South Africa’s decision to bring Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide has sparked polarised global reactions. Critics accuse South Africa of political opportunism and double standards, while supporters praise its principled stance. The move has impacted Pretoria’s international relations and has raised potential diplomatic risks.
South Africa’s support for the Palestinian cause is rooted in its democratic foreign policy, which views the Palestinian cause as analogous to its own struggle against oppression, occupation, and violence. Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor emphasized South Africa’s moral responsibility to stand with the oppressed, citing its history of struggle, freedom, and belief in human dignity, justice, and freedom.
South Africa’s government is requesting the International Criminal Court (ICJ) to rule on whether there is an ongoing genocide in Gaza and clarify the duties of all states to prevent genocide, while testing the legitimacy and consistency of the international justice system. The value of the case is not solely about the legal outcome but also about spotlighting concerns surrounding the fairness and accountability of the international justice system.
South Africa should be commended for utilizing legitimate global legal instruments to support the Palestinian cause. However, Pretoria’s 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.
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Criminal Court, from which the ruling African National Congress has threatened to withdraw, a proposal that has since been revoked.
SA sits outside the complex geopolitics and security interests that plague the Middle East, and its decision to use the United Nations’ World Court to advocate the Palestine cause has generated widespread support among global south countries and ramped up pressure for a ceasefire. Indonesia has filed a separate case against Israel with the International Criminal Court (ICJ), while Chile and Mexico plan to refer Israel to the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes.
South Africa’s government’s stance towards the country may become more pronounced following the International Criminal Court’s (ICJ) ruling on provisional measures. Pretoria’s legal action will test its relations with major Western partners, including the US, which viewed it as a distraction, and Germany, which plans to support Israel.
South Africa’s foreign policy contradictions and relations with leading states require better management. The country is largely outside the complex geopolitics and security interests of the Middle East, allowing it to pursue a normative approach towards the Palestinian cause.
However, South Africa needs clear, unambiguous foreign policy positions on Hamas, Israel, Iran, and the US and its allies. This requires a foreign policy that is well-versed in geopolitics, violent extremism, religious fundamentalism, progressive internationalism, oppression, and occupation.
As the world awaits the ICJ’s decision, South Africa’s international relations will need careful recalibration, and how Pretoria seizes the current momentum will be a critical test of the country’s next government.
