Peace is not merely the absence of war. Yet when conflicts rage, the foremost priority is always to find ways to stop the killing and the destruction of infrastructure. Only then is there any prospect of finding a pathway to a just peace.

In a context where multilateral off-ramps for ending conflicts are blocked, or are simply ignored, it is difficult for non-belligerents to have any influence, however.

Where such conflicts involve superpowers and their proxies, the rest of the international community is left either impotent, or forced on the basis of historical alliances into providing direct or indirect support; even when their citizens oppose such backing.

This is the disconcerting reality into which the world has now entered, with the institutions set up to give precedence to diplomacy ahead of military aggression having now been fundamentally disrupted.

The signs were already there when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. But Israel’s disproportionate destruction of Gaza (supported and enabled by the US) after the deadly October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, followed by America’s late night decapitation raid on Venezuela in January, and the ‘war of choice’ pursued by Israel and America in Iran surely herald the start of a new epoch.

It should not be forgotten that the US has also engaged in several other military adventures since the return of Donald Trump as its President, including air strikes in Nigeria and Somalia, not to mention the 12-day war on Iran last June, the boat strikes off South America, and actions in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Effectively, the world has entered what could be described as a period of forever wars, facilitated largely by the fact that the world’s military superpower is now led by an individual who is fully taken with the powers of his office and testing these powers, potentially to their limits.

As one conflict wanes, another is prepared, and military action is taken without even attempting to go through the motions of seeking to persuade coalition partners of its legitimacy. Let alone moving to have it labelled ‘legal’ by securing votes from political representatives domestically or internationally at the United Nations.

In such a might-makes-right world, South Africa’s foreign policy stance of non-alignment is poised to be tested to its limits.

The country is going to face difficult choices and needs to take genuine steps to begin stress-testing how this stance will be applied in a way that is both principled and fully alive to the national interest.

What does it mean for South Africa’s role in the Brics bloc? Is there any room to align with the ‘middle power diplomacy’ being championed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney? How should South Africa use its position in the African Union to shore up institutions such as the United Nations?

These questions are difficult to answer. What is certain, though, is that relying on any lingering halo effect from the country’s historic transition from apartheid to democracy would be imprudent.