Front Burner - Bonus | Nothing is Foreign: Why the Global South refuses to sanction Russia

Episode Date: April 9, 2022

If you're sitting in the West, listening to Western politicians, the Ukraine-Russia war has a pretty clear narrative: Russia is the aggressor and should be sanctioned to the fullest extent, in solidarity with Ukraine. But how does the rest of the world view this war? Much of the Global South and some of the most powerful nations in the world, like China, India and Brazil, don't see the war in black and white. They're refusing to sanction or officially condemn Russia over the invasion. Why aren't they taking a side and what does that mean for how this war can end? This week on Nothing is Foreign, we speak with two geopolitical experts on the tightrope these countries are walking and whether we're witnessing a reordering of power among the biggest players on the world stage. Featuring: Swapna Kona Nayudu, associate at the Harvard University Asia Center and Indian foreign policy expert. Chidochashe Nyere, post-doctoral research fellow at the Institute of Pan-African Thought and Conversation at the University of Johannesburg.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem, brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. So this week in Ukraine, we heard about the discovery of mass graves and reports of execution-style killings of civilians in the Kiev suburb of Bucha. And in the wake of that, the West has hit Russia with new sanctions to further isolate Putin's regime. But there are many countries that aren't joining this pressure campaign. In fact, from the beginning, much of the global south has refused to impose any sanctions on Russia. And we've seen this divide play out in the UN, too. condemn Russian aggression at the start of the war, 40 countries either voted against or abstained from condemning Russia, including China, many African countries, and the entire Indian subcontinent.

So why is that? What are we missing about the way this war is being viewed outside of the West? And what does this mean for the outcome of the war? This week's episode is going to sound a little different. It's a panel conversation on great power politics in the global South. And we're going to try to do something that's really important to us on this show, which is bring you non-Western perspectives, which we don't often hear from where we're sitting. I'm talking to two experts, Swapna Kona Nayudu. She's an associate professor at the Harvard

University Asia Center. She's based in Singapore, and she's an expert in Indian political thought and its foreign policy during the Cold War. And Chido Chachanieri. He's a professor at the Institute of Pan-African Thought and Conversation at the University of Johannesburg. I'm Tamara Kendacker, and you both so much for doing this. So to start off from where I'm sitting, the Russia-Ukraine war has been talked about as a conflict where there is a clear good guy and bad guy. So Russia is seen as the aggressor. It's invaded Ukraine unprovoked and it's being accused of all kinds of atrocities

in the way that it's fought this war. But I know that this is not a universally accepted narrative. And I wonder if each of you can tell me how this war is being talked about, where you are, and Chido, I'll start with you. So the war in Ukraine, the offensive by Russia, the way it has been perceived from my end, is really just one of those many wars. There are many wars that Africa is fighting.

There are many wars that South Africa is also fighting. Economic wars, information wars, military wars, hunger and poverty. To some degree, these are wars that are being fought by Africans in Africa and in other spaces. And so there is that indifference, if you like. And I want to get to that, but it's also interesting that South Africa's president, Ramaphosa, has blamed NATO. The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region. Which isn't a widely accepted perspective here. Is that a mainstream view in Africa, that the West had a role to play in bringing about this war? That's correct. I believe this is a widespread view,

not only in South Africa, but in other African countries. South Africa's position is also informed by history. Let's look at the recent history invasion of Libya by NATO forces at that time. South Africa, they voted for the resolution, which imposed the no-fly zone, and we know what happened. Right. For people who may not remember what happened, this is the U.S.-led NATO campaign to establish a no-fly zone in Libya in 2011, which really weakened the Gaddafi regime, ended with Gaddafi being killed and helped rebels there to victory and left the country very unstable as rival militias started fighting for power. And that history history you're saying is probably informing the South African perspective here. This is recent history. So the official position is that

South Africa is neutral on this war. In terms of saying that Russia is the aggressor here, we are very quiet on that. We are very silent on that. But here is the big thing. South Africa, in terms of its foreign policy, it prides itself in terms of privileging dialogue, diplomacy, and engagement. And so South Africa still says, and it is very adamant, that this conflict could really have been resolved via dialogue.

And they are just saying, let's go back to the negotiating table. And we saw on the 25th of March with the UN emergency meeting, South Africa saying, let's intervene in Ukraine on humanitarian grounds so that then it clears an opportunity for the warring parties to come to the negotiating table to discuss a way forward that is nonviolent and which does not condone war. Swapna, I just want to bring you in here. So you're based in Singapore, but you study India. You're originally from there. And how is the war being talked about in India? On the humanitarian aspect, I think Indian public opinion coverage of the war is broadly similar to that of Western countries

in the sense of being condemnatory of war per se, upholding the sovereignty of independent nations, bemoaning the loss of being condemnatory of war per se, upholding the sovereignty of independent nations, bemoaning the loss of life. On the other hand, the Indian view of the war also differs from Western coverage in what I would say is two distinct ways. First, and this resonates somewhat with what Chido just brought up, there is some comparison with ongoing and past conflicts in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, to point, you know, to some of the conflicts, to look at perceived hypocrisy of Western analysts, analysis and media in sort of condemning one war while overlooking many others, unless there is a loss of European or Western or white lives.

That's quite a strong view in India. Of course, this Indian diplomacy on the Russia-Ukraine crisis doesn't exist in a vacuum. Even at the UN, it has to sit well together with its position on various other conflicts around the world, including conflicts on its own border. Second, Indian coverage is different to Western coverage in that there is less discussion on sort of broad-sweep stereotypes, such as to do with the personality of Putin or Russian psychology, Russian warmongering or aggression. Do you think anyone can cut off Russia from planet Earth. It's not hyperbolic.

This is actually what the West is trying to do. And there's more emphasis on what can be done to bring this war to an end, which is no doubt an inheritance of India's experience of the Cold War, when it was non-aligned and often took on a mediatory role between Russia and other parties, including the West. So I think that there is a certain hesitation to paint, you know, to quote you, Russia is the bad guy. International politics is a game of survival. And if we see the situation from a realist view, India's stand is right. And I feel that instead of being defensive, India should openly support Russia.

And we have a long-standing trade relation. We buy our military aircrafts and all from Russia. We have this BrahMos missile joint venture with Russia. So I think it's a pretty good thing that we are pretty vocal about our support for Russia now. So that's how the war is being seen. But what are some of the more practical or strategic reasons behind India's decision not to condemn Russia or join the campaign of sanctions against Russia right now? So Indian policy, for instance, at the moment revolves, as it traditionally has, around first maintaining a sense of balance in the wider world order, but also second and quite importantly, defining its own national interests

while walking that tightrope between Russia and the West. India has also managed to maintain a close humanitarian relationship with Ukraine, sending large amounts of aid through Romania, etc., and has also had to evacuate Indian students in large numbers. So I don't think that in a sense it's fair to characterize Asian and African states that choose not to outrightly condemn Russia African states that choose not to outrightly condemn Russia as not participating in any way to mediate or mitigate this conflict. The other way to think about it is also to look at it in terms of geopolitics. As it was during the Cold War, when India was not aligned between the two blocs, India has a robust relationship with Russia, but it's also part of the Quad, which is short for a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which is a grouping between Australia, Japan, the US and India on matters

relating to the Indo-Pacific. So the Chinese have in fact called the Quad an Asian NATO. So India has so far been able to have its point of view understood by members of the Quad, as well as by Russia, which sort of appreciates India's hesitation to outrightly condemn its actions. But also the Western bloc who understand that India has its own geopolitical factors. One of those geopolitical factors is India's border issues with China. This is over several pieces of territory along the border between China and India and the Himalayas. There was a clash there between Chinese and Indian troops in 2020. 20 people died. And since then, there have been 15 rounds of talks between the two countries, but not much progress.

And India is looking at closer security cooperation with the U.S. through Quad. But right now, it gets around 85 percent of its weapons from Russia. India got submarines, aircraft carriers, rifles, all kind of military aid from the Soviet Union. That continues under Russia. Twenty-three percent of Russia's military export is to India. In recent weeks, India has also been buying discounted oil from Russia. Meanwhile, the Chinese government has also been towing a careful line on the war. And like with India, both Russia and the West are trying to get them on side. So far, China's avoided criticizing Russia or joining the sanctions campaign.

But rather than voting to condemn Russian aggression at the UN, it abstained. If this war were to bring Russia closer to China, that would imminently be dangerous for India, given its own border disputes. India cannot risk alienating Russia, losing that relationship to China. Neither would it want to antagonize the West. So it's important to realize that the independence of nations to behave in this sort of autonomous way in the international system doesn't in any way indicate their failure to respond to a crisis in an ethical or committed way. Chido, I wonder if you can do the same thing for South Africa's position on the war. What are some of the reasons why South Africa has taken the position that it's taken? Russia is perceived as an imperial state.

So too is the narrative from the US. They are all imperialists, so there is no better imperialism. So South Africa particularly is trying to protect itself. On many fronts, in terms of making such condemnation, if you make that sort of condemnation, it has to be followed up by action, right? And that kind of action, South Africa is not ready. They do not necessarily have the budgets for that. Secondly, they do not necessarily have the infrastructure and the structures to do that. So these are huge limitations on South Africa

for it to make such condemnatory statements where they know there is no way to follow up in terms of maybe imposing sanctions. But then again, that does not necessarily mean we all agree with what is going on. South Africa is really pushing for, and Africa, in in fact in terms of the African Union's position, is dialogue. Because as somebody was just saying in an earlier conference

today, where two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. And it's quite true. These big players when they fight amongst themselves, it has a very negative impact on small countries such as South Africa and Africa, if you like. Right. And one of the ways that this is being felt is the massive impact on food supply chains around the world. So Russia and Ukraine are big producers of wheat and fertilizer, and the war and the sanctions have caused issues with the supply chain and the prices of both of these things have gone up. So how is that playing into African countries' positions on this war? So the impacts are quite palpable. In terms of cooking oil, for instance, there are reports in South Africa that some

areas in South Africa, this has become a scarce resource and therefore it escalates the price. So too in Tunisia. So we saw in March, there were protests that resemble the Arab Spring protests in Tunisia. And at the core of those protests were the socioeconomic conditions. When Tunisians had their Arab Spring, they called for work, freedom, national dignity. Aspirations that, 10 years on, still feel so out of reach for many,

as they now watch the fate of their fragile democracy unfold. And if you draw parallels from what happened in 2010 at the Arab Spring protests in that country, basic food sources were at the center of those protests. We are seeing a return of that even here in South Africa. We are bracing ourselves for a fuel price hike. It impacts on transportation, it impacts on energy sources, it impacts on food itself. It is a crisis. Yes, it's in the geopolitical space of Europe, but it's beginning to affect

all of us. Swapna, is this a consideration in the South Asian context, the rising food and oil prices? Yes, absolutely. I think there's some forecasts for how in the coming months, from corn to edible oil, India will face shortages if the war goes on. But also, shortages if the war goes on. But also because India is primarily an agricultural country, poor availability of fertilizers seems to be another big issue that will be coming up, which may have an adverse impact on rice, cotton and other crops and their cultivation in India. So this is considered to be quite a big issue. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem.

Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income?

That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Russia has historical ties with both Africa and India, and there's a lot of residual goodwill there. And I wonder if you could each refresh our memories on those histories just very briefly and tell us how they might be playing into the perceptions of this war

and the positions that both of your countries have taken now. Swapna, do you maybe want to go first? India has had a long and interesting relationship with the Soviet Union first, and post-1991 after the breakup of the USSR with Russia. In the 1950s and 60s, India was sort of looked upon more favorably in Moscow and Russia was looked to as a friend in New Delhi. In 1971, a lot of these sort of currents culminated in a treaty of friendship and cooperation with Russia. So a bit of context about this treaty. It's important because this alliance between India and the Soviet Union in 1971 played a big role in helping Bangladesh win its liberation war against Pakistan, which was being helped by the U.S.

And it represents a significant shift from India's non-alignment position during the Cold War. India also used its stature and its non-aligned politics at the U.N. to mediate in conflicts when Russia was in a similar situation as it is today in the past, for instance, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Afghanistan in 1977, and also Crimea in 2014. So India was always sort of at the forefront of reacting, responding to these crises, but also mediating in them. India has chosen in all these conflicts, as with the present one, to not condemn Russian actions, but instead to put diplomatic pressure on Russia and private to withdraw from these situations of conflict. Chido, what about Russia's historical ties to South Africa and other countries in the region? What has that relationship looked like? So Russia has always supported guerrilla movements,

if you like, broadly speaking, the struggle for independence from colonial regimes. So because of that relationship, many African countries still have very good relations with Russia, particularly because they perceive Russia as a friend that really was there when they most needed support. that really was there when they most needed support. And to some extent, there are also sections of the population that still believe that the Ukraine-Russia war is a continuation of that Cold War by other means. Here's South Africa's ambassador to the UN. Africa has experienced its fair share of these proxy wars and their destructive outcomes. its fair share of these proxy wars and their destructive outcomes.

We therefore empathize with the people of Ukraine who find themselves caught up in a conflict not of their making. But here is the thing. It only was natural for the African countries that got independence during the Cold War to be non-aligned. So when we speak about the non-aligned movement, ni kwaidi kwa kutoka kutoka kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kutoka kwa kwa kutoka kwa between the US and the USSR. The non-aligned movement was a necessary vehicle for African countries because when we were incorporated into the international arena, we were not economically viable. So we depended a lot on other superpowers. We depended on big players such as Russia and China,

those players that could lend a hand in terms of finding Africa's position between those two superpowers who were fighting. So Russia and Africa, they go way before the dawn of independence. Do you think we're seeing something similar now emerging with this conflict? Yes, it's quite obvious. I think this war in Ukraine shows that the security architecture of Europe has collapsed.

This crisis, this conflict started way back in 2014. And there have been warnings about this particular result. And hence I'm saying the security apparatus of Europe is collapsing because it could have been apprehended and could have been negotiated such that it does not escalate to a war. In terms of the ideological war between the US and the USSR, we may want to pretend that those were resolved but those were not resolved necessarily and this particular war is an extension of that in this sense. Ukraine expressed its interest in joining NATO. So if you like,

when we now want to bring issues of morality on a fundamentally immoral act, all we can do is to condemn the war. In terms of the positions that people may have, being neutral as a position does not necessarily mean you agree with either party. What do you make of the fact that so many countries can make this choice? What does it say about U.S. power at this moment in time? What does this moment tell you about the balance of power in the world today? is unsustainable, which then suggests that we are beginning to see a multipolar system. States in the non-aligned movement, they've sort of given a uniform response, right? A uniform response in the sense that they do not openly condemn the atrocities that Russia has caused. But if you also look at other regional groupings or ideological groupings,

and may I just bring in the BRICS consortium here, which is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Already it tells you, and this is an economic organization, by the way. So it's already saying that the capitalist system, which is endorsed, created by the West, is not necessarily working for everyone. So the economic system that centers the U.S. is disintegrating, and we are beginning to see that there are other centers of power. The idea of multipolarity has to be anchored in people.

So if we value the lives of people, it will then mean that we shun war and we condemn war wherever it manifests and therefore we condemn imperialism. And this is what has been missing in all this analysis and narrative. The fact that the U.S. is also an imperialist and it's hiding behind Ukraine and the narrative to support Ukraine. And yes,

Ukraine needs to be supported because at the end of the day, there are no real winners in war. Thank you both so much for a very, very interesting conversation. I really appreciate it. Thank you for this week. You've been listening to Nothing is Foreign. Our producer is Joyta Shangupta. Our sound designer is Graham McDonald. And our showrunner is Adrian Chung. Nothing is Foreign is a co-production of CBC News and CBC Podcasts.

Willow Smith is our senior producer. And Nick McCabe-Locos is our executive producer. Our theme music is by Joseph Chavison. If you liked this episode and you want to help new listeners find the show, please take a second to rate and review us wherever you're listening. You can also find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at CBC Podcasts. I'm Tamara Kenda-Acker. Thank you so much for listening, and I will talk to you back here next week. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.