The Global South Fights Back in Bogotá

IOL News

11-07-2025

The mass mobilisation of people against the genocide in the West has been critically important. So too has South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice, writes Imraan Buccus.
Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek
Imraan Buccus
The decision by the United States to sanction Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, is a direct attack on international law and multilateralism.
The world is in a perilous place. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, as well as recent unlawful military strikes on Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, are a profound threat to peace, justice, and the integrity of international law.
In this context, some of those who have taken a stand for international law have, like Albanese, faced intense pressure.
But the tide is now clearly turning.
The mass mobilisation of people against the genocide in the West has been critically important. So too has South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice.
It was met with widespread international acclaim by progressive forces across the world and many governments in the Global South — but also considerable hostility from the United States.
After months of threatening talk, punitive tariffs have now been imposed on South Africa by the US government.At home, South Africa's position at the ICJ has won wide support from within society, including popular organisations outside of the ANC like NUMSA, Abahlali baseMjondolo, and SAFTU, as well as the ANC-aligned trade union federation COSATU.
The ANC's support is in steep decline at the polls, but its principled position on Palestine places it in tune with the sentiments of the vast majority of South Africans.However, Israel and the United States have received vociferous support from a small but strident white-dominated pro-Western lobby at home.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
That lobby has attempted to isolate and smear those who have stood up for justice.
There have been character assassinations of a number of decent people, and considerable peddling of conspiracy theories, such as the entirely un-evidenced claim that Iran bribed the ANC to take Israel to the ICJ.
With growing pressure abroad and an aggressive pro-West lobby at home, South Africa needed a smart and effective diplomatic strategy to ensure that it could hold the line on its principles without being isolated.
In January, South Africa convened the first meeting of what is now called the Hague Group — a new bloc of states committed to the defence of international law.
That meeting brought together nine countries from across the Global South, including Asia, Africa, and Latin America, that share a deep concern about what is now widely termed the genocide in Gaza.
One of the most important immediate consequences of South Africa's ICJ action has been the widespread uptake of the term 'genocide' to describe what is happening in Gaza.
For months, this word was taboo in diplomatic settings. Now, it is shaping how states and publics frame the conflict.
That linguistic shift marks an increasingly effective challenge to the Western domination of the moral and legal narrative.Now, Colombia and South Africa are co-convening the next high-level meeting of the Hague Group in Bogotá on 15–16 July.
This is a major diplomatic coup for both countries. Colombia, under the leadership of Gustavo Petro, is home to one of the most progressive governments in the world. Together, these two countries are building a new axis of international cooperation, rooted in justice, legality, and human rights.
The countries that have already confirmed participation in the meeting in Bogotá include: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Serbia, Spain, Türkiye, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Palestine.
More countries are currently discussing participation.
The Hague Group is not simply reacting to the crisis in Gaza.
It is attempting to build the institutional foundations for an enduring Global South capacity to intervene in multilateral processes.
It is the crowning achievement of what has been an extraordinarily successful diplomatic strategy by South Africa.
While our country is confronting serious domestic challenges — unemployment, mass impoverishment, crime, and out-of-control corruption — its stance in the international sphere has shown that a principled foreign policy, rooted in the traditions of the anti-apartheid struggle, still has the power to resonate globally and to win global support.
As Ronnie Kasrils recently argued, the Hague Group carries the spirit of Bandung into the 21st century.
In 1955, leaders of newly independent Asian and African nations gathered in Indonesia to affirm their commitment to sovereignty, non-alignment, and cooperation outside the Cold War binary. That historic conference laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement. From the 1960s onwards, newly independent states sought to use the UN system to push for economic redistribution, anti-colonial enforcement, and disarmament.
That effort was eventually thwarted by Western powers. But the memory of that unfinished project remains—and informs this new moment.Since the end of the Cold War, the moral and legal authority of the international system set up after World War II has been held hostage by a small group of powerful states. The Hague Group insists that international law must apply consistently—to all countries, regardless of their power.
It is this insistence that rattles Washington and its allies.
The same international legal system that was brazenly ignored by the West during the invasions of Iraq, Libya and the bombing of Yugoslavia is now being invoked by the Global South to demand accountability and justice.Colombia's role in this process should not be underestimated. Once a key ally of US regional strategy in Latin America, Colombia has undergone a dramatic realignment under President Gustavo Petro.
As I wrote in the Mail & Guardian earlier this year, Petro's government, which brought together students, workers, environmentalists, and Indigenous communities, is one of the most progressive in the world today.
It has been outspoken in its support for Palestinian rights, regional peace, and climate justice. By co-convening the Bogotá meeting, Colombia is placing itself firmly in the camp of internationalist, law-based diplomacy.
This marks a departure not only from past governments, but from the cynical realism that still defines so much of geopolitics.The Hague Group's credibility also rests on the fact that it is not just the product of elite diplomacy.
In South Africa, Colombia, and many other countries that are participating in the meeting in Bogotá, there is tremendous popular support for Palestine.
This alignment between state policy and popular movements is rare—and it gives the group an authenticity that cannot be dismissed as political posturing.
Moreover, the Hague Group has been warmly received by many Palestinian organisations, who see it as a rare and concrete gesture of solidarity in an era of global abandonment. Inevitably, the Arab states that have 'normalised' ties with Israel have been conspicuously silent, but others—like Iraq, Lebanon, and Qatar—have chosen to engage.
Taking this stance is not without risk. Countries that challenge the West's narrative have faced the threat of aid withdrawal, diplomatic isolation, and investment flight.
South Africa, Colombia, and many other countries that are taking a stand in support of international law and justice have pro-West blocs at home that do all they can to escalate the sense that standing up for principle is risky.