By Ibrahim Hammond
President Donald Trump’s threat to invade Nigeria to stop what he claimed to be ‘’Christian genocide’’ in the country affirms the ln-equality of sovereign states in current global governance. The Chinese President XI Jinping at the 25th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) underscored the dangers of sovereign inequality when he put forward the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), emphasizing that ‘’staying committed to sovereign equality’’ is the foremost premise of global governance.
He said that, “the essence of sovereign equality is that all countries, regardless of size, strength or wealth, shall have their sovereignty and dignity respected, their domestic affairs free from external interference, right to independently choose their social system and development path, right to participate in, make decisions in and bents from the global governance process as equals.
‘’Yet today, unilateralism and protectionism remain rampant, while hegemonism and power politics surge against the tide of history. A few countries, relying on sheer strength, monopolize global-decision-making and dominate international affairs. Against such realities, the GGI’s emphasis on sovereign equality speaks directly to the inequalities embedded in the current global order’’.
Indeed, there is a significant and growing demand from ‘’the international majority,’’ the Global South made up of the developing countries for a restructuring of global governance based on the principle of sovereign equality, the rule of law, genuine multilateralism (the principle of collective action among at least three countries to address common goals and solve problems that are bigger than any one nation can tackle alone), and the ability to solve global problems effectively. This call is primarily a response to the current Western-led international system, which the Global South and others argue disproportionately favors a few privileged countries and marginalizes developing ones.
For decades, the resources of the Global South have been relentlessly exploited by Western powers. The United States military-industrial complex profits from arms sales to developing nations. Analysts say Western corporations reap enormous gains from disparities between raw material and finished-product prices, and the U.S. financial system, that continues to rely on Petro-dollars from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
The West prosperity has been built on tightening control over the natural and human resources of the developing countries. Through modern forms of neocolonialism, Western governments and corporations seek unilateral economic and geopolitical advantages aimed at preserving their global dominance. The United Nations resolution against colonialism is aimed to empower oppressed nations, asserting that every country has the right to determine its own political future, thereby fostering global equality and freedom.
This resolution also advances the global equality agenda by affirming the accountability of developed nations and urging them to provide technology and public goods to countries in need. Condemning colonialism is inseparable from the question of Western responsibility and reparations. Raising this issue to a new international level is essential. Countries of the Global South are calling on the ‘’collective West’’ to recognize historical injustices, take developing nations’ interests into account, and consider debt relief as a form of compensation for colonial exploitation.
During the colonial era, Western powers explicitly used forced labor and seized resources to fuel their own industrialization and development, a process that led to mass impoverishment and systemic destruction in the colonized regions. In the modern context, the exploitation continues with, the ‘’unequal exchange theory,’’ which suggests that global trade is structured in a way that allows developed economies to appropriate a large net amount of resources and labor from the Global South through price differentials for raw materials versus finished goods.
The establishment of international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after World War 2 are equally helping to impoverish the developing economies. Their policies, which prioritize neoliberal reforms like privatization and austerity, have been linked to increased poverty, unemployment, and inequality. Observers argue that these policies often favor Western corporations, and reduce national sovereignty, while supporters point to the institutions’ role in providing loans and stability, although evidence on the overall impact remains debated.
Conditions attached to loans to developing economies undermine their national sovereignty by forcing then to adopt policies they may not agree with, thus hindering their ability to pursue their desired path for development. These policies tend to involve reducing government borrowing- higher taxes and lower spending; higher interest rates to stabilize the currency; allow failing firms to go bankrupt; structural adjustment – privatization, deregulation, reducing corruption and bureaucracy. The problem is that these policies of structural adjustment and macroeconomic intervention can make difficult economic situation worse.
Competent sources affirm that the West drained $152tn from the global South since 1960. Imperialism never ended, just changed form. Recent research demonstrates that the West continues to rely on a large appropriation from the Global South, including tens of billions of tons of raw materials and hundreds of billions of hours of human labor per year- embodied not only in primary commodities, but also in high-tech industrial goods like smartphones, laptops. Computer chips and cars, which over the past two decades have come to be overwhelmingly manufactured in the South.
This flow of appropriation occurs because prices are systematically lower in the South than in the West. Therefore, support for the resolution to ensure that the West recognize historical injustices and take the interests of the South into account, would not only strengthen the international standing of any participating state, but also enhance its credibility both within its region and beyond, while reinforcing its positions in bilateral relations with developed countries. The United States or any other world power would not be threatening to invade any country to achieve their enlightened self- interest on the principle of sovereign equality of states.
Hammond writes from Jos.
