- The ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, is threatening to impose a new burden on food security systems in Africa.
- African economies find themselves compelled to choose sides between Israel and Palestine carefully.
- However, our analysis indicates that Africa faces a no-win situation when dealing with instability and the worsening conflict in the Gaza Strip.
The aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war is having devastating effects on Africa’s economic and political spheres, with food inflation being the first tangible negative impact.
As African economies are still recovering from the effects of the global COVID-19 lockdown and grappling with the consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Hamas war is further destabilizing fragile food security systems in the continent.
The disruption in trade is attributed to new security challenges and what economists describe as investors opting for a “flight to safety.” These investor actions are strengthening the US dollar and causing a spike in gold prices, making trade more expensive for Africa.
Africa is already facing food security challenges and fuel inflation pressures initially triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict. By the end of 2023, the World Bank cautioned that the Israel-Hamas conflict could potentially trigger a global economic shock unless it is contained.
Israel-Hamas war and food security in Africa
This warning coincided with oil prices reaching $150 a barrel, leading to food inflation and putting millions in Africa on the path to starvation.
The World Bank’s chief economist, Indermit Gill, noted, “If the conflict were to escalate, the global economy would face a dual energy shock for the first time in decades – not just from the war in Ukraine but also the Middle East.”
For starters, currencies, bonds, and stock markets would be severely impacted as risk aversion prompts capital to shift toward safe havens, away from emerging markets.
Given the boom-bust nature of many African economies, which rely heavily on commodities, significant price fluctuations would notably affect the balance of payment and fiscal positions.
It is important to note that developments in the Strait of Hormuz influence global energy flows, and this critical area is increasingly targeted as a strategic trade route for global energy supply.
Higher energy prices are directly correlated with worsening food security as prices of commodities increase in Africa. This cause-and-effect relationship arises because fuel is directly linked to the supply of agricultural inputs, particularly fertilizers.
Similarly, in efforts to control terrorist groups like Hamas, tighter monetary policies are implemented, affecting the flow of cash to the agriculture sector.
Read also: Tanzania food security: Tabora irrigation schemes setting regional precedence
Impact of Israel-Hamas war on oil-importing countries
For African sovereigns, there would be clear winners and losers in further escalation of the Israel-Hamas war. Gold-producing countries such as South Africa, Ghana, and Tanzania would benefit from major price rises, boosting their foreign exchange earnings, as pointed out by the World Bank.
However, high oil prices will adversely impact oil-importing African economies such as Kenya and Mozambique. Many are already struggling to cover their external bills due to currency depreciation and steadily depleting forex reserves.
Considering the interdependence of neighbouring economies, the overall effect is negative. Moreover, geopolitical ramifications due to the escalation of conflict in Gaza present a complex situation.
The World Bank notes that African countries face the dilemma of choosing between an ally in the anti-colonial struggle, Russia, and key benefactors from the West while navigating the moral dilemmas associated with alignment.
The contestation around non-alignment itself is crucial, and missteps could trigger a significant backlash, as observed in international responses to South Africa’s situation involving Operation Mosi, Lady R, and the US Ambassador.
Gaza conflict: No win situation for Africa
African countries find themselves in a no-win situation concerning the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and the ensuing divergences between East and West. On the one hand, aligning firmly with Israel risks estranging African economies and their trade and investment partners in the East.
On the other hand, showing sympathy for Hamas risks alienating them from the West. A middle ground is also disadvantageous, as non-alignment is considered amoral and pleases no one. This situation presents Africa with a no-win scenario.
For instance, a recent meeting between South Africa and Ukraine’s foreign ministry officials is reported to have called out South Africa’s perceived unequal stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war.
Criticisms of hypocrisy and double standards are gathering traction, with South Africa facing accusations of turning silent on one aggressor, Russia, while being outspoken on another, Israel.
Similarly, Ethiopia and Egypt find themselves navigating a ‘realpolitik’ minefield. Both countries must balance their interests within the BRICS bloc, which includes Iran and numerous allies supporting the Palestinian cause while maintaining solid relations with the West and Israel, as noted by Ronak Gopaldas from the Institute for Security Studies (ISS).
Africa’s oldest Jewish communities
Egypt—a new BRICS member—has been the sole exception in North Africa, maintaining full diplomatic relations with Israel since the 1970s, making it a strategic ally bridging the Arab world and Israel.
Turning to Ethiopia, where one of Africa’s oldest Jewish communities lives, a foundation for close socio-economic ties between Ethiopia and Israel is evident.
The consultant highlights the regional rapprochement facilitated by the Abraham Accords and its noteworthy economic benefits. On the northwest end of Africa, pressure is mounting in Morocco to renounce its assent to the Accords.
Tunisia, which was in talks to sign the Accords before the conflict broke out, is now reportedly contemplating a draft bill to criminalize the normalization of relations with Israel.
The consultant warns that both countries formalizing a U-turn on relations with Israel could trigger a domino effect across the Middle East and North Africa, especially as local populations remain largely averse to reconciliation with Tel Aviv.
Moving to the east coast of Africa, Kenyan President William Ruto is under political fire for his apparent open condemnation of Hamas and supposed solidarity with Israel.
At the moment, President Ruto is reportedly working on a labour agreement for thousands of Kenyans to work in Israeli farms and other countries as part of a grand plan to address a biting joblessness crisis in his country.
Dr. Ruto was later forced to retract his comments, bowing to political pressure, finally stating that Kenya stands for a two-state solution and that Palestine should be a free state.
“Social tensions have heightened in countries with a diverse mix of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish populations, such as Nigeria. Africa’s most populous country has witnessed successive pro-Palestine protests, some of which have turned deadly,” notes the ISS consultant.
Risks of terror attacks
In the broader context, the dynamics in Gaza are also escalating the risks of terrorist attacks across Africa, with concerns about the recruitment of youths into these violent groups.
For instance, Kenya’s counter-terrorism police have issued warnings that Al-Shabaab may carry out attacks in solidarity with Hamas against the country due to its ties with Israel.
“In conclusion, the war exacerbates the challenge of resolving Africa’s multifaceted crises. Given the interplay of economic, political, and security risks and rewards, African states find themselves unable to prevail in the prevailing dynamics,” concludes the ISS consultant.
In his advice, he states, “What Africa can do, though, is minimize losses by ensuring they are better positioned for fiscal, monetary, and balance of payments risks and by avoiding self-sabotage in the delicate geopolitical balance. This calls for prudence in economic administration and tactfulness in political positioning,” concludes the Senior Country Risk and Political Risk Analyst.
