To Rome or roam: Why is Putin such a headache for SA?

By now, like in the days of Omar al-Bashir, the notion of the Rome Statute is back in contention. The country is, of course, divided on whether we want to arrest this Putin chap but the law is pretty set; whether we want to or not, we have to.

It  would be easy to pull the typical blame pre-94 card when it comes to obligations we don’t like, but that ship has sailed… twice. The Rome Statute was accepted and ratified by none other than the ANC government and when we toyed with leaving it after that Sudanese fiasco, we decided to stay.

There is no wiggle room out of this. Weird how those who brandish the term “decisive leadership” are loath to apply it.

So, the options are clear; we stay within the treaty and make the arrest, breach international law, remove ourselves from the Statute or make the comrade Zoom in. The latter option does seem to be a consideration, as is moving the whole summit to another country to skirt this issue. Hilariously, it’s the same weak show of non-action as giving arms to Ukraine but not actively taking active part in the war.

ALSO READ: When considering Putin’s visit, SA needs to look at why the ICC issued arrest warrant

Can we just leave the ICC? Sure, but we’d need to give notice and, in that time, we’d still have our obligations. It may be easier to conveniently neglect those obligations after giving notice but either way, it’s not a great look when we’re trying to keep that nice economic trade with the West going.

Had we stuck to our guns in 2017, held a middle finger to the Constitutional Court and just stayed the course with leaving the ICC, this would not be a problem – but we chose to stay and now we have to deal with it.

It’s easy to do what you want when you control the powers that be. That’s what made parliamentary sovereignty so lovely for those dudes from yesteryear. It’s also what makes the lack of any accountability so nice for today’s okes.

The double-edged sword of international law and diplomacy doesn’t offer such niceties though. If you do something the other countries don’t like, you isolate yourself and that could be a disaster. Ask David Cameron how fun it was to be out in the European cold after he vetoed a certain treaty and how that worked out for the UK.

It’s also not easy to win friends in international circles. Domestically, if the other children don’t want to play with you, you can tell daddy in the top 7 and after a few calls, you’re invited to all the parties. Internationally, daddy has no power.

ALSO READ: Brics summit: Can China save SA on Putin?

So, this is a challenge of deceive leadership for a collective who rarely practice decisive leadership in a context that has consequences for a collective who seldomly face any.

You cannot fault the South African government for not knowing what to do because it’s one of those rare beautiful moments where they need to show their colours in a manner that may actually cause them harm. Joh! Imagine if some minister’s wife is sanctioned to the extent that they cannot go shopping at Harrods. And do you honestly believe the leadership will be caught dead in some Soviet aged Lada rather than the latest German sedan – that would be an amazing sight.

However, we need Brics too. We’ve become reliant on this mess of international trade and doing nothing and risking it seems a lot safer than doing something and risking it.

Honestly, sending a peace negotiation delegation may have been the most genius move of the century had it not been a whole UK Prime Minister too late and still failed since South Africa is bankrupt in international capital.

Whatever we do, it’s going to hurt. This is what happens when those who we trust to offer leadership, offer cake instead… but then eat it themselves and promise to bake a new cake next week.