FOREIGN POLICY OP-ED
SA’s ICJ action — the critical problem of a populist foreign policy
South Africa’s action at the International Court of Justice will cost the country much more than it will get out of it. It will place South Africa among the pariahs and will make investing in SA a more radical, less certain and riskier act.
South Africa has finally shed its foreign policy schizophrenia, of going steady with the West while engaging in occasional heavy petting with Caracas, Cuba and Putin’s Russia.
Instead of trying to balance the need to maintain a steady state of investment inflows and ensure trade access with rich markets with, on the other hand, more radical impulses including a desire to change (while blaming) the world, its support of Russia over Ukraine and now its action at the International Criminal Court of Justice (ICJ) has exposed the African National Congress.
The ruling party is clearly no friend of liberal values.
New directions and changing relationships are of course the prerogative of governments. Its new populist course may even prove to be fairly popular with the Tik-Tok left, but this constituency of virtue-signalling airheads should not be mistaken for a base with any serious political heft.
It has doubtful legal merit, which the ICJ will assess this week, though the outcome will likely be driven by politics in any event. It will indubitably be celebrated in parts of the BRICS, especially in those countries too savvy to launch such an action themselves, mindful of the inevitably costly consequences.
Little impact
The impact of this intervention is likely to have little effect on reality, whatever the ruling.
The ANC’s friends in Hamas will continue to be pounded by Israel — no country has given up its right to protect itself in exchange for virtue signalling, and Israel is unlikely to become the first.
Read more in Daily Maverick: Israel asks the ICJ to throw out SA’s ‘curated and inaccurate’ genocide case
At the end of the day, to use a South Africanism, the ICJ action will cost South Africa much more than it will get out of it.
Domestically, it will not improve the circumstances of nearly half of the workforce, which is stuck unemployed, nor will it raise South Africa’s pedestrian rate of economic growth. To the contrary. It will place South Africa among the pariahs and will make investing in SA a more radical, less certain and riskier act.
As such it will not make South Africa safer to do business with, and will in the process probably reduce the life chances of the average South African.
Read more in Daily Maverick: Israel-Palestine War
South Africa’s coming out in its foreign policy — effectively supporting Russia over Ukraine and now Hamas via the ICJ action against Israel — is not an action founded fundamentally on leftist ideological solidarity.
Russia today is hardly leftist. Rather, it is elite nationalist. Hamas is many things, as is Hezbollah and the backers of both in Iran, but leftist does not spring to mind.
They are not consistently anti-colonial instincts either. Russia’s treatment of Ukraine is quite the opposite.
Read more in Daily Maverick: ‘Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire’ — Ukrainian scholar Olexiy Haran dissects the roots of the war in Europe
Struggle loyalties alone also did not drive this foreign policy direction. If it had, human rights should be up there on the list of concerns. That is not the case in SA’s cosy relations with some allies in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, where human rights (and especially minority and gender rights) are not exactly top of the agenda.
It is moreover not that Venezuela or Iran helped during the struggle; rather, the Iranians made a lot of money trading oil with apartheid SA. Others, like the Scandinavians or Ukraine, did assist and possess relatively immaculate struggle credentials, but now find themselves on the other side of SA’s contemporary foreign policy course.
And, if human rights were really the driving force, South Africa would have spent December lobbying to get trumped-up treason charges against former Sierra Leone president, Ernest Bai Koroma, dropped.
It would have brought cases to the ICJ over genocide in Sudan and Ethiopia’s Tigray — both much closer to home. Sudan’s Al-Bashir instead enjoys immunity from the ANC’s human rights crusade, as does Vladimir Putin.
It was not long ago that the Supreme Court of Appeal said South Africa’s protection of Al-Bashir was “disgraceful conduct” and “unlawful”.
Changing the rules
What then is the real motive?
Some of this may be motivated by tactical considerations, not least by paying back party funders and the desire to shift focus from dire domestic issues (unemployment, load shedding, crime, party infighting) to those outside as an election catastrophe looms.
But overall it seems that South Africa, in old-fashioned Marxian terminology, would like to challenge the hegemony of the rules-based international order. Pretoria seems adamant that these rules are harmful to the prospects of Africa and SA. Since Africa did not define them, it should not therefore be bound by them.
There appears to be an impulse to be seen to be radical while quietly benefiting from membership of the establishment. The radical economic transformation of the South African economy through ill-considered land reform and the punishment of business through regulation and taxes takes place while the ANC elite benefits from profits generated by big businesses which are forced by law to hand over equity.
On the global front, the BRICS offers the practical means whereby such apparently unfair rules might be altered.
The irony is thus. These rules have played and could still further play to South Africa’s advantage much more than the ANC gives credit.
They may need amending and refining as the world changes, but if it weren’t for globalisation and liberal trade policies, China would not have managed the largest movement of people out of poverty in living history.
Any alternative rules — never mind those favoured by South Africa’s new friends in Iran, Russia and Hamas — would probably be much worse for SA.
It’s not as if, for instance, the Chinese and Russians or Indians and Iranians are offering cheap capital to invest in labour-intensive industries. Rather, they are lenders in the economy, even if they might — if the rumours are to be believed — be sponsors of the party.
Herein lies another problem with the aim of SA’s foreign policy in changing the United Nations and its structures.
SA’s preference for two permanent seats in the UN Security Council, with a veto for Africa, would mean a Security Council with around 10 veto members: the current Permanent Five plus Germany, Japan, India and Brazil which would, at least, demand the same.
A bigger Security Council might be more representative, but it would be even more dysfunctional. These changes presume that the aspirants can agree on who gets what; so far an impossible task.
“Be careful what you wish for” might be the best advisory for South Africans in the current direction of its foreign policy.
It may make the party stalwarts grandstanding in their SA scarves and keffiyehs feel smugly better about their role and their struggle mission. It is also likely to change the fortunes of South Africans — but only for the worse. DM
Greg Mills and Ray Hartley are with The Brenthurst Foundation.
Become an Insider
The investment in humanity is very slow in bringing economic returns but eventually when it does it lasts a life time.
South Africa is being judged by other wars where other players have already invested in military assets for economic returns but because Palestine has nothing to offer for now even Arab allies are looking on the other side.
In the long term countries that matter will look at south Africa with very different eyes for this step.
Let’s not judge until when the right time comes.
It is interesting to note that since the Hamas visit to the ANC in December 2023 and the subsequent launching of the case at the ICJ, how the ANC’s financial situation seems to have dramatically improved per the statements at the party’s anniversary celebrations. Perhaps there is merit in the comment made by the authors of this article re the funding of the ANC by certain governments who are using South Africa as their “front man”?
Do you really think a besieged and starved Hamas that barely survives on Iranian financial and military support has the wherewithal to support the ANC financially? Most likely Hamas left with briefcases of money from South Africa
No, but Iran does.
Not suprised there is no idea of who and what Hamas is. Hamas leaders do not live in Gaza, never have, they live luxury lives in Tunisia and Qatar, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi Rebels and Muslim Brotherhood are bankrolled by Iran who, incidentally, the and is in bed with. Please do some homework before posting fake narratives
“But overall it seems that South Africa, in old-fashioned Marxian terminology, would like to challenge the hegemony of the rules-based international order.”
The Marxist movie premiered a century ago, has been loved and embraced and given its best shot by some, failed, and has been judged.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! The first article of reason to be published by DM on this matter!
So true! In December I emailed Heather Davies iro a well balanced ad newsworthy article on Israel which DM had apparently refused to publish and despite her promising to discuss this issue with her “senior editors” over a month later I have had no feedback. So much for “fearless reporting” and “freedom of expression”!!
They’re either afraid of or are part of the fascist cancel culture radicals many of whom post on these pages
I agree
The love affair of the ANC with brutal autocratic regimes manifested symbolically by the cartoonish ANC cadres parading in their Palestinian scarves goes way beyond foreign policy.
As Francis Fukuyama has shown in his recent book : Liberalism and its Discontents certain fundamental pre-conditions are necessary for a society to be rooted in and function according to liberal values of tolerance, upholding of human rights, respect of difference and so forth. These conditions may be a common language, religion or basically shared cultural values. They are totally absent in South Africa . The ANC ,for whatever reason, now feels that pretending to uphold western democratic values is no longer worthwhile. A new game is about to be played and the question will be who can play it best : the ANC, Zuma or the EFF.
Remember the love affairs between the West and Myanmar Gaddafi, Jonas Savimbi and a variety of other unsavoury leaders?
So? Welcome to the 21st Century
This article says a lot that needs to be said but I wonder if it is representative of the Daily Maverick point of view. I have been a supporter of the Maverick for years …… that support being born out of admiration for it’s anti-corruption stance.
I am no longer an admirer of the Maverick as it has lost it’s way into politics and woke-ism.
I am about to leave.
I don’t see any woke-ism. A good reason to leave is the extremist and uncivil comments that are published.
I’ve heard this term used all over and would like to know just what you mean by “EXTREMIST”. Care to elborate?
She’s part of the woke cancel-culture radicals
Getting personal Ben
The pot calling the kettle again John
Oh Ben- FYI, I don’t watch Tiktok, do not support this woke nonsense or the dangerous cancel culture: I call them the new Puritans, and not as a compliment.
Bye.
This is not an op-ed. It’s a egotistical Zionism turned personal. And Ray Hartley and Greg Mills have exposed themselves.
Does SA gov have a horrible and bipolar foreign policy on human rights? Yes. Do SAns have a great reputation for fighting for human rights? Yes, especially those in the legal sector – Think Al Bashir. Is there a case to be heard for genocide in the Gaza conflict? Without a shadow of a doubt yes. Do Palestinians have anywhere to go to to seek justice. Realistically no.
So should South Africa not have done the right thing because it may pss off the west and we have a conflicting past? Greg and and Ray seem to think so. They would rather see innocent children die than see their stocks drop.
Well said
Agree – thank you. This pair of far from unbiased commentators.
Interesting that if it’s for Hamas and against Israel then it’s unbiased but if it’s the other way then it’s extremist, yes???
Just for clarification – I’m for neither one and definitely not for the african criminals either. There’s only one kingdom to which my allegiance belongs – that of the One who created it all and who established Israel as a nation before Him that will not pass away until heaven and earth passes away.
Anyone else ( humanly speaking ) are just sinners in need of a saviour from the wrath to come.
Read something other than the Bible and expand your views.
Well said. Perhaps the authors can write a piece on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the discriminatory policies and the ongoing violence against the legal occupants going unpunished, to help me ‘understand’ better.
Deidre, it’s very easy to verify: just look up the videos loaded by IDF and HAMAS on the raping and killing of innocent civilians (including babies) on 7 October . That should clarify any misinformation about the reason for eradicating HAMAS from the GAZA areas
check the list of confirmed killed by age , sex and place of residence on oct 7 and tell were are these babies killed .
Eradicating Hamas and destroying Gaza are not the same thing.
Agree. Deeply disappointed in Ray and Greg here. Their own biases are showing very clearly.
Hahahahaha – like yours perhaps?
Hehehehe and you are so open minded?
Again – pot… kettle…
You got me. My bias is that I think accusations of genocide should be taken seriously and examined on their own merits.
Nah….the use of the emotive “see innocent children die” is off target in this instance.
The article has already made multiple references to the so-called “human rights” issues that have been ignored by those railing against the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks. So until and unless the comment fully address those cases – wherein many innocent children have lost and continue to lose their lives – this use of the emotive is just virtue signaling and just so much hubris.
It is your biases that are here laid bare. The article is soundly written and thoughtful. Without useless comments like “biased”, why don’t you point out the flaws in what they say? Probably because you can’t articulate your own thoughts on the matter. The dog that bites the hand that feeds it will soon go hungry.
Exactly!!!
“What then is the real motive?”
Found in the internet sphere, mid December -“Comrade Mdu Ntuli outlined that map, shared it with me and I gained confidence that they don’t know what our secret weapon is going to be to win this election and we do have one,” said Ramaphosa.
Mr Ntuli works as an educator and facilitator at the Johannesburg Holocaust & Genocide Centre in South Africa. He is pursuing his doctorate in Education Management and Policy at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Guantanamo Bay and Cuba another instance.
ANC is punting election support coming with anti Israel, anti USA stance. Election money coming in from somewhere, being broke 3 weeks ago.
Venezuela mentioned above, all the above are USA are typical axis of evil candidates.
Cyril is in the China and Russia camp and that is where ANC future lies.
“Comrade Mdu Ntuli” in the quoted statement refers to ANC head of elections MDUMISENI Ntuli. You can find this basic info in the same IOL article you quoted from.
The other Mr Ntuli you are referencing is MDUDUZI Ntuli, an educator at the Johannesburg Holocaust Centre — a completely different person and likely no relation. Ntuli is a common surname, and Mdu is an incredibly common prefix for South African first names.
The other aspersions you cast does not even bear contesting, considering how blatantly you got the first part wrong.
So it seems that only two possible explanations can exist. Are you sockpuppet spreading disinfo for monetary reward, or just an amateur conspiracy theorist doing it for free?
(As much as it grinds me to be defending the ANC against anything, seeing the malicious spread of disinformation bothers me more.)
If you unironically use the term “axis of evil”, I’m afraid that your opinion can be immediately discounted. It’s a throwback to worst kind of Bush USA propaganda.
Bilious: The adjective for bile, bilious has three meanings. It means of or relating to bile. By extension, bilious means suffering from liver dysfunction (and especially excessive secretion of bile). And, further by extension, it is indicative of a peevish ill-natured disposition.
I support SA’s legal action against Israel. Seems to me that Israel is indeed engaging in genocide. And as a signatory to the ICJ they must be held to account for that. But we need to be consistent here. By crying out at Israel while quietly ignoring the actions of Hamas and Russia, SA looks at best stupid, and at worst a supporter of terrorism.
As do the many who decry the bombing of Ukraine nut support Israel.
What is your position on Hamas’ published charter to eradicate the state of Israel and all Jews or is that in an convenient fact you choose to ignore
It’s a bit unfortunate that the article seems dismissive off the humanitarian implications off the most direct formal condemnation of any sort at an international scale of the crisis in Gaza as pandering to ‘the Tik Tok left’ . The Palestine agenda has always been intertwined with the transition to democracy in South Africa and the global south at large, other incentives aside it’s unfortunate that the larger human impact of the action can be so easily dismissed in favour of effects on balance sheets and financial statements, and a sly up yours to a young voter base whose conscience in this matter proves a bit more alive than the preferred counterparts of the author. Whether silence would have proven more useful to the later is doubtful but it’s telling of the priorities of the writer.
I couldn’t agree more.
Agree, incredulous that they dismiss a humanitarian crisis so blithely.
Yes exactly
Standing on the right side of history surely can never be a bad thing? The action in the ICJ by South Africa has been welcomed by many across the world. Perhaps it should not surprise that the Brenthurst Foundation, with it’s capitalist and pro-West sentiments, is critical of the action. Yes, indeed, one can accuse the government of South Africa of being disingenuous and hypocritical for bringing this action while not addressing issues closer to home, both inside South Africa itself and on the African continent. It is true that South Africa stands accused for its pro-Russian position vis a vis the Ukraine and the way in which it failed to arrest Al Bashir when it should have. Does that disqualify it from standing up to the genocide the whole world is horrified seeing being committed so blatantly?
Yes it does disqualify them, they openly and blatantly support and protect those already charged with human rights abuses and genocide for whom warrants of arrest were issued. They cannot protect and coddle one party already charged with genocide and accuse another of the same thing and demand action against them
“But overall it seems that South Africa, in old-fashioned Marxian terminology, would like to challenge the hegemony of the rules-based international order.”
Tell us, by who abides by the “rules based international order” ? Not Israel whose invasion of Palestine (politely called “settlements”) has gone on for decades, and who take endless hostages (why they call “administrative detainees”), not its ally the USA whose overthrow of governments around the world is legion, who maintains an indefinite detention centre in another country, and whose wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had no basis in international law.
This article is (another) disgusting puff peace in support of what is mass murder of civilians mass starvation of an entire population, the killing of more children than any other war in recent history. Whether it is technically defined as genocide is just that – a technicality. Greg Mills and Ray Hartley should be known as “The Voice of America” and the Daily Maverick should be ashamed of giving them such a regular platform.
I so totally agree with you. This is just not the fact based objective reporting we expect from the Daily Maverick.
No DM should publish all views , should not follow western media standards which has proven to be biased . Keep on making us think and not pandering to anyone DM
Hmm, open racism, fascism and cancel culture all in one – demand the silencing of one side because their views do not comply with yours and throw slurs while doing so
did you read my comment
Apologies Dexter – misread
Thank you for saying this so well!
Why am I completely unsurprised that friends of the DA, Greg Mills and the Brenthurst Foundation come out against South Africa’s brave move to support Palestine.
This is the same Brenthurst Foundation that paid for John Steenhuisen to go on a “fact finding” trip to Ukraine, and had John Steenhuisen speak at Greg Mills’ book launch.
It is so shamelessly partisan I am surprised the Daily Maverick continues to publish these op-eds.
South Africa (and the ANC) took the morally correct position in taking Israel to the ICJ, in the face of overwhelming pressure from the West. Calling this “virtue signaling” is extremely cynical. SA was represented by many of our top legal minds, including John Dugard, regarded as the father of international law in South Africa, and many of whom have litigated against the ANC and SA government. They are hardly “partisan” or “virtue signalers”. These are serious lawyers who have dedicated their careers to public service.
Israel is an apartheid state, as has been affirmed by a host of international human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many organizations within Israel itself.
You should really just come out and be honest. You do not want SA to have an independent foreign policy – you want it to be a stooge to the West, even when the West is supporting a murderous regime in Israel that slaughters hundreds of women and children daily.
Totally agree.
Well stated
The cost of this grandiose grandstanding for the initial case is around R200m. If it goes to full blown trial which can take years, will end up costing SA over R1bn.
There are 50+ Muslim countries. Many of whom actively discriminate against non-Muslims via there constitutions and/or laws. Why hasn’t any one of these countries, especially Arab ones, taken the matter to the ICJ?
SA’s economy is shrinking due to ANC mismanagement and is inflicting gross human rights abuses on its own people, especially blacks.
You state these numbers with such confidence. Can I ask you from whence you sourced them?
Majority Arab leaders do not want to be on the bad side of their patron the US. Also quite a few could have the same law applied to them with the minority groups (and those are fellow Muslims ) in their country .
I concur.
The Hauge? Where’s that? Goodness me, Daily Maverick, no proofreading?
More importatntly, is the case SA brought really about virtue-signalling populism? Or is it just a Republican Party style attempt at distraction from all the things the ANC is clearly doing wrong?
But is it different anywhere else? In America? In Germany? Netherlands?
All liberalism seems to be cheap virtue signalling that actually just shows the sheep which way to bleat, whilst the leaders carry on with unbridled capitalism to further their financial constituent’s end.
So let’s be grownup and do what exactly?
Just have morals and fight for personal freedoms, and nurture health, mental well-being community, and that in-born sense of right and wrong 99% of people have.
Maybe this will safeguard against the seemingly infallible phenomenon that power corrupts even those who sing freedom songs around the fire… be it a konka or a camp fire
Your article falls into the same trap as those you accuse: not evidence based, but biased, emotive and smugly cynical; and in your own way populist toward a receptive audience eager to fuel another kind of outrage. Good grounded analysis and critique is always welcome and is necessary in this case, but this fails all these criteria.
Spot on!
No actually there’s more fact in this article that the biased pieces posted by other contributors
I think you mean “No actually there’s more I agree with in this article that the biased pieces posted by other contributors”
No John, their article is objective and is not full of the emotive, biased nonsense that ignores facts, distorts history and coddles the real perpetrators of genocide that is prevailing on this issue
Well said.
What evidence do you need. Our current investment partners dont share South Africas new love for Putin and Hamas. We have picked some very bad friends. Buinsess people dont like risk and South Africa has risk written all over it at the moment.
This decsion will cost South Africa a lot of money just when we needed investments after a horible ten years.
What does the ANC/EFF coalition offer South Africa. Chaos.
Well, if SA is “coming out” as you describe it, your slip is also showing. To think that our protest at the ICJ is merely in support of Hamas is ingenuous at best. I, for one, fully support it not because I am a Hamas supporter (I’m not), but because the actions of a fascist government – that’s Israel – has far overstepped the lines of humanitarianism, decency and moral restraint, and has to be stopped. It is not an anti-West action. it is a pro-people action. You write this story as if the complete destruction of Palestinian life is justified! Shame on you!
this seems to be the Western Line , all western media only covered Israel defense and totally ignored SA charges on behalf of Palestinians . Shame cnn , bbc ,sky ,fox etc….now where is the western media that lectures all on standards of Journalism . Go Game of Throne stars that read out SA case and posted online .
South Africa has deciced to side with Putin and Hamas, It is a anti west action, pity as our investment partners are in the west.
Would love to see your reactions if your neighbour hurled rocks and missiles at your house and then persisted in killing members of your family
By Listing every single problem that South Africa is presently facing, Ray Hartley and Greg Mills opinion piece runs hollow. Included, is also the fact that they refuse to engage the question if South Africa’s action with the ICJ was the right thing to do.
This article smacks of another mouthpiece trying to justify why Israel should continue with the genocide in Gaza, instead of hailing South Africa for trying to stop the genocide taking place.
The ANC and it’s partners have always been firmly rooted in the communist ideals of the Soviet Union from whence they received their support and training in the Apartheid years. Yes their current foreign policy seems to be driven by China and Russia who seem to be the source of their finance, yes they have turned a blind eye to African issues such as Sudan. That said I feel that something had to be done about Israel’s excessive revenge based actions in Gaza and if it has turned out to be South Africa that stepped up to the plate then so be it.
This piece feels much more like an opinion piece than a proper piece of journalism… to lable a large portion of the youth as “TikTok airheads” whose views should be dismissed is essentially ignoring the beliefs and priorities of this group, who form the largest potential voter base in South Africa and accordingly, whose views should be taken seriously on political matters. By belittling this group on issues we are often well-researched and well-versed on, DM is exposing how out of touch it is with the youth. Not a good look.
Do you honestly believe the tik tokked airheads even bother reading the news or researching anything of their own volition? If you believe that you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus
The authors are ascribing a whole raft of spurious, mostly political, justifications for SA’s case with the ICJ, except the clearest and most obvious – the humanitarian necessity to cease the violence. Yes, there are deep hypocrisies in SA’s foreign policy (actually in all their policies), but for once, and counter to many of the situations in which they should have taken such a stand, they have done the right thing. So, to call the ANC ‘friends’ of Hamas is disingenuous to say the least, and twists the story to suit the quite rabid anti-humanitarian stance taken by the authors. While there is probably some element of cocking a snoot at the West, it is very unlikely that this is the driving motive, and the ‘leftist/rightist’ analysis is probably way beyond our so-called leaders in the ANC. So, a lot of hot air has been exhaled in this article, complicating what is essentially, if perhaps not entirely, a critical decision taken from a fundamentally humanitarian base. Let us laud this one show of real compassion and empathy from a government that is generally noted for a complete absence of such.
Yeah, the grasping for alternative justifications is altogether conspiratorial. The historical evidence is unambiguous – the ANC genuinely seems to care about the Palestinian people.
The humanitarian necessity to cease the violence does not necessitate charges of genocide. The actual charges are legally and factually baseless and have been condemned as such but many experts. One can condemn Israel’s actions but at the same time have to recognize that Hamas is the only party that has clearly stated genocidal intent and has vowed to pursue it until Israel is destroyed. You need to bring that fact into your argument.
“Challenge the hegemony of the rules based international order”. SA is trying to enforce the rules that the international order set up throught th Genocide Convention and the ICJ.
If I was a conspiracist it would be easy to think the CIA is paying the authors for this piece.
If the anc is trying to enforce the rules that the international order set up through the Genocide convention then why did the coddle and protect Al Bashir and refuse to act on the arrest warrant issued on him for Genocide and why did they threaten anyone who dared to demand they arrest Putin on the arrest warrant issued against him for crimes against humanity and war crimes? Or is it OK to protect one lot of murderous, genocidal dictators but actively pursue a sovereign state that is acting lawfully to protect its territory and citizens against an aggressor who’s stated mandate is to wipe out their country and their people?
Sheila won’t have an answer for that. There is no answer for that. She is probably just another of those on the wrong side of history.
Ben, if that is your name, your trolling in these comments highlights that you are either profoundly ignorant, or alternatively, malicious. Whenever someone points out the complete lack of coherence in the piece by Mills and Hartley, you come bounding in with whataboutery. It’s annoyong and unnecessary.
If the argument is that South Africa rejects the “Rules based international order”, why are they approaching the arbiter of those very rules – The ICJ? The argument fails before ot begins.
What the article also needs to say is that South Africa has no place pointing fingers and even uttering the word Genocide. How many farmers have been killed in South Africa since 1994? Just because South Africa hasn’t been in a civil war does not make it any less of a genocide. Then to add injury to that insult, our political parties are still singing “Shoot the boer” and that is NOT recognised as hate speech. Yet our government decides to go grand standing on the world stage pointing fingers when three fingers are pointing right back. The denial and arrogance is next level. What a farce.
I am sympathetic to what you say and feel, but please don’t differentiate farmers ftom others- the war in S.A. is on women. That said, despite the hypocrisy of the ANC, they are right on this issue.
Why is it OK for the anc (read South Africa) to protect and provide refuge and safe passage to persons against whom warrants of arrest have been issued for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and threaten anyone who tries to act on those warrants of arrest?
The South African “government” – and let’s be clear, that is who it is (not South Africa) – should have kept quiet until they cleaned up their house at home. What they have done, by putting themselves on the international stage, is bring attention to themselves – which is what egomaniacs want to do. Everyone is looking at South Africa now and their clothing won’t hide their filthy personal hygiene underneath. Daily Maverick’s readership is obviously who they generally pander to, as the comments on this article show. I have stopped paying my stipend to DM and am on the point of deleting their emails as soon as they come into my mailbox. It’s not worth disturbing my own peace of mind.
At last, a level headed article about reality. Thank you for your courage!
It’s nice to read something, ANYTHING, just remotely not pro Hamas, not anti West, not anti Israel, not anti DA in DM. Rebecca and Feriel bombard us almost daily with their left wing woke mainstream media articles. It’s refreshing to read something intelligent for a change.
Totally agree!!
Unfortunately it’s far, far too intelligent, too fact- based and u biased for many DM readers. More’s the pity!
The proverb “only fools rush in” is one of the first thoughts through my head when I hear that SA is planning to file a charge of genocide against Israel at the ICJ. Because legal experts from other countries have the savvy to know that there are NO grounds for such a charge. But apparently, SA’s lack of legal knowledge and “idiocy” is seen as “bravery.” And in the light of the absurdity and absolute lack of fundamental evidence for such a charge, no one asks why SA would want to stick their head in such a noose. We now know it’s about money and political power. It just once again makes one realize how “dumbed down” the overwhelming majority of humanity has become.
Then why are Israeli legal scholars worried .
“How dare these uppity natives use our own rules-based systems against one of our allies”
this comment is priceless . Zapiro should this in cartoon.
‘It has doubtful legal merit’ This is a remarkable statement, sounds like Israeli propaganda. I am surprised the Daily Maverick published the opinion.
Your qualifications in international law and the articles and statutes of the myriad of international conventions are what exactly?
Well 16 out of 17 Judges at the ICJ, found plenty of merit. I think that they are likely qualified, no?
A Hartley/Mills op-ed means wading into a pro-western lobby campaign. Fair enough, it’s opinion.
But surely, DM owes its readers the courtesy of giving the other side a hearing?
There are enough credible academics who can at least objectively try to explain the govt’s thinking?
Whilst at it, we have Fabricius telling us what western embassies think, can’t DM assign someone to let us know what Asian, African and South American embassies think?
Those are fair and excellent questions to ask. Editors?
Not even government can explain what governments thinking is. But what your really asking is for DM only to publish articles that provide the narrative YOU want to hear
Those criticizing the article as biased and not ‘fact-based reporting’, please note that it’s an Opinionista not a report. Maverick supports freedom of expression.
Ah but the fascist, cancel-culture Hamas supporters don’t want freedom of expression
So Israel has no right to defend itself against terrorist attacks? Well done DM.
It’s all about ANC election funding. The ANC is far more concerned about staying in power than anything else. Its “foreign policy” audience is its local electorate. It prefers to win the elections at any cost to public prosperity at home.
After October 7 nothing will stop the Israelis in their attempt to destroy Hamas. The commendable actions of SA taking the horrific loss of civilian life in Gaza may not succeed, but it has put another spotlight on what can result from a conflict that will probably never end.
That is the worry for Israel and its western supporters , it puts a spotlight on the 75 year history of the plight of the Palestinian people in a legal framework . Prior only the Israel narrative was given credence .
Spot on! Those in glass houses should not cast stones. Besides, the death toll in SA due to crime and GBV annually amounts to more than 75 years of ME conflict. The ANC is guilty of genocide, and that is only the tip of the iceberg, in a failed state where the entire fiscus has been stolen, together with the hopes and dreams of more than 50% of the population, a population the ANC was sworn to protect. Remember… the G-d of Israel, neither slumbers nor sleeps … and those that Curse Israel will be cursed, and those that Bless it will be Blessed… so very sad to watch South Africa unravelling before our very eyes, Cry the Beloved Country. Israel will be ok, without you Cyril, and the Kaffiyeh-wearing hypocrites. Human rights my @ss..
The Brenthurst Foundation paid for John Steenhuisen’s fact-finding trip to Ukraine (that tells you everything that you need to know about this organisation). Mills and Hartley should be advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Ukraine, instead of fanning flames of disunity.
As a side note, looking at the amount of time my previous comment has been stuck in moderation, it is clear that current system for reviewing comments is failing.
Most of the commentariat are approving the comments that they agree with ideologically, and marking down the ones that go against their preconceived notions. Civil/Not Civil/Disinfo does not even factor into the consideration for most.
Furthermore, there has been a marked shift towards more histrionic and vitriolic commentary since this system was introduced. Finally, most of the “Not Civil” comments make it through anyway.
Oh, and bonus ask: What happened to requiring real names to comment?
I completely agree, it’s been a real problem the last 2 or 3 weeks, maybe more than a month
“Most of the commentariat are approving the comments that they agree with ideologically, and marking down the ones that go against their preconceived notions.”
I agree 100%. When I rate a comment, even if I disagree, if it’s non ad hominem and backed up with some reason, I’ll mark it up. But very clearly here many don’t.
posts of mine that are factual , still in moderation 4 days later.
I am also faced with the same problem even although none of my comments could be considered uncivil, racist or anything other than honest factual opinions. Clearly the system is not working and one wonders why it always seems to be those contributed by those with extreme ideological viewpoints siding with the masses.
good work. BTW, the ANC is NOT a ruling party It is currently the majority, governing party.
At last an article that shows me that not everybody in SA has lost their marbles, and that it is OK to have an opinion that is different from that of the herd. It also supports my observation that, faced with a choice, our “government” ALWAYS choses the one that is the worst for the country and its people. 10 of of 10 for consistency.
Well, first of all, Greg & Ray should keep in mind that BRICS is not really aimed at an anti-west formation. It is more of an economic one, with the main international political sentiment one of shifting the focus of world politics from a human rights-based interventionist to a non-interventionist one where countries create stability for itself by having peace inside its’ borders instead of spending its’ resources in other parts of the world to create peace for others. But the second thing all of us have to keep in mind is that the current geo-political tension is as a result of the international rules-based system being completely outdated, being one that mainly reflects western values. The world have changed since the UN Security Council was formed; not only do the colonies of that time form the majority of the independent nations on earth (as far as I know they have grouped themselves together in the organisation/movement of non-aligned states), but China has become a major international role player as a one-party state which does not conform to the liberal values of the west. So is it not time to put an alternative to the UN Security Council together? Such an organisation could have three representatives – the west with one vote, the BRICS formation with one vote, and the organisation of non-aligned countries with the other one. Then any two of these votes overrule the other, which, in the absence of any veto powers, would probably be far more efficient than the UN-SC.
Please pass on your dealer’s number – that’s good stuff you’ve got
Ivo Vegter has written 3 pieces in the other Friend regarding this court case’s merits. Compulsory reading for those who think this case is valid or well-argued. (Vegter’s work is the only reason I ever go there, and it rarely disappoints).
Complemented by Jonathan Katzenellenbogen
Exactly!
This is the first DM opinionista article on the ICJ case that comes from the Western angle, and not the communist/anti West angle we have become used to in almost all DM articles of late. Communist/dictatorship states may be the ANC’s new best buddies and may direct our foreign policy (think refusing the Dalai Lama, Putin ICC warrant, Al Bashir escaping arrest – I have always wondered if the Sudanese dollars in the couch is linked to Al Bashir), but they don’t create good lives for their citizens. So as much as one can hate on the proverbial West, those countries are where people flee to. The USA, the UK, the EU don’t know what to do with all the asylum seekers and illegal immigrants that are fleeing to the terrible West from the great and glorious dictatorships our government loves so much. I woild not be surprised to learn that every single antiwest commentator on DM has a family member living in one of those terrible western nations. Because the principles of democracy, capitalism, individual rights, rule of law and social solidarity create the best lives for citizens, and communism/totalitarian regimes don’t. It is as simple as that. So we need an occasional pro West article too.
Exactly!
Well said!
“The ruling party is clearly no friend of liberal values” – with respect , standing up for the dispossessed (and innocent) victims in Gaza, is about as liberal as one can get. To conflate inaction on Ukraine and action on Gaza is crooked thinking. However, nothing can excuse the animal and cowardly action by Hamas against innocents either.
Spot on.
I think you misunderstand the term “Liberal” as Greg and Ray use it. Liberal for them means something that doesn’t disrupt Western trade.
What’s the ANC motive behind this ICJ case?? December 23 the ANC were close to be “bankrupt” could pay suppliers, staff, SARS etc. and now month later all finances is all good? ANC have no enough funds to run Billion Rand campaign, pay their debts etc with “crowd funding” ???
“But overall it seems that South Africa, in old-fashioned Marxian terminology, would like to challenge the hegemony of the rules-based international order. Pretoria seems adamant that these rules are harmful to the prospects of Africa and SA. Since Africa did not define them, it should not therefore be bound by them.”
This doesn’t make any sense. The international rules-based order is underpinned by convention and treaty. South Africa is approaching the International Court of Justice – the arbiter of those international rules – about the adherence to a convention (literally one of the rules that underpin the international order). How is this a coherent hypothesis?
I’m not sure the article could be said to have an argument. But it does seem to have a conclusion, or at least a key thesis: that South Africa “would like to challenge the hegemony of the rules-based international order”.
So, according to Greg Mills and Ray Hartley, launching proceedings in the ICJ in terms of the Genocide Convention constitutes a challenge to the rules-based international order.
One merely needs to state the proposition in order to reject it.
Exactly my reaction.
The politics of envy creates schisms where some don’t want to come up any higher but just want to ‘get you down in the same hole they’re in’ (Dylan). Any content or balanced looking culture / individual will do as a target.
I am not entering the debate over who is right and who is wrong about this article. I am concerned with the geopolitical economic repercussions against the ANC-led South Africa for its now obvious foreign policy as a puppet for its new financiers Iran, Russia and China as the puppet masters.The Central Bank Governor, Lesetja Kganyago, could potentially have a whole new ball game to consider in setting interest rates which directly affect each South African. Geopolitical economic repercussions are coming from the USA and some of its Allies because the ANC government has sold its foreign policy- primarily to Iran, Russia, China and their surrogates.
These geopolitical economic repercussions will determine, inter alia, South Africa’s interest rate policy, and it will not be a pretty sight.
On 11 January 2024, South Africa attacked Israel at the ICJ in Hague. The battle is against Israel, but the war is against Israel’s main ally, the USA.
Five days later, on 15 January 2024, South Africa, representing Russia-backed Cuba, directly attacked the USA over Cuba’s claim of Guantanamo Bay.
The ANC has about 120 days to remain solely in power in South Africa. After that, its utility to its puppet masters in Iran, Russia and China may reach its sell-by date.
The ANC’s “Freedom Fighters” workload for the next 120 days could include Yemen and Saudi Arabia at Iran’s request, Ukraine at Russia’s request, Taiwan and the South China Seas at China’s request, South Korea at North Korea’s request, and maybe others.
A busy time for the puppet ANC as they take their eye off the ball for the General Elections and create fodder for the EFF and MPC to claim the ANC is only worried about the world and not the starving, unemployed people of South Africa.
The puppet ANC has been instructed to damage the USA and its Allies with “death by a thousand cuts,” whipping up global support of the USA’s enemies by playing the role of “Freedom Fighters.”
The puppet masters will likely want their disposable “arrowhead”, South Africa, to verbally attack the USA, hopefully, to reduce its sole Superpower status and replace it with a BRICS Superpower, or at least have two Superpowers on the global stage.
With only 0.4% of global GDP, South Africa is an easy target for boycotts and sanctions by the USA and some of its Allies, which comprise most of the trade, investment and loans reaching South Africa.
After all, the puppet masters, Iran, Russia, and China, are already under boycotts and sanctions from the USA and its Allies. They are strangling Russia and Iran’s economy and denting China’s.
A possible boycott and sanctions campaign of trade, loans, and investments against South Africa by the USA and some of its Allies will severely damage the economy. Interest rates will shoot up to attract much-needed foreign funds, and inflation will meaningfully increase as shortages of imported goods and services occur while exports drop. The current and capital accounts on the balance of payments will suffer badly unless BRICS countries make up the shortfalls.
A tidal wave will hit most sectors of the economy as SMEs and some large businesses go under, and unemployment worsens, leading to social unrest. Asset prices will drop substantially, imperilling creditors such as banks, suppliers, and service providers.
At Small Business Prosperity, our focus is on SMEs’ survival and prosperity, and our work will be cut out for us in an economy facing possible boycotts and sanctions.
When you boil it down, the ANC has sold South Africans down the river for 30 pieces of silver from Iran, Russia, and China to pay its massive debts and fund its election campaign.
“New financiers” seems like an accusation that requires some evidence. So you wish to present some?
In a nutshell greed will always be the downfall of its master!!!
Mills states
“The impact of this intervention is likely to have little effect on reality, whatever the ruling.”
That’s hogwash, and I bet he knows that.
Zionist political apologists the world over will feel the heat if ICJ finds in RSA favour. The ICJ will be known as a political western stooge the world over if it finds in Israel’s favour.
The ANC really think they can play with the professionals of the world. Have they not realized that we are not even a Harder compared to a Great white. They think they can play on the world stage when the they can not even sort the SOE’s, every one bankrupt and only kept in place by the “willing” taxpayers. I trust the ANC and their team of legal hangers on are now preparing a case of murder and genocide against Sudan and Russia. If not then this legal squad have lost all credibility.
One must of course ask who is paying for the overseas jaunts around the world. Can I assume the same taxpayers who paid for free trips to the World Cup of Rugby for Ramaphosa, Chele EL.
How about them apples, Ray and Greg?