South Africa has once again reaffirmed its commitment to neutrality and peace, standing apart from the mounting global tide of military involvement. At the Liberation Movements Summit 2025, African National Congress Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula made it plain: no South African-made arms, from either public or private manufacturers, will be sent to Ukraine. In front of a hall filled with regional leaders and political veterans, Mbalula declared that the country’s defense industry will not participate in any way in the current war. “As the ANC, we have taken a decision consistent with South Africa’s constitutional values and foreign policy traditions,” he said. “South African arms manufacturers will not be allowed to export weapons or ammunition to the war zone in Ukraine. This position is not anti-European; it is pro-peace.” He added pointedly: “Peace cannot be outsourced to artillery.”
The timing of this announcement is far from accidental. Around the world, arms manufacturers are being forced out of the shadows, subjected to increasing scrutiny from investigative journalists, legal experts, and humanitarian watchdogs. One of the most visible and controversial companies is Rheinmetall. Over the decades, Rheinmetall has morphed into a dominant force in the global arms trade. Through an intricate web of subsidiaries and partnerships, it has extended its reach beyond Europe, operating in jurisdictions with far weaker export oversight. Its factories and joint ventures in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and notably South Africa have come under fire for enabling the company to circumvent tighter European export regulations.
For South Africa, this issue is not theoretical. The story of Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), a joint venture between Rheinmetall and South Africa’s state arms company Denel, has become a symbol of the country’s entanglement in foreign wars. A turning point came when Saudi Arabia launched its devastating intervention in Yemen, triggering what would become one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. It later emerged that munitions produced by RDM were used by the Saudi-led coalition.
The revelation that South African arms were playing a part in such a catastrophe sparked national outrage. Civil society groups took the government to court, demanding to know how such exports had been authorized. In 2021, the High Court ruled in their favor, forcing officials to release export data that confirmed arms sales to the Gulf coalition.
Just recently, fresh concerns have emerged from Sudan, where reports from Khartoum have alleged the use of 40mm white phosphorus grenades by the Rapid Support Forces, a militia infamous for its brutality. These grenades are officially manufactured only by Rheinmetall subsidiaries in the United States and South Africa, once again raising troubling questions about South Africa’s inadvertent role in fueling violence abroad. The country is being reminded repeatedly that, even without direct involvement in a conflict, its soil can still be a launchpad for destruction.
It’s within this context that Mbalula’s words carry more weight than usual. His pledge is not merely a diplomatic gesture—it is a calculated attempt to draw a line in the sand. The message to the world is that South Africa will not allow its defense industry, no matter how profitable, to become complicit in war. The government is under no illusions about the global demand for weaponry triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That war has generated a frenzy of procurement across Europe and beyond, with companies like Rheinmetall scaling up production of artillery shells and armored vehicles to meet NATO needs.
But South Africa is choosing a different path. Mbalula’s statement acts as a firewall against temptation, against the global push to take sides.
In many ways, it’s a reaffirmation of the same stance that guided South Africa during the Cold War a refusal to be drawn into the camps of global powers, instead favoring negotiation, dialogue, and non-alignment. For a country still reckoning with the legacies of apartheid, that tradition of neutrality remains deeply embedded in the national psyche.
Critics may dismiss the announcement as rhetoric, especially given the history of past exports to controversial clients. Yet the political signal is undeniable: the ANC is attempting to reassert control over an arms industry whose operations have, in recent years, seemed to outpace democratic oversight. The National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), the body meant to regulate these exports, has faced fierce criticism for its lack of transparency and inactivity. Mbalula’s speech is, in part, an answer to that pressure.
Mbalula’s remarks may not change the course of the war in Ukraine. But they offer a clear indication that some countries still believe in principles, even when it costs them something.
