A return to an independent, consistent foreign policy is now urgent. President Cyril Ramaphosa must reject any influence that compromises South Africa’s sovereignty or distorts its history, says the writer.
By Gillian Schutte
The Democratic Alliance’s (DA) recent announcement that South Africa will grant visa-free access to Ukrainian diplomatic, official, and service passport holders is laced with arrogance and a disregard for South Africa’s foreign policy history. Coming so close to the BRICS summit, this decision, framed as solidarity with Ukraine’s supposed role in South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, appears suspiciously aligned with US and NATO interests. Is this a Western manoeuvre, facilitated by the DA, to weaken South-South alliances? With the signing of this decision postponed for further consultation, President Cyril Ramaphosa now faces a critical choice: will he side with Western affiliations or affirm South Africa’s foundational values of non-alignment and solidarity?
The DA’s narrative that Ukraine played a significant role in South Africa’s liberation struggle is a selective rewriting of history. During apartheid, Ukraine was a constituent part of the Soviet Union, and any support for liberation movements came from Moscow, not Kyiv. Conveniently attributing Soviet support to Ukraine disregards the more prominent roles of Russia, China, Cuba, and Palestine—nations that provided substantial, sustained support to South Africa. This revisionism supports an agenda that aligns more closely with NATO and US interests than with genuine historical alliances, raising the question of why Ramaphosa has not outright dismissed this DA-led initiative.
Instead, the decision has been left open for “further consultation,” which implies a reluctance to decisively oppose this shift. Ramaphosa’s silence is a telling ambiguity between the ANC’s historical values and the DA’s Western-leaning foreign policy. How he proceeds will reveal his alignment—whether he chooses to stand by South Africa’s historical commitments or lean towards Western preferences under the DA’s influence.
The DA’s selective solidarity with Ukraine further exposes contradictions in its human rights stance. While claiming to champion anti-racism, the DA ignores Ukraine’s documented issues with racial discrimination and far-right nationalism. African students fleeing Ukraine were met with racism, blocked from safe passage at critical moments. Yet, the DA presses for visa-free access for Ukrainian officials without acknowledging these racial injustices. Rather than directly confronting this discrepancy, the ANC has deferred, signalling an unwillingness to address the DA’s prioritisation of selective human rights aligned with Western interests.
Ramaphosa’s approach becomes even more concerning when one considers the ANC’s historical stance on Palestine. South Africa has long stood in solidarity with Palestine, recognising the apartheid parallels and systemic injustices Palestinians endure. Yet the DA’s influence now favours Ukraine over Palestine, reflecting a shift toward Western-backed priorities. Ramaphosa’s choice to keep this decision in limbo rather than dismiss it risks alienating South Africa’s true allies and threatens its longstanding role as an advocate for the oppressed. Will he reinforce this legacy, or allow the DA’s selective “solidarity” to shape South Africa’s stance?
The influence of Western entities that have long supported the DA’s pro-market, pro-Western stance cannot be ignored. Organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), known for advancing US-aligned objectives globally, loom over this shift in foreign policy. South Africa must consider whether it wants to see DA-backed, Western-funded narratives dictating national policy at the expense of its own sovereignty.
Meanwhile, South Africa’s own socio-economic crises—unemployment, poverty, and inequality—demand focus. Instead of prioritising these urgent issues, the government appears to have opened the door to a DA-driven foreign policy that serves Western narratives more than South Africans. Ramaphosa’s consultation-driven approach suggests a willingness to engage Western interests over the needs of his people—a concerning stance given the domestic crises facing South Africa.
Additionally, the DA’s push to align with Ukraine risks destabilising relationships within BRICS, threatening the very foundation of South-South cooperation. With Russia and China as core BRICS partners and crucial economic allies, Ramaphosa’s final decision could either reinforce these relationships or alienate them, compromising the multipolar vision central to BRICS. Will he allow the DA to fracture South Africa’s alliances, or assert South Africa’s role in collective development?
South Africa deserves a foreign policy anchored in historical truth, non-alignment, and solidarity with the oppressed. The ANC’s foundational values, which once defined its global stance, now hang in the balance as Ramaphosa faces a decision that could either safeguard or further compromise them. This DA-led shift, characterised by selective memory, Western influence, and contradictory agendas, not only risks weakening BRICS alliances but undermines South Africa’s credibility as a principled force on the global stage.
A return to an independent, consistent foreign policy is now urgent. Ramaphosa must reject any influence that compromises South Africa’s sovereignty or distorts its history. Only through a principled and transparent approach will South Africa protect its integrity, uphold BRICS unity, and maintain its relevance on the world stage—an alignment worth defending in a world increasingly compromised by political expediency.
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.