By Thobile Jiwulane
As US President Donald Trump takes unilateral actions to impose his directives on the world, he may unwittingly find himself increasingly isolated – many countries are beginning to unite in opposition to his approach.
The first sign of increasing anti-Trump sentiment is the significant opposition to his efforts to isolate the International Criminal Court (ICC). He is sanctioning the ICC for criminally charging U.S. ally Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged atrocities Israel committed in Gaza. Following his meeting with Netanyahu in Washington this week, Trump imposed sanctions on ICC staff.
He intends to punish the ICC for issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, due to alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity resulting from the situation in Gaza. This action by the ICC follows South Africa’s accusation that Israel committed genocide during its conflict with Hamas that extended to attacking innocent civilians including women and children. In a significant legal move that garnered support from many countries, Pretoria successfully brought Tel Aviv to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
Countries opposing Trump’s plan against ICC officials, including US allies Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, have refused to isolate the ICC, stating that the court is “a vital pillar of the international justice system.” They emphasized that “such measures increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes and threaten to erode the international rule of law.”
A statement released on Friday by South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation indicated that most, if not all, European nations oppose Trump’s actions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and any interference in its operations. It’s clear in the statement that even strong U.S. allies like Germany, the United Kingdom, and France have expressed their discontent. Additionally, other countries that typically support the Western stance in international affairs, although not necessarily close allies, such as Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and Portugal, have also endorsed the pro-ICC initiative.
Other states in support of the independence of the ICC are the following: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Jordan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Peru, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, the State of Palestine, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, and Vanuatu.
“We, the undersigned States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), reaffirm our continued and unwavering support for the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the ICC. The court serves as a vital pillar of the international justice system by ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes and justice for victims,” the countries say in the joint statement.
“Today, the court is facing unprecedented challenges. Measures sanctioning the court, its officials and staff, and those cooperating with it have been adopted in response to the court carrying out its mandate in accordance with the Rome Statute. Such measures increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes and threaten to erode the international rule of law, which is crucial for promoting global order and security. Moreover, sanctions could jeopardize the confidentiality of sensitive information and the safety of those involved—including victims, witnesses, and court officials, many of whom are our nationals,” the countries are stating.
The states say sanctions would severely undermine all situations currently under investigation as the court may have to close its field offices. Advancing the ICC’s vital work “serves our common interest” in promoting accountability, as evidenced by the support provided to the court by both States parties and non-States parties.
“As strong supporters of the ICC, we regret any attempts to undermine the court’s independence, integrity and impartiality. We are committed to ensuring the ICC’s business continuity so that the court can continue to carry out its functions effectively and independently. As we collectively strive to uphold international justice, we underscore the ICC’s indispensable role in ending impunity, promoting the rule of law, and fostering lasting respect for international law and human rights,” the statement says.
Although Trump promised to ensure world peace during his presidential election campaign last year, he seems to have shifted his stance since taking office. Instead of reinforcing the truce between the warring parties in the Middle East, he has taken a more aggressive approach by supporting Israel in isolating the Palestinians. Amid widespread condemnation from both the Global South and much of the Global North, he suggested that the U.S. would annex Gaza and that its residents would have to relocate to other countries. In response, Palestinians and the Arab nations have said this is impossible and that Trump’s dream would never be realised.
In Africa, he appeared to support the ongoing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo but backing the anti-government side. He praised Rwandan President Paul Kagame, viewing him as a preferable leader because of his success in developing Rwanda to world-class standards. However, most of Africa perceives Kagame as a war-monger, backed by Western interests that seek to exploit the Democratic Republic of Congo’s abundant mineral resources.
In a notable move, Trump issued a presidential order to impose sanctions on South Africa, withdrawing U.S. financial support. He raised concerns about the country’s Expropriation Act, alleging that it allows for the confiscation of land from the white Afrikaner community. It’s crucial to highlight, however, that no land has actually been taken from white farmers, as the South African constitution ensures careful checks and balances for such policies. Presently, while white individuals represent around 7% of the population, they hold an impressive 72% of the land. In stark contrast, the vast majority of the black population, making up 80%, owns a mere 4% of the land. This disparity stems from land dispossession during the colonial and apartheid eras of the 19th and 20th centuries. Understanding these dynamics is essential for fostering dialogue and promoting equality in South Africa.
Apparently, Trump based his decision to sanction South Africa on disinformation he was being fed by certain right-wing groups in South Africa and regular briefings from his friend and South African-born Elon Musk. Musk plays a strong influential role in all of Trump’s decision-making, something that has annoyed many Americans including law-makers who recently expressed anger at Musk’s influence in directing Trump’s policy approach.
Also, although he promised to end the Ukrainian-Russian war within 24 hours of assuming office last January, he backtracked on this. Instead, he demanded that Russia should pull out its troops from Ukraine or face more sanctions from the US. Lately, he indicated an eagerness to continue supporting Ukraine in battling Russia as long as Kyiv was willing to enter into a deal with the US to supply it with critical mineral resources and rare earth in exchange for continued US financial support for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sounded a strong willingness to enter into the deal with Trump, that if realised, could elongate the war.
Russia remains optimistic that Trump will find a solution to the conflict, and Moscow appears to trust the US President more than his predecessor, Joe Biden. Many believe that Trump is more likely to pursue peace, as he did not engage in any wars or sponsor conflicts during his first term in office.
In this term, Trump began his administration by adopting a confrontational stance toward everyone, including U.S. allies. He threatened to have Canada included as a US province or state and imposed 25% trade tariffs each against it and Mexico and offered to take over Greenland, a move that angered Denmark.
There are doubts about who will trust him, given that he might reverse his positions if his demands— that other nations comply with his directives—are met. Despite his tendency to flip-flop on various issues, many view Trump as a president who will strive to avoid dragging the U.S. into wars, especially if it requires financial support. His America First policy reflects an inward-looking approach, positioning him as a transactional leader focused on ensuring that money flows into U.S. coffers rather than going out.
Trump’s main threat is not Russia but China, which has grown so rapidly that it has arguably become the largest economy in the world, overtaking the U.S., a fact that US and Eastern critics confirm, although Washington and Western media may dispute.
As a result of their tension, the U.S.-China trade wars are likely to intensify more than ever before. However, Trump must tread carefully, as he risks alienating allies who he may need in the future. If he continues down this path, he could find himself in total isolation, facing the possibility of new alternative alliances forming against him.