by AKANI CHAUKE
JOHANNESBURG – WHILE Africa has maintained yet another stance of neutrality in global geopolitical crises, this time following the Israel-Iran conflict, some member states have again defied such a position, apparently taking sides.
This exposes the differing alliances member states have taken on such prevailing matters, with Israel again at the centre of controversy, with its latest involvement in war, the second in recent memory following its onslaught against Palestine.
Last Friday, Israel launched numerous attack targets at more than a dozen locations across Iran, in the latter’s opposition to its Middle East Nation’s rival. Iran has retaliated. It is estimated more than 1 000 people have been killed or injured in recent days, with the war showing no signs of abating.
The African Union (AU) responded to the explosive conflict with a call for warring parties to lay arms. This is consistent with its stance on such conflicts.
“The African Union reiterates its steadfast commitment to peace, dialogue, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts,” stated chairperson of the AU Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf.
He has called for the immediate cessation of hostilities and urged all parties to exercise maximum restraint, pointing out that the current developments posed a serious threat to international peace and security.
While some member states concurred with the AU on the threat to global peace and stability the conflict posed, they put the blame squarely on Iran.
Among them is, explicitly, South Africa.
South Africa, despite claiming non-alignment, is one of Israel’s fiercest critics of Israel internationally, particularly its occupation of Palestine.
At the end of 2023, South Africa opened a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The government of Cyril Ramaphosa condemned Israel for the attacks on Iran.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) said, “These actions raise serious concerns under international law, including the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the protection of civilians enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter and international humanitarian law.”
The South African government said it rejected Israel’s justification of the strikes on Iran as an act of pre-emptive self-defence.
It highlighted Article 51 of the United Nations Charter provided for self-defence only when a state has been subjected to an armed invasion.
“Thus, Israel’s public announcement of acting in pre-emptive self-defence is not valid and its actions are once again unlawful. Anticipatory self-defence is not permitted under international law.”
Iran and South Africa are fellow members of the BRICS+ bloc, before its expansion an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
South Africa has consistently denied any nuclear cooperation with Iran.
In Namibia, President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, also accused Israel of violating Iran’s sovereignty and contravening international law.
The country’s first female president, in power since March this year, expressed her country’s “deep concern” at the recent military strikes carried out by Israel against nuclear and civilian infrastructure within Iran.
“This act constitutes a flagrant violation of Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and represents a breach of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations,” she said.
Nandi-Ndaitwah nonetheless relayed Namibia’s call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and pursue a diplomatic resolution through multilateral platforms, including the UN.
Kenya, as the geopolitical tensions took another twist, Kenya’s government’s spokesperson, was quoted as alleging Iran was among countries worsening the conflict in Sudan.
“External powers fuel the conflict: Egypt and Iran back the Sudanese Armed Forces. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) backs Rapid Support Forces,” read a statement attributed to spokesperson, Isaac Mwaura.
Conflicts in faraway regions – as was the during the peak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict- usually have economic implications for Africa, besides the differing political stances.
In any case, some views among Africans is that the AU prioritises global matters rather than conflicts bedeviling this continent.
Analyst James Amoako urged the continental body to set its priorities right.
“You (AU) have failed to silence the guns in your region but want to stop missiles that are already flying,” he responded to the AU stance.
Nabii Herode, denounced AU as “a disgrace”
“AU shouts the loudest when it comes to others, but you’ll never hear them talk on African affairs. This is a useless organisation that has no use,” Herode said. – Herode denounced.
