Would South Africa really be safe if World War 3 broke out?

2026-03-03 - 09:43

As Middle East tensions escalate and a widely circulated list names South Africa among the world’s safest countries in the event of World War III, experts are urging caution and context. Online reports dating back to 2024 have been making the rounds online, naming a handful of countries as potential safe havens should a third world war erupt. The list includes Fiji, Tuvalu, New Zealand, Indonesia, Iceland, Argentina, Chile, Switzerland, Bhutan, Antarctica, South Africa, and Greenland. These countries were largely selected, it seems, for their geographic distance and historical stance from current conflict zones. International relations analyst Dr Ahmed Jazbhay is not convinced the list holds up to scrutiny. Jazbhay explained that several factors generally inform assessments of safety during global conflict. Political neutrality, military non-involvement, geographic isolation, food security, and governance capacity are among the most common, though they do not paint a full picture. “Many lists overlook cyber vulnerability, economic interdependence, climate resilience, and internal social cohesion. Countries with strong institutions but global economic ties may be more exposed than assumed,” he told The Citizen. ALSO READ: Has Dirco left South Africans in the UAE in the dark? Where does South Africa actually stand? South Africa has taken stances at odds with the United States on several flashpoint issues, including its posture toward Iran and Israel, tensions that have drawn international attention. But Jazbhay argued that diplomatic friction does not automatically translate into military risk. He said South Africa poses no direct political or military threat to any party in the current conflict, and that matters. “Bilateral tensions with individual leaders matter far less than structural alliances and foreign policy posture. South Africa’s non-aligned stance, regional focus, and lack of direct military entanglements reduce immediate risk,” he explained. Still, that does not mean the country is entirely shielded. “Economic pressures and diplomatic positioning could still create indirect vulnerabilities,” Jazbhay cautioned. Why geography is not enough While distance from a conflict zone can reduce the risk of conventional military strikes, it does little to protect against the tools of modern warfare. “Geography offers limited protection against cyberattacks, economic disruption, or global supply chain collapse. Natural resources help resilience, but only when paired with stable governance and infrastructure,” he said. This is particularly relevant when assessing some of the more surprising entries on the list. Indonesia, for instance, occupies a strategically significant maritime position, making its inclusion somewhat counterintuitive. Antarctica, while undeniably remote, is dismissed as “impractical despite its isolation.” Switzerland and Bhutan, by contrast, earn their spots through long-standing traditions of neutrality. “South Africa’s inclusion reflects geopolitical distance rather than insulation from global economic or informational shocks,” Jazbhay noted. ALSO READ: Middle East war latest: Israeli troops seize new positions in Lebanon as drones hit fuel tank in Oman What a future world war would actually look like But what would a third world war even look like? The image of marching armies and clearly drawn battle lines belongs to a previous century. Jazbhay described a far more fragmented and diffuse kind of conflict, one that would reach countries like South Africa through channels that have nothing to do with bombs or boots on the ground. “Any future global conflict would likely be fragmented, involving cyber operations, economic warfare, and proxy conflicts rather than uniform battle lines,” he said. “Countries like South Africa may avoid direct military involvement but still face pressure through trade, energy markets, and diplomatic alignment.” This reality means that even nations not formally at war could find themselves squeezed, through rising commodity prices, disrupted imports, targeted disinformation, or pressure to take sides from more powerful allies. How South Africa can protect itself So what should a country like South Africa actually do to strengthen its position? Jazbhay pointed to a combination of domestic resilience and smart diplomacy as the most effective strategy. Maintaining flexibility in foreign relations, deepening regional cooperation, and investing in food and energy security are all key. “Resilience matters more than isolation. Countries that manage internal stability effectively are better positioned to withstand external shocks,” he said. The country’s broader geopolitical moment also carries both risk and opportunity. The rise of multiple global powers is increasing pressure on middle-ground and non-aligned states to pick a side, a position South Africa has historically resisted. “Strategic neutrality, principled diplomacy, and regional leadership can enhance safety, but missteps could invite external leverage,” Jazbhay warned. The bottom line is that being on a list of “safe countries” is not the same as being safe. READ NEXT: Middle East crisis: What South Africans stranded abroad need to know