The boys were detained and tortured for 26 days by the dreaded Syrian secret police, Mukhabarat. Families and neighbours took to the streets, and soon word spread beyond Daraa, as more people rose to protest peacefully — only to be met by a relentless brutal crackdown.

Just 10km east of Daraa, on 29 April 2011, a curious 13-year-old boy, Hamza al-Khateeb, joined a crowd of people in Saida. He was arrested by an anti-terror squad along with 50 other demonstrators, and held in detention for almost a month before his mutilated body was delivered to his family on 24 May 2011, to serve as warning to all Syrians. 

Hamza’s limp remains showed signs of extreme torture. He had been shot in both arms, had burns and lacerations, his kneecaps were shattered, he appeared to have been subjected to electric shock, his neck was broken, and he had been castrated. 

His father was detained and threatened when he expressed grief and attempted to call for justice. Hamza’s death, meant to break the spirits of Syrians seeking change, ignited not just despair but incredible defiance. Youth took to the streets armed with roses and water as a gesture of peaceful protest, demanding an end to the tyrannical rule of Assad. Their spirits of hope were crushed as Assad unleashed his wrath and terror against his own people. 

His rule followed that of his father, Hafez al-Assad, an equally authoritarian president. Initially, Bashar had no ambitions for leadership and was pursuing medical studies abroad. On the death of his brother, he was recalled and groomed for succession. While the world expected a young Assad to take his country on a different trajectory to that of his father, the Syrian people were gravely disappointed to be met with much the same tyranny as they had lived under for decades. 

As pockets of resistance began to coordinate and develop militias, including defectors from the regime, Assad unleashed an onslaught of indiscriminate barrel bombs, mass arrests and slaughter to quash the uprising. He made little attempt to offer a conciliatory hand to the opposition, threatening them with the lives of their families — wives, siblings, children — to smoke them out. By 2012, a full-scale civil war engulfed the region, as the opposition began to seize cities in the north. From 2013 to 2015, there were at least two occasions that the Assad regime faced collapse, revealing his vulnerability without external support. 

Vested interests

Gulf countries with vested interests in supporting the revolutionary movements entered the space with funding and political support, including demands for Assad to step down. 

While it initially appeared that there would be success in overthrowing the dictator and formulating a democratic, unified Syria, the lack of common vision, unity and vastly differing political ideologies weakened the resistance while Assad sought help from his Iranian and Russian allies in their provision of air power and foot soldiers. On at least one occasion, Assad responded to the opposition with the use of chemical weapons, massacring swathes of civilians in Ghouta. 

The emergence of groups expressing loyalty to and affinity with the Islamic State and Al Qaeda cast a shadow on the revolutionary movement, because Assad and his allies claimed to be fighting terrorists. 

The United States opportunistically expanded its reach by occupying vast territory in the eastern region, rich in oil and gas, claiming to be quelling the Islamic State, while concurrently supporting a Kurdish movement. 

Türkiye advanced from the north to protect its territorial integrity, while battling the Kurdish Syrian Defence Force (SDF) perceived to be aligned with the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), deemed a terror organisation. 

Syria became a battleground for Syrians but a playground for international actors orchestrating proxy war games at the expense of the people. At least half a million Syrians were killed, and the largest refugee crisis emerged, with more than 14 million people displaced, seven million of whom sought asylum in neighbouring countries and beyond. 

Diplomatic efforts in Geneva and through the United Nations failed to deliver any meaningful progress, while the inept UN Security Council was once again immobilised by the misuse of the veto on several resolutions proposed, including that for no-fly zones and military intervention based on the responsibility to protect civilians. 

In 2015 and 2016, Russian military intervention intensified airpower. This, coupled with the ground support of Iran and Hizbollah, delivered the opportunity for Assad to consolidate his power and advance to reclaim the lost cities, while forcing the opposition into enclaves in the north, declared as Free Syria by revolutionary forces. 

In 2017, a trilateral forum initiated by Russia, Türkiye and Iran, and hosted by Kazakhstan was launched, presumably aimed at ending the armed conflict and restarting formal political negotiations. The talks were conducted under UN auspices, with Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy for Syria, and his successor, Geir Otto Pedersen, both affirming their commitments to the Astana process as an avenue for achieving peace. Syrians were sceptical, finding too strong a hand of the Russian and Iranian allies to Assad and fearing that it was a guise to disarm and isolate the opposition into “de-escalation zones”.

Rise of the revolutionaries

During the same year, several disparate opposition groups, including the previously Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat Al Nusra, reconstituted to form Hayat Tahrir Al Shaam (HTS), relinquishing ties to Al Qaeda, developing stronger political frameworks and formulating governance structures in the Free Syria regions. 

The HTS, led by Ahmad Al Sharaa (aka Abu Muhammed al Jolani), is the group largely responsible for the dramatic and swift deposing of Assad in under a fortnight, despite indications that Assad was reaffirmed as the Syrian leader by the Arab League after a decade of isolation. Assad’s comfort in believing he was untouchable was shattered as the HTS coordinated with other opposition groups, supported by Türkiye and with Russia and Iran standing down from their support of Assad due to their own frustrations with his obstinance. 

The surprise advance into Aleppo, followed by Hama and Homs, forced a rushed meeting of the Astana group in Doha, Qatar, a night before the opposition set their sights on Damascus. This sealed the fate of Assad, whose own troops mass defected, rendering him exposed — much like pictures of him found in his abandoned palace, wearing only underwear, earning him the name Abu Kalsoon (the father of knickers). His humiliating defeat not only laid bare his vulnerabilities, they uncovered his penchant for the macabre, as prisons with thousands of political prisoners were opened, revealing the horrors behind the concrete walls. 

The bloodletting

An almost bloodless coup has now affirmed the deluge of bloodletting by the Assad regime. For more than a decade, Syrian human rights organisations in exile highlighted the atrocities perpetrated by Assad against his people but the world turned a blind eye. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) meticulously recorded the human rights violations by all parties to the conflict on a daily, monthly and annual basis. Regular reports focused on the disappearances, torture, deaths of civilians and attacks on vital infrastructure. These records displayed Assad as responsible for the greater number of human rights violations in comparison to groups such as the Islamic State. 

The Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF) supported the detailed testimony of a former Syrian government official photographer, codenamed Caesar. He had been tasked with photographing and documenting the deaths from torture on behalf of the Syrian regime until he defected and escaped with the evidence of more than 50,000 photographs, presenting it before international human rights hearings. Following intensive lobbying by the SETF, the US enacted the Caesar Act, unilaterally imposing additional sanctions against Syria. 

But other countries failed to take any meaningful action. South Africa seemed to resign itself to blissful ignorance of the human rights abuses, while strongly aligning itself to the Assad regime.

With the HTS takeover of Damascus, unfathomable levels of depravity of the Assad regime have come to light. We now know that the young Hamza al-Khateeb was not an isolated case at the beginning of the revolution, but was habitual practice of slaughter, rape and torture. Assad’s labyrinth of gulags inspired by Nazi advisers to Adolf Eichmann, were long rumoured to have existed. Used as known black sights for renditions by the Americans in the “war on terror”, these torture chambers were thought to have been dark fantastical tales told to maintain a stronghold by the repressive regime. Somehow, Assad’s apparently geeky grin never gave any impression of the malevolence that lurked behind his rule nor that he was the mastermind executioner of his people. 

Human slaughterhouse

It was perhaps easy to dismiss the Caesar photographs as exaggeration — most would question why any regime would document its own crimes — but as the doors of Sednaya prison, branch 215 and the notorious Palestine Branch were opened to the world this week, a bizarre unveiling of meticulous records kept by the wardens present a perverse bureaucracy that seemingly took pride in their malice. 

Escapees from these dungeons, such as Omar Al Shogre, who was due for execution on the day of his release, have told their stories and described the inhumane conditions of these prisons. But it was not until the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets) drilled into the concrete floors, unearthing incarcerated souls held for up to 40 years without seeing the light of day, that the world began to take notice. 

Severely malnourished and confused skeletal humans emerged from the slaughterhouse. Women were held with children, apparently born of the rape their mothers endured at the hands of their captors. Hidden chambers, visible on camera but inaccessible were eventually excavated, along with cavities bearing nooses, iron presses that were thought to have been used for the disposing of bodies, vats of acid in which the bodies of people who succumbed to torture were probably disintegrated, and instruments used to gouge out eyes or dismember captives were found. 

More macabre was the fact that the torture of these inmates was allegedly broadcast on the Dark Web for financial gain. 

Upon release, most of the detainees scattered from fear, many of whom have lost their minds as a result of extreme torture. Comparisons have been made with Auschwitz and Stalin’s gulags. 

Thousands remain unaccounted for, as family members continue the search for them, scouring through documents, displaying their photographs in public squares, visiting morgues and hospitals, hoping their loved ones will return.

Graphic images of the recently dead piled up in the morgues convey similarities with the pictures Caesar smuggled out years ago, bearing visible signs of torture, many unrecognisable. More than 100,000 people are unaccounted for and may never be found, Fadel Abdel Ghany, of the SNHR, said in an emotional interview. 

This week, evidence of several mass graves has emerged across Syria, at least one believed to have tens of thousands of bodies, some state up to a hundred thousand, many marked with their prison numbers or names. The SNHR has issued a directive on how the evidence must be carefully preserved to not only ensure justice and accountability, but also give finality and closure to the families of the victims. 

What Next?

Such accountability will only be possible and measurable if Syria under the new interim administration, led by the HTS, is capable of maintaining stability, transforming the archaic bureaucracy, and forming an inclusive government. During this past week, indications are that the interim government is conciliatory, eager to work with former technocrats in a handover, while reaching out to Syrians in the diaspora, urging them to return and rebuild their country. With the mass infrastructure destruction over 13 years, an economy under sanctions in tatters, and a grieving nation, the task ahead is incredibly difficult. The HTS has begun reaching out and is already in diplomatic engagements with several countries in the region and beyond, including Russia and Iran (the former Assad allies). 

A regional meeting of Arab countries was held in Aqaba, without Syrian representation present, in an almost desperate attempt to prevent uprisings of a similar nature in neighbouring countries. The regional meeting affirmed their view that the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 must be the basis upon which Syria is rebuilt but many Syrians reject this notion, believing that the resolution was specifically meant for an era that included Assad and that this period has passed. They motivate for a Syrian-led process without external interference. 

While the HTS has made the commitment to disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of militia groups, there remain risks of pockets of resistance and counter-revolutionary forces that may jeopardise stability. Israel has already violated international law by attacking defence and intelligence apparatuses in Syria and annexing further Syrian territory beyond the already occupied Golan Heights. Türkiye is also embroiled in a limited war along the border in the northeastern region and Damascus has yet to concretise a deal with the Kurdish SDF who are insistent on autonomy. Continued sanctions and the lack of access to their national resources still under American occupation may impede economic progress, which would be vital to post-war reconstruction and development. 

In commemoration of the beginnings of the revolution when protesters handed roses to their oppressors, Omar al-Shogre movingly called for a rose for every martyr. As the euphoric mood of freedom depresses into sombre reflection and immense loss, it is difficult to forget a note written in the diary of a Syrian child at the height of the war: 

“When the war is over in my country, we will close Syria’s doors and we will put a banner that says: No Entry. We will shed tears of joy alone, just like how we suffered our grief alone.”

Zeenat Adam is a former diplomat and international relations strategist.

He called on the minister of public enterprises Pravin Gordhan and the chairperson of Armscor  Phillip Dexter to announce an immediate arms embargo. 

He further demanded that the leadership of Denel, the state-owned arms manufacturer, cease sales of military ordinances to Israel. In addition, he emphasised the need for parliamentary oversight in ensuring that the National Conventional Arms Control Act of 2002 was fully implemented. 

This statement followed the social media frenzy around a South African Revenue Services (Sars) report that indicated exports to Israel included vehicles, aircraft and vessels. 

Trade between South Africa and Israel reached its peak in 2012 at $1.2 billion. By 2022, that figure  had more than halved. This could be attributed to the hardline approach that South Africa took in its relations with Israel after the 2012 ANC elective conference in which the governing party endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. 

New regulations were introduced in 2012 by the department of trade and industry, which required all products from Israel and occupied Palestine to be clearly labelled as such. 

Since the end of apartheid, exports of South African products to Israel have decreased at an annual rate of 1.71%, from $400 million in 1995 to $255 million in 2021. The Covid-19 pandemic also appears to have had a significant impact on the decrease in trade between Israel and South Africa. 

Indications are that trade has increased in 2023, compared to the 2020 to 2022 period. 

SA exports to Israel

For the calendar year 2022, the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) reported that the total South African military hardware and munitions exported worldwide amounted to R4.679 billion, up from R3.353 billion in 2021. The NCACC report, however, did not reflect any sales to Israel. Armscor has also indicated that there are no sales of weapons from South Africa to Israel.

This does not correlate with recent Sars export figures nor with the UN Comtrade database on international trade, which indicates “machinery, nuclear reactors, boilers” of $1.86 million in 2022; “aircraft or spacecraft” at $1.10 million; “vehicles other than railway” at $570 000 and “arms and ammunition, parts and accessories” at $393 000. 

The lack of correlation between the figures raises concern as to whether there might be attempts to circumvent the South African regulations on arms sales. 

SA companies and products

Some South African companies in the arms and related industries might be trading with Israel, though it would seem that these sales are not registered with the NCACC or fall outside the provisions of the act. The discrepancies would have to be investigated further. 

ALTI, a Knysna-based South African company, produces unmanned aircraft (UAVs), focusing on long-range and endurance vertical take-off and landing drones. The aircraft are designed to fly multiple payloads, complete smart autonomous flight missions and provide the situational awareness needed for security and surveillance operations. 

In 2021, iSTAR from the Avnon Group, which specialises in the drone field, acquired ALTI for about $7.75 million. 

The CEO of the HLS division of Avnon Group, Aviad Matza, announced that, “Operations in South Africa will continue, but at the same time, we will start producing UAVs in a new co-production centre for the group’s subsidiaries based in Israel,” noting that there is a growing demand for UAVs from military and government forces and boasting that ALTI has some of the most advanced capabilities in the world in this field.

Paramount Group, founded in South Africa, is Africa’s largest private defence manufacturer. The company has recently diversified its portfolio and has moved its headquarters to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. 

This move is believed to have been influenced by the declining market in South Africa, the economic downturn caused by Covid-19 and the increased pressure on the defence industry after the exposure by this author of South African exports to countries in the Middle East involved in the conflict in Yemen. 

The decision that followed by the NCACC to suspend exports and enforce end-user certificates pushed companies such as Paramount Group to seek means to circumvent the regulations. 

Paramount Group still has production plants in South Africa. It was announced in 2021 that the group had opened an office in Tel Aviv, in Israel, a clear indication of the prospective business. 

The company manufactures combat vehicles and aircraft components; composite rotor blades for medium-lift helicopters (an item listed on the Sars document) and naval vessels through its subsidiary, Paramount Maritime. 

Palestinian-rights groups held a protest on 10 November 2023 outside the Paramount offices in Midrand, in Gauteng, in which they called for the shut-down of the company. A statement issued by activists called out the executive chairman Ivor Ichikowitz for what they termed his staunch support for the Zionist cause and alleged war crimes in funding genocide and ethnic cleansing in occupied Palestine, as well as in Mozambique and Kazakhstan. 

Paramount Group issued a statement on 14 November 2023 denying the allegations, dismissing the action as anti-Semitic, and affirming that the company has operated legally for almost 30 years “in strict adherence to South Africa’s and UN arms control regulations”. 

The Israel Navy is known to have deployed a South African-manufactured vessel, the Nachshol [Nashal] Reconnaissance Boat Stingray Interceptor 2000, off the coast of Eilat. The catamaran-style boat, constructed by the Cape Town-based Stingray Marine group, was built according to Israel Navy specifications and attached to the Dabur Class Patrol fleet. The vessels have a civilian look but are equipped with surveillance and combat systems. 

It is believed that the Israel Defence Forces still utilises the Armsel Striker, a shotgun designed during the apartheid era as an anti-riot weapon.  

Since the Ukraine war, prices of the metals used by the Israel Aerospace Industries have soared and imports from Russia have been limited. Israel has therefore faced an unexpected shortage of metals and has been seeking to diversify its sources.

Nickel and titanium are essential to the production of its F-16I Sufa and F-35I Adir fighter jets and the Merkava IV tank. These metals could be procured from South Africa and would not be governed by the NCACC regulations. 

South African use of Israeli products

Israeli exports to South Africa amounted to $251.46 million during 2022, according to the UN Comtrade database on international trade. Arms and ammunition are not listed but vehicles, aircraft and miscellaneous items are included. It is believed that approximately $80 million is within the services sector, including software, cybersecurity and technology. 

Israel is one of the top 10 exporters of arms and weaponry. Unlike South Africa and like-minded countries, Israel is not impeded by ethical regulations on the sale of arms. Sales from Israel to South Africa should therefore also be on the radar, despite the significant imbalance in trade figures. 

Israel and the closely aligned military industrial complex has marketed “battle-tested” or “combat- proven” surveillance and military equipment, arms, ammunition and technology that have been tested in the occupied territories against the Palestinians. 

It should be noted that one of Israel’s largest defence companies Elbit operates out of the UK, showing the global reach of the occupation. Third-country sales are often a means to circumvent stringent regulations in the arms trade. 

The South African Air Force has previously used Israel’s Litening III targeting pod on the Saab JAS 39 Gripen combat aircraft. 

The SA Navy has, in the past, also used the EL/M-2208 air search radar. It was not clear at the time of writing whether these systems were still in use and if there is still a relationship with the Israeli supplier. 

In 2007, the South African Police Service procured water cannons and riot-control gear, which included skunk spray, from Israel’s Beit Alfa Technologies. This was used against Fees Must Fall protesters in 2015. 

Kibbutz Beit Alfa enjoyed a profitable relationship with the apartheid regime in the supply of anti-riot vehicles that were used to oppress the disenfranchised communities in townships. 

Following the media statement by MP Mandela, the director-general of the department of international relations and co-operation Zane Dangor stated in an interview with Newzroom Afrika on 8 November 2023 that while South Africa has not taken a decision on economic sanctions against Israel, it might be a matter to be considered more broadly, at an international level, to address the wrongful act of apartheid and consider non-violent countermeasures such as divestment. 

He further indicated that the government would be investigating the veracity of social media allegations that South Africa might have sold arms to Israel, in contravention of the National Conventional Arms Control Act of 2002. 

Zeenat Adam is a former diplomat and international relations strategist.

On August 2, the bustling al-Mehout fish market in the Yemeni city of Hodeida was bombed. Fifty-five civilians, mostly ­fishermen, fish sellers and shoppers, were killed and more than 170 others were injured. The wounded were taken to the adjacent Al-Thawrah hospital.

A second, even more terrible attack was launched, this time directed at the hospital entrance, targeting ambulances and paramedics attending to the injured from the fish market. Nine people were killed there.

The massacres, which constitute a war crime, took place almost 6 000km away from South Africa, but the origins of the mortars used in the Hodeida attack may well be closer to home.

According to arms analyst Nick Waters, munitions fragments found at the scene of the Hodeida bombings share several characteristics with the distinctive 120mm mortar bombs manufactured by Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), which supplies this ammunition to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the two most active warring countries in the coalition that has made Yemen the site of the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis.

READ MORE: Denel lands deep in Gulf crisis

Both RDM and its parent company in Germany were contacted for ­comment and asked to ­provide images of their 120mm mortar ammunition so that it could be compared with the munitions fragments found in Hodeida. Neither responded to these requests.

The aim of the Saudi campaign in Yemen is to restore the government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, which was toppled by the Houthi rebel group. Three years of devastating airstrikes on hospitals, schools and markets have resulted in the deaths of nearly 50 000 Yemenis, according to independent estimates. A blockade is starving Yemen of imports of food, medicine and fuel. Without fuel, water cannot be pumped from boreholes. Unsanitary conditions have led to outbreaks of disease, including the world’s worst cholera outbreak in modern history.

READ MORE: The business of war in Yemen­ – how Saudi dollars keep the arms flowing

Despite the humanitarian destruction that the war has brought, South African weapons companies are eager to supply Saudi Arabia and its allies with weapons for a campaign characterised by human rights violations, including war crimes, according to the United Nations. Between 2016 and 2017 alone, South African companies sold arms worth more than R3-billion to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), the South African authority that oversees arms exports and regulates South African weapons companies, has been lax about ensuring that local arms dealers comply with its regulations.

In July 2015, television footage showed a Denel drone being shot down over Yemen. When asked what South African weapons were doing in Yemen, NCACC boss Jeff Radebe simply pointed to possible Saudi breaches of end-user certificates. He did not investigate this. Last year, the Parliament’s joint standing committee on defence asked Radebe to provide a report on South Africa’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia. He agreed to do so but never did. The committee ignored requests for comment.

Providing cover for war crimes

By turning a blind eye to evidence of Saudi violations of its regulations, the NCACC is ­violating South African and international statutes. South Africa’s National Conventional Arms Control Act No 41 of 2002 states that the NCACC must “avoid transfers of conventional arms to governments that systematically violate or suppress human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

Under the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which South Africa ratified in 2014, it has an obligation to halt the supply of weapons if these are likely to be used for violations of international human rights or humanitarian law.

Neither the NCACC nor the South African government can claim ignorance of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen, which has been widely documented by the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Aware of this and having been alerted to the use of South African weapons in Yemen, no steps have been taken to investigate at the very least whether the Saudis are using our weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen.

We are also encouraging others to turn a blind eye. On September 28, South Africa abstained from ­voting on a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution, which called for a probe into human rights violations in Yemen by both the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthi rebels.

The department of international relations and co-operation has issued just two statements about Yemen. The first was issued on November 8 last year, almost three years after the Saudi bombing campaign began, and was only in response to the firing of a missile towards Riyadh. The missile was intercepted and there were no casualties.

Bizarrely, the department considered an intercepted missile an “escalation” of the conflict, but not the 933 Yemeni civilians who were killed by the Saudi-led coalition in the 13 months before that.

A month later, the department issued the second statement after the death of Ali Abdullah Saleh, former president of Yemen. It expressed concern about the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Yemen, but never once mentioned that a Saudi-led coalition was largely responsible for it.

Why shield Saudi Arabia?

The answer may lie in growing business ties between Pretoria and Riyadh. On September 29, a day after South Africa abstained on the UNHRC vote, Minister of Trade and Investment Rob Davies co-chaired the South Africa/Saudi Arabia Joint Economic Commission. He was following up on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s $10-billion investment pledge made to President Cyril Ramaphosa in July. Bin Salman is the architect of the Yemen war and has ruthlessly consolidated power in the kingdom by rooting out dissidents and critics.

On October 4 this year, the state-owned Saudi Arabian Military Industries, announced that it was considering taking an equity stake in cash-strapped Denel. Before that, in 2013, it began discussions with Denel about developing a drone programme. By last year, the kingdom had unveiled a Saudi combat drone, resembling Denel’s design.

Yemeni killings: Made in SA?

Saudi Arabia is the world’s third-largest weapons buyer and spent $70-billion on arms last year alone. Keen to cash in, our weapons companies don’t just want to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, they also want to help Riyadh develop its own arms industry. By 2030, the Saudis want half their weapons to be manufactured locally.

In 2016, former president Jacob Zuma officially opened the Al-Kharj military facility in Riyadh. Built in collaboration with RDM, it is expected to produce 600 mortar missiles a day and heavyweight aircraft bombs. South African Ivor Ichikowitz’s Paramount Group, a defence and aerospace business, is also in talks with Saudi Arabia about transferring technology and establishing production plants.

In terms of complicity in war crimes, this is far more dangerous than merely selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. South African com­panies run the risk of assisting Saudi Arabia to establish ­factories that are capable of ­creating ­internationally banned cluster munitions. Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and has previously used cluster munitions in Yemen. So the possibility of South Africa being complicit in war crimes increases significantly.

Activist Terry Crawford-Browne has already filed a complaint against Zuma and the RDM with the commission of inquiry into state capture. He is arguing that the two parties are complicit in Saudi war crimes committed in Yemen after the factory was opened.

International Relations Minister Lindiwe Sisulu seems committed to the implementation of a human rights-based foreign policy, and ­continuing South Africa’s legacy of internationalism and just international relations. At her most recent media briefing, she declared: “I don’t know a country that has as robust a watch over human rights matters as South Africa.”

But Sisulu cannot talk about human rights while her colleagues at the department of defence and the NCACC allow South African weapons dealers to shower Saudi Arabia with high-tech weaponry, and assist Bin Salman to develop weapons that may be used to commit war crimes in Yemen.

In June, the Saudi-led coalition bombed a cholera treatment centre, even though Doctors Without Borders had shared the centre’s co-ordinates at least 12 times with the coalition. On August 9, a school bus out on an excursion was struck by the coalition, killing 40 children.

At what point will the NCACC and the South African authorities declare that the price is too high and stop arming Saudi Arabia and its allies?

South Africa will have to find a way to balance its economic priorities with its commitment to human rights and international law. Our government needs to ask what price tag has been attached to the investments that Ramaphosa secured from Saudi Arabia. If our conduct at the UNHRC vote is anything to go by, then the cost is silence and complicity in the face of Saudi war crimes.

In January, South Africa will take up its nonpermanent seat at the UN Security Council. We will be in a position to raise our voices against oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia. If Pretoria remains silent on Saudi atrocities in Yemen and continues its “business as usual” approach with Riyadh, then we would have sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder. We would also be turning our back on our proud history, which is based on human rights and solidarity with the oppressed.

Zeenat Adam is a former diplomat and an independent international relations strategist. Suraya Dadoo is a researcher with Media Review Network

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain led the charge against the tiny Gulf state a week ago, beginning with the withdrawal of their ambassadors and followed by a complete blockade, lobbying several other client states to follow suit. The outrageous demands made by the blockaders encroach on the sovereignty of the state of Qatar by calling for a complete overhaul of its independent foreign policy and expecting conformity with the dictates of the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC). The heightened tensions are indicative of the seismic shifts spreading in the Gulf region since the Arab Spring sent mere shivers down the spines of the monarchies.

READ MORE: Gulf states, Egypt cut ties with Qatar over supporting ‘terrorism’

Qatar, having had a rebellious, youthful spirit, developed a defiant and extraordinary foreign policy steeped in a pragmatic, survival-based notion that the more friends we have the smaller the possibility of an invasion by a powerful neighbour (as Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in 1990). A bloodless coup by the current emir’s father in 1995 laid the foundations of Qatar’s rapid growth based on its immense gas reserves that not only brought economic growth and development to the Gulf state but also empowered Doha’s international profile.

Hosting the military might of the world’s superpower (US CentCom) just a few dunes away from the regional big brother emboldened Qatar to embark on its ambitious plans for development, much to the distaste of the Saudis, who had seen the small islet as an irritant that should be dispensable because of its diminutive size.

The second major development was the founding of the Al Jazeera News Network, and the third was Qatar’s embarking on fervent economic investments through its sovereign wealth fund, aimed at diversifying its gas-based economy. This allowed Qatar to buy itself a seat at the table of most critical international political dialogues, thereby exerting unprecedented influence in almost every aspect of international relations.

The world marveled as Qatar became the first Arab country to encourage public debate and dialogue on previously taboo topics by hosting the Doha Debates and in the unbridled approach of Al Jazeera to pertinent issues facing the Muslim and Arab world. The careful balance that Doha managed to maintain between its Western partnerships and its Islamist leanings set it apart from other States and it soon became a model for a convergence of civilizations rather than a clash. Increasingly this became a problem for the GCC monarchs, particularly Saudi Arabia, as their controlled press and repressive regimes had never entertained the notion of treating their people as citizens but rather as subjects.

The Arab Spring marked the most significant turning point for the GCC States in their tolerance of Qatar’s defiance. The polarisation of the Arab World became glaringly apparent and Qatar found itself isolated within the GCC. Qatar supported the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, where the revolutions were organic. In both countries, parties linked to the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power on the back of popular votes, much to the dismay of the Arab dictators.

Qatar’s role at that stage was minimal, but for the extensive coverage on Al Jazeera, which became the people’s channel, broadcasting their revolution live from Tahrir Square to the world. Once the governments were democratically elected, Qatar showed keen support both financially and politically, whereas other Arab powers sought to empower counter-revolutionaries and effect coups. The Gulf monarchies feared that their oil-fuelled reigns would be cut short by the domestic popular revival of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology that democratic principles and Islam are not diametrically opposed.

The immediate response, particularly by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, was to quash dissent and ban groups bearing any similarity to the Brotherhood. Mass cash bonuses were paid to buy loyalty and promises of huge investments were inked to dissuade other countries from leaning towards reform. These measures, however, failed to address the long-term stability of the region.

With the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are poised to reconfigure the US agenda in the Middle East, redesigning the balance of power to reinforce Saudi Arabia’s hegemony along what appears to be pre-Gulf War lines. The renewed courtship with the US is led by the Saudi deputy crown prince and defence minister, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, who has been at the forefront of decision-making since his aged father, King Salman, ascended the throne. His ambitious vision for Saudi Arabia and an aggressive, impulsive stance on military action against perceived rivals, particularly Iran, appears to be setting the tone for regional upheaval.

Qatar has persistently maintained that hostility towards Iran would be disastrous for the region and it may well be that this position blocks the prince’s towards the crown. His impulsive decision-making has already led the GCC into a protracted war in Yemen that has had a negative impact on oil revenues and sullied the economy.

The move on Qatar had not resulted in the immediate submission of the emir, whatsoever.

Though the Saudi-led bloc are projecting themselves as the axis of stability in an expanse of extremism, the reality is far less binary and they have found themselves deep in a political quagmire. It could lead to a protracted stalemate, or a pride-induced move towards achieving their goals at any cost – including regime change or military action against Doha.

READ MORE: Saudis back Qatar into a corner

The continued stand-off has already perturbed the Saudis and the Emiratis. Their own nationals have begun to express sympathy with Qatar, to be met immediately with the blocking of Qatari news channels and websites, as well as the criminalisation of expressions of support for Qatar or its people. These repressive and divisive tactics are tearing families apart and affecting tribal affiliations, because tribes that span across the Arabian Peninsula have begun to pledge allegiance to Qatar’s leader, further inflaming the Saudis.

The absence of trust between member states of the GCC, tied with the lack of transparency, accountability and an archaic notion that the public must remain submissive to a ruling elite, do not augur well for the future of the GCC and may even lead to renewed popular mobilisation for democratic change in the Gulf. With Qatar unwilling to concede and the anti-Qatar alliance reluctant to back down, the dissolution of the GCC in its current formation is a likely outcome.

Zeenat Adam is an independent international relations strategist based in Johannesburg, South Africa. She is a former diplomat who served as South Africa’s deputy ambassador to Qatar from 2005 to 2009.