Sustained focus on the Israel-Hamas conflict is directly in South Africa’s national interest

The South African government has taken a strong pro-Palestinian stance in the conflict between Israel and Hamas that broke out last year. Ever since the conflict began, South Africa (SA) has been foremost among the overwhelming majority of countries that have been calling for a humanitarian ceasefire and among the most vocal in its condemnation of the onslaught against Gaza that Israel has been waging in response to Hamas’ initial attack on 7 October. Firm steps the government has taken include cutting diplomatic ties with Israel and referring Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges. The government’s pro-Palestinian stance has largely been attributed to the ruling African National Congress’ (ANC) historical relationship with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. According to this view, this relationship is an artefact of the ties that were forged between these organisations when they were both still banned and operating in exile. The government’s stance seems to be shared by most, though not all, South Africans. Opposition is not confined to the country’s small though economically influential Jewish community, but extends to other sections of this (nominally) predominantly Christian country.

OPINION: South Africa’s ICJ success has ushered in a new era of international law in pursuit of justice for Palestine

The risk of exacerbating divisions in an already deeply divided society has led many citizens, ordinary citizens and influential opinion-makers alike, to not only criticise the steps government has taken but question the wisdom of it expending significant amounts of political and diplomatic capital on an issue which, at face value, does not directly affect the country’s national interest. The appeal of striking a less forceful tone is likely to be enhanced, considering the global divisions which this conflict has laid bare at a time when geopolitical axes of power are shifting. It follows that it would be prudent for SA to adopt a more neutral stance, lest it incite tensions with powerful countries, like the US and Germany, which have thrown their diplomatic weight solidly behind Israel and damage economic relations with these countries which happen to be important trading partners. Domestic fears about jeopardising trade and economic relations with these powerful nations are likely to be heightened following accusations that have been levelled against newly-minted BRICS member Iran, which has been accused of directing the operations of Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah, which has been involved in skirmishes with Israel on Israel’s northern border and aiding Yemeni militia group the Houthis, whose territory has been bombarded by the US and UK in response to attacks on ships linked to Israel, which this group has mounted in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea in support of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Confronted with these arguments on the social, diplomatic and trade fallout which the country could suffer because of the government’s pro-Palestinian stance, the internal pressure upon the SA government to rethink its position with respect to the Israel-Hamas conflict and assume a less prominent foreign policy role than it has, thus far, is likely to swell. Although understandable, there may exist immediate security reasons why this conflict directly affects the country’s national interest and, thus, valid grounds for the government to not only be deeply concerned about this conflict but actively involved in seeking a solution thereto.

In support of this view, consider the threat emanating from Houthi attacks which have forced shipping companies to redirect vessels to bypass the Red Sea and sail around the Cape, instead. The resultant diversion of ships to this route poses numerous risks for SA. Most obviously, increased maritime traffic passing through the treacherous waters off the east and southern coasts of the country, the waters of the infamous ‘Wild Coast’, during the stormy season between November and April is apt to increase the likelihood of an accident occurring along this notorious stretch of coastline that is littered with shipwrecks. Given the parlous state of SA’s finances, the cost of a major accident at sea, both in terms of the cost of environmental clean-up operations and the indirect costs it would impose, for example, the effect on fish stocks and the local subsistence fishing industry, impact on coastal communities dependent on revenue from tourism or the disruption it would cause to shipping schedules and commerce along SA’s main maritime export route to trading partners in the East, would be catastrophic for the country analogously to the way Beirut’s tragic harbour blast in 2020 plunged that economically unequal nation, which is also ruled by a corrupt and venal political class, into economic and political chaos. The immense financial strain which an environmental calamity would put on government would, in turn, increase the risk of widespread civil unrest erupting. More so, should an accident occur during the politically tense period in the run-up to what analysts believe will be a crucial general election this year, when support for the ruling ANC which has governed SA throughout the democratic era is predicted to fall below 50 per cent for the first time.

OPINION: The ICJ’s provisional orders: The Genocide Convention applies to Gaza

Secondly, increased traffic passing through SA’s territorial waters is likely to put additional pressure on the limited resources SA reportedly has available to police its vast territorial waters.  Arguably, a sharp increase in traffic would stretch scarce resources even further, leading to less effective policing and enforcement. Coming after several major recent drug busts in the port city of Durban, the country’s main sea port, which is located in the politically volatile province of KwaZulu-Natal on the east coast of the country, which appear to confirm reports that this port is a key entry point for the local drug market and an important transit point for drug trafficking globally, less strict monitoring could lead to an increase in drug smuggling activity. Moreover, even if an increasing amount of illicit product were not shipped through local ports directly, but via foreign ports on the East African coast, instead, the amount of drugs trafficked into SA could still increase due to the porosity of SA’s land borders.  Either way, drugs would become more easily available, and the drug trade more competitive. Speculatively, increased availability of drugs would increase the incidence of petty crime and corruption, while increased competition in the drug market would intensify violent competition between rival drug syndicates. As a result, crime levels would rise in SA, a country which is already one of the most violent peace-time societies globally. Ominously, increased profits from the drug trade would consolidate criminal networks’ power, a chilling prospect given the increasing sophistication exhibited by local organised crime networks and the malign influence which these groups reportedly exert in formal business and political circles. Consequently, SA is liable to become more politically unstable.

These are but some of the ways in which the ongoing conflict in Gaza, a conflict which continues to capture public attention and inflame South Africans’ opinions, could directly affect the country’s national interest in the immediate term. The longer this conflict continues, the greater the risks to which the country is exposed. For this reason, one contends that the SA government’s sustained focus on this conflict is warranted, and acting to pressure belligerents to negotiate a ceasefire and for all stakeholders to work towards securing long-term peace in the region is in its national interest.

READ: In ICJ case, Israel ‘arrogance of a colonial power’ gives away its genocidal intent in Gaza: Legal expert

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.