That's a weird way of thinking, my guy. So if the ANC falls under 50% in 2024, does less than half of SA now disagree with BEE, black people included?
There's more than meets the eye. The war is affecting everything from fuel prices to basic foodstuffs. Our economy suffers for it, although not super visible, it's there.
China, sure. India, maybe. But Russia not even. Our economic partners are mostly Western and other African countries. We only have bilateral trade agreements with the US, UK and Zim (the latter of which is basically useless atm).
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Ahhh, deflection. "Yes, but, but the Anglosphere..." No. Most of the West opposed it. New Zealand and Canada didn't even participate. Nice try.
Coalition: US, UK, AUS, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Poland.
Btw SA didn't stay neutral during Iraq.
THEY OPPOSED THE INVASION.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
With regards to Canadian involvement:
"Though no
declaration of war was issued, the
Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of
Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.
[2] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in
Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the
Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the
US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were
on exchange with US and
British forces in proximity to combat.
[6] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed
Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the
US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and
exchange officers fought with US units. Canadian pilots also flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.
[34] In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict."
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War
The very next sentence read, "Because of this Canadian involvement in Iraq, the
Ministers of the Crown at the time were criticised by
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as hypocritical, and demands were made for the return of these Canadian Forces personnel."
So it appears I was incorrect regarding New Zealand, the smallest member of the Anglosphere, and yet every other country was involved, even Canada to a small extent. Although New Zealanders were involved in occupying the country as part of the Multi-National Task Force as your source suggests.
This would be relevant if Canadians weren't involved in another illegal invasion by the West in Afghanistan in 2002:
en.wikipedia.org
Unfortunately for you, it becomes incredibly hard to try to morally posture on behalf of the liberal democracies of the world, who go around carpet bombing countries who don't comply. Another example of Canadian involvement in such nefarious incidents is the illegal attack on Libya:
en.wikipedia.org
So New Zealand alone is not guilty in these invasions, to which I give credit and due respect.
As for your sentence mentioning South Africa's stance on the invasion of Iraq, that is clearly a tactically justifiable anti-Western position they adopted, the same as they're currently doing by remaining neutral on the Ukrainian invasion since it's tactically in the interests of South Africa to do so. Also a serious question, where in my previous post did I allude to that South Africa wasn't opposed to the invasion of Iraq? Both are legally against the UN constitution, which means absolutely nothing judging by the fact that the USA and Russia/The USSR could do anything they please, the difference is that South Africa is part of the Russian-Chinese economic bloc, therefore a strategic ally. I see no reason South Africa should adopt useless moral posturing to support Ukraine, alienating themselves from their global allies, whilst being able to do nothing about the situation, in defense of Ukrainians who had no problem shelling women and children in Donbass.
With regards to your claims regarding trade, you seem to ignore that the involvement in BRICS facilitates greater trade, as exhibited with China, but also secures, mostly corrupt, investment and technological aid for South Africa. So while it is true that Russia isn't a major trading partner, China is the single largest export market, and India, another BRICS member is also in the top 10. With these economies projected to dwarf the Western powers in the next couple of decades, this is thus also a sound economic and geopolitical position to adopt. It's also not as if these Western countries will stop transacting with South Africa, they can't afford to, and they're in the middle of a crisis in Europe trying to replace Russian gas and oil.
For better or worse, in my opinion for the better, the South African position post-Apartheid has been anti-Western, and logic dictates that as India and China become the largest economies in the world during the span of this century, that this was a good decision. There's also another aspect often overlooked with regards to Russia and its position in the future, the Russians dominate the race for Antarctica, which is supposed to be of immense wealth, as such basing future estimates of the economic state of Russia on the current situation is illogical.
I'm well aware of the inconvenience of the war, and a faster victory for either side would've been ideal, that doesn't mean South Africa, nor I, should be be foolish enough to to support Ukraine, which though it has the non-relevant UN on its side legally, is morally bankrupt and equally guilty of the murder of civilians. Whilst the Russian propaganda has always been ridiculous, and continues to be, it's a fact that the state of Ukraine has been oppressing Russian minorities in Ukraine since before the Crimean crisis, here's an interesting read:
The world's leading source for International Relations scholarship and insight. Click to read E-International Relations, a Substack publication.
www.e-ir.info
www.timeslive.co.za
/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Grootes-Zwane.jpg)
