Bringing back abducted Ukrainian children a tough assignment for SA

It will be a delicate but critical assignment for South Africa to secure the return from Russia of the 400 abducted Ukrainian children whom Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last month asked President Ramaphosa to help bring home.
Zelensky gave Ramaphosa the list of 400 children he says Russia abducted and deported to Russia, when they met in Pretoria on 24 April 2025. Ramaphosa accepted what could be a tricky mission. It will require South Africa to walk a fine line between its humanitarian concerns and its friendship with Russia.
Pretoria's concern for the children began as far back as June 2023 when Ramaphosa led a peace mission of African leaders to Kyiv to meet Zelensky and then to St Petersburg to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin, to present a peace plan.
Returning the Ukrainian children was part of the plan, but Putin dismissed this, insisting that Russia had merely moved children out of harm's way in a war zone.
The issue was highly charged politically and remains so as the International Criminal Court (ICC) had issued warrants of arrest for Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Russia's Commissioner for Children's Rights, on 17 March 2023, indicting them 'for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation'.
Ramaphosa and Zelensky evidently got on well at their meeting in June 2023 in Kyiv. This began to thaw the relations between the two countries, which had been chilly because of Pretoria's steadfast refusal to condemn Russia's invasion. This was most evident in South Africa's abstention from a series of resolutions in the UN General Assembly in 2022 and 2023, condemning the invasion as a violation of the UN Charter's demands that countries respect one another's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Zelensky invited Ramaphosa to participate in the international discussions on his own 10-point Peace Formula that were just then about to begin. Ramaphosa accepted and sent national security adviser Sydney Mufamadi and director-general of International Relations and Cooperation Zane Dangor to participate in several rounds of talks around the world, culminating in a summit in Switzerland in June 2024.
The return of the abducted children was also one of the points of Zelensky's Peace Formula. To date, Ukraine has verified 19,546 children who were deported or forcibly transferred, though it believes there are more. At last count, it said 1,307 had been returned to Ukraine, either through their families, or through NGOs or governments, particularly Qatar and the Vatican.
SA's mediator role
South Africa has definitely remained interested in the children, says Ukrainian legal expert Kateryna Rashevska, the lead on International Justice and legal analysis at the Regional Centre for Human Rights in Ukraine and also an expert on Ukraine's Bring Kids Back UA task force.
She recalls visiting South Africa in November 2023 and meeting officials in the Presidency and Dirco.
'I saw how this topic really interested the South Africans and how for them, it is also not only a Ukrainian matter, but … for the whole international community.'
There were intermittent later reports about South Africa's efforts to bring back some of the children, but none of any success. Raveshka is not sure why, but she assumes that some preparations were made to mediate.
'In particular, a representative office of Bring Kids Back UA was established in South Africa.'
South Africa's efforts became more formal and focused in October 2024 when it participated, through its High Commissioner to Canada Moe Shaik, in the Ministerial Conference on the Human Dimension of the (Zelensky) Peace Formula in Montreal.
The conference focused on trying to return prisoners of war, unlawfully detained civilians and deported children and included steps to strengthen the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which had been formed in February 2024.
At the Montreal conference, Pretoria offered to serve as an intermediary – alongside the Vatican and Qatar – 'to support and negotiate the return of children'.
Ukraine had wanted South Africa to formally join the international coalition, but the country did not do so.
Asked why not, Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola, would say only, 'The coalition is one of the initiatives to address the issue of Ukrainian children. South Africa is working on a separate initiative together with Qatar and the Holy See (who are also not part of the coalition) to address the return of the children. We are engaging with both sides on the matter to ensure the return of the children.'
Raveshka explained why she believed South Africa did not want to join the coalition.
She said that she believed Pretoria's thinking was similar to Qatar's, that most of the members of the coalition were Western nations, 'which are perceived by the Russian Federation as enemy states'.
Joining this coalition could harm South Africa's efforts to get the children back, she said.
However, Raveshka said that even after Montreal, there was no vision about how South Africa could help. 'But after the visit of President Zelensky, after the transfer of this list of 400 children, it became more clear.'
A delicate mission
South Africa will now have to present this list to Russia and ask it to return the children to Ukraine. This delicate mission would seem to imply that Pretoria thinks Russia has done something wrong, or even committed crimes.
But Raveshka said she supposed that South Africa would follow Qatar's approach, and that would be not to use words such as 'deportation' or 'abduction' or 'international crime'.
'It will be like South Africa helps Ukraine to reunify families separated because of war. So, for Ukraine, it is acceptable to use this wording because our first priority is the repatriation of children and then accountability.'
Raveshka said once South Africa handed over the list to Russia, Children's Commissioner Lvova-Belova's office would probably check the information about the children provided by Ukraine to select those who could be returned.
This would include verifying the legal guardians of the children.
Raveshka said several children on South Africa's list were particularly at risk because they had been forcibly removed to Crimea and elsewhere from the Kherson Regional Children's Home and the nearby Oleshky Specialised Boarding School. These well-respected institutions cared for children with special needs, such as orphans or children with disabilities.
Ukrainian media reports have said that parents, guardians and other carers are anxious because many of those removed from the orphanages are now not receiving the special care from the Russians that they need.
They want them sent home.
'Some of them have biological parents in Ukraine, some of them have legal guardians in Ukraine, others have foster families who are ready to care for them after their repatriation,' Rashevska said. 'Ukrainian institutions are also ready to take them in,' she said.
She foresaw problems in the recovery of several children on the list who had already been adopted by Russian families. Ukrainian authorities believe that about half of the children from the Kherson Regional Children's Home, for instance, are now with Russian families. One child was known to have been adopted by a high-ranking Russian official.
'However, this in no way means that South Africa should not focus its efforts on the return of these children. On the contrary, the situation is so complex that only an intermediary state can effectively influence the reunification of these children with their relatives in Ukraine.'
She said the list of 400 names was prepared by competent Ukrainian bodies who had verified all the information. The Russians often claimed the Ukrainian lists were inaccurate, she said.
'But I am sure, I can tell you, because I know people who work on this list, that these are real children who are needed here in Ukraine, who have families, but unfortunately they are in captivity of the Russian Federation. Sometimes Russians are even not confirming where these children are.'
Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha told local journalists in Pretoria that the challenge of identifying the children had been aggravated by Russia changing the names and identities of those it had deported. Moscow then gave them Russian citizenship or handed them over to Russian families, says Rashevska.
Nonetheless, Sybiha was confident that Pretoria would achieve 'positive results' and said it was helpful that Ramaphosa 'has direct communication with President Putin…'
Coordinated approach
Rashevska notes that other countries like Qatar have also been given lists of children to try to bring home. During recent peace talks conducted by the US in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine also gave US officials a list of names.
Rashevska said Russia was not prepared to cooperate with the Biden administration, but they now seemed to be open to discussion on the children with the Trump administration.
It is understood that Saudi Arabia has also been given a list of 500 children.
'So, Ukraine is just trying to use all possibilities in order to return more and more,' said Rashevska.
She said she hoped at least some children on South Africa's list would be returned. Any failures would be attributable to Russia, not to any lack of political will by South Africa. She believed Moscow would be particularly reluctant to return any children old enough to testify in the ICC case.
Rashevska thought it was important to highlight 'that the participation of South Africa in the repatriation of Ukrainian children is very important, not only because it is a chance for families and their children to be reunified, but also because it is a sign that it is not only a matter for Ukraine when children are stolen or abducted during armed conflict,' she said.
'For demonstrating this solidarity with Ukraine, we are very grateful to South Africa.'
Ramaphosa's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said: 'The outcome of the process of securing the return of Ukrainian children is going to require the full cooperation of the parties directly affected in the matter and interested parties with an interest in ensuring a lasting peace in Ukraine and the region.
'President Ramaphosa sees the return of the children as one of the key confidence-building measures that will underpin the peace process.
'Therefore, it's not going to be for South Africa alone to determine the process and outcome of such an exercise. It's going to take all parties involved to finally resolve this issue.' DM

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

an hour ago

• IOL News

Peace Fund and the Quest for Peace and Security in Africa

In 1993, the Peace Fund has remained dormant due to African leaders' lack of commitment and political will to act on their resolution and financially support the AU. Image: Pixabay In June, thirty-two years ago, in its quest to ensure and implement African-led peace and security initiatives, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which preceded the African Union (AU), resolved to establish a Peace Fund. This was seen as a strategic and vital financial instrument for achieving home-grown peace and security in Africa. However, since its establishment in 1993, the Peace Fund has remained dormant due to African leaders' lack of commitment and political will to act on their resolution and financially support the AU. The fund was revitalised in 2016 and officially adopted by the AU in 2018 after 25 years of dormancy. The revitalisation happened after the African heads of state resolved in Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda, that Africa, more than ever before, needs financial autonomy and ownership of its peace and security initiatives to practically implement the fourth aspiration of the AU Agenda 2063 of building a peaceful and secure Africa through the critical step of silencing the guns by 2020. Unfortunately, this target has not been met to date. The resolution further indicated that the peace fund, as one of the pillars of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), must encompass critical areas of stabilisation, including preventive diplomacy, mediation, institutional capacity building, and peace support operations (PSO), while also financing the preparedness of other APSA structures. The AU urges its member states, individuals, and the private sector to contribute to the peace fund. Following the restructuring and adoption of the funding model for the peace fund, the secretariat launched an intensive and extensive resource mobilisation strategy aimed at raising at least US$400 million by 2021. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading This target was only achieved in June 2025. However, research by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) reveals that before 2024, of the US$392 million mobilised for the peace fund, AU member states contributed 98% of the budget, while US$6 million (2%) came from individuals and the private sector. Towards the end of 2024, however, contributions from member states decreased by 34%, while private donations rose from 2% to 36%. Despite all these interventions and resource mobilisation efforts, Max Boqwana (October 2024) argues that Africa still accounts for 70% of global conflicts. And, almost eight years after revitalising the peace fund, the Thabo Mbeki Foundation convened the inaugural African Peace and Security Dialogue from 4 to 6 October 2024. The dialogue critically analysed, discussed, and provided insights into the root causes of prolonged violent conflict in Africa, focusing particularly on two regions: West Africa and the Horn of Africa. Many panellists and participants expressed concerns about the lack of strong leadership and political will to mobilise domestic resources for financing peace and security initiatives. Some argue that Africa is home to the most critical minerals, which should be harnessed and utilised for the continent's development. The ongoing protracted violent conflict and civil wars in Africa necessitate a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the peace fund, more so since there is a narrative that the financial contribution of the member states towards the fund continues to face a spiral decline. It is essential to highlight that over two weeks ago, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation held its annual governance symposium in Marrakech, Morocco, where Ibrahim raised a serious concern regarding the fact that 70% of the AU's annual budget comes from Europeans under the pretext of 'development partners'. Africa's dependency syndrome continues to undermine its agenda of achieving socio-economic and political self-reliance in pursuing development and home-grown peace and security initiatives. At the next summit in February 2026, I still contend that the AU needs to discuss and develop a criterion for selecting the so-called 'development partners', as even parasitic partners are masquerading as genuine partners of Africa. It can be posited that if this partnership and resource mobilisation issue is not effectively addressed, it will continue to obfuscate and derail the intended purpose of the peace fund. Asuquo (2025) argues that one of the reasons African States fail to fund the AU's peace fund sufficiently is 'a (created) culture of external mediation: Post-independence, African nations have routinely turned to external actors like the UN, World Bank, and Western powers for arbitration and funding, setting a precedent that weakens pan-African accountability'. It is time for the AU to develop its African-led conflict resolution, mediation and peacebuilding. Critically, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda have been locked in a prolonged diplomatic crisis, leading Kinshasa (DRC) to seek sanctions from France against Kigali (Rwanda). This shows that some African leaders still perceive European nations as having the most effective solutions to African problems; this belief persists despite the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) attempting to de-escalate tensions in the Eastern DRC. However, the reality is that there was inadequate coordination among mediators, compounded by insufficient financial support. Evidence shows that only US$5 million was allocated from the peace fund for the conflict in Eastern DRC. The budget proved inadequate to the point that the PSC utilised its annual council-to-council meeting with the European Union to request additional funding for mediation. The AU has also urged its member states to contribute their dues to the peace fund. A crucial question must be addressed: who and how has the peace fund been financially managed since its revitalisation? For instance, two weeks ago, the AU advertised positions for an independent fund manager and the hiring of a custodian bank for the AU peace fund. It is concerning that the post-criteria are not clearly stated within the context of the peace fund's objectives, which may further undermine the AU's financial autonomy and ownership of its peace and security architecture. Regarding the conflict between Kinshasa and Kigali, it is evident that there has been no adequate preventative diplomacy, PSO, and well-coordinated mediation, as these essential interventions fall within the mandate of the peace fund as stated in Article 21 of the PSC protocol. In South Sudan, Africa's newest state, which has experienced violent conflict since it seceded from northern Sudan in 2011, effective interventions through the peace fund have yet to be effectively implemented. As a result, South Sudanese established a non-governmental organisation (NGO) called the Peace Canal in 2019 and adopted a fundraising strategy, 'Peace Opportunity Fund,' to finance locally led peacebuilding initiatives in South Sudan. Seventeen advisors from four major ethnic groups lead the NGO; unfortunately, this initiative has attracted donors from beyond the continent, and some have undermined the noble intention of inclusive peacebuilding, particularly the integration of indigenous peacebuilding methods and strategies into the broader post-conflict reconstruction and development. This is a great initiative that AU was supposed to effectively support through the peace fund in a quest to realise its strategic objective of African-led peace and security initiatives. On the other hand, two weeks ago, Naomi Kilungu, an armed conflict expert in Africa, predicted that 'Africa will have spent over US$ 300 billion by the end of this year (2025) on armed conflicts'. However, because AU has only managed to secure US$400 million for the peace fund, there will be a shortfall of at least US$ 299.6 billion. If the shortfall cannot be mobilised domestically, the so-called 'development partners' would take over and continue their nefarious agenda in Africa. Indeed, Africa needs the emergence of Pan-African thought leaders who will act locally and think globally with unflinching love for the people of this continent. Leaders who will genuinely end parasitic partnerships and colonialism in its forms and content. Orapeleng Matshediso is a Masters graduate of Pan African Development Studies and Research Associate at the University of Johannesburg (Institute for Pan African Thought and Conversation). The author is also an alumnus of the then Thabo Mbeki African Leadership Institute (TMALI). Orapeleng Matshediso is a Masters graduate of Pan African Development Studies and Research Associate at the University of Johannesburg (Institute for Pan African Thought and Conversation). Image: Supplied.

IOL News

2 hours ago

• IOL News

Civil society calls for decent jobs for the marginalised working class at G20 build-up event

Tanya van Meelis who serves as the Head of the Policy Unit and Labour Market Policy Coordinator at Cosatu, addressed delegates to the C20 South Africa launch at The Capital on the Park in Sandton on Sunday. South Africa's controversial National Dialogue must not be dominated by conservative and divisive voices. These are the words of Levy Singh, Youth 20 (Y20) South Africa Sherpa during his address at the first day of the three-day C20 South Africa launch held at The Capital on the Park in Sandton on Sunday. When South Africa hosts the G20 summit later this year, it will be the first time the gathering takes place on African soil. The country recently officially assumed leadership of the Y20 — the G20's dedicated platform for youth engagement — at a high-profile event recently held at the historic Rand Club in Johannesburg. "As civil society, we have to be bold and defend our core quality principles. As the Y20 We are committed to working with all the working groups. We also need to continue to deepen our unity and aligning over the next 23 weeks. South Africa will be handing over the G20 Summit to the US, and there is no certainty that our working groups will be sustained beyond this year under Donald Trump's regime. However, we must continue to be robust and rigorous and put forward our progress agenda."

eNCA

3 hours ago

• eNCA

Iran foreign minister says US attacks on nuclear sites 'outrageous'

TEHRAN - Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday condemned US attacks on key nuclear sites as "outrageous" and said his country has a right to defend its sovereignty. "The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences," he posted on X, adding that the attacks were "lawless and criminal" behaviour. "In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Iran's foreign ministry said the attacks showed that Washington "will stop at no illegality or crime" to support Israel. "It has now become abundantly clear to all that the very regime which enjoys permanent membership in the Security Council is beholden to no principle or morality and will stop at no illegality or crime to serve the aims of a genocidal, occupying regime," the ministry said in a statement, referring to the United States and Israel respectively. Meanwhile, Iraq warned that the US attacks on its neighbour Iran's nuclear facilities threaten peace and stability in the Middle East. Iraq "expresses its deep concern and strong condemnation of the targeting of nuclear facilities" in Iran, government spokesperson Basim Alawadi said.