Global Order’s Moral Abyss: Genocide, Infanticide, Regicide Reconsidered

The erosion of universal principles in the international arena is a growing concern, casting a shadow over the pursuit of global order. As history demonstrates, the powerful often redefine their actions to align with perceived necessity, transforming coercion into humanitarianism and strategic domination into the defence of universal values. This historical lens is crucial for understanding the current landscape, particularly in the wake of recent events that have intensified geopolitical tensions.

The Shifting Sands of Global Order

The evolution of human civilization, as chronicled through history, reveals a recurring pattern where progress has often been a byproduct of conflict and moral ambiguity. The stark example of Carthage’s destruction by Rome serves as a potent reminder of how unchecked power can aim not just to defeat an adversary but to obliterate it. This historical echo resonates in contemporary conflicts, highlighting the persistent struggle between sovereign aspirations and the exercise of hegemonic influence.

The language of civilisation, security, and progress has, throughout history, been employed to mask the denial of others’ humanity and the erosion of their fundamental rights. From the Roman Empire’s Pax Romana to Britain’s Pax Britannica, and from France’s “Mission Civilisatrice” to the American doctrines of Manifest Destiny and Exceptionalism, a consistent theme emerges: the alignment of power with self-interest to achieve domination and subjugation.

Emerging Patterns in Contemporary Geopolitics

What is particularly striking today is not the novelty of these tendencies, which have never truly vanished, but their adaptation within a global order that continues to assert moral universality. The international system is undergoing a gradual transformation of norms, where the language of rights increasingly clashes with the reality of widespread destruction affecting lives, cultural heritage, economic systems, and even entire societies.

To comprehend this transformation, three deeply disturbing concepts – genocide, infanticide, and regicide – offer a valuable analytical framework. Though originating in distinct historical and legal contexts, their contemporary manifestations illuminate troubling patterns in global politics.

• Genocide: The Selective Application of a Moral Boundary
  The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was established to create an inviolable moral boundary, prohibiting the systematic destruction of a people. However, the invocation of “genocide” in international discourse has become increasingly selective. In the protracted conflict in the Gaza Strip, the devastating impact on civilians, especially women and children, has drawn widespread international concern. Despite calls for restraint and adherence to humanitarian law, many Western governments continue to provide military and diplomatic support to Israel, even as allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law surface.
  In stark contrast, when adversaries of the West are involved in conflicts, the label of genocide is applied with greater alacrity. This selective application leads not to moral clarity but to inconsistency and ambiguity. When international law appears to serve as an instrument of political alignment rather than a shield for humanity, confidence in its universality erodes. This raises a critical question for many in the Global South: was universality ever truly universal?

• Infanticide: The Destruction of a People’s Future
  Traditionally, infanticide refers to the killing of infants. In geopolitical terms, it can be understood more broadly as the systematic destruction of a people’s future. This occurs not only through direct violence but also through the dismantling of the conditions essential for human development. Prolonged conflicts have left many societies in ruins, with homes, schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure deliberately destroyed, leading to long-term consequences that extend far beyond immediate hostilities.

  Sanctions regimes, often presented as targeted, have in some instances contributed to the collapse of civilian economies, weakened healthcare systems, and exacerbated food insecurity. The weaponization of financial systems and the disruption of supply chains have tangible, devastating impacts, manifesting as malnutrition, denial of education, and the erosion of hope among the youth. When a global order claims to uphold human dignity while tolerating the systematic destruction of the material foundations of life, it risks presiding over what can be termed structural infanticide – the gradual extinguishing of a people’s future.

• Regicide: The Forcible Overthrow of Governance
  Historically, regicide meant the killing of a monarch. In contemporary international relations, it has evolved to encompass the forcible removal of governments and the elimination or displacement of political leadership. The 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, widely attributed to external intervention, serves as an early example. More recently, the invasions of Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Venezuela in 2026 were justified under the guise of democracy promotion and humanitarian necessity.

  However, the aftermath of these interventions has consistently been marked by prolonged instability, internal conflict, and regional spillover effects. For many nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, these experiences have reinforced the sobering reality that sovereignty, while formally recognised, often remains contingent on the demands of powerful states. Governments that deviate from prevailing strategic orthodoxies may face pressure, isolation, or destabilisation.

The Paradox of Perceived Inconsistency

This perception has fuelled a growing emphasis on strategic autonomy among emerging powers, a modern iteration of non-alignment focused on resilience, cohesion, and independence. The paradox lies in the fact that the contemporary Western order is not weakened by a lack of power, but by the perception of inconsistency and duplicity in its exercise.

The order defends territorial integrity in one instance while appearing to tolerate its violation in another. It condemns external interference in some regions while actively engaging in it elsewhere. International law is invoked when convenient and circumvented when expedient. These contradictions erode the legitimacy that has long underpinned Western influence. The liberal international order derived its authority not solely from military or economic might, but from the perception of moral leadership. As this perception wanes, alternative alignments inevitably emerge, explaining the increasing gravitation of many states towards multipolar arrangements, such as BRICS, regional organisations, or diversified bilateral partnerships.

Africa’s Path Forward: Principled Equilibrium

For Africa, and particularly for nations like Nigeria, the implications are profound. The focus must be on principled equilibrium rather than ideological alignment. Africa needs to recalibrate its global engagement based on enlightened self-interest and strategic foresight. This necessitates an unwavering commitment to the universal and exceptionless application of international law. Africa must advocate for the equal application of norms while ensuring its own domestic governance reflects these principles.

Good governance, electoral integrity, accountability, and inclusive development are not merely internal imperatives; they are crucial for bolstering Africa’s credibility on the international stage. Simultaneously, the continent must endeavour to mitigate structural vulnerabilities. Strengthening regional security mechanisms, enhancing economic resilience, and reducing dependence on external actors are vital steps towards safeguarding sovereignty. The lessons of recent history are clear: sovereignty without capacity translates to fragility without remedy.

Africa must also remain vigilant against the external manipulation of internal divisions, especially when such interventions are cloaked in the language of humanitarian concern or human rights. Moral outrage, devoid of institutional strength and strategic clarity, is insufficient.

The emerging global order, if it can be termed a “new Western order,” is less a coherent design and more a contested intersection during a period of transition. It reflects both the enduring nature of power and the erosion of normative consensus. A truly humane international system cannot be sustained by selective empathy, nor can a stable order endure on the basis of double standards.

If the 21st century is to avert descent into cycles of fragmentation and perpetual conflict, it must rediscover foundational principles: that law applies equally, that human dignity is indivisible, and that power must be restrained by conscience. Otherwise, genocide, infanticide, and regicide may cease to be mere metaphors and become the grim vocabulary of a fractured age. It is the duty and moral responsibility of all humanity to prevent such a future.