Anti-apartheid activist Reverend Frank Chikane believes South Africa’s case against Israel on genocide allegations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has once again placed it in the global spotlight.
The interim ruling earlier this year saw a panel of judges pass seven emergency measures requested by Pretoria.
In addition to demanding that Israel refrain from committing genocide, the panel of judges ordered Israel to take measures against its military who commit genocidal acts, as well as state officials who publicly call for the genocide of Palestinians.
The ruling also stated that Israel must also preserve evidence of any such acts that have been committed.
Chikane, who has extensive experience in negotiations, mediation and conflict resolution, said the case is widely regarded as doing more for the country in terms of global public opinion than probably any other international issue since late former icon Nelson Mandela’s presidency.
Chikane said it would be surprising if any government would use South Africa approaching the ICJ to punish the country in the international arena.
In the wake of the ICJ ruling, a US Congress bill tabled in the House of Representatives called for a full review of relations between Washington and Pretoria.
The bill, which could affect South Africa in terms of business, geopolitics and aid, has been proposed by Congressmen John James (Republican party) and Jared Moskowitz (Democratic party).
It calls on US President Joe Biden to make an unclassified determination of the act being enacted, if Pretoria has engaged in activities that undermine US national security or foreign policy interests.
Chikane said any attempt to punish the country as a result of the case would “send a message that a UN body like the ICJ is only to be used against the weak in society and that cannot be the basis in which the world is grounded”.
“To say if you differ we will take action against you or to use trade agreements as a punishment is not the best way to manage foreign policy.”
He said South Africa had not changed its stance on foreign policy since the first democratic elections in 1994.
Chikane said South Africa’s stance on international relations was based on its own experiences when global superpowers did not take the necessary steps to challenge apartheid.
“It took a lot of effort in the US, where we mobilised people and the US Congress ended up adopting a resolution supporting the calls for apartheid to be ended,” Chikane noted.
Lesego Masisi, a youth activist and a final-year law student at the University of Pretoria, said that South Africa had an obligation in the global political realm to not just speak out against the conflict in Gaza but to act.
He said this is related to the country’s own history of fighting an oppressive regime which was largely ignored by the West.
“If South Africa did not speak out about the humanitarian crisis taking place in Palestine, it would have raised many questions about the country’s integrity.”
Masisi said the country’s foreign policy continued to be influenced by Mandela’s approach to international relations.
“He always sought to take the moral high ground on geopolitical issues and through his affiliations, without compromising the endgame.
“With Palestine, he realised that it was similar to what the country experienced with the apartheid regime and many countries were treating the issue similar to how the oppression in South Africa was viewed.”
Masisi said the country was absent from the international spotlight after Mandela died in 2013 as it lacked direction on international relations.
“For South Africa to take a stand against Israel at a UN platform like the ICJ, given the power dynamics in the world, was a bold move by the country’s government.
“There was pressure on the government from civil society and progressive political parties to not just speak out against what is happening in the conflict but to also act,” Masisi said.
He said the conflict is a human rights issue that was viewed differently by countries.
The Mercury