By Isaac Asabor
Ghana deserves commendation for taking
a principled and courageous stand against the recurring xenophobic attacks on
Africans in South Africa. By declining a proposed state visit by South
African President Cyril Ramaphosa until meaningful steps are taken to protect
Ghanaian citizens, Accra has sent a powerful message that the lives and dignity
of Africans cannot be sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic niceties.
For far too long, African governments
have responded to repeated attacks on their citizens in South
Africa with carefully worded statements, diplomatic caution, and symbolic
condemnations that have produced little or no change. The result has been a
tragic cycle of violence in which African migrants are attacked, businesses are
looted, lives are lost, promises are made, and then the continent moves on
until the next outbreak. This pattern must end.
The reported rejection of Ramaphosa’s visit is more than a diplomatic decision. It is an affirmation that no African leader should expect ceremonial honours abroad while fellow Africans are being hunted, assaulted, and, in some cases, murdered within his country’s borders.
According to reports, about 1,000
Ghanaians have already been forced to return home because of the
latest wave of xenophobic violence, while hundreds more are preparing for
repatriation. The killing of a Ghanaian national on June 30 further underscores
the gravity of the crisis. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a
disturbing pattern that has stained South Africa’s democratic image
for well over a decade.
The irony remains painful. This is
as South Africa was once the beneficiary of extraordinary African
solidarity during the dark years of apartheid. Countries across the continent,
despite their own economic hardships, provided refuge to South African exiles,
funded liberation movements, and mobilized international support against racial
oppression. Nations such as Ghana, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, Angola,
Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and many others stood firmly with South Africans during
their struggle for freedom.
Many African countries paid enormous
economic and political costs simply because they believed apartheid was an
assault on the dignity of all Africans.
Today, many citizens of those very
countries are finding themselves targeted, humiliated, and brutalized in the
new South Africa by fellow Africans who conveniently forget the
sacrifices made on their behalf. This historical contradiction should
trouble every African conscience.
While the South African government
routinely condemns xenophobic violence after it occurs, condemnation without
effective prevention has become an inadequate response. The repeated recurrence
of these attacks raises legitimate questions about whether sufficient political
will exists to dismantle the networks of hate, criminality, and misinformation
that fuel anti-foreigner violence.
Governments are ultimately judged not merely by what they say after tragedies occur, but by what they do to prevent them.
Ghana’s response therefore represents a
refreshing departure from the culture of diplomatic timidity that has
characterized Africa’s reaction to these attacks. Rather than pretending that
everything is normal, Accra has insisted that normal diplomatic engagements
cannot continue while its citizens remain unsafe.
Other African governments should follow
this example. This does not necessarily mean severing diplomatic relations
with South Africa. Nor does it require abandoning regional cooperation
within the African Union or the Southern African Development Community. But it
should mean imposing meaningful diplomatic consequences until measurable
progress is made.
African leaders should reconsider state visits, suspend ceremonial exchanges, and use every available diplomatic platform to demand concrete action against xenophobic violence. South Africa should not continue enjoying the full benefits of continental prestige while repeatedly failing to guarantee the safety of fellow Africans living within its territory.
In diplomatic language, such
coordinated actions would effectively render South Africa a pariah
state, not through isolation for its own sake, but through principled pressure
aimed at compelling meaningful reform.
History offers numerous examples where
diplomatic isolation has served as an instrument for positive change.
Ironically, apartheid South Africa itself was subjected to political,
economic, sporting, and cultural isolation because the world recognized that
some injustices cannot simply be ignored in the name of diplomacy.
The present situation is obviously different in nature, but the underlying principle remains the same: persistent violations of fundamental human dignity should attract consequences.
Some may argue that South
Africa itself faces serious economic challenges, unemployment, and rising
crime, all of which contribute to social tensions. While these problems are
undeniable, they cannot justify directing violence against innocent migrants
who neither created those challenges nor possess the power to solve them.
Blaming foreigners has become an easy
political distraction from deeper structural failures. It may generate
temporary emotional satisfaction, but it neither creates jobs nor
strengthens public institutions. Instead, it damages South Africa’s
international reputation, weakens African solidarity, discourages investment,
and undermines regional integration.
Even more troubling is the contradiction between South Africa’s aspiration to continental leadership and the recurring persecution of fellow Africans within its borders. Leadership demands moral authority, and moral authority cannot coexist with repeated scenes of Africans fleeing for their lives because of xenophobic violence.
The African Continental Free Trade Area
is built upon the vision of freer movement of goods, services, investments, and
people across Africa. That vision becomes hollow if Africans cannot safely live
and work in one another’s countries.
Ghana has reminded the continent that
diplomacy should never come at the expense of national dignity. By placing the
safety of its citizens above protocol, it has demonstrated what responsible leadership
looks like.
The challenge now is whether the rest of Africa will summon similar courage. If African governments continue responding to every wave of xenophobic violence with expressions of concern alone, they should not be surprised when the attacks become even more frequent.
South Africa remains an important
nation whose contributions to Africa are undeniable. Yet friendship among
nations, like friendship among individuals, carries responsibilities. One of
those responsibilities is protecting the lives of fellow Africans who live,
work, study, and contribute to society within its borders.
Until South
Africa demonstrates through sustained action, not merely official
statements, that Africans from across the continent can live there without fear
of persecution, the rest of Africa should adopt Ghana’s firm but measured
approach.
Sometimes, the strongest expression of
friendship is refusing to pretend that everything is fine when it clearly is
not.
Post a Comment