Contrary to what many believe in the West, the war in Ukraine is not the most catastrophic global event since World War II. The fact that it is considered this way clearly shows that the West sees itself as exclusive and separate from the global majority. For large sectors of the non-Western population, events with serious consequences and of global importance have taken place elsewhere and for a long time.
Let's look at two examples, one geopolitical and the other a product of human expansion and economic growth. Firstly, there are other conflicts in the world, such as the civil war in Yemen, during which five million people have had to face famine. However, the media has overlooked this conflict, in an omission that reveals the Western centrality in information. Not to mention the war crime committed in Iraq or the twenty years of occupation of Afghanistan, and let us not forget the horrors inflicted on the Palestinians.
Secondly, according to a recent study, the biomass of wild mammals amounts to 64 million tons (6% of all mammals), while humans and our domesticated mammals weigh an astonishing 1,045 million tons ( 94% of all mammals). This is another reminder that, to satisfy our desires, we have shaped the planet out of enormous arrogance.
Why are these seemingly disparate examples worth mentioning? Because they talk about two issues that are at the center of the war in Ukraine: the evident geopolitical inequality and a world economic system addicted to the consumption of resources for which wars are fought.
On both fronts, non-Western countries have very different stances and also needs driven by very different objectives or goals than their Western counterparts, and that gap will shape the realities of the nascent post-Western world order.
All wars have to do in some way with the maintenance or expansion of economic power; especially through mastery of resources and the people who have them. That was the basis of the colonization of the world by Europeans. In modern times, this is what has happened with energy sources: fossil fuels.
The war in Ukraine is no different. There are, of course, broad geopolitical and cultural motivations for war, but fossil fuels remain a protagonist in this story.
One need look no further than the sabotage of Nord Stream: it is a major act of sophisticated terrorism, which many (including noted development economist Jeffrey Sachs and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh) believe was only made possible by tacit support from major Western powers, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Norway.
The result has been an energy crisis in Europe that has forced the continent to turn to other sources of fossil fuels; in particular, to the United States, which has ousted Russia and has become the main supplier of crude oil to the European Union. And in that process, all conversations about meeting climate change commitments have taken a back seat, as the war continues and peace has become an afterthought.
The driving force behind this terrorist act is an economic model addicted to consumption, not only of fossil fuels, but of resources in general. It is reductive to discuss the Ukraine war without also critically examining the underlying economic systems that have helped cause and prolong it.
We have seen how Europe begins to abandon its more pacifist stance born at the end of the Second World War and arm itself to the teeth to fight, in part, for fossil fuels; a resource that we know triggers wars and therefore constitutes a global threat.
The non-Western world has for decades seen the West wage wars over resources in order to consolidate the gains of an economic model that leads to existential threats such as climate change and mass extinction. Such a foreign policy is totally removed from the reality of the challenges we face, and it is a policy to which the non-Western world has no interest in contributing.
We have seen this, much to the chagrin of the West, in the adoption by many non-Western countries of a non-alignment stance regarding war. This attitude is in itself a movement towards de-Westernization and represents an economic reckoning: Western countries no longer exercise global economic control that allows them to force the world to align with their wishes, shattering the age-old idea of submission. before the West.
Beyond fossil fuels, there is another economic driver of war: the sale of weapons. The power of the US military industrial complex (MIC) in contributing to the war in Ukraine is evident to the non-Western world.
After all, the United States has been at war almost 95% of the time since the proclamation of its independence, which has led to historically close ties between the Government and the defense sector. The country spent $8 trillion on the post-9/11 wars, and dozens of members of Congress and their families own millions of dollars in stock in those companies. Now, with the war in Ukraine, its share in the global arms trade has gone from 33% to 40%, and the vast majority goes to Europe.
However, the arms market can only grow if conflicts and military spending increase worldwide; something that happened in 2022, when there was an increase of 4%, to exceed two trillion dollars.
It is no secret that large-scale corruption is most prevalent in the defense budgets of most developing countries. It is a gold mine, like the fossil fuel sector.
There is a lesson here for non-Western countries: if military spending becomes an important part of the national budget and economy, ruin awaits the country on many fronts.
However, the militarization of Europe in defense of Ukraine has reminded countries around the world that it is necessary to create new frameworks and doctrines to carry out major transformations that disempower the international arms market and its natural inclination for war. The recently announced creation of a NATO liaison office in Japan (its first) worries many in Asia given NATO's track record in pursuing military expansion and because it is widely viewed as an agent of CMIE. .
The transformation will have to begin with a mental revolution among non-Western leaders; a revolution that includes the total rejection of submission to the United States and its Western alliance. These may seem like very extreme words, but non-Western leaders must recognize that by curbing their need to emulate or seek guidance or legitimacy from the United States in foreign policy matters, they will reduce the opportunities for fueling the CMIE and enable a less risky future based on regional self-determination.
This will allow heavyweights such as China, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Japan, Korea, India and Indonesia to come together and chart a new future for the region instead of continuing to play actors in a neocolonial geopolitical theater organized by the United States and based on He divides and conquers.
It will force an emerging power like China to fulfill its commitment to peaceful rise, since the demilitarization of the CMIE constitutes a doctrine favoring a new regional peace and security pact. This result is not an unreasonable undertaking, as the example of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has shown.
Although far from perfect, Asean has slowly and surely built its own doctrine that has enabled peaceful coexistence in a way that also serves to improve the livelihoods of its population. And, more importantly, it has avoided war despite the presence of CMIE.
What does that mean for the non-Western world? Its leaders must realize that a post-Western world is emerging in which there is an opportunity to limit the economic drivers of war (the control of resources and the sale of weapons) so that they do not generate conflicts everywhere.
Beyond the economic drivers of the Ukraine war, it is essential to consider the geopolitical consequences and what they mean for the rise of plurality in the post-Western world.
Western commentators have been quick to see the war as a turning point in global affairs, supposedly signifying a new world order.
However, a third, more modern perspective appears to be overlooked: the emergence, in the midst of the catastrophe, of a new world order that could be better positioned to prevent and resolve crises similar to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. . The reason? Such an order could pave the way for a more equitable distribution of power, no longer directed solely by the very specific interventionist inclinations of the West, which would represent a paradigm shift towards a post-Western world.
Consider the wars of this century, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. These conflicts have not provoked the same indignation in Europe and the United States as the war in Ukraine. The reasoning remains the same: wars are considered justified and tolerated if they are orchestrated by the West under the supposed noble mission of promoting freedom. They are considered acts of aggression and violations of sovereignty if the aggressor is not part of the Western alliance and if the victims are white.
This double standard has been exposed for the first time on a global scale thanks to social media and other technology-enabled modes of communication, non-existent in previous Western-led conflicts. The proliferation of multimedia content has reached every corner of the planet and has allowed the populations of the Arab world, India, China, Africa and South America to witness this duplicity in its crudest form.
Such a revelation serves as a countermeasure to centuries of Western propaganda that has often portrayed white Westerners as superior, morally upright, civilizing forces destined to run the world: a perpetuation of white privilege born of cruel colonial enterprises.
The immense influence of this propaganda was already recognized by a minority, but now a global dialogue is being established in which the question is: why does the West perceive the tragedy of the civilian population in the war in Ukraine as something that, in some way, , has no comparison with other conflicts. This discourse leads hundreds of millions of people towards new perceptions of current events and pushes them to question the West's unilateral narrative.
There is no denying the atrocious and indefensible fact of the loss of life in Ukraine. However, the vehement responses of Western media, politicians and companies have completely overshadowed attempts to understand Russia's motivations and the triggers of the war. What about NATO's expansionist policies and provocations, the very old separatist movements in Ukraine or racial supremacism in Ukrainian politics? Can peace be achieved without understanding these fundamental aspects?
Georgi Arbatov, who advised five general secretaries of the Communist Party, said in 1988 during the dissolution of the USSR: “Our main secret weapon is to deprive you of an enemy.” To the non-Western world, the West seems more than willing to identify an enemy against which to unify its population: Cuba, Chile, Vietnam, Congo, the Middle East, China and now, forty years later, Russia returns again.
That provides context for why the Western collective consciousness seems to deny the factors that contributed to this war and is unwilling to consider the perspectives of the other side.
As these events become visible to the entire world, non-Western countries begin to reject the selective moral code of the West, and that is perhaps the most significant change to emerge from the tragedy in Ukraine. And it could become the silver lining for a world that desperately needs stories that aren't rooted in the perpetuation of white privilege.
Wars must be avoided at all costs, and true diplomacy is needed to achieve this. This involves communication and a keen understanding of the fears and concerns of others; especially those who are perceived as enemies.
Diplomacy has not been exercised adequately in the case of Ukraine. No wonder: it is a geopolitical reality that any country (not just Russia) feels that its national security is in danger when faced with a military coalition (NATO) that is expanding towards its borders and which it cannot join.
This is not about defending Vladimir Putin. Instigating war and its horrors is unforgivable, and Putin must answer for his actions.
However, many in the West continue to arrogantly believe that all other countries must reflect their ideologies and that they are deserving of antagonism if they do not. Such a position is naïve and insufficient in a multipolar and globalized world that, unfortunately, is also too militarized, something that Europe should have already recognized.
In the hypothetical case that China, India or Venezuela initiated an expansion similar to that of NATO with their neighbors, they would cause geopolitical unrest. The mere existence of Chinese ships on the periphery of the South China Sea arouses anti-Chinese sentiments in the West.
This indicates the need for a renewed approach to international diplomacy that transcends Western recipes that already reveal their inadequacy. It is something that non-Western leaders, given their experience in wars (many of them of colonial origin), generally agree on, which is why they advocate peace in the face of militaristic escalation.
Let's think about Southeast Asia, a region that, after the Vietnam War (a struggle to free the country from lasting foreign domination), has avoided major international conflicts. Despite the presence of foreign military powers (such as the United States), the region has maintained a non-aligned foreign policy and has strived to remain neutral.
Europe, instead of conforming to American foreign policy preferences, should have two decades ago fostered relations with Russia and China to promote world peace, rather than considering those two countries as mere trade allies. Europe must come to terms with the end of its imperial era (and centuries of privilege) and extend an olive branch to the non-Western powers that will shape the trajectory of the 21st century. In Asia, that means pursuing diplomatic initiatives with China, India and Indonesia (a combined population of 3 billion) rather than patronizing them as former colonies unworthy of a special relationship. They may not share the European heritage, but is such an outdated and even racist notion still relevant in the 21st century?
The basic principle of diplomacy requires putting aside ideological differences for the sake of peace, a principle that will define the post-Western world.
The latest events corroborate this: Saudi Arabia and Iran have reestablished diplomatic channels. This is an important diplomatic achievement for Beijing, which has brokered an agreement between two regional heavyweights with a deep history of mistrust and conflict. That achievement coincides with China's 12-point plan to resolve the Ukraine war, demonstrating China's commitment to responsible international engagement. However, Chinese diplomatic efforts have been met with hostility and skepticism by many quarters in Europe and the United States.
American exceptionalism has led to the creation of a class of politicians who believe in the doctrine of either with us or against us, and there is a real danger of this spreading to Europe. Any public figure who dares to propose ideas about Iran, peace with Russia or engagement with China is met with disdain and rejection. This collective thinking has invaded the continent and is suffocating debates about peace and acceptance of a multipolar world.
Still, it is not too late for Western leaders to adopt a more nuanced and effective approach, and thus begin to make more friends than enemies.
Therefore, the West should not act as if it is allergic to China's peacemaking efforts. Other major players such as India and Indonesia (both hosts of the G-20), and even smaller countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, must lend their weight and credibility to these new peace efforts.
The cause of peace in the world's troubled regions should be spearheaded by a global diplomatic corps made up of the most experienced diplomats from Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. That responsibility has for too long fallen on Western diplomats and the results have been disappointing due to the widespread abuse of such a privilege.
Non-Western diplomats are adopting alternative approaches, moving beyond outdated concepts such as alliances and moving towards systems of solidarity between non-Western countries. The traditional approach of forming alliances to pit one region against another is no longer effective in today's world.
Today we are witnessing a change towards a new system that prioritizes collaboration and mutual respect. The rise of non-Western diplomatic blocs and channels, such as ASEAN, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the BRICS, is a clear indication of the changing balance of global power and the need for diverse perspectives in international diplomacy. It is time to harness the potential of these alternative approaches to build a more peaceful and just world.
All countries, regardless of size or power, must step up and share the burden of promoting peace and stability. If the efforts of Western peacekeepers continue to be undermined by warmongers and those with interests in the business of war, it is not surprising that other countries will take up this very important task.
Chandran Nair is founder and executive director of the Global Institute for Tomorrow and author of ‘Dismantling global white privilege: Equity for a post-western world’ (Berrett-Koehler, 2023).
