In the centre of an international legal maelstrom
South Africa’s decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide has elicited polarised global responses. Critics accuse South Africa of theatre, political opportunism and double standards, while supporters laud its principled and clear-eyed stance.
The move has catapulted Pretoria into the centre of an international legal maelstrom and will have significant ripple effects on its international relations. Why has South Africa chosen this course of action amid potentially grave diplomatic risks?
Legally, as a contracting party to the Genocide Convention, South Africa may approach the ICJ if it believes the convention has been violated. Apart from that, Pretoria’s support for the Palestinian cause is deeply rooted in democratic South Africa’s foreign policy. By way of the country’s apartheid history, the Palestinian cause is largely seen as analogous to its own struggle against oppression, occupation and violence.
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor (she was in Office until June 30) echoed this: “South Africa really has a moral responsibility to always stand with the oppressed because we come from a history of struggle, a history of striving for freedom, a history of believing that everybody deserves human dignity, justice and freedom; this is the only reason that we have taken this major step as South Africa.”
“By drawing on established international institutions, South Africa’s government is simultaneously asking the ICJ to rule on whether there is an ongoing genocide in Gaza and to clarify the duties of all states to prevent genocide.”
Die Ministerin für internationale Beziehungen und Zusammenarbeit, Naledi Pandor, die bis zum 30. Juni im Amt war, schloss sich dem an: „Südafrika hat wirklich eine moralische Verantwortung, immer an der Seite der Unterdrückten zu stehen, denn wir kommen aus einer Geschichte des Kampfes, einer Geschichte des Strebens nach Freiheit, einer Geschichte des Glaubens, dass jeder Mensch Menschenwürde, Gerechtigkeit und Freiheit verdient; Das ist der einzige Grund, warum wir als Südafrika diesen großen Schritt gemacht haben.“
Catapulting move
By drawing on established international institutions, South Africa’s government is simultaneously asking the ICJ to rule on whether there is an ongoing genocide in Gaza and to clarify the duties of all states to prevent genocide, while testing the legitimacy and consistency of this system.
That means the value of the case is not solely about the legal outcome, but about spotlighting concerns surrounding the fairness and accountability of the international justice system.
South Africa should be applauded for working through legitimate global legal instruments in its support of the Palestinian cause. However, Pretoria’s glaring foreign policy contradictions and inconsistencies cannot be ignored, especially if the government believes this ICJ case may help the country rekindle its moral authority on the world stage.
From its 2015 failure to uphold its international and domestic legal obligations to arrest former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, to its muddled response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there are many cases where international law violations and abuses of power by other states haven’t received a similar reaction from Pretoria.
“From its 2015 failure to uphold its international and domestic legal obligations to arrest former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, to its muddled response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there are many cases where international law violations and abuses of power by other states haven’t received a similar reaction from Pretoria."
The situation is complicated by the country’s troubled relationship with the International Criminal Court, from which the ruling African National Congress has threatened to withdraw – a proposal that’s since been revoked. And foreign policy missteps such as the clumsy handling of the Lady R saga risk the loss of global moral and financial capital.
The Lady R incident, refers to the docking of the sanctioned Russian cargo ship Lady R at Simon's Town Naval Base in South Africa in December 2022 and the resulting diplomatic impact. (The incident is controversial for the secretive nature of the docking and an allegation by the United States ambassador to South Africa that South African military supplies were loaded onto the ship for use in Russia's invasion of Ukraine).
To be fair, most countries’ international relations are rife with contradictions, and the art of foreign policy may be seen as the business of navigating such inconsistencies towards a defined national interest. However, this may be a tall order for South Africa, given how deeply divisive international responses to its case against Israel have been.
On the one hand, Pretoria’s stance plays well internationally. Amidst rising geopolitical competition, South Africa has sought to position itself as a leading voice of the global south. Its successful hosting of last year’s BRICS summit was a notable step in pursuing a more equitable and just global political and economic system.
“Amidst rising geopolitical competition, South Africa has sought to position itself as a leading voice of the global south. Its successful hosting of last year’s BRICS summit was a notable step in pursuing a more equitable and just global political and economic system.”
Fairerweise muss gesagt werden, dass die internationalen Beziehungen der meisten Länder voller Widersprüche sind und dass die Kunst der Außenpolitik darin besteht, diese Widersprüche im Sinne eines definierten nationalen Interesses zu navigieren. Dies könnte für Südafrika eine große Aufgabe sein, wenn man bedenkt, wie gespalten die internationalen Reaktionen auf die Klage gegen Israel waren.
Auf der einen Seite ist Pretorias Haltung international positiv zu bewerten. Inmitten des zunehmenden geopolitischen Wettbewerbs hat Südafrika versucht, sich als führende Stimme des globalen Südens zu positionieren. Die erfolgreiche Ausrichtung des BRICS-Gipfels im vergangenen Jahr war ein bemerkenswerter Schritt in Richtung eines gerechteren und ausgewogeneren globalen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Systems.
The decision to use the United Nations’ World Court to advocate the Palestine cause has generated widespread support among global south countries and has ramped up pressure for a ceasefire. Following South Africa’s actions, Indonesia has brought a separate case against Israel to the ICJ, while Chile and Mexico decided to refer Israel to the ICC for alleged war crimes. And a few month ago, the Non-Aligned Movement summit adopted a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Government positions towards South Africa may become more entrenched after the ICJ’s imminent ruling on provisional measures, and over the coming years when a decision on the merits of the genocide case is expected.
Government positions towards SA may become more entrenched after the ICJ rules on provisional measures. This will test Pretoria’s bilateral relations with numerous major Western partners opposed to the case. In particular, the United States (US) dismissed the legal action as a ‘meritless’ distraction.
Foreign policy contradictions
In better managing South Africa’s foreign policy contradictions and relations with leading states, Pretoria must recognise that the country largely sits outside the intricate patchwork of geopolitics and security interests that plague the Middle East. That means South Africa is not burdened by the immediate concerns of regional and major powers with vested interests in the outcome of the conflict.
While this distance from the Middle East affords South Africa a unique opportunity to pursue a fundamentally normative approach towards the Palestinian cause, the country’s leaders still need to engage in the realpolitik at play.
South Africa now needs clear, unambiguous foreign policy positions on Hamas, Israel, Iran and the US and its allies – with actions that match its rhetoric.
“South Africa now needs clear, unambiguous foreign policy positions on Hamas, Israel, Iran and the US and its allies – with actions that match its rhetoric.”
Während diese Distanz zum Nahen Osten Südafrika eine einzigartige Gelegenheit bietet, einen grundlegend normativen Ansatz in der palästinensischen Frage zu verfolgen, muss sich die Führung des Landes immer noch in die Realpolitik einmischen, die auf dem Spiel steht.
Südafrika braucht jetzt klare und unmissverständliche außenpolitische Positionen gegenüber der Hamas, Israel, dem Iran und den USA und ihren Verbündeten – mit Taten, die der Rhetorik entsprechen.
This necessitates a foreign policy as well versed in the discourse of geopolitics, violent extremism and religious fundamentalism, as in progressive internationalism, oppression and occupation.
As the world awaits the ICJ’s decision, South Africa’s international relations will require careful recalibration regardless of the outcome. How Pretoria seizes the current momentum will be a critical test of the country’s new government.
© Qantara.de 2024
Ronak Gopaldas Ronak Gopaldas is a political economist, writer and speaker. His work focuses on the intersection of politics, economics, and business in Africa. He is currently a Director at risk management consultancy Signal Risk, a fellow at the South African Business School GIBS and the co-founder of Mindflux Training, aiming to provide world class skills training and education for the benefit of the African continent.
Priyal Singh is Senior Researcher at the South African Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Pretoria, which “enhances human security by providing authoritative research, expert policy advice and capacity building” This text is based on a version published on the ISS website.