By Nompumelelo Runji
Can war ever be justified? Does the desire to remain neutral, to be seen as an impartial mediator in a conflict, mean we remain silent or resist condemning the aggressor? What of the casualties and victims of war? Should we not prioritise mitigating their suffering above pontificating about the conflict?
These are not novel questions. Yet the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine has made them more pertinent. And more so, because of the ramifications of this conflict, not just for the Ukrainian people, but also for people globally, who are adversely affected by sanctions, increasing prices, hunger, and energy crises.
The Business Day Dialogues in association with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Ecumenical Foundation of Southern Africa confronted these questions head on, asking: What is the role of ethical leadership in the face of ongoing conflict?
Speaking from a Christian point of view, Professor Jerry Pillay, Dean of Theology at the University of Pretoria, argued that that ethical leadership is about getting to the truth. The trouble is that most people are driven by self-interest and personal gain rather than a commitment to truth.
Aligning himself to Pillay’s view, Ray Hartley of the Brenthurst Foundation added that answering this question is determined by whether individuals and institutions are motivated by values or by interests.
South Africa, as a constitutional democracy, is guided by values contained in the constitution. The government’s response should therefore be predictable: a clear condemnation of Russia’s aggression premised on the principle of respect for the sovereignty of every country.
There is a difference between a just war and justifying a war. Russia has attempted to justify its invasion of Ukraine using disinformation, argued Steven Gruzd. Prior to invading Ukraine, Russia claimed its neighbour’s government is infiltrated by Nazi influences and that it is discriminating against Russian speaking parts of the country. And so, it has characterized the invasion as a special operation to protect these prejudiced communities.
South Africa has run the risk of being perceived as believing Russian propaganda and supporting Russia. The government has been inconsistent in its condemnation of the war and has spent more times talking to the Russians than Ukrainians, including Minister of Defense Thandi Modise defending her attendance of the international security conference in Russia.
Despite any justifications offered up by Russia, South Africa has an obligation to stand in solidarity with the suffering people of Ukraine and of Russia by condemning the war.
The World Council of Churches (WCC) has walked fine line. While the Orthodox Church of Russia has refused to condemn the war, choosing rather to follow the political line of its government, the WCC has stopped short of expelling the church, rather remaining in a relationship of open dialogue. Nevertheless, this has not stopped the WCC from openly and consistently condemning Russia’s actions, unlike the South African government.
Business, like other stakeholders, also has an interest in seeing the war ending. However, Hartley argues that business, globally, has largely chosen to remain on the sidelines rather than make political proclamations.
It may be expedient to argue that the truth is relative, but we cannot invalidate the experience of the victims of the conflict. Ukranian civilians have been killed, lost livelihoods and millions displaced. And many Russian soldiers have lost their lives unnecessarily.
On this one thing there is consensus, the South African government, religious community, business, and civil society, all have a moral and ethical obligation to stand with the victims of this conflict – both Russian and Ukranian. This not only means providing humanitarian assistance, but also condemning the war and calling for the cessation of the conflict.