Why Most Africans (Global South) Differ Greatly in Global Outlook with Most Western Capitals

So, there is a war going on in Ukraine, and there is a possible war to come owing to China's so-called historical claim on Taiwan. What does all this mean? Why does it matter? Why should you care? In the U.S.A., major news outlets report that Russia is a revanchist (A nation that wants to reclaim its former territories in the case of Russia, its former U.S.S.R territories). There is a growing consensus in the West that African nations are cowing down by not opposing Russia's expansionist behaviour that has challenged international norms of claiming territory by military force. African nations faced with starvation are unwilling to impede Russian wheat and fertilizers for principles as simple as survival. Nonetheless, across the board, it is clear that there is a political divide between nations in the Global South (Latin America, Asia and Africa) and the Global North(Europe, Australia, Canada and North America)In summary, it's called great power competition according to a UCL professor, John Mearsheimer, a renowned political scientist who according to Jeffrey Sachs is the greatest political philosopher of our time.

The war in Ukraine is based on differing global perspectives. Although there are many different perspectives, academia generally agrees on the concept of the "unipolar moment." This term refers to the emergence of the United States as the world's sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union in November 1988. According to former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, this period marked a time when America stood preeminent, standing tall seeing further and embodying a vision of global dominance. This justified the U.S.A.'s endless wars, trying to social engineer the world and create a series of democracies. This was predicated on the assumption that democracies are the best method of governance and that democracies are peace-loving and the best option. This was captured in Francis Fukuyama's book, "The End of History and the Last Man". Unfortunately, this is not the reality today and war has persisted. The world is more dangerous and nuclear war is always a threat sometimes in jest in the media. So, why?

Realpolitik vs. Liberalism in International Relations

Realpolitik advocates for a pragmatic perspective in international relations. Proponents of this view argue for a focus on national interests and power dynamics, sometimes placing these above ethical concerns or global standards. This approach contrasts with the liberal viewpoint, which promotes the dissemination of democratic values. Notable figures who have shaped the realpolitik doctrine include Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer, with Kenneth Waltz also contributing to its development to a certain degree.        

In international politics, Mearsheimer posits that universal liberalism has been the prevailing ideology. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of collaboration, global governance structures, and the conviction that nations can seek collective gains and peaceful coexistence. Prominent advocates such as Francis Fukuyama and his contemporaries argue for the propagation of liberal principles. However, this school of thought also contends that democratic nations may feel compelled to intervene in the affairs of other states to disseminate these values. Mearsheimer challenges the notion that democracies inherently prefer peace, suggesting instead that their actions are driven by liberal agendas.        

Differences:

• View of Human Nature: Realists tend to see human nature as inherently self-interested and competitive, while liberals believe in the potential for cooperation and progress.
• Role of Power: Realists emphasize power as the primary determinant of state behavior, while liberals believe in the importance of institutions, norms, and interdependence.
• International System: Realists view the international system as anarchic, with states constantly vying for power. Liberals see potential for order and cooperation through institutions and shared values.
• Foreign Policy: Realists advocate for policies based on national interests and balance of power, while liberals promote diplomacy, international law, and human rights.

Context: Why Most Africans (Global South) Differ Greatly in Global Outlook with Most Western Capitals

The differing global outlooks between many Africans (and the Global South) and most Western capitals can be understood through the lens of Realpolitik and Liberalism:

1. Historical Context and Colonial Legacy: Many African nations have experienced colonialism and its aftermath, leading to a scepticism of Western intentions and a preference for pragmatic, interest-based policies (Realpolitik). This contrasts with the Western liberal emphasis on promoting democracy and human rights, which can sometimes be perceived as a continuation of external interference.
2. Development Priorities: African countries often prioritize economic development, stability, and sovereignty over the liberal ideals of democracy promotion and human rights. This pragmatic approach aligns more with Realpolitik, focusing on national interests and power dynamics.
3. Global Power Dynamics: The Global South, including Africa, often views the international system as dominated by Western powers, leading to a preference for multipolarity and regional cooperation. This contrasts with the Western liberal perspective that emphasizes global governance through institutions like the UN and WTO.
4. Cultural and Social Values: Different cultural and social values influence foreign policy. While Western capitals may prioritize liberal values such as individual rights and democratic governance, many African nations may emphasize community, sovereignty, and non-interference.
5. Strategic Alliances: African countries often seek strategic alliances based on mutual benefits and pragmatic considerations, rather than ideological alignment. This Realpolitik approach contrasts with the Western liberal tendency to form alliances based on shared values and norms.

Scholars' Views:

• Morgenthau and Mearsheimer: These realists emphasize the struggle for power and the importance of national interests in shaping state behaviour.
• Kenneth Waltz: While a structural realist, Waltz acknowledges the role of international institutions and norms to some extent, although he still prioritizes power and state interests.
• Fukuyama: A liberal scholar who believes in the "end of history" and the triumph of liberal democracy, emphasizing the potential for peace and cooperation through shared values and institutions.

Realpolitik and liberalism offer contrasting perspectives on international politics. Realists prioritize power and national interests, while liberals emphasize cooperation and institutions. Understanding these perspectives is crucial for analyzing international relations and foreign policy decisions.