The world's not always black or white

Maps are good. The bad thing is that the maps have been accompanied by a lot of comments claiming that the world has finally been divided into two groups of countries, which means we are heading for a world war. "Here it is, the black and white world!" the commentators exclaim, "it has finally taken shape, with our good guys on the one hand and our bad guys on the other.

If Putin and Xi Jinping were to read such comments, they would be very happy, because this is the picture of the world that they are trying to impose on the entire planet. For this purpose, they invented and introduced the term "Global Majority" - as incorrect as "Global South", but with the emphasis that they unite 7 billion people against the eighth "golden billion". This is how our commentators interpret the maps.

Let's not make gifts to Putin and Xi, and let's not accept their narrative unconditionally, but try to understand. After all, the dream of any authoritarian regime, just like gangsters or racketeers, is to have people uncritically accept their narratives.

To begin with, every country is guided in international politics primarily by its own interests. There are other factors, including values, but primarily interests.

The world situation is that there is a group of countries (let's call them the West, although it includes, for example, Australia) that have a development rent - they once invested in reaching a higher level of development, and this investment helps them skim the cream now. These countries are primarily interested in maintaining the status quo.

And there is a country that is the equal of the whole West that wants to change this status quo, to take the place of the hegemon that takes the global rent. You have already guessed that it is China. China is fed by both the objective needs of its development (because it is still largely poor and backward) and subjective factors: traditional myths of its own superiority, images of past centuries, and resentment.

So, there are those who want to maintain the status quo and those who want to change it. But does the world really fall into two categories?

Obviously, no, because there are a huge number of countries for which the confrontation between the old hegemon and the new challenger promises no gains and brings nothing good. And this is 70% of the world's population. India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, the Arab world, Africa, and others have nothing to gain from the continuation of Western dominance or the introduction of Chinese dominance.

They have their own interests, often tactical ones: to avoid participation in the dangerous confrontation between the hegemons and at the same time to bargain for themselves, perhaps even on both sides. To improve their own position in their own region. To take advantage of order and chaos for their own game. Or they just don't care.

It's even more complicated. China wants to dominate world politics, but in a way that preserves the high prosperity of the United States and Europe and free trade with them - the Chinese economy depends on it. To quarrel more actively with the West and at the same time trade more actively with it - this is what Chinese policy looks like. 

China does not like the formation of a global anti-Russian coalition led by the United States. That is why so much effort was spent on disrupting the Peace Summit, reducing its representation and diluting its results.

The countries that did not attend the Summit or sign the communiqué were guided by their own interests: to bargain with the parties to get something for themselves, ideally from both hands. Or simply not to appear in this story in order to preserve freedom of manoeuvre for the future. A clever monkey does not interfere in a lion's fight with a leopard, but picks up the carrion after both.

Where is Russia in this scheme? No one is interested in its interests, nor in the interests of Ukraine. China, for example, is using the chance to make Russia as dependent as possible (in the long run, to take control of its resources and certainly to regain what it considers to be historical lands), and in the meantime, it is buying Russian resources for a song. Africa, South Asia, and Latin America mostly don't care about Russia. Some dream of getting Russian technology at a low cost, while others need rare resources. In this game, it's every man for himself. (Think about what Ukraine's policy would be if Venezuela attacked Guyana, or Iraq attacked Kuwait.)

As for Ukraine, it is not perceived outside the Western world as an entity with its own interests. Some people have bought into the Russian narrative that Ukraine is just a platform for NATO to fight Russia. Others believe that large countries have the right to "zones of exclusive interest". Many former colonies perceive Ukraine as an ally of the US and Europe, i.e. bad colonialists, while Russia is the successor to the USSR, i.e. good anti-colonialists. Thus, Ukraine is a friend of evil and an enemy of good, i.e. evil in its purest form. (I cannot resist the remark that this is where the view of the world as black and white, bipolar, leads.)

How can this situation be changed? By actively promoting the anti-colonial agenda on international platforms. Russia is the last major colonial empire to be decolonised.

 This is the key to mutual understanding with dozens of countries around the world that were themselves colonies until relatively recently.

Source

About the author. Valeriy Pekar, lecturer at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.