A geopolitical meme caught my attention recently. The image: a weird world map, showing only the USA, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, in their correct proportions. The title: “The international community you always hear about”. The entire vast land mass of Africa, Latin America, Russia, China and India, for example, just didn’t show up. The result was a map composed of very small territories on the map of the great terrestrial globe.
The provocation makes a lot of sense in the context of the Ukrainian War. In Washington and Brussels, there is talk that the conflict will make Russia a pariah state, that Moscow will suffer great international isolation. But you might think differently in parts of the world that are ignored by many Europeans, Americans and their main media outlets.
Two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries whose authorities declare themselves neutral or have a sympathetic view of Russia in the conflict. It is difficult to speak of international isolation when, for example, China and India refuse to implement sanctions against Moscow.
From Indonesia to South Africa, from Turkey to Argentina, many resist endorsing the restrictions. Countries in Africa and Latin America resent the rise in food and fuel prices, and many attribute this result to sanctions against Russia rather than to the aggression perpetrated against Ukraine.
The brutality of the Russian action is certainly shocking, but it has been unable to generate, in the developing world, the support desired by Europeans and Americans for their counteroffensive.
In the background, there is also a fatigue with what is seen as the hypocrisy of the great. Precedents of violations of the sovereignty of others — such as the US invasion of Iraq — and, more recently, the unequal distribution of Covid vaccines and the more favorable treatment of Ukrainian refugees compared to those of other origins fuel resentment. As much as the repercussions of the conflict are global and as great as the solidarity with the Ukrainian people, many developing countries prefer not to take sides.
Even if for different purposes —commercial, strategic or even ideological—, the option for neutrality in the conflict ends up to bring the countries of the called the Global South. The experience refers to the Non-Aligned Movement, created in the 1960s, around which developing countries articulated to defend the distance from the opposing blocks of the Cold War.
Talking about Non-Aligned 2.0 is dusting off old concepts, but territorial invasion and war are there to remind you that the world is going backwards.
In another sign that many want to believe their own speech, the Ukrainian War has been presented as a confrontation between democracies and autocracies, between the free world and authoritarian models. The argument disregards, for example, that India, the world’s largest democracy, resists choosing a side and, above all, endorsing sanctions.
The Russian invasion, it is worth remembering, was condemned by the UN General Assembly, the forum that best approximates what this international community is. But it is the response of Americans and Europeans that does not excite the developing world. Sanctions were not endorsed by the United Nations; The Russian expulsion of international organizations rightly encounters resistance among countries that consider it important to keep the channels of dialogue open.
In a war that is also one of narratives, the supposed support of the international community has been invoked for simplifications that erase from the map what does not matter.
