(Photo by Shafiur Rahman via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED)
Listen to this article:
From the Organization of African Unity (OAU)’s Joint Monitoring Commission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1999, then to the African Union’s (AU) Transition Mission in Somalia in 2022, there is a well-established pattern of sub-Saharan African nations intervening in crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa. Increasingly, African states are advocating for the oppressed, whether individually or as part of the African Union.
More and more, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are increasingly intervening and advocating in matters external to their boundaries. Even in places where military action is not recommended, countries like The Gambia and South Africa have taken it upon themselves to advocate for the oppressed in Myanmar and Israel, respectively. A favoured method to do this has been initiating a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), based on the notion that the “duty to prevent genocide” is “owed” to every nation in the world.
Whether in Palestine, Haiti, or Myanmar, countries like The Gambia, South Africa, and Kenya have taken advantage of various crises to increase their profile on the world stage. Should their advocacy still be applauded if done with ulterior motives? Or should these benefits be considered by-products of good-natured attempts to defend the oppressed within the international order?
South Africa vs. Israel
At an International Day of Solidarity with Palestinian People celebration in South Africa in 1997, Nelson Mandela once said, “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians,” illustrating a connection between the South African and Palestinian struggles. The belief in this connection in South Africa has also been shown through South Africa’s recent case filing against Israel at the ICJ.
In December 2023, the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), a case on Israel’s continuous attacks in Gaza, was brought before the International Court of Justice. As of April 2024, at least 34,000 people were killed in Gaza, with over 75,000 people injured as a result of the war.
The case alleged that Israel was committing genocide in Palestine and sought, through provisional measures, an immediate end to Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Israel claimed a right to self-defence, one that has often been countered, in response to the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, where about 1,200 people were killed. While the Court acknowledged the disastrous humanitarian situation in Gaza, ultimately, it failed to order Israel to end its military campaign in Gaza. Instead, it handed down a temporary order to “prevent genocidal acts” and open access to humanitarian aid, an order that Israel has not met.
Comparisons between Israel’s occupation of Gaza and South Africa’s apartheid regime are plentiful. Organizations like Amnesty International and successive South African governments have drawn parallels between Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the apartheid regime in South Africa. Examples of similarities include institutionalized racial segregation, deprivation of social and economic rights, in addition to dispossession of land and property.
The Gambia vs Myanmar
On 11 November 2019, The Gambia initiated a case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case, titled Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), accused Myanmar of committing mass murder, rape and other atrocities against the Rohingya people, breaking the Genocide Convention. Despite being a third party to this oppression of the Rohingya people, The Gambia brought this case before the ICJ in an attempt to put an end to it.
Since The Gambia first presented the case, countries like Canada and Denmark, among others, have joined as intervening states. As part of the submission before the ICJ, the counsel for The Gambia asked for temporary measures to protect the Rohingya. This request was later granted in early 2020 as the Court urged Myanmar not to carry out genocide against the Rohingya, similar to the provisional measures issued to Israel.
The outcome of this case is still up in the air. Nonetheless, establishing a reputation as a human rights defender would help a country with an extensive history of human rights violations like The Gambia. As such, it is clear to see the secondary — or possible primary — benefit of The Gambia bringing this case to the ICJ.
For one, the continuous mention of The Gambia as a human rights defender on the international stage is advantageous for the country, particularly in a time of global strife. It would also help diminish the stain of human rights abuses still attached to the country’s reputation. While the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has helped sanitize the country’s image internationally, the impact of advocacy for other oppressed peoples cannot be underestimated as either a play for more international recognition, a genuine act of advocacy, or both.
Kenya’s Intervention in Haiti
In October 2023, the United Nations Security Council allowed Kenya to lead a security mission in Haiti. Per a spokesperson for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Kenyan government — and other supporting nations — were asked to assist the Haitian government to “restore security and contribute to a stable political, social and economic environment to foster sustainable development in Haiti.”
As part of the mission, Kenya is supposed to supply “around 1,000 … police officers” in July 2024 with other countries like Jamaica, Benin, and Barbados (among others), pledging an unknown amount of military staff. The United States of America has also pledged humanitarian assistance of around $100 million.
While the mission has been paused temporarily due to concerns about the latest developments in Haiti and Kenya, an analysis of Kenya’s reason for leading this mission is warranted. One of the latest developments that have created uncertainty around this mission includes a cabinet reshuffle in Kenya. Additionally, in late 2023, a Kenyan court ruled that the proposed deployment was unconstitutional, and there was a coup-like removal of former Haitian President and Prime Minister Henry Ariel from office.
It is important to note that while the Kenya-led intervention seemed to be a mission to help the citizens in Haiti, Haitians have pushed back against the notion of foreign intervention, especially given its history in Haiti. Indeed, there is a noted contrast between the government of Haiti and its citizens about foreign intervention. While the (former) Haitian government is eager for foreign assistance in restoring civil order, some citizens are against it due to the legacy of harm associated with it.
Killing Two Birds With One Stone
Apart from the close connection to a history of apartheid, South Africa’s interest in this case also suggests a self-interested motive of being seen as a leader in the international sphere, whether in Sub-Saharan Africa or the world at large.
Similar to Canada cementing itself as a middle power through peacekeeping, South Africa’s advocacy for Israel at the ICJ seems genuine. However, their advocacy can also help establish them as a defender of the defenceless and a peacemaker in international conflict. Notably, these two goals are not necessarily opposed to each other. It is perfectly reasonable for South Africa to pursue a bigger role in the international order while remaining an advocate for the oppressed. Still, a critical examination of their goals is needed.
As a relatively small state within the international order, one might wonder why The Gambia decided to bring the case against Myanmar to the ICJ. While South Africa has experience with an apartheid regime and has actively resisted Israel’s oppressive activity in Gaza, The Gambia’s connections to Rohingya in Myanmar are shaky at best. The biggest possible connection is their large population of Muslims, as 96% of Gambians are Muslim, and the Rohingya are a predominantly Muslim ethnic group in Buddhist-majority Myanmar.
The Gambia might not have brought this case out of self-interest, but their internal history of oppression allows for a slightly more generous interpretation. The Gambia’s advocacy for the Rohingya people may be their way of addressing their history or continuing their TRC. That is, the advocacy for the Rohingya is a direct result of The Gambia trying to make up for the crimes committed by former administrations. Regardless, their self-interest is a possible motivation for this case, especially considering the internal issues they still have to contend with. After all, realism, an international relations theory that stresses the “competitive and conflictual side” of global politics, argues that all nations typically act in their self-interest, even when they seem to be acting on behalf of others.
On the other hand, the fact that this relatively small West African nation took it upon itself to take Myanmar to the ICJ shows that it could potentially be relied on internationally as a fighter for the oppressed at a time when some bigger powers are reluctant to engage with this role. The later addition of more powerful countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and France as intervening states highlights its relevance. Most importantly, even if The Gambia acts for its own interests, the convenient crossing of said interests with pursuing freedom for the powerless is still positive.
Value in Hidden Agendas
For Kenya, the connections are even more absent. With no immediate connections to Haiti, Kenya’s reasons for leading this mission appear to be even more shaky than the others, especially with the several hiccups associated with it. For example, several Kenyan officers have seemingly dropped out of the mission amidst concerns over the relevance of this mission to Kenya.
Despite looking out for each other in the international community, the Kenya-led mission to Haiti — if it goes ahead — would be the first African-led intervention outside the continent. This mission could boost Kenya’s influence in the international community. The United States of America already thanked Kenya for leading this mission through President Biden, declaring that the country “will bring relief to the people of Haiti.” If successful, this mission could also provide Kenya with a platform to lead other interventions and, in turn, extend its sphere of influence beyond the African continent.
As genuine as Kenya’s reasons for leading this mission may or may not be, their benefits also point to another motive. A Kenyan senator has suggested the financial reasons that have partly motivated Kenya to lead the mission. However, the existence of an ulterior motive for actions like this does not ultimately render said actions useless. Instead, it is important to recognize and understand them for what they are — rather than pretend that international intervention is done entirely for selfless reasons. Even if all advocacy acts had a long historical connection, like between Palestine and South Africa, some would still have a self-serving benefit.
Edited by Bethlehem Samson
