As the next African Union summit approaches, the declaration relating to the situation in Palestine and the Middle East cannot be treated as a simple political or symbolic exercise because it engages the diplomatic credibility of the African continent, its capacity to be recognized as a mediator and, more broadly, its role in building lasting peace solutions in an increasingly fragmented international system.
In international relations, words are never neutral, they structure positions, but above all possibilities. Depending on the language used, a declaration can open a space for dialogue or, on the contrary, close it permanently and, in a conflict as polarized as that of the Middle East, this responsibility is decisive.
Africa and its tradition of mediation
Africa has a unique legitimacy in the art of mediation because for several decades, the AU has asserted itself as a facilitating actor in complex crisis contexts, whether internal or regional conflicts. This posture is based on a fundamental principle: to be heard by all parties, we must stay above divisions and preserve open channels of communication.
This credibility is not based on condemnation, but on balance; a mediator therefore ceases to be useful as soon as he is perceived as a stakeholder. The language used in an official declaration is therefore not a secondary issue: it directly conditions the ability of an actor to bring together, to dialogue and to facilitate.
The limits of an accusatory register
In international conflicts, there is an essential distinction between diplomatic language and legal-criminal language. The first aims to create political conditions; the second produces effects of judgment and accusation.
Using unilateral vocabulary, designating an exclusive person responsible or legally qualifying a situation upstream of any political process may respond to moral logic but on a diplomatic level, these formulations tend to rigidify positions, reduce the space for negotiation and transform a political declaration into an act of confrontation.
An actor who aspires to play a mediation role must preserve his ability to speak to everyone and legal terms often close doors that diplomacy precisely tries to keep open.
The primacy of humanitarian law and the protection of civilians
Faced with the seriousness of the situation, the priority must remain humanitarian because in fact, civilians, both Palestinian and Israeli, bear the main weight of the violence. The protection of populations, unhindered access to humanitarian aid, respect for international law and de-escalation constitute a minimal basis around which a broad consensus can form.
This register, in accordance with multilateral practices, denies neither suffering nor responsibilities, it aims to create common ground, essential to any subsequent political dynamic. Placing human dignity at the center of the game makes it possible to overcome polarization and preserve a space for dialogue.
Mutual security and lasting peace
The lasting political solution is based on a widely recognized reality: two States living side by side, in peace and security. This perspective involves two inseparable demands: Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination, as well as Israeli security.
These two dimensions do not exclude each other, they are mutually conditional because without security, no State negotiates and without dignity and self-determination, no stability is lasting. Recognizing this interdependence does not constitute a renunciation, but an act of diplomatic realism.
Peace cannot be built on the permanent insecurity of one or on the denial of the rights of the other; it requires an approach capable of holding these two imperatives together.
African credibility and collective responsibility
Beyond the conflict itself, the issue is also that of the African position on the international scene. The repercussions of the Middle East in terms of security, energy, migration or regional stability directly affect the continent. In this context, Africa has a strategic interest in promoting stability and dialogue rather than polarization.
A balanced text promotes broader consensus between Member States, strengthens continental cohesion and gives greater weight to its voice in international forums. Conversely, a statement perceived as partisan risks weakening unity and reducing the capacity for collective influence.
In this regard, the experience of Moroccan diplomacy, which continues to favor a policy of helping hands despite a regional environment sometimes marked by persistent tensions, illustrates that an approach based on dialogue and restraint can constitute a lever for lasting stability.
Choose a language that brings people together
Adapting the language of a statement to make it more measured does not mean abandoning principles, it means giving them a chance to be effective. Diplomatic credibility is born from balance, not from condemnation; a mediator must be able to speak to everyone.
Peace is not born from indictments, but from dialogue, and this dialogue always begins with words capable of bringing people together.
If Africa wishes to continue to play a respected role in major international crises, it must preserve this tradition of responsibility, pragmatism and openness because, ultimately, diplomacy is not the art of accusing...
It’s the art of bringing people together!
