What Is South Africa’s Foreign Policy?

In May, for the first time since the end of apartheid, the African National Congress (ANC) lost its parliamentary majority in South Africa. It cobbled together a government, but the result ushered in a new period of coalition politics for Africa’s biggest economy.

It has also meant that there are several new young leaders to keep an eye on. One of them is Ronald Lamola, the new foreign minister. At just 40 years old, Lamola is the youngest cabinet member in the new government and is already being seen as a potential successor to President Cyril Ramaphosa.

South Africa’s foreign policy is worth studying closely. It abstained on U.N. votes condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also hosted the BRICS summit last year and invited Iran to join the bloc. Most recently, Pretoria has been in the news for its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). To explore how South Africa is charting its foreign policy under a new government, I caught up with Lamola as he visited the United States for meetings in Washington and the U.N. General Assembly summit in New York. Subscribers can watch the full FP Live discussion on the video box atop this page. What follows is a condensed and edited transcript.

Ravi Agrawal: Let’s start with one of the biggest areas of divergence in the U.S.-South Africa relationship: Israel. Tell us why your country, which is nonaligned, chose to take on the mantle of making the case that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

Ronald Lamola: The issue of the genocide has a historical and moral background to South Africa. We have been the victims of apartheid. We have seen the reality of living under segregation and forced settlement, which is currently what is happening in occupied Gaza and West Jerusalem, Palestine. That is a moral issue. It shocked our sense of humanity when we then ended up seeing a genocide currently unfolding. For the first time in front of the whole world, you can see it in real time.

We felt morally obliged because of our history, and also because we are a signatory to the Genocide Convention, to act to ensure that the members and signatories, countries, member states who are signatories to the Genocide Convention—like the state of Israel—are forced to comply with their obligation and duties in line with the Genocide Convention. We had a duty as a signatory to the Genocide Convention to take this matter to the ICJ.

RA: Critics of your case against Israel, including the judge who wrote a dissent, say that South Africa underestimates or even ignores Israel’s right to self-defense. How do you respond to that?

RL: What matters is that the majority of the judges understood that Israel is an occupier and cannot claim the right of self-defense in a disproportionate manner. It must be done in line with international law. It must not be disproportionate. And I think the finding of the majority of the judges, to the extent that there was a plausible case of genocide, does indicate that indeed Israel has exceeded the boundaries of self-defense. Their actions are disproportionate.

We, as South Africa, have also been very upfront in condemning the events of Oct. 7. The atrocities that were committed by Hamas, we condemn them. We also call for the release of hostages. It is in that regard that we also called for the support of the judgment, the provisional indication order of the court in its entirety: humanitarian access, secession of hostilities, release of hostages, and allowing rebuilding and investigations in the West Bank and also occupied Gaza.

RA: You’re accepting that Israel has a right to self-defense. And you’re saying it has used that right to a disproportionate degree. But let me put this to you: Hamas, which you have condemned as well, is a fairly unique adversary. They committed a horrible atrocity. They clearly don’t themselves care about civilian casualties in Gaza. Israel is in this unique position of facing so many enemies on all sides that its very existence feels threatened, to Israelis at least. The United States has supported Israel’s response for much of the last year. How do you, as a foreign minister, handle the pushback that you are undoubtedly getting from your interlocutors and other people in Washington who say that Israel needs to do this?

RL: Their right to self-defense does not include committing genocide, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, or the obstruction of humanitarian aid. The horrors of war, [the rules] of engagement have been violated by the actions of the state of Israel. So it cannot be justified. That is what the court has found—that it is plausible genocide and that Israel, as an occupier, cannot justify this excessive use of force.

As you are aware, the United Nations itself requested the court to look at Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The court found that indeed the occupation is unlawful. So there are rulings that the actions of the state of Israel are unlawful and violate international law. That is the message we are continuing to share with various sectors of the American society, from Congress to think tanks to the State Department itself.

RA: Is the Biden administration pushing you to drop this case?

RL: No, we have not received any instruction to drop the case. But obviously, there have been some forms of criticism. It is important that South Africa embrace the accepted principle of the international rule of law, which the future of the world is dependent upon. So we must be the ones upholding the rule of law. And we are doing so through an organ of the United Nations that has been established by the nations of the world, which is viewed as an important prime platform for resolving disputes.

Read More

Why South Africa’s Nonalignment Is Here to Stay

The end of ANC majority rule is unlikely to signal a dramatic shift in the country’s foreign policy.

Analysis

|

Nontobeko Hlela

BRICS Faces a Reckoning

Enlargement would be a sign not of the group’s strength, but of China’s growing influence.

Argument

|

Oliver Stuenkel

South Africa’s ICJ Case Was Too Narrow

By omitting Hamas and limiting its case to the crime of genocide, Pretoria lost an opportunity to halt the fighting.

Argument

|

Chile Eboe-Osuji

RA: Much of what you’re saying hinges on morality, on right or wrong, on the rule of law, on international law. And I buy that. There’s a long and storied history of your party [the ANC] making a moral case for governance, starting with ending apartheid, of course. Here’s what I don’t understand: Why can’t you condemn Russia with the same moral force? There is growing evidence that it, too, has committed war crimes in Ukraine, that it, too, may be committing what could amount to a genocide. If you make the moral case in one part of the world, why aren’t you consistent about it elsewhere?

RL: We are consistent. As you will be aware, the case in Gaza is a very old case. It was a dispute even before I was born, and even our founding president, Nelson Mandela, had said that we are not free until Palestine is free.

RA: Why not apply the same sense of morality to Russia, which many would argue is committing war crimes in Ukraine?

RL: My response is that there is a long, wounded history with regards to the Israeli siege of Gaza. We did not start by going to the ICJ. South Africa has always, in the various platforms of the United Nations, expressed its view with regards to this matter.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is a relatively new conflict. We engaged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to find a way to resolve the conflict. And we have also, in the various platforms of the United Nations, called for the respect of the sovereign integrity, independence, and autonomy of each member state. We believe that all those efforts are very important, including the peace initiative that has been started by Ukraine, and is currently run in Switzerland, for all the parties to come together to engage.

As South Africa, we’ve always been anti-war. We are consistent. We want to see peace. And we start with the process of dialogue. At this stage of the conflict, that is what we need to push for to help the situation. When we sit in those platforms, we do call for the cessation of hostilities, for the engagement of the parties, for the return of the children, and for the respect of the sovereign integrity of member states.

RA: But, respectfully, I did not hear the same moral force from you on Ukraine that you used to describe what’s going on in Gaza. And it confuses me a little bit because there is mounting evidence of war crimes. Look at Bucha; look at the towns that have been absolutely destroyed in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Most experts say that one day this will be shown to be crimes against humanity. And I’m not seeing you condemn Russia in the same way. This is a war of choice.

RL: We have condemned the recent destruction by Russia of a hospital. We have also called for the release of the innocent children. We have participated in initiatives aimed at reversing what has happened with the children and the destruction of infrastructure. This is the same force and message that we send with regards to Gaza.

RA: In this conversation, you’ve condemned Hamas. You’ve condemned Israel. Do you also condemn Russia for its actions in Ukraine?

RL: As I have already said, we condemned the destruction of the hospital and the infrastructure. So we continue to be very clear about our views with regards to the U.N. Charter and the principles of the United Nations that all of us have to respect.

RA: But do you condemn the invasion itself? You’re speaking of actions that violated the fundamental principle of sovereignty.

RL: We have said that there must be respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of U.N. member states.

RA: But there hasn’t been.

RL: And that is the reason why there must be a continuation of engagement to find a lasting solution because those are issues that must now be put on the table.

RA: But the problem is quite simple. Russia invaded another country. That violates every aspect of international law and needs to be condemned, plain and simple.

RL: It’s not as simple as that. There have been other concerns raised with regards to the situation. We believe those concerns need engagement, particularly on the issues of security.

RA: Again, I don’t quite understand what these concerns are. Ukraine controlled its territory. The integrity of that territory was violated by Russia. I’m not quite sure what the counterpoint is to that.

RL: There are well-known and far-reaching concerns with regards to NATO and its role in the region.

RA: Tell us.

RL: It is related to their security and to the territorial integrity of both countries, Russia and Ukraine. So we do think that is a point that all the warring parties need to engage on. In the past, Ukraine played a bigger role, despite not being a full member of NATO, in that whole region. So we think that there is a platform for engagement by all parties to find a long-lasting solution, which is not a military solution.

RA: But NATO is a defensive alliance. There were countries that had no plans to join it, like Finland and Sweden. They’ve joined it because of the invasion. Ukraine’s sovereign borders were violated by Russia. I am not quite following the concerns that you’re raising. And to me, it seems discordant from the case you were making earlier in this conversation about Israel.

But I want to broaden our conversation a bit. South Africa has traditionally been seen as nonaligned. BRICS does not feel nonaligned to me anymore. How does membership in BRICS match your broader foreign-policy philosophy?

RL: It is correct—we’re a nonaligned country. And obviously we are not in a position to align with any of the world’s superpowers because we see our role as that of a developing country that, if called upon, can play a role in initiatives such as the Africa initiative in relation to Russia and Ukraine.

We see BRICS as a developmental platform, which does not align us with any party but does give us a platform of development, continues our industrialization, and also continues our economic trade with the various players in that platform. It also develops our finance; the BRICS bank helps finance our infrastructure.

RA: Explain to me why you would invite Iran to this block.

RL: It’s a platform of all the developing countries who share common goals in terms of development. And Iran has applied to join and so joined the platform.

RA: But what common platform does your country share with Iran right now, given Iran’s support for a range of proxy militias around the Middle East, like Hezbollah and Hamas, which you’ve condemned in this conversation? How does this add up in terms of South Africa’s foreign policy and it wanting to align itself with Iran?

RL: Now, at this stage we don’t have much trade or various platforms with Iran, but as they’ve joined the BRICS platform, there could be opportunities of expansion, particularly for agricultural products.

RA: If you look at who’s in BRICS, you have Russia, which has near-unprecedented Western sanctions on it. You have China, which has some sanctions on it, mostly targeting semiconductors and advanced technologies. Iran has the most sanctions against it. These countries are hardly going to be great economic partners. How are you thinking about partnering with them through BRICS? And what does that say about South Africa’s place in a world with these bloc mentalities and fracturing alliances?

RL: As a developing country, we seek mutually beneficial partnerships, which we get from the BRICS platform. Most of the global south countries have been struggling to access financing and markets. So these platforms give us that, like through the BRICS bank. It’s a force multiplier in terms of the finance platforms that we need as a country.

We don’t see any contradictions. It does respect our nonaligned process because this is at a trade level. On geopolitics, we still participate in various platforms, and we are not told by any BRICS member whom we can or cannot work with. Our sovereign independence remains.

We see a contradiction when some countries in the West trade with most of these BRICS members and only amplify criticism when the engagement and the trade is with South Africa. We are a developing country that wants to benefit from these platforms, and we think we should be treated the same.

RA: I routinely call out Western countries for what I see as contradictions in their foreign policy. And it’s with the same spirit that I’m calling you out here. I don’t see fully how a nonaligned foreign policy is furthered by inviting Iran to BRICS and increasing trade with it as it gets closer to seeking a nuclear bomb, as it is embroiled in a war in the Middle East.

But let’s move on to other issues across Africa. Your country also has a long history of trying to mediate conflicts in Africa, from Libya to South Sudan to the recent Ethiopian civil war. When you see what’s happening in Sudan, how is South Africa thinking about mediating or alleviating the conflict there?

RL: Sudan, with huge displacement and huge number of people being killed, is an issue of serious concern. And it is against that background that our president engaged with all the warring parties in this space. And we also welcome the U.S. initiative that was announced by President Joe Biden of all the parties in this space—Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia—all of them trying to initiate a peace platform.

Indeed, in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, our defense force participates in the Southern African Development Community mission called SAMIDRC. But we still see negotiations and engagements as the main path to a long-lasting solution. And it is in that regard that we support the Rwanda process that is led by the president of Angola, João Lourenço.

RA: Weeks before your government brought its genocide case against Israel to the ICJ, your president, Cyril Ramaphosa, welcomed Sudan’s rebel leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo aka Hemeti, to South Africa. This is the man who stands accused of war crimes for his Rapid Support Forces aggression in Darfur, as well as genocide in the same region two decades ago. Is this a double standard?

RL: He also engaged the other parties involved in the conflict. So it is not a double standard. He met to nudge all parties to some form of a discussion. There is no other way to resolve the Sudan conflict but engaging all the parties. It is against this background that we support the initiative that President Biden has announced that involves everyone in this space. That is the only way to nudge the parties toward a peaceful solution of the conflict.

RA: You visited D.C. just before the start of the U.N. General Assembly meetings. You want Africa permanently represented on the Security Council. And this month, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield, backed this plan and called for two Security Council seats for African nations—but without veto power. Are you open to this?

RL: The position of the African Union is that the two members of the Security Council for Africa must have veto power. We think that the U.S. plan is a step in the right direction in the sense that there is engagement. There is now something on the table that we can engage on and see how to move forward.

RA: I want to ask you about the ANC, which didn’t win a parliamentary majority for the first time in elections this year. Is the ANC in decline?

RL: Indeed, we have declined, and there’ve been challenges, which were identified. For that reason, the ANC has adopted a program of renewal to modernize itself. But we think that the most crucial part was in us being magnanimous in defeat and accepting the outcome. We think this is an important step in the process of renewing the ANC and looking at where we went wrong to rebuild for the future. And I think it will come back very strong.