American ambassador to SA Reuben Brigety shocked the world last week when he claimed that our government had given arms to the Russian military, presumably to assist that government in its war against Ukraine.
The claim thrust SA yet again into the global spotlight, raising questions about our stated posture of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war.
It sent our currency into a tailspin, dropping to a record low of R19.47 to the dollar.
On the diplomatic front, it placed SA in the crosshairs of one of our biggest trade partners, the US.
So sure was Brigety of his intelligence information, he told reporters he was willing to bet his life on it.
Our government was seething – expectedly so.
Brigety’s posture was confrontational, which is almost unheard of in the diplomatic world, and his words were not without immediate and long-term consequences.
A diplomatic fallout has far-reaching consequences for sectors of our economy whose survival depends on mutually efficient trade relations between the two countries.
In a subsequent meeting with our minister of international relations, Naledi Pandor, we are told the ambassador apologised and the two countries affirmed their commitment to working together.
Our government further says that the National Conventional Arms Control Committee did not approve any sale of arms to Russia.
President Cyril Ramaphosa will establish a commission to be led by a retired judge to probe whether any arms were given to Russia, even if covertly.
However, while he publicly affirmed the “strong partnership” between the two countries, at the time of writing Brigety was yet to confirm if he had indeed apologised and, importantly, for what.
Our country deserves clarity on this.
His omission of an apology in his tweet following the meeting is not inconsequential.
If he apologised merely for speaking outside diplomatic channels but not for the serious claim made against the South African government, then the ambassador owes it to our nation to provide credible evidence of such serious claims.
However, if such an apology is an indication that he has since distanced himself from the claim, then our government must compel him to publicly account for it.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.