Around the anniversary of the war in Ukraine it is useful to step back and look at the frame more.
It goes without saying that this war, like all wars, is a horrible thing and that all parties responsible for encouraging it, and not ending it quickly, are morally reprehensible.
It is important that all possible actions be taken to end the war as soon as possible. In view of the stalemate in the battlefield, and the real risk to humanity if the war escalates, urgent negotiations. But while Russia has expressed a willingness to negotiate, the United States has not shown the same interest. This is unfortunate.
It is widely understood across the political spectrum that the war that is destroying Ukraine is a proxy war between Russia, on the one hand, and the United States, a European ally and NATO-dominated military instrument but the US, on the other.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is, of course, a right-wing authoritarian nationalist who runs a kleptocratic state. He is a figure that cannot be underestimated. But the US and NATO are also very problematic.
The US is the most violent country on the planet and has invaded and bombed many countries. Must have more blood than Putin. NATO claims to promote peace and security in Europe and North America but it has also left a trail of destruction.
NATO was founded during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. However, since the end of the Cold War, it has repeatedly intervened in countries around the world in the name of “promoting democracy and human rights”.
In reality, these interventions have been driven by the desire to promote American interests and maintain the dominance of the global economic and political system.
One of the worst incidents was the NATO campaign in Libya in 2011. In the name of protecting civilians from the authoritarian regime of Muammar Gaddafi, NATO launched a bombing campaign that destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and left thousands of civilians dead.
As a result, democracy does not develop. On the contrary, the destruction of the Gaddafi regime created a power vacuum and extremist groups quickly entered. This causes the country to become chaotic and, ultimately, a dangerous situation. Gaddafi is a dangerous leader, but NATO is making things worse.
The part of our instinctively pro-Western commentary that rightly acknowledges Putin’s failure, but fails to see the damage the US and NATO are doing to the rest of the world, is completely out of step with sentiment in the global South. Many of the main countries of the global south, including all the Brics countries, remain neutral in this war because, even if they can resist the Russian invasion, they cannot align with the US and NATO, both of which have shown a willingness to attack other countries illegally , such as Iraq and Libya.
When our commentariat singles out the position of South Africa as if it is a unique moral perversion, instead of putting it into a wider context of the position taken by many countries in the global south, it completely fails to understand the global geo-political reality. .
During the Cold War, there were two great powers in the world, the US and the Soviet Union. The Third World, as it is now known, is trying to develop itself as a third power. It made some progress in the 1960s but in the 1980s it was thrown out, with the World Bank playing a destructive role in imposing a neocolonial economic order. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the destruction of the Third World powers, the US was left as the sole global power.
However, in recent years, China has gained power and Russia has shown itself unwilling to bow to US authority. For many people in the global south, this will raise the possibility of the emergence of a new multi-polar world, a long-awaited prospect.
There are several reasons for this. One is that in today’s unipolar world, the US often acts unilaterally and in its own interests, without considering the interests of other countries. This has led to many conflicts and instability, such as the war in Iraq and ongoing tensions with Iran and China.
In a multi-polar world, no single power can dominate, and there will be greater incentives for cooperation and compromise between power centers.
It also argues that a multi-polar world will allow greater diversity and pluralism. In today’s uni-polar world, American cultural and economic hegemony is often seen as the only model for success and this leads to cultural homogenization and disrespect for different ways of life.
In a multi-polar world, there will be more diversity and respect for different cultures and ways of life, and not one culture or economic model will be seen as the only path to success.
Many argue that a multi-polar world can promote greater democracy and accountability.
In today’s uni-polar world, the US often acts unilaterally and disregards international law or the opinions of other countries. This results in a lack of accountability and transparency in global affairs.
In a multi-polar world, no single power can act with impunity and there will be greater incentives for transparency and accountability in global affairs.
No serious person making an argument for multi-polarity thinks that competition for US power is superficial. This is the straw-man version of the argument for multi-polarity. What the proponents of multi-polarity say is that the disconnection of US power will allow more countries to pursue their own development trajectories at the risk of US-led or supported invasions, bombing campaigns or coups.
It also supports, often taking the experience of the last Cold War, that when the superpowers compete for influence, the poor and weak countries can effectively play them against each other in search of the best deals and autonomy as possible.
Former Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda is a great figure and many countries in the global south feel that they have lost significant room for maneuver since the end of the bi-polar world in the period between World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Being for a multi-polar world does not mean being Putin or an invasion. But it also does not mean it is for the US and NATO. This is why major countries in the global south have been pushing for talks to end the war with the latest proposals for a ramp-up coming from China.
It is important to understand all this because, in the absence of proper understanding, all of us are left with comments denouncing the position of the South African state as an inexplicable moral failure.
Of course, there are important criticisms of the idea of multi-polarity and they need to be ventilated and carefully discussed.
But if we don’t even bother to understand the thoughts driving the position of most of the leading countries in the global south in the war in Ukraine, we can’t start to have a rational conversation.
Dr Imraan Buccus is a senior research associate at ASRI and a post-doctoral fellow at DUT.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position Mail & Guardians.