Before the African Union (AU) there was an Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which was formed in 1963 with an original membership of thirty-two states. Amongst its principal objectives was to defend the sovereignty and independence of African states as well as eradicate all forms of colonialism. It was no surprise at all that the OAU was replaced by the AU in 2002 due to its ineffectiveness in handling continental conflicts. Hamill and Spence (1997) point out that the organisation’s staunch commitment to the doctrine of non- interference in the internal affairs of member states has caused it to remain passive in the face of atrocities perpetrated by dictators. The OAU’s successor, the AU, is not immune to this ineffective doctrine of non-interference as is the case with Zimbabwe, which is currently experiencing economic problems. However, it has tried by all means to ensure that it
improves where the OAU has failed. For example, the Rwandan genocide of 1994 is mostly blamed on the UN. However, the OAU as the continental power concerned with African affairs ought to have done something as well.
The end of the Cold War signalled the start of a new era in the early 1990s and African states saw it fit that they had to usher in a new organisation that would enable the continent to face the challenges of the so-called new world order. As the world was gradually becoming a global village, the general feeling among the African states was that a new continental body is needed to fight multifaceted social, economic and political challenges facing the continent. Throughout that decade the African countries deliberated among themselves on the possible successor of the OAU. As a consequent, three summits were held in the lead up to the official launching of the African Union. These were the following:
- Lome Summit (2000), which adopted the AU Constitutive Act
- Lusaka Summit (2001), which drew the road map for implementation of the AU
-Durban Summit (2002), which launched the AU and convened its first Assembly of Heads of State and Government (African Union Handbook, 2014:10.).
The newly formed African Union has built on some of the structures of the OAU.Similarly, a significant number of the OAU’s core values have been carried through to the AU. In essence, it could be posited as previously stated, that the new AU’s vision has many elements of continuity with the old OAU. Williams (2011) observes that the AU retains its predecessor’s emphasis on the sovereign equality of members; upholds its preference for non- use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes; and maintains the general commitment to non-intervention in the affairs of its member states. It is therefore no surprise that the AU is repeating some of the mistakes of its predecessor such as ignoring the cries for help of many suffering innocent Africans. Countries such as Zimbabwe, Sudan, South Sudan and Libya are classic examples.
Most notably, it had to take the intervention of ‘outside forces’ to quell the Libyan conflict between government and protesting citizens who were dissatisfied with the arrest of the human rights activist. Those ‘outside forces’ were in the form of the United Nations passing Resolution 1973 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) enforcing this resolution. The resolution, simply put, was aimed at implementing a no-fly zone over Libya which would ensure that the Muammar Gaddafi-led government and the opposition reached a
cease-fire. The intervention of NATO by way of implementing Resolution 1973 dealt a great blow to Africa’s ability to solve its own problems on its own. According to Dersso (2012:41) “….it robbed Africa of its role of pursuing the solutions it proposed to the crisis and in so doing it marginalised AU’s admittedly weak voice. In the process, it undermined the…AU’s political principle of ‘African solutions to African problems’.”It is quite clear that whenever African conflicts threaten the interests of major powers, as has been illustrated in the Libyan conflict, the ability of African states to deal with these conflicts independently is compromised. In fact, the implementation of the resolution also revealed the powerlessness of regional institutions such as the AU and the Arab League.
As stated earlier in the first paragraph of the Arab League section, it was the League that requested the intervention of the United Nations. This is owing to the fact that for some inexplicable reason, Libya belongs to both the Arab League and the African Union. There are other countries which, like Libya, enjoy dual-membership of both the AU and the Arab League. Countries like Mauritania and Sudan come to mind. The AU has nonetheless continued to make resolutions with regard to the Israel and Palestine conflict despite its apparent failures in its own continent. During its July 2012 meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the African Union reaffirmed its support for a Two-State solution as the only viable option for peaceful co-existence between the State of Palestine and Israel, (African Union, 2012). It is therefore a bit too much to expect these two countries, which do not even fall under the jurisdiction of this institution, to adhere to its proposal when it cannot adequately deal with matters within its region.
However, viewed from another perspective, Israel has had cordial relations with a number of African countries as some of them have voted for the country to be kept in the UN after the 1967 Six-Day War. Neuberger (2009) contends that Israel’s standing might have fallen to the depths of Apartheid South Africa, which was expelled from the UN and most international institutions. Clearly, Israel’s relationship with Africa is a bit ambiguous as it has good relations with some countries and relations with other African states are almost non-existent. Some of the countries that Israel has friendly relations with include Kenya where its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently visited (in July 2016). This was the first trip by an Israeli Head of State in forty years. Other countries visited were Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda. Apparently, these two respective countries (Israel and Kenya) have a common enemy to fight, and that is terrorism. It is the same reason that brings Kenya and the USA
closer. Therefore, it is quite apparent that where the institutional bodies have failed, individual countries have stepped in to work together in ensuring that their interests are protected.
There are some positives for the African Union as well. The continental body has made some strides that have even surpassed those of the United Nations in the early 2000s. This was achieved by enshrining the principle that any member state caught seizing power through a coup d’état or any other unconstitutional means would be kicked out of the AU. As Annan ((2012:182) aptly puts it, “A coup meant you would be immediately kicked out as a matter of course. I hoped and expected the UN to follow the AU’s lead but that has yet to happen.” This was quite progressive as this African regional body showed intolerance for misrule and dictatorship that is always associated with some African states. Henceforth, there have been several coups in Africa such as in Mauritania, Madagascar and Mali, however these countries were suspended from the organization and thus suffered diplomatic isolation as well as other sanctions.
This section would be incomplete without touching on the relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa and how this affected the relationship between the African and the Middle Eastern states. Israel had enjoyed cordial relations with many African states prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. Southall (2006) observes that while African states would adopt a principled stance regarding Palestinian self-determination, their relations with the Arab states would be determined by pragmatic self-interest. The African states had realized that they had been taken for a ride by the Arab states which had pretended to have had no dealings with the apartheid South Africa. However some of these Arab states were trading with both South Africa and Israel, therefore the African states chose to closely guard their own interests by also dealing with the Jewish state as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
2.6. Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the existing literature on the theme of the present study. It has dealt with what has been covered on the topic by other scholars. The chapter has also tried to identify existing gaps which still need to be filled such as the major role played by religion in this Israel-Palestine conflict. As is evident from the literature reviewed above, most scholars have downplayed the significance of religion in this conflict. Even those who acknowledge religion’s role fail to elaborate on the role played by this factor in the conflict. This is
something the present study brings into the discussion as its contribution to knowledge. Moreover, the chapter also provided both the background and context of the theme as provided by various authors and discussed in detail the documents that are of value to the study. This was done with the view to give the reader the much needed context within which subsequent chapters should be understood and their content interpreted.
In essence, the chapter dealt with four sections, which are: the historical perspective of the Israel-Palestine conflict; SA’s foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine; the role that has been played by religion in the conflict; and the influence of regional continental and international institutions in the determination of SA’s foreign policy towards Israeli and Palestine and how this foreign policy imperative has shaped the country’s engagement with the persistent conflict. What was noteworthy during the literature review was the lack of effectiveness of the international institutions in trying to arrest the Israel-Palestine conflict. This point will be expatiated upon in chapter six of this study where the results will be analyzed.
The following chapter discusses three theories that underpin the study. These are: realism, institutionalism and human rights theories. These three theories assisted in the investigation of the research problem. The theory of institutionalism which deals with international institutions in the international relations realm has been dealt with indirectly in the current chapter but will be further explicated in Chapter 3. The other two theories – realism and human rights theories – have also somewhat featured in the latter part of this chapter, albeit in a rather tantalizing manner. These theories provide more clarity on the situation that is currently taking place in the Middle East and the world in general at the moment, i.e. political instability. Moreover, these theories assisted in the investigation of the research problem. In addition to summarizing what each theory entails and any criticism leveled against each theory, the chapter also justifies the relevance of each of these theories to the study.
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction
Before delving any deeper into this chapter perhaps it would be justified to first remind the reader about what theory is and what it entails and then introduce the theoretical framework which guided this study. This is critical so that both the researcher and the reader could view the content of this chapter from the same vantage point. From a general perspective a theory is understood to be an inter-related set of ideas and propositions. But in its technical meaning, the concept proffers conditional knowledge and its expectations are not normative. There are three ways in which theory is relevant to social research. First, theories open up research problems by identifying what has been hidden, misunderstood or misinterpreted. Second, theory can draw together unrelated fragments of empirical evidence and research. Third, as a norm within the research community, research is theory dependent (Miller & Brewer, 2003). Furthermore, Kauppi and Viotti (1999) define theory as an intellectual construct that helps one to select facts and interpret them in such a way as to facilitate explanation and prediction concerning regularities and recurrences of observed phenomena. Therefore when it comes to this study, the behaviour of both Israel and Palestine as international actors is explored. The study also examines patterns, the nature and possible direction of these two respective countries within the realm of international relations.
Theories may exist apart from facts. Within this context, mathematical theorists deal entirely in the realm of abstraction. They hold the view that empirical theories in the social sciences relate to facts and provide explanation for observed phenomena (Kauppi & Viotti, 1999). The three theories that will underpin this study are: realism, institutionalism and human rights theories. These theories provide more clarity in the phenomena that is currently taking place in the Middle East at the moment. These three theories helped to investigate the research problem.
In this chapter, the three theories enumerated above will be explicated. In addition to summarizing what each theory entails and spelling out any criticism leveled against them, the chapter will also justify the relevance of each theory to the study. This will be done with the view to demonstrate that the three theories were cogently selected to guide the study.
To combine these three theories in order to get a clearer picture on issues in the Middle East makes sense in that they all provide a different perspective on the issue under discussion in this dissertation. Although different in nature, each theory brings something different and offers a unique perspective, thereby making it easier to comprehend all the underlying factors in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Nye (2003) contends that for the realist, the central problem of international politics is war and the use of force, and the central actors are states. The study explores the Israeli-Palestine conflict and how both these states have contributed in the usage of force in this conflict.
In a nutshell, realism is state-centric. It believes that everything that happens in a country revolves around the state. Moreover, this theory holds that by nature, all states are selfish; they strive to satisfy their own interests. On the other hand, institutionalism gives more power to institutions as opposed to states (Kauppi & Viotti, 1999). For example, the theory looks at how international institutions such as the United Nations deal with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. According to Ruggie (1998:56), “International organisations are the most concrete forms of institutionalisation.” In Ruggie’s view, their general environment includes the principal actors and characteristics of world politics.
The third and last theory is human rights theory. This theory deals with how the citizens of a particular country are treated. It pertains to the dignified way in which people ought to be treated. Going further, according to Evans (2001) the theory and practice of human rights is generally conducted in the language of legal and philosophical reason, which focuses upon international law, methods of implementation and the source, justification and meaning of rights. It is therefore quite evident that human rights consist of international law and the right to dignity of individuals. This theory will assist in looking at how the victims of both Israeli- Palestine conflict are treated in these territories. Below is a further look at how the three theories apply and their relevance to the whole study.
3.2 The theories which guided the study