Malawi and Israel: Choosing economic gains over principles of international justice?

The newly signed bilateral agreement on exporting Malawian workers to Israel has been hailed by both sides to the agreement as a new chapter in their relations. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Haskel highlighted the agreement’s importance as “a people-to-people partnership, not just a government-to-government transaction”.

However, as the ink dries on this agreement, a deeper, more troubling question arises: Is Malawi trading its ethical and moral principles rooted in international law for economic benefits? At a time when Israel is accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by killing children, civilians and health workers in Gaza, a time when Israel’s head of state is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), Malawi’s support raises serious questions about its global standing, adherence to international law and more importantly its moral compass.

Behind the deal: What are the motives?

Since 7 October 2023, Israel’s agricultural sector has been hit hard by the war as it relied on an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 foreign farm workers, half of them Palestinians. The agricultural sector in Israel is of crucial importance for the state, as highlighted by the Israeli Minister of Agriculture and Food Security in January 2025 stating that: “The issue of foreign workers in agriculture is one of the four pillars of food security in Israel, together with water, land and R&D.” The need for new labour caused by its war in Gaza initiated Israel’s latest recruitment campaign for foreign workers in this sector. A key target in this campaign is Malawi.

While this agreement has been described in many ways, including a skill transfer, there is likely an economic opportunity for Malawi that derives from this deal, setting the scene for future collaborations. However, as this deal might offer short-term advantages, it places the country in a morally and legally questionable position. The proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on violations of the Genocide Convention by Israel are still ongoing as are the proceedings by the ICC against Prime Minister Netanyahu. To be clear, these are not minor investigations that are politically motivated. These accusations include publicly available evidence and evidence that UN mandate holders have gathered. We have all seen the collective punishment by the Israeli forces by bombing large areas of Gaza without any consideration of the cardinal principles of international humanitarian law. This raises the question: Should Malawi be strengthening its ties and sending workers to a country that is accused of the most serious crimes under international law?

Silence as acquiescence? A pattern in support of Israel

Malawi’s alignment with Israel is not limited to the export of workers to Israel. It is becoming increasingly visible in how Malawi votes on UN resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine on the world stage.

A closer look into Malawi’s voting records at the United Nations (UN) gives an insight into the State’s true intentions. For example, in December 2024, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favour of a resolution that called for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. While 158 States supported the resolution, Malawi abstained with 12 other countries. In September of the same year, when the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution that acknowledged the Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice, which declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and called on all UN Member States and Israel to implement the Advisory Opinion, Malawi voted against the resolution with “No”. There are many more examples where Malawi either voted against or abstained from the vote. Such voting patterns tell a clear story of a country that supports Israel, a state that has been accused of the most serious international crimes, by either backing Israel directly or choosing to remain silent. Sadly, the silence in these matters speaks volumes about Malawi’s true commitment to international law, specifically to principles of international justice.

The disconnect between calls for accountability and actions supporting Israel

Malawi is a signatory of the Rome Statute, the treaty that created and governs the ICC. It has been a supporter of the Court, which is reflected by the latest speech by Justice Minister Mvalo at the ICC Assembly of States in The Hague in December 2024, in which he declared:

“Malawi believes that for the Court to be successful, there is a need to continue supporting the initiatives that would ensure the Court’s continued progress in its activities, including its preliminary examinations, investigations and proceedings in various situations which either States Parties or the United Nations Security Council referred to the Court or the Prosecutor initiated proprio motu.”

A few months before, in October 2024, the Justice Minister even encouraged African ICC Member States during a retreat in Johannesburg, South Africa, to ratify the Kampala Amendments to strengthen the accountability regime for the crime of aggression. However, such strong words in support of international accountability do not match Malawi’s actions on the world stage at the UN and raise serious concerns of hypocrisy.

Thinking ahead, Malawi might not be able to continue to dance at two weddings. If Mr Netanyahu, who is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity, were to come to Malawi, the authorities would be under a binding legal obligation to arrest and surrender Mr Netanyahu to the authorities at the ICC. The key question is, however, whether Malawi would follow through with such an arrest. It would not be the first time that the authorities in Malawi are faced with the question of whether to arrest a head of State wanted by the ICC. In 2011, when Sudan’s former President Omar Al-Bashir visited Malawi, the authorities failed to implement a request by the ICC to arrest and surrender. Against the backdrop of Malawi’s support for Israel, it seems unlikely that Malawi would abide by such a request for Netanyahu and thereby potentially become a pariah of international criminal justice.

Principles or Economic Gains? A defining moment

This is a key moment for Malawi. On the one hand, Malawi wants to be seen as a responsible member of the international community by supporting international accountability efforts, adhering to international law and speaking out against impunity. On the other hand, it is signing agreements and adopting voting habits that place it next to a government that is accused of the most serious crimes of humanity.

This question is not just about choosing sides in a major geopolitical battle. It is about moral and ethical principles and values. It is about Malawi’s future. If it seriously wants to be seen as a part of the international community that stands up for international law and principles of accountability, it must act accordingly and live up to its own claims about justice.

Staying silent in the face of such serious human rights violations and sending workers to maintain a system that supports the illegal occupation of Palestine and most likely a number of other international crimes does not represent a principled and responsible member of the international community, but rather a State that is willing to look the other way whenever it is convenient. Such conduct will come at a high cost not only on the world stage but also in Malawi’s regional relationships.

However, it is not too late. The government will have to make a decision on whether it wants to continue the path that prioritises short-term economic benefits over long-term credibility. As highlighted by the Malawian Courts in a judgment from 2022 on Malawi’s international law obligations:

“As a general principle, the integrity of the system of the State within the broader family of nations and other subjects of international law requires that the State should act faithfully and consistently to its obligations and that it should not play double legal standards.”

There is no room for double standards in international justice. If the government is serious about fighting impunity and holding perpetrators of international crimes accountable, it requires strength and stamina to stand up to more powerful states and stand on the side of the law. While it remains to be seen which path Malawi will choose, the near future will not only decide Malawi’s foreign policy but also reflect its integrity and credibility as a State.

Dr Atilla Kisla  is International Justice Cluster Lead at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)

Sharing is caring!