Genocide, infanticide and regicide: Rethinking the moral foundations of the global order, by Usman Sarki

2026-03-25 - 00:24

“Between the strong and the weak, it is liberty that oppresses and the law that sets free“— Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire My sustained engagement with questions of sovereignty, strategic autonomy and global order is shaped not only by my background as a career diplomat, but also by a lifelong study of world history. In “The Martyrdom of Man”, William Winwood Reed traced the long and turbulent evolution of human civilization, demonstrating that what we often celebrate as progress has frequently been forged through conflict, upheaval and deep moral ambiguity. The destruction of Carthage by Rome remains one of history’s most enduring symbols of total war, a grim reminder of how power, when unconstrained, can seek not merely to defeat an adversary but to erase it, an echo that can be discerned in contemporary conflicts in the Middle East. It is this historical sensibility as well as the evident moral ambiguity that compels me to embark on a more reflective examination of contemporary global affairs in the wake of the unprovoked attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran by Israel and America. Diplomacy may seek to assuage and manage tensions and mitigate crises, but history alone can explain them adequately. And history teaches a sobering lesson that empires rarely announce their decline. Instead, they reinterpret their conduct as necessity, redefine coercion as humanitarianism, and present strategic domination as the defence of universal values. From Pax Romana to Pax Britannica, from France’s “Mission Civilisatrice” to American doctrines of Manifest Destiny and Exceptionalism, and even to the Nazi ideological construct of Lebensraum, history offers a long catalogue of justifications through which power aligns with interest to produce domination, subjugation and control. In each case, the language of civilisation, security or progress has masked the denial of others’ humanity and the erosion of their right to dignity and existence. Imperialism and colonialism emerged from these doctrines that support naked aggrandizement. What is striking today is not the reappearance of these tendencies because they have never entirely disappeared, but their mutation within a global order that continues to claim moral universality. What we are witnessing in parts of the international system is not merely geopolitical competition. It is a gradual transformation of norms, a troubling drift in which the language of rights coexists uneasily with the practice of wholesale destruction of lives, of heritage, of economic systems and, in some cases, of societies. Three deeply disturbing concepts namely genocide, infanticide and regicide, offer a lens through which this transformation may be understood. Each term originates in a distinct historical and legal context, yet together they illuminate patterns that are becoming increasingly visible in contemporary global politics. The concept of genocide, codified in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, was intended to establish an absolute moral boundary that no nation, no matter how powerful, should be permitted to engage in the systematic destruction of a people. Yet in practice, the invocation of genocide in international discourse has become increasingly selective. In the tragic and ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, civilian suffering, particularly among women and children, has reached devastating levels. While Western governments continue to call for restraint and adherence to humanitarian law, many have also maintained military and diplomatic support for Israel, despite growing international concern and allegations by observers and legal experts of serious violations of international humanitarian law by that state. In contrast, in other theatres of conflict, the label of genocide is applied far more swiftly when adversaries of the West are involved. The resulting pattern is not one of moral clarity, but of moral inconsistency or ambiguity. When international law appears to function as an instrument of alignment rather than a shield of humanity, confidence in its universality begins to erode. For many in the Global South, this raises a fundamental question – was universality ever truly universal? The second concept, infanticide, traditionally refers to the killing of infants. In geopolitical terms, however, it may be understood more broadly as the destruction of a people’s future. This occurs not only through direct violence, but through the systematic dismantling of the conditions necessary for human development. Across several regions of the world, prolonged conflicts have left societies in ruins. Homes, schools, hospitals and essential infrastructure are destroyed, often deliberately and with long-term consequences that extend beyond the immediate theatre of war. Sanctions regimes, though frequently described as targeted, have in some instances contributed to the collapse of civilian economies, weakened healthcare systems, and undermined food security. When financial systems are weaponised and supply chains disrupted, the impact is not abstract. It is measured in malnutrition, in the denial of education, and in the erosion of hope among the young. If a global order claims to uphold human dignity while tolerating the systematic destruction of the material foundations of human life, it risks presiding over what may be described as structural infanticide, that is the gradual extinguishing of a people’s future. The third concept, regicide, once referred to the killing of a monarch. In contemporary international relations, it has evolved into a broader phenomenon encompassing the forcible removal of governments and the elimination or displacement of political leadership. The overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, widely attributed to external intervention, offers an early example of this pattern. More recently, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the intervention in Libya in 2011 and Venezuela in 2026 were justified in terms of democracy promotion and humanitarian necessity. Yet the aftermath in all these cases has been marked by prolonged instability, internal conflict and regional spillover effects that continue to reverberate. For many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, these experiences have reinforced a sobering reality that sovereignty, while formally recognised, remains contingent in practice on the demands and desires of the powerful states. Governments that diverge from prevailing strategic orthodoxies may find themselves subject to pressure, isolation or destabilisation. This perception has contributed to the growing emphasis on strategic autonomy among emerging powers, a modern evolution of non-alignment, grounded in the pursuit of resilience, cohesion and independence. At the heart of these developments lies a deeper paradox. The contemporary Western order is not weakened by a lack of power, but by the perception of inconsistency and duplicity in how that power is exercised. It defends territorial integrity in one context while appearing to tolerate its violation in another. It condemns external interference in some regions while engaging in it elsewhere. It invokes international law when convenient and circumvents it when expedient. Such contradictions erode the legitimacy that has long underpinned Western influence. The liberal international order derived its authority not solely from military or economic strength, but from the perception of moral leadership. When that perception diminishes, alternative alignments inevitably emerge. This helps explain the increasing gravitation of many states toward multipolar arrangements, whether through groupings such as BRICS, regional organisations, or diversified bilateral partnerships with countries such as China and Russia. For Africa, and particularly for Nigeria, the implications are profound. The question is not one of ideological alignment, but of principled equilibrium. Africa must recalibrate its engagement with the global system on the basis of enlightened self-interest and strategic foresight. This requires, first and foremost, a consistent commitment to international law applied universally and without exception. Africa must advocate for the equal application of norms while ensuring that its own domestic governance reflects the principles it espouses. Good governance, electoral integrity, accountability and inclusive development are not merely internal imperatives; they are essential to strengthening Africa’s credibility in the international arena. At the same time, the continent must work to reduce structural vulnerabilities. Strengthening regional security mechanisms, enhancing economic resilience, and reducing dependence on external actors are critical steps toward safeguarding sovereignty. The lessons of recent history are clear: sovereignty without capacity is fragility without remedy. Africa must also remain vigilant against the external manipulation of internal divisions, particularly when such interventions are framed in the language of humanitarian concern or human rights. Moral outrage, in the absence of institutional strength and strategic clarity, is insufficient. Ultimately, the emerging global order, if indeed it can be described as a “new Western order”, is less a coherent design than a contested intersection in a period of transition. It reflects both the persistence of power and the erosion of normative consensus. A truly humane international system cannot be sustained on selective empathy, nor can a stable order endure on the basis of double standards. If the 21st century is to avoid descending into cycles of fragmentation and perpetual conflict, it must rediscover a foundational principle 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 enduring vocabulary of a fractured age. It is the duty and indeed, the moral responsibility of all humanity to prevent this from happening.