There has been much discussion about South Africa’s landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing it of committing the crime of genocide. When it comes to tangible action, this case has been one of the few bright spots in an otherwise lackluster response from states around the world to the Israeli slaughter of the Palestinian people.
One of the lesser known parts of this story in Western public discourse generally, but more pertinently within activist spaces, is that the US empire is threatening to punish South Africa for bringing this much needed case against Israel.
Republican Representative John James and Democratic Representative Jared Moskowitz introduced in early February the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act in the United States House of Representatives. This legislation would require a full review of the relationship between the US and South Africa on the baseless and spurious grounds that South Africa is supporting “terrorism”.
South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor recently said on a visit to Turkey: “In terms of responses, unfortunately, there are some legislators in the United States of America that have taken a very negative position against my country.”
Although this story has received little attention and many pro-Palestinian activists in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom and elsewhere have not even heard about it, it is part of the discourse in activist and scholarly circles in South Africa. Among other things, people are concerned about what these threats will mean to their economic wellbeing; funding for the arts; scholarly, community, social and cultural projects and initiatives; and the sustainability of funding models for nongovernmental organisations since many of these are economically dependent on various US institutions.
It is incumbent on activists across the world, but especially in the US, to speak up against the US threat to punish South Africa and demand that their government does not pursue such a path. This should become a protest demand along with the other demands that activists are currently making. South Africa has put its neck on the line for the Palestinian cause, and the least Palestinian supporters can do is to support South Africa against the threats of US imperialism in this moment.
It is also incumbent on middle powers across the world to begin forming a coalition to protect not just South Africa today but also themselves from US imperial power.
It is clear to any honest observer that without direct action from states to isolate the Israeli state economically and politically and place pressure on it legally, it will not depart from the path of genocide – not now, not in the future.
When pressed on the necessity of taking this course of action, one of the common off-the-record responses activists, policy analysts and scholars receive from government officials around the world, including South Africa, is: “We want to pursue more meaningful direct action to help the Palestinian people, but we cannot withstand a punishing reaction from the US.”
I do not see this response as a form of diversion, nor do I consider it cowardly. Government officials cannot so easily dismiss the economic hardships their country would face from a harsh US reaction.
But it is not good enough to end the conversation with this response. Since the US empire is a major obstacle to Palestinian rights, freedom, liberation and sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of middle powers, then middle power states have both a duty and a self-interest to plan and follow a path of action that deals with this problem.
Obviously, the best path forward is for countries around the world to become less dependent on US and Western imperial economic power. Although there are efforts to accomplish this goal, such as BRICS, it remains a long way from changing global economic structures. The Palestinian people cannot afford to wait this long.
Another more immediate path is to make it difficult for the US to respond harshly to states that cut off all diplomatic and economic ties to the Israeli state. The principle of this more immediate path is simple: There is strength and safety in numbers.
If a coalition of middle powers forms and together announces their severing of ties with Israel, then it will be more difficult for the US to punish them all because it would become too costly for the US itself to do so.
What might such a coalition look like? It can start with countries like South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, Norway, Ireland and others. Countries that already don’t claim any diplomatic and economic relations with Israel – such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and others – would also join the coalition to offer support and protection from the US. Lesser powers can also join when this momentum builds, adding pressure and making it virtually impossible for the US to target all of them.
Momentum can build, and countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium and others that understand that this is the right course of action but are either too cowardly or too unwilling to pursue it for reasons of economic self-interest and their role in the US imperial alliance might be pressured to join, even if partially, by imposing a full two-way arms embargo on Israel.
None of this will be easy. But it is necessary, and it can work. And here I think that activists should begin to speak to their government’s self-interest to pressure them towards forming such a coalition. Governments will only move so much on the basis of a “name and shame” strategy and electoral politics calculations. State self-interest has to also be addressed; activists, policy analysts and scholars can convince their governments that it is in their best interest to follow this policy path.
Challenging the US empire on the question of Palestine will have tremendous consequences for building a more democratic world order. Although some of the states listed above believe that by simply ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people, they can avoid clashing with the US, this is short-term thinking for two reasons.
First, just because they can avoid the wrath of the US on the question of Palestine does not mean that they will not face it on another issue in the future. It is never in the self-interest of middle powers to live under the subordination of a great superpower. Even if temporarily beneficial, at some point, there will be a price to pay for this subordination. So why challenge it now if they do not have to at this moment?
This is where the second reason comes in. There is currently grassroots momentum around the world to challenge US imperialism. Now is the time to seize the opportunity, draw on this energy and direct it towards a democratic world order that in fact stands up for human rights and freedoms for all.
It is critical to seize this moment and send a message to the US empire that business as usual, where US dominance determines international economic, political and cultural directions, is neither wanted nor tolerated. The US empire will either have to come around or itself become isolated. When we reach that stage, we will reach the end of Israeli settler colonialism. We will reach the end of apartheid and genocide, the two most lethal weapons in the Israeli settler colonial arsenal.
Once Israel is globally isolated, it will be forced to change its behaviour. Israelis will have no choice but to cease their settler colonial project. Palestinians and Israelis can then begin negotiating for true decolonial peace and justice under the banner of a one-state solution, under which all have equal rights and freedoms and the land and sovereignty can be shared between Palestinians and Israelis.
Such an outcome will not only be beneficial for Palestinians and Israelis, but it will also be a real signal that the US empire is no longer the empire that it once was and people from around the world, Americans included, can begin to build a real democratic world order that is no longer under the thumb of one superpower.
A democratic world order will decrease the chances of great wars, imperial wars and settler colonial conquests and help avoid the tremendous human suffering that the Palestinians today are experiencing.
The horrors that the Palestinian people have been facing for more than 100 years did not start with the Palestinians and will not end there. It is in everyone’s self-interest to avoid such suffering, and one way to do that is to build a more democratic world.
The great Nelson Mandela once said: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” It is well past time that the rest of the world came to truly understand what this quote means and take tangible action to advance freedom from empire and colonialism.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
HALIFAX – The Nova Scotia legislature is set to open today for its fall sitting.
The early September return has added to speculation of a possible election call later this fall, but Premier Tim Houston will only say that he’s excited about his government’s legislative agenda.
Houston says the Progressive Conservatives still have “lots to do” on behalf of Nova Scotians, but he wasn’t specific about pending legislation when asked about his priorities on Wednesday.
In June, he cast doubt on whether he will adhere to the fixed provincial election date his party passed into law soon after coming to power, which set the date for July 15, 2025.
The Opposition Liberals and the NDP say they are ready for any scenario and remain focused on their own priorities for the sitting.
Both parties say they will highlight the need to deal with cost of living issues, including the shortage of affordable housing and the lack of access to primary health care.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 5, 2024.
In a move that sent shockwaves through British Columbia’s political landscape, B.C. United leader Kevin Falcon announced on Wednesday that his party would suspend its campaign for the upcoming provincial election and throw its support behind John Rustad’s resurgent B.C. Conservatives. This unprecedented decision has left political watchers and analysts scrambling to make sense of the ramifications for the province’s political future.
Kevin Falcon, who took the reins of the B.C. Liberals—now rebranded as B.C. United—in February 2022, delivered the stunning news at a press conference that left many in disbelief. The former cabinet minister, known for his confidence and assertiveness, appeared uncharacteristically somber and introspective as he explained the rationale behind his decision.
Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, observed the stark contrast in Falcon’s demeanor. “This is a man who has always exuded confidence, even cockiness, throughout his political career. But today, he seemed on the brink of tears, visibly struggling with the weight of this decision,” Kurl noted. The emotional toll of Falcon’s announcement was evident, underscoring the gravity of the situation both personally and professionally for the B.C. United leader.
The roots of B.C. United’s collapse can be traced back to two key decisions made by Falcon: the expulsion of John Rustad from the party and the controversial rebranding from the B.C. Liberals to B.C. United. Rustad, who was removed from the party in February 2023 for questioning climate change science, quickly capitalized on his dismissal by revitalizing the dormant B.C. Conservative Party. Since then, Rustad has attracted a growing number of former B.C. United MLAs and candidates to his cause, turning the B.C. Conservatives into a formidable political force.
The decision to rebrand the B.C. Liberals as B.C. United, which was meant to signal a fresh start for the party, has been widely criticized as poorly timed and poorly executed. Bill Bennett, a former Liberal cabinet minister, lamented the lack of public understanding of the new brand. “There was no real effort to rebrand and help the public grasp who B.C. United was. The entire process lacked sufficient resources, which ultimately led to its failure,” Bennett said.
Political scientists have been quick to analyze the implications of Falcon’s decision to suspend B.C. United’s campaign. Stewart Prest, a political science lecturer at the University of British Columbia (UBC), expressed shock at the sudden turn of events. “This was a party that, just moments ago, was preparing to compete in this election. To suddenly wave the white flag and step aside in favor of another party is unprecedented. We haven’t seen anything quite like this before,” Prest remarked.
The move has also raised questions about Falcon’s leadership and the future of B.C. United. Gerald Baier, an associate professor of political science at UBC, suggested that Falcon’s decision to expel Rustad may be viewed as the pivotal moment in his leadership. “If Falcon could go back and change one decision, it would likely be the expulsion of Rustad. That move set off a chain reaction that ultimately led to the party’s collapse,” Baier explained.
With B.C. United stepping aside, the B.C. Conservatives are now positioned to become the main opposition to the ruling B.C. NDP in the upcoming election, scheduled for October 19. However, the transition will not be without its challenges. The Conservatives will need to decide which B.C. United candidates to include on their slate, a process that could leave some candidates and voters in a state of uncertainty.
As the political landscape in British Columbia shifts dramatically, the upcoming election promises to be one of the most closely watched and hotly contested in recent memory. The decision by Falcon to back the B.C. Conservatives has not only upended the election but has also reshaped the future of politics in the province. As the dust settles, all eyes will be on John Rustad and his ability to capitalize on this newfound momentum.
In conclusion, Kevin Falcon’s decision to suspend B.C. United’s campaign and endorse the B.C. Conservatives marks a pivotal moment in British Columbia’s political history. The move has raised numerous questions about the future of B.C. United, the leadership of the B.C. Conservatives, and the upcoming election itself. As the province braces for what promises to be a highly volatile election season, one thing is clear: British Columbia’s political landscape will never be the same.
VICTORIA – British Columbia’s auditor general says his office has found no evidence of a conflict of interest in the handling of provincial grants for the zero-emission vehicle sector, after an accusation by a truck maker earlier this year.
Michael Pickup says in a statement the investigation looked into accounting firm MNP’s handling of Advanced Research and Commercialization grant applications, reviewing “a significant amount of information” from the company, the government and all applicants.
Pickup says the results show no evidence MNP wrote grant applications for clients, influenced the evaluation process to benefit clients or used its administering of the program to “recruit” clients for the company’s other services.
In April, the provincial legislature unanimously directed Pickup’s office to examine allegations by electric-hybrid truck maker Edison Motors that MNP was both administering the grants and offering services to help businesses with applications.
The Office of the Auditor General says the allegations from Edison, which is based in Merritt, B.C., suggested MNP “was offering to write grant applications in exchange for a success fee while also deciding who received grant funding.”
MNP said at the time that the allegations were “false and misleading.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 28, 2024.
