Africa's Hormus and the Diplomacy of Quiet Tones

As tensions escalate in the Middle East, Africa's diplomatic efforts to ease the crisis in the Strait of Hormus have taken on a cautious tone. The strategic waterway, a critical artery for global trade, has been severely disrupted since the start of the conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran in late February. The resulting reduction in maritime traffic through the strait has led to economic repercussions felt far beyond the region, with rising fuel prices and inflation impacting economies worldwide. In Africa, which shares geographic proximity to the Gulf region, the effects have manifested in tangible shortages, empty gas stations and potential agricultural losses due to disruptions in fertilizer supplies from the area. The situation has prompted African governments to engage in diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving a lasting resolution. However, these efforts have largely been characterized by measured rhetoric rather than decisive action. According to Liesl Louw-Vaudran, who works with the International Crisis Group on security issues related to the African Union, there is little evidence that recent developments, such as a memorandum signed in June between the U.S. and Iran, have significantly altered economic planning or generated optimism. Instead, many stakeholders are waiting to see how the situation evolves over the coming months before taking further steps. Diplomatic discussions have focused on promoting dialogue and maintaining international norms, while several African nations have shown solidarity with the Gulf states, which have come under Iranian attacks. Current members of the United Nations Security Council from Africa, DR Congo, Somalia, and Liberia, supported a March resolution condemning Iran’s actions against Gulf states. These moves reflect a broader trend of African countries advocating for stability and adherence to international law amid the ongoing turmoil. Despite this collective stance, one figure remains conspicuously absent from public criticism: former U.S. President Donald Trump. Analysts suggest that African leaders, along with others globally, are hesitant to openly blame Trump for initiating the conflict alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Dismas Mokua, a political risk analyst at Kenya’s Tricarta consultancy, notes that while many recognize Trump as the catalyst for the crisis, few dare to publicly criticize him, fearing the consequences of doing so. This reluctance extends beyond Africa, with European and Asian politicians similarly avoiding direct confrontation with Trump. The absence of unified condemnation highlights a challenge for African diplomacy. Could a more coordinated approach through institutions like the African Union yield better results? Louw-Vaudran points to the AU’s recent experience during the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when its leadership faced backlash for criticizing Russia. At that time, some African heads of state distanced themselves from the AU commission, arguing it lacked the authority to comment on foreign affairs on behalf of the continent. This incident left lingering concerns about the effectiveness of pan-African diplomacy in addressing external conflicts. With the situation in the Strait of Hormus showing no immediate signs of de-escalation, the focus remains on whether an agreement between Oman and Iran to establish alternative shipping routes could alleviate the current blockage. While such a deal might offer temporary relief, its long-term impact remains uncertain. As the world watches, the dynamics of power and influence continue to shape the course of events, with Africa’s role in seeking a resolution still evolving.