Was a foreign government behind South Africa's application to the International Court of Justice? Part I

The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes. The investigation that led to that result was initiated by ICC prosecutor Karim Khan. On the face of it that was very unexpected, because in the run-up to his appointment it was clear that Khan was favoured by Israel and the United States - after his predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, initiated a war crimes investigation into Israel and was threatened by the US and Israel when she did so. However, Khan’s surprise about-face is consistent with a theory I have been developing for a while that goes directly opposite to all of the analysis of what has happened since 7 October 2023. More on that below and in Part II.

In parallel to the ICC process, South Africa has been pursuing an end to the atrocities in Gaza through a different mechanism, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the current Israeli government of genocide and war crimes.¹ The initial ruling by the ICJ largely favoured the South African case and ordered a range of ‘provisional measures’ that Israel must comply with, which it clearly has not done. Last month, South Africa submitted its ‘memorial’ to the ICJ: this reportedly documents in extensive detail the acts that constitute war crimes and genocide. The South African application has received much praise around the world but, unsurprisingly, not been popular with supporters of the Israeli government and its actions in Palestine. Aside from attacks on the South African government itself, some critics have suggested that - despite the long pro-Palestine history of the African National Congress - there may be a more nefarious reason for the ICJ application: South Africa acting as a proxy for a foreign government.

In this piece I am going to briefly deal with those accusations, suggest that the specific accusation - that Iran was behind the case - is completely unsupported and almost certainly as false as the outgoing US ambassador’s claims of weapon smuggling to Russia. But I will argue that there is a much more likely candidate for such interference: the United States itself. In particular, I will argue that Cyril Ramaphosa, his ‘national security advisor’ Sydney Mufamadi, and the director general of foreign affairs and international relations Zane Dangor, may have been the main intermediaries between the US’s covert action to remove Netanyahu and pivot its geopolitical strategy in relation to Israel, and the Cabinet decision to pursue the ICJ application. The suggestive evidence in favour of this theory is, in fact, far stronger than the Iran theory, which is almost entirely based on a ridiculously crude caricature of the ANC which is doubly implausible under Cyril Ramaphosa.

Is Iran behind South Africa’s ICJ application?

To add to the already heated contestation around the ICJ application, accusations have been made that South Africa’s application was funded by Iran, or that Iran provided the ANC with funding and ANC politicians (Cyril Ramaphosa, Naledi Pandor and Ronald Lamola) then made the application as a quid pro quo. The main source of these claims is the incompetent right-wing ideologue and stooge of vested interests Frans Cronje, formerly of the (now completely discredited) ‘Institute for Race Relations’ and now the source of numerous completely uncredible polls that are nevertheless widely reported by South Africa’s inept and biased media houses. (I published an alternative profile of Cronje’s ‘Social Research Foundation’ a few months ago).

Cronje first peddled his evidence-free conspiracy theory in early January on the Zionist-supporting radio station ChaiFM: the host was a Zionist who later, briefly lost a newspaper column for disparaging the suffering of Palestinians at a time when they were being massacred.² I try to avoid using terms that may be deemed insulting, but there is no other way to describe these two individuals (Cronje and Feldman) than idiotic, incredibly biased, paid stooges. They have no redeeming features. Cronje’s description of the ICJ case as ‘every anti-semitic trope wrapped up in a two hour presentation’ is more dishonest, extreme and absurd than any other objection to the case I have come across.

The two pillars of Cronje’s ‘argument’ are: the ANC’s financial difficulties seemingly disappeared around the same time as its ICJ application was made; the ANC has long-standing loyalties to such countries and are trained in Soviet propaganda. The first is completely tenuous: the ANC’s financial difficulties could have been resolved in a range of ways, but the political party funding laws in place at the time would have required disclosure of any large amounts and prohibit substantial direct or indirect contributions by foreign governments. The second is not even an accurate representation of the most anti-imperialist leaders in the ANC, but it is laughably inaccurate as a description of the likes of Cyril Ramaphosa and his close allies. Ramaphosa has never shown any inclination to be a foreign policy radical - indeed the absence of any such history on his part points, I suggest below, to a very different hypothesis.

Cronje’s claims were extensively debunked even by formerly pro-Israel and pro-USA media outlets such as News24 and Daily Maverick. (This is also consistent with the alternative hypothesis mentioned above).

Given the above, these accusations should have died a rapid death. However, and rather unsurprisingly given that they can be used to undermine the legitimacy of South Africa’s case, the claims have taken on a life of their own: they have been reported in numerous international pro-Israel outlets, apparently been the basis for a letter to the United States Congress and spawned a so-called ‘report’ on the subject by an influential organisation. Again, News24 - and in particular its proudly pro-USA foreign policy editor Phillip De Wet - noted the ‘dubious sources and false statements’ used in the report and even noted that the organisation that produced it “drew 80% of its revenue from Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs”.³

Nevertheless the arguments continue to be recycled in local and foreign outlets. Given the reportedly strong support for Netanyahu from the incoming president Donald Trump, it is now also being suggested that the accusation could negatively affect South Africa’s relationship with the United States. And the allegations have recently been recycled by the chairperson of the second largest political party in the country, Helen Zille, at an international event on national security in London.

An alternative hypothesis: the USA was the main foreign government behind South Africa’s ICJ application

My view is that the Iran allegations are deliberate falsehoods intended to distract from an even more explosive possibility: that the United States itself was behind South Africa’s ICJ application. The likes of Frans Cronje, Howard Feldman and Helen Zille are merely useful conduits for this distraction, which was likely fed to them by some behind-the-scenes individuals because they are reliably incapable of keeping such things to themselves.

If it is the case that South Africa brought the ICJ case at the suggestion of the United States, it would have major global and local significance: it would show that the USA is covertly pivoting its geopolitical strategy on Israel, and that Ramaphosa and some of his closest advisors are not serving ‘anti-Western’ interests but the most powerful Western country: the United States.

In October last year I already flighted my theory about the US pivot. In a subsequent analysis I elaborated on the theory but also noted that it seems things have not quite gone to plan: the US would likely have wanted Netanyahu removed more quickly. But it has nevertheless managed to benefit from his staying in power, with Israel this year killing a range of high-profile individuals designated as enemies of the United States - including possibly the president of Iran.

Until now, I have held back on connecting my domestic analysis - in which I noted apparent links between Ramaphosa allies (such as Kgalema Motlanthe) and former Western intelligence and defence figures - and my analysis of the geopolitics of Israel-Palestine. But it was apparent to me from December 2023 when South Africa brought its ICJ application, that these are closely connected.

More on those connections, and why I think the USA - rather than Iran - is behind South Africa’s ICJ case, in Part II.

1. The ICJ falls under the United Nations, has a broader remit and focuses on states, whereas the ICC falls under the ‘Rome Statute, has a narrower focus on genocide, war crimes and related matters. A major problem with the ICC is that some significant countries have refused to become signatories: most famously, the United States refused to sign the Rome Statute and even passed a domestic law compelling it to use any means necessary to secure the release of any US citizens held by the ICC - which could extend to invading the Netherlands. Passed by the right-wing war hawk George W Bush, it is a reflection on the uniformity of attitudes within the US establishment (across parties) that subsequent Democrat presidents such as Obama and Biden have shown no interest in repealing this legislation or signing up to the Rome Statute. The US nevertheless has been happy to use the ICC against its perceived enemies: one of the most extreme examples of moral hypocrisy in the last century.

2. ChaiFM has numerous pro-Israeli occupation hosts promoted by groups such as the South African Zionist Federation and the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. (One of those hosts also had a trashy regular column in the apartheid-denying News24, until it was removed due to his reported advocating of violence). Howard Feldman, who should never have had a column anyway given his mind-rottingly bad writing on every topic he touched, naturally played victim afterwards. He has since, with the usual kid glove treatment extended to endorses of Israeli war crimes, been given an opportunity to justify his abhorrent behaviour and allowed to keep publishing his terrible columns in News24.

3. This kind of information on funding compromising credibility is usually absent from News24 reporting, which even now happily recycles polls by Frans Cronje without any information on who is funding them, promoted Rise Mzansi’s leader Songezo Zibi without having declared his funding sources, and regularly quoting ‘civil society organisations’ without noting how they might be compromised by their funders (such as Michiel Le Roux). Another piece of evidence to support the view that News24 itself is pivoting from its pro-Israel, apartheid-denying position to one consistent with the core hypothesis I propose in this piece and in Part II.