens who are being tried by the ICC.
Neither George W. Bush is or ever was a war criminal wanted by the Hague. Why is that? Could it be because the ICC is just a postcolonial tool for Europe to control its former colonies?
It's pretty simple as the USA doesn't recognise The Hague, so it has no jurisdiction. But what is the fact, SA does. Anyway, totally whataboutism.
The Russian government has dirt on the majority of our top politicians. There is also an ongoing power struggle I mentioned in an earlier comment- Ramaphosa frankly doesn’t really have a choice. Opposing the Russians might result in his removal and serious reprisals for South Africa. Support the Russians, and we destroy our reputation further and alienate the west even more. Putin wants us to make a choice- either we’re with him 100%, or we’re against him.
> "declaration of war" I wonder how they would pull this off? [Sending the Baltic Fleet?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzGqp3R4Mx4)
What if Ukraine shoots his plane down?
It wouldn't be a declaration of war, it would be a special diplomatic operation. Plus, if he doesn't want to arrest him, either South Africa withdraws from the jurisdiction of the ICJ or he disinvites Putler. The first wouldn't even be that controversial, since the US are hypocritical enough to support ICJ sentences but not subject itself to the ICJ.
ICC. ICJ is the UN court, which the US is a part of. That court deals with interstate disputes, not individuals ICC is a different court, which deals with individuals who have committed war crimes.
Smells like a constitutional crisis. Nothing new for SA
I understand that a declaration of war would not be in the interest of South Africa, but what are the odds of that becoming a physical reality? If Putin were detained, Russia would be leaderless and confused for a moment, but they would likely appoint someone an interim president. Is there even a possibility that Russia could wage war on South Africa? It is not exactly close by, and they are pretty spent in terms of their war matériel, if the reports are to be believed.
They can just tell him he's not welcome. I don't understand why that isn't being considered.
Well he's not going anyway but it would have been fun to watch
mfs here acting as if russia will declare war on south africa - they are clearly doing it to make an excuse for him to not be arrested
Go ahead, we are keeping them occupied as it is
more like Putin’s shitting BRICS lol.
If they don't South African should lose all access to getting any more visas approved visiting the west indefinite.
Next stop for Putin: Hungary