African Peace Mission seemed to have little impact on Russia, Ukraine conflict resolution

Africa’s Ukraine-Russia peace mission represents a significant milestone for the continent. It is the first time African states have taken the lead to seek a peaceful resolution for a conflict outside Africa.

The delegation comprised leaders and representatives from seven countries — Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Egypt, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, and was led by South Africa. It arrived in Ukraine on 16 June and headed to Russia a day later to discuss a pathway to a peaceful resolution of the ongoing war. 

Read more in Daily Maverick: Peace mission commences – Ramaphosa and African leaders to meet Zelensky then Putin

While its success is not immediately apparent, the mission highlighted these African states’ collective commitment to finding a diplomatic solution. This underscores the seriousness with which these governments view the conflict — not as a distant war but a crisis that directly affects Africa. 

Beyond the detrimental impact on Africa’s food security, the mission reinforced the centrality of the United Nations (UN) Charter, and how the conflict challenges the very foundations of the international system. 

This is important as many African countries, particularly South Africa, have found it increasingly difficult to substantiate their non-alignment on the war. This is primarily based on their divided voting record in the UN General Assembly, which has seen Africa consistently cast the highest number of abstentions on votes to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The peace mission helps reset the impression that African states are disinterested or irresponsible stakeholders in the upkeep of the global rules-based order. 

The initiative also succeeded in tabling a proposal to Kyiv and Moscow, a dual engagement that few international actors have been able to do. Although details of the mission weren’t shared publicly before the trip, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa outlined a 10-step peace plan. The proposal stressed the importance of territorial sovereignty, de-escalation and security guarantees for all parties.

Despite these achievements, the mission faced several considerable challenges largely owing to a lack of transparency, poor communication and questions about how it was conceived and planned. 

Read more in Daily Maverick: Russia reports fierce fighting while African peace mission leaves empty-handed

The central, behind-the-scenes role of the London-based Brazzaville Foundation, headed by French businessman Jean-Yves Ollivier, is particularly odd given the many diplomatic avenues open to African leaders. Reports linking a South African businessman in the global arms and defence industry, Ivor Ichikowitz, to the mission create further suspicions around its independence and credibility. Besides his arms trade interests, Ichikowitz financially supports South Africa’s ruling African National Congress. 

The presence of the outgoing and current African Union chairs, Macky Sall (Senegal) and Azali Assoumani (Comoros), added political weight and legitimacy. And while the regional spread of the African states involved is commendable, why was a broader constellation of African interests not pursued? 

Moreover, the apparent logistical bungling surrounding Ramaphosa’s considerable security detail cannot be ignored. This sideshow has undeniably dented South Africa’s international profile as a capable and respected global actor. 

The buck is still being passed between the Office of the Presidency and the police’s Presidential Protection Services, which chartered the plane that was grounded in Poland, leaving Ramaphosa to tour Kyiv and St Petersburg without his full security detail. Contradictory messaging between Ramaphosa and his spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, on the threat posed by Russian missiles fired on Kyiv during the trip also exposed poor communication, weakening South Africa’s position as mission leader. 

One step forward, one step back?