What influenced Burkina Faso's foreign policy towards Israel under Thomas Sankara?
Executive summary
Thomas Sankara’s stance on Israel was driven less by a bilateral dispute than by a wider revolutionary worldview: anti-imperialism, Pan‑African solidarity with Palestinian liberation, and moral condemnation of what he perceived as U.S.-backed Israeli aggression, all framed for international audiences such as the UN General Assembly [1] [2] [3]. Domestic priorities—self-reliance and a foreign policy that repudiated Western dominance—shaped how and why Burkina Faso publicly criticized Israeli actions during his presidency [4] [5].
1. Anti‑imperialism as the organizing principle
Sankara’s foreign policy toward Israel was anchored in an explicit anti‑imperialist doctrine that linked local struggles for sovereignty with global fights against Western hegemony; he repeatedly denounced U.S. support for Israel and treated Israeli actions as an extension of imperial policy, a theme voiced at the UN and elsewhere [3] [2]. That framework cast Israel not merely as a regional actor but as entwined with a global “imperialist bloc,” which justified public censure in Sankara’s rhetoric and diplomatic posture [6] [2].
2. Solidarity with Palestinian liberation and historical framing
Sankara framed Burkina Faso’s position on Israel through solidarity with Palestinian liberation, often invoking historical suffering—“we belong to those who have suffered the most”—to explain why he stood with the PLO and condemned Israeli military actions [2]. He explicitly compared historical Jewish suffering to contemporary Palestinian suffering, arguing that memory demanded opposition to perceived injustices, a stance he articulated in his 1984 UN speech and other addresses [1] [2].
3. Reaction to specific events: Lebanon, Sabra‑Shatila and perceived crimes
International events hardened Sankara’s rhetoric: he condemned Israeli conduct in Lebanon, including references to the destruction of Beirut and Sabra and Shatila massacres, describing Israeli leaders as culpable and calling for accountability—language reported in multiple contemporary and retrospective pieces [7] [8]. Those episodes were presented as emblematic of what Sankara and his allies labeled the “unspeakable complicity” between Israel and its powerful backers, reinforcing Burkina Faso’s vocal anti‑Israel posture at international forums [1] [2].
4. Pan‑Africanism and Third‑World internationalism
Sankara’s alignment with broader African and Third World solidarity networks influenced policy: he joined a long tradition of African leaders who recognized Palestinian statehood and linked anti‑colonial struggles across continents, and his rhetoric echoed continental norms that prioritized decolonization and liberation movements [9] [10]. This placed Burkina Faso in company with other African states that treated Palestine as a cause celebre of anti‑colonialism, giving Sankara both ideological justification and diplomatic cover for his stance [9].
5. Domestic strategy and the optics of independence
Sankara’s push for self‑reliance and rupture with neocolonial influence shaped how foreign policy messages were calibrated: condemning Israel and its U.S. patron underscored Burkina Faso’s claim to sovereignty and moral leadership while signalling independence from French and American influence—a domestic political instrument as much as a foreign policy line [4] [3]. At the same time, core policy documents show that the regime’s international strategy was not exhaustively detailed, suggesting some foreign‑policy pronouncements were rhetorical or symbolic rather than the product of elaborate bilateral planning [5].
6. Caveats, alternative readings and limits of the record
Primary sources show Sankara’s rhetoric and public positions clearly, but the record is thin on granular diplomatic exchanges between Ouagadougou and Tel Aviv; the Political Orientation Speech itself contains only a sketchy international section, leaving gaps about behind‑the‑scenes policy tools or negotiations [5]. Some commentators treat Sankara’s anti‑Israel language as principled internationalism; others see tactical positioning within Non‑Aligned politics or as part of a broader effort to curry favor with states like Cuba that rewarded his internationalism [10]. The available reporting supports the broad influences outlined above but cannot confirm internal diplomatic calculus not recorded in the cited speeches and analyses [1] [3].