Warmongering Europe, plunged into a deep crisis of intelligence and leadership, has finally come up with a peace plan that exposes the deep fractures of an asymmetrical international order.
Mohamed Lamine KABA
To this end, our analysis draws on the article entitled ‘Ukrainian peace plan reveals Western double standards,’ written by journalist S. Adekoya and published in The Guardian Tanzania on 27 November 2025. This reference text forms the basis of this article, which develops a critical reading of the Ukrainian peace plan, highlighting the moral selectivity of the West, the hierarchization of human suffering, and the geopolitical use of humanitarian discourse in contemporary international governance. It analyses the Ukrainian peace plan as revealing Western double standards. It also shows that the initiative, presented as universal, is perceived in the Global South as a geopolitical instrument. Drawing on Patrick Lumumba, Mahmood Mamdani, Arikana Chihombori-Quao, Vijay Prashad, Richard Falk, and Felwine Sarr, the text demonstrates the prioritization of human suffering. It compares Ukraine to Iraq, Libya, Gaza, Yemen, and the Sahel, highlighting the absence of equivalent sanctions. The article concludes that the plan symbolises asymmetrical global governance, where Western moral authority is claimed but applied selectively in the contemporary international order, which is currently undergoing profound ideological restructuring.
The Ukrainian plan as a revelation of selective humanitarianism: the conditional indignation of the West
In much of the Global South, the Ukrainian peace plan is not interpreted as a gesture of universal diplomacy but as a mirror revealing decades of Western strategic inconsistencies. Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba, a leading figure in African criticism of Western interventionism, expresses the essence of this accusation when he asks, ‘Where was this energy when millions died in Congo, Libya, and Iraq?’ His question resonates as a historical indictment, recalling the interventions in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, which were carried out without international pressure comparable to that exerted on Russia since 2022. It therefore echoes tragedies in which the West deployed neither massive sanctions nor international conferences, nor diplomatic mobilization.
Ugandan theorist and political scientist Prof. Mahmood Mamdani reveals the underlying ideological mechanics by observing that Western foreign policy ‘often moralizes conflict in Europe while securing crises in the Global South.’ This moral distinction, visible since the 1990s, has become glaringly obvious in the diplomatic rush to confront Moscow (rapid and coordinated reaction against Russia in 2022): massive sanctions, international summits, systemic isolation. Neither Gaza, Yemen, Libya, nor the Sahel have ever prompted such a large-scale mobilization, despite the severity of the destruction and civilian casualties.
The former African Union ambassador to the United States, Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, goes further, stating that the Western attitude towards Ukraine illustrates ‘the proof of a world where African suffering does not trigger global action unless foreign interests are at stake’. In other words, what the West calls a ‘peace plan’ appears to be a tool for preserving its sphere of influence. From this perspective, the Ukrainian plan is not so much a peace project as an instrument of power projection.
An African Union adviser confirms this perception, stating that the Western initiative resembles ‘a peace plan designed not to end the war, but to shape the outcome.’ This analysis recalls previous instances where diplomacy was marginalized: Libya in 2011, Iraq in 2003, Rwanda in 1994. In all cases, international law became optional when the interests of Western powers were at stake.
Indian historian Vijay Prashad, a leading figure in studies on multipolarity, emphasises the human asymmetry revealed by this conflict. He argues that the war in Ukraine has ‘revealed the hierarchy of human suffering in the Western consciousness,’ pointing out that Europe immediately opened its borders to Ukrainian refugees, while African and Middle Eastern asylum seekers were ‘met with resistance, detention, or silence.’
Former UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk sums up this moral asymmetry with an expression that has become emblematic: ‘international law applied à la carte.’ This structural reading of Western contradictions is reinforced by media analysis: “When Ukraine resists, it is “self-defense.” When Palestinians resist occupation, it is “terrorism.” When Africa buys drones from non-Western countries, it becomes “foreign influence.” When Europe sends weapons, it is “support.” It is as if to say that in the West, the notion of ‘hybrid warfare’ takes on its full meaning, and where politicians and the media join forces to co-construct the moral asymmetry that tears the world apart and creates categories: the established (the Western world) and the marginalised (the Global South or peripheral world). This makes our world space not a ‘global village’ in the technological sense, but a field of competition and rivalry where the logic of escalation and mutual perception of threat guide foreign policy.
Finally, as Senegalese intellectual Felwine Sarr points out in a philosophical conclusion to this diagnosis, ‘A world based on asymmetry cannot demand symmetrical empathy.’ It is this moral asymmetry that the Ukrainian peace plan crystallizes, despite itself.
Global protest and geopolitical realignment: a faltering international order
Opposition to the Ukrainian plan goes beyond moral condemnation. It expresses a strategic shift in the global South, which is now determined to challenge the Western monopoly on law and legitimacy. In other words, it calls into question the normative architecture inherited from 1945. South African economist Professor Chris Landsberg shows that the economic effects of the conflict are ‘militarizing economic governance’, putting pressure on African countries via the IMF and rating agencies, while Western military budgets have been skyrocketing since 2022. The asymmetry is striking: sacrifices are demanded of the South, never of the North. In other words, this dynamic reinforces the idea that the West demands efforts that it does not apply to itself.
Diplomatic pressure is another symbolic lever in this break. Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia, Uganda, and Kenya have been targeted by intense efforts to align their positions with those of the EU and the United States. In other words, these nations have been publicly and discreetly urged to adopt a firm anti-Russian stance. Former Tanzanian diplomat Dr Ramadhani Dau, who is well aware of these dynamics, describes this attitude as ‘a return to Cold War diplomacy under a new banner.’ Neutrality, once a pillar of non-alignment, is now viewed with suspicion by Western partners, who equate it with disloyalty.
Journalist S. Adekoya adds an additional political dimension: the West, he says, ‘ignores humanitarian crises around the world’ but is mobilizing for Ukraine because this conflict ‘directly affects its interests.’ According to him, the European plan ‘is not aimed at ending the war, but solely at serving the interests of Brussels.’ He goes on to say that Western mobilization around Ukraine proves that ‘Africa’s suffering does not prompt global action unless concrete realities – in other words, interests – are at stake’. This analysis, widely shared in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, frames the debate in terms of power rather than law.
The contradictions become more apparent when comparing Western reactions to other crises. The International Court of Justice’s rulings against Israel have not resulted in sanctions, embargoes, or diplomatic isolation. Saudi operations in Yemen – despite being condemned by UN experts – have never prompted measures comparable to those imposed on Russia. This historical contrast fuels the impression of a hierarchical global governance system.
This is why Vijay Prashad concludes that humanitarian values ‘depend on geography and identity,’ a perfect summary of the global South’s perspective: the protection of human life varies according to where it is threatened and who the protagonists are.
Thus, for many outside the Western world, the Ukrainian plan is not just a diplomatic document: it symbolizes a deeper imbalance, that of global governance shaped by a handful of states that claim universal moral authority while applying it selectively.
Underlying this is the fact that the conflict or proxy war in Ukraine remains a tragedy born of American foreign policy, but a peace plan that reflects historical asymmetries cannot win the support of a world that has become multipolar. The Global South does not reject the idea of peace; it rejects a legal architecture in which principles are applied only to the West’s adversaries. If the West wants to regain its already eroded credibility, which is no longer possible, it must break with the selectivity that has structured its interventionism for decades. The world no longer expects it to lead; it demands that it make amends. For now, the real issue is not only peace in Ukraine but also fairness in the international order.
It can be said that the world is changing, and those who refuse to hear it risk being the last arbiters.
Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
No comments:
Post a Comment