By DARLINGTON CHILUBA
WHEN democracy was on the upswing in the early 1990s, most late adopters of this ideology hoped for a world in which dialogue resolved matters instead of a gun.
After all, the major reason for a divided world had just been curtailed and liberal ideals had come victorious after the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the iron curtain.
Wars fought in defence of either communism or capitalism in Africa, Latin-America and Asia eventually ended and ushered in an era of elected governments for the most part.
The lives lost in those conflicts, however, were lost permanently.
The notion of democracy with its obvious economic benefits of free trade, constitutional guarantees for embedded (or home grown) freedoms, whether free speech or the right to own property, electoral cycles and so on, became the norm.
Truth be told, at some point, nations that did not immediately espouse some of these tenets were viewed as holding on to outdated notions of governance. The punishment for those antithetical or troublesome nations was that they could not participate in the benefits of global trade.
Even the resurgence of Russia in the 2000s and the rise of China did not assuage the dominance of the capitalist model at global scale. After all, these nations’ economies expanded based on the trade template created by capitalism.
These shared ideals of free trade, electoral integrity or legitimacy of leadership were all concurred with through various mechanisms especially the United Nations (UN).
This body remained important because it brought together countries that had dissimilar interests and historical inclinations.
Indeed, the UN as a central meeting point was crucial because decisions made by various clubs, regional or interest-based often affected other nations.
Decisions, for example, made by the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) or the Group of Seven (G7) still have global ramifications. Somehow, these consequences could often be referred to global bodies such as the UN itself or the World Trade Organisation for resolution. The militarisation of democracy was not on the agenda.
These global institutions propelled dialogue and anchored the necessity of this principle on the avoidance of national misunderstandings degenerating into war.
Unfortunately, the Russia-Ukraine discord has become the perfect example of a conflict caused by the expansion of an exclusive club (NATO) against the perceived security of another nation.
Yet irrespective of who was wrong, the loss of lives will remain a scourge on NATO and the UN because this is one war that is within their reach to end. Interests, national or regional should not belittle the value of life.
Recently, the UN General Assembly debated a motion titled “Suspension of the rights of membership of the Russian Federation in the Human Rights Council.”
The formulation of this debate inherently created a victim and aggressor, and went further to ask all members to unanimously agree on who is wrong in this atrocious conflict. NATO or its role, was not in the subject head. In this respect, for more than 11 times now, India has refused to have Russia suspended from any organ of the UN. Indeed, the proposition for peace must be pursued aggressively, but also reasonably.
No one supports any aggression that causes loss of life and India made that blatantly clear.
China and India instead continue to call for non-military intervention to achieve peace. This solution aims at acknowledging the sovereign integrity of both nations, but more supremely the preservation of life (see https://www.reuters.com/world/indias–modi–says–ready–contribute–peace–efforts–ukraine2022–10–04/: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/11/india–russia–ukraine–war–diplomacy).
The militarisation of democracy, or the use of military intervention as a ruse or principle to export democracy must not be overlooked in the wake of the damage in Iraq and Libya for example. There were times in our history when such intervention clearly saved lives and preserved nations, but this took courageous consensus that life and its incalculable value was worth preserving.
When the two former foes of east and west worked together, whether through joint military exercises or de-escalation of nuclear weaponry, one could argue that the global balance of peace was at its strongest. At the moment, if the UN cannot bring this escalation to a halt, its failure could be worse than its predecessor, the League of Nations, and the ramifications on the world will make us all wish we had spoken louder and harder to all parties involved to end the conflict.
Author
