Growing calls for SA to lead the UN in drafting a new Human Rights Treaty
JOHANNESBURG - There are growing calls for South Africa to take a lead role in shaping a new United Nations (UN) treaty on crimes against humanity including apartheid.
Human rights groups, including international organisation Madre, are urging government to contribute to the drafting process.
The calls come after a two-day dialogue co-hosted by the Nelson Mandela foundation, bringing together lawyers, feminists, and civil society to address the legacy of apartheid and other global atrocities.
International lawyer Wendy Isaack said existing laws don't go far enough.
"International human rights law is not enough because it does not enable individual prosecution of those that should be held accountable for the crime of apartheid which means inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination on the basis of race, and these acts include murder, torture and assassinations that were committed by apartheid era security forces and agents of the state in South Africa," said Isaack.
She said the treaty should be broadly applicable to crimes worldwide.
"These matters because when we think of apartheid as a domineering system, as a regime that oppressed black people in SA we also bear in mind that when international law is being developed, this law must also be applicable to other contexts, and at the top of our list are the Israeli apartheid policies and practices in occupied Palestinian territory. And the South African government made this very submission in the international court of justice in the 2014 advisory opinion proceedings," said Isaack.
South Africa has previously made similar submissions at the International Court of Justice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
14 minutes ago
- The Star
Black Economic Empowerment: Has BEE failed South Africa's poor
Thabo Makwakwa | Published 1 week ago The debate surrounding the effectiveness of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) in South Africa has intensified in recent months, with critics pointing to its shortcomings in achieving its core objectives. BEE is a government policy enacted in 2003 to increase economic participation by black South Africans. It seeks to transform the economy by promoting black ownership of companies, increasing black representation in management and boardrooms, and fostering entrepreneurship among historically disadvantaged communities. Although its objectives are widely supported, the policy's success has been scrutinised. In a detailed analysis published in the St Andrews Law Review on May 24, 2023, James Vandrau argued that BEE has failed to reconcile social inequalities in South Africa. He pointed out that resistance from the white business community has hampered the policy's effectiveness. 'This demographic has largely opposed the changes instigated by BEE, leading to a considerable backlash against the program,' Vandrau noted. According to a 2006 survey, approximately one-fifth of South African companies had no plans to implement black empowerment initiatives. The slow pace of progress prompted the Presidential Black Business Working Group to call for more stringent measures, with the ANC acknowledging that more aggressive interventions were necessary to meet BEE targets. This frustration has led many black entrepreneurs to advocate for faster economic de-racialisation. One of the most persistent criticisms of BEE is that it has been undermined by corruption and nepotism. Critics argue that a privileged few have benefited disproportionately at the expense of the wider black community. Gelb & Black (2004) highlighted how unissued equity was transferred from white-owned companies to a select group of 'tenderpreneurs'—black businesspeople often with high political profiles but limited business experience—resulting in a form of enrichment rather than broad-based empowerment. Furthermore, the representation of black individuals in senior management and boardrooms remains disappointingly low. The Black Business Executive Circle report of October 2005 revealed that only five of the top 200 companies on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange (JSE) had black ownership exceeding 51%. Only 32 companies had black ownership above 25%, collectively accounting for less than 2% of the JSE's market capitalisation. In an opinion piece published in The Star three months ago, Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University, acknowledged that BEE was a noble idea but emphasised that corruption has derailed its progress. 'The process should start with politicians who have corrupted the system and then move to businesses that have exploited loopholes to serve self-interests,' Mngomezulu wrote. 'Unless these corrupt practices are addressed, BEE will hinder economic growth and exclude those it was meant to benefit.' Weighing in, Dr. Khwezi Mabasa, a sociology lecturer at the University of Pretoria and an economic policy analyst, emphasised the need for a broader approach. Speaking to IOL, Mabasa highlighted that current legislation and initiatives, such as the broad-based black economic empowerment codes (B-BBEE), must be complemented by efforts outside the stock exchange, including supporting small and medium enterprises, entrepreneurship, and local economic development. 'We need to look beyond listed companies,' Mabasa explained. 'Most businesses are unlisted, and we must focus on fostering local ventures, job skills development, and access to affordable financing for black entrepreneurs. 'Transformation should also prioritise building sustainable local economies, especially in townships, rather than relying solely on high-profile corporate ownership.' Without these reforms, Mabasa argued that South Africa risks perpetuating the inequalities that the BEE was designed to eradicate. [email protected] IOL Politics
IOL News
25 minutes ago
- IOL News
US military strikes on Iran: Trump declares success in obliterating nuclear sites
US President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House in Washington, DC on June 21, 2025, following the announcement that the US bombed nuclear sites in Iran. President Donald Trump said June 21, 2025 the US military has carried out a "very successful attack" on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordo. "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan," Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. President Donald Trump said US air strikes on Sunday "totally obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, as Washington joined Israel's war with Tehran in a flashpoint moment for the Middle East. In a televised address to the nation from the White House, Trump warned that the United States would go after more targets if Iran did not make peace quickly. The intervention by a US president who had vowed to avoid another "forever war" in the region threatens to dramatically widen the conflict, with Iran having said it would retaliate if Washington got involved. "Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success," said Trump, adding that they targeted the crucial underground nuclear enrichment plant of Fordo along with facilities at Natanz and Isfahan. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran the bully of the Middle East must now make peace," said Trump. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump on the strikes, saying that "with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history." Condemning the US attacks as "lawless and criminal," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his country has a right to defend its sovereignty. "The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences," he posted on X. "Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Not long after, sirens sounded in Tel Aviv and explosions were heard from Jerusalem as Iranian state TV announced a fresh salvo of missiles launched. Tehran said Sunday there were "no signs of contamination" after the US attacks and Saudi regulators said "no radioactive effects were detected" in the Gulf region. Iranian media confirmed that part of the Fordo plant as well as the Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites were attacked. Surprise attack Trump had said Thursday that he would decide "within two weeks" whether to join Israel's campaign, in a move that many saw as a window of diplomatic opportunity. But the Republican's decision to strike Iran came far sooner. Flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump said that future attacks would be "far greater" unless Iran reached a diplomatic solution. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said. Trump however made no mention of regime change, despite having warned last week that Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was an "easy target." The raid on the Iran nuclear sites was carried out by B-2 stealth bombers that dropped so-called "bunker buster bombs," along with submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, US media reported. Trump said earlier on his Truth Social site that a "full payload of BOMBS" was dropped on Fordo and said that "all planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors." Pictures posted by the White House showed Trump in a red "Make America Great Again" cap meeting with top national security officials in the Situation Room, shortly before the strikes were announced. After the address, Trump warned Iran against "any retaliation." Iran and its proxies have previously attacked US military bases in the region, including in Iraq. Iran's Huthi allies in Yemen had on Saturday threatened to resume their attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea if Washington joined the war. The US president had stepped up his rhetoric against Iran since Israel first struck Iran on June 13, repeating his insistence that it could never have a nuclear weapon. Israel and Iran have traded wave after wave of devastating strikes since then. MAGA split Trump spoke to Netanyahu after the attacks, while the United States also gave key ally Israel a "heads up" before the strikes, a senior White House official told AFP. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian had warned earlier Saturday of a "more devastating" retaliation should Israel's nine-day bombing campaign continue. Iran denies seeking an atomic bomb, and on Saturday Pezeshkian said its right to pursue a civilian nuclear program "cannot be taken away... by threats or war." Iran's Revolutionary Guard meanwhile announced early Sunday that "suicide drones" had been launched against "strategic targets" across Israel. The US military strikes on Iran also threaten to cause political tensions at home for Trump. The issue has opened a split in Trump's "MAGA" movement, with many key Republican supporters calling on Trump to avoid embroiling the United States in another foreign war. Trump's first 2016 election victory in particular came on the back of his promises to get America out of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats have also assailed him. Leading US Democrat Hakeem Jeffries said Trump risked US "entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East," while others have accused him of bypassing Congress to launch a new war. AFP
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
US, Israel Attacks on Iran: 'Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed'
Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares For nearly 30 years, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon unless Netanyahu is stopped. Netanyahu's fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violence–wars, assassinations, terror–is needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland. The founders of Netanyahu's political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87% of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that 'between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.' The now infamous chant, 'from the River to the Sea,' which is characterized as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud. The challenge for Likud was how to pursue its maximalist aims despite their blatant illegality under international law and morality, both of which call for a two-state solution. In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a 'Clean Break' strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel's dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel's behalf. The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to 'attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.' The first of the wars, in early 2003, was to topple the Iraqi government. Plans for further wars were delayed as the US became mired in Iraq. Still, the US supported Sudan's split in 2005, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Ethiopia's incursion into Somalia that same year. In 2011, the Obama administration launched CIA Operation Timber Sycamore against Syria and, with the UK and France, overthrew Libya's government through a 2011 bombing campaign. Today, these countries lie in ruins, and many are now embroiled in civil wars. Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the U.S. Government including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, and others. Testifying in the U.S. Congress in 2002, Netanyahu pitched for the disastrous war in Iraq, declaring 'If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.' He continued, 'And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.' He also falsely told Congress, 'There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons.' The slogan to remake a 'New Middle East' provides the slogan for these wars. Initially stated in 1996 through 'Clean Break,' it was popularized by Secretary Condoleezza Rice in 2006. As Israel was brutally bombarded Lebanon, Rice stated: 'What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one.' In September 2023, Netanyahu presented at the UN General Assembly a map of the 'New Middle East' completely erasing a Palestinian state. In September 2024, he elaborated on this plan by showing two maps: one part of the Middle East a 'blessing,' and the other–including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a curse, as he advocated regime change in the latter countries. Israel's war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy. The premise of Israel's attack on Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a claim is fatuous since Iran has repeatedly called for negotiations precisely to remove the nuclear option in return for an end to the decades of US sanctions. Since 1992, Netanyahu and his supporters have claimed that Iran will become a nuclear power 'in a few years." In 1995, Israeli officials and their US backers declared a 5-year timeline. In 2003, Israel's Director of Military Intelligence said that Iran would be a nuclear power 'by the summer of 2004.' In 2005, the head of Mossad said that Iran could build the bomb in less than 3 years. In 2012, Netanyahu claimed at the United Nations that 'it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.' And on and on. This 30-year-plus pattern of shifting deadlines has marked a deliberate strategy, not a failure in prophecy. The claims are propaganda; there is always an 'existential threat.' More importantly, there is Netanyahu's phoney claim that negotiations with Iran are useless. Iran has repeatedly said that it does not want a nuclear weapon and that it has long been prepared to negotiate. In October 2003, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production and use of nuclear arms—a ruling later officially cited by Iran at an IAEA meeting in Vienna in August 2005 and referenced since as a religious and legal barrier to pursuing nuclear weapons. Even for those sceptical of Iran's intentions, Iran has consistently advocated for a negotiated agreement supported by independent international verification. In contrast, the Zionist lobby has opposed any such settlements, urging the US to maintain sanctions and reject deals that would allow strict IAEA monitoring in exchange for lifting sanctions. In 2016, the Obama Administration, together with the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia, reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran—a landmark agreement to strictly monitor Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Yet, under relentless pressure from Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby, President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. Predictably, when Iran responded by expanding its uranium enrichment, it was blamed for violating an agreement that the US itself had abandoned. The double standard and propaganda are hard to miss. On April 11, 2021, Israel's Mossad attacked Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz. Following the attack, on April 16, Iran announced that it would increase its uranium enrichment further, as bargaining leverage, while repeatedly appealing for renewed negotiations on a deal like the JCPOA. The Biden Administration rejected all such negotiations. At the start of his second term, Trump agreed to open a new negotiation with Iran. Iran pledged to renounce nuclear arms and to be subject to IAEA inspections but reserved the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The Trump Administration appeared to agree to this point but then reversed itself. Since then, there have been five rounds of negotiations, with both sides reporting progress on each occasion. The sixth round was ostensibly to take place on Sunday, June 15. Instead, Israel launched a preemptive war on Iran on June 12. Trump confirmed that the US knew of the attack in advance, even as the administration was speaking publicly of the upcoming negotiations. Israel's attack was made not only amid negotiations that were making progress but also days before a scheduled UN Conference on Palestine that would have advanced the cause of the two-state solution. That conference has now been postponed. Israel's attack on Iran now threatens to escalate to a full-fledged war that draws in the US and Europe on the side of Israel and Russia and perhaps Pakistan on the side of Iran. We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation. The Doomsday Clock is 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to nuclear Armageddon since the clock was launched in 1947. Over the past 30 years, Netanyahu and his US backers have destroyed or destabilized a 4,000-km swath of countries stretching across North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Asia. They have aimed to block a Palestinian State by overthrowing governments supporting the Palestinian cause. The world deserves better than this extremism. More than 180 countries in the UN have called for a two-state solution and regional stability. That makes more sense than Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims. * Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Sybil Fares is a specialist and advisor in Middle East policy and sustainable development at SDSN. This article was originally published at ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
