Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
“If the truth is not faced head on, the lie will not disappear. It will destroy everything.”
In the short story The Suit (1963) by Can Themba, a betrayal is symbolised by an object left in plain sight. No one confronts it. No one removes it. It remains in the room silent, heavy, and corrosive until it destroys the household.
Today, the international order feels like that room. A narrative sits at the centre of global politics: that powerful states act primarily in defence of freedom, stability, and global security while their adversaries act from aggression, extremism, or malice. It is a story repeated so often that questioning it can provoke outrage.
But if truth cannot be questioned, it ceases to be truth. It becomes doctrine. And doctrine, when shielded from scrutiny, becomes dangerous.
The politics of naming: Who owns the word “terrorism”?
Why is the word ‘terrorism’ applied swiftly to some actors yet becomes almost unspeakable when the actors are powerful states?
Terrorism is commonly defined as the use of violence against civilians to instill fear for political ends. If that definition is accepted, then the moral test is straightforward. Does the standard apply universally or selectively?
If non-state groups bomb infrastructure, strike cities, or justify civilian casualties as “collateral damage”, they are labelled terrorists.
But when powerful governments launch preemptive airstrikes, destroy infrastructure, or impose policies that result in widespread civilian suffering, the language often shifts:
• “Security operations”
• “Preemptive defence.”
• “Strategic deterrence”
Why?
Is the difference moral or merely political?
Who writes the vocabulary of legitimacy?
If the principle is civilian protection, then civilian life must matter equally in all contexts. If the principle is sovereignty, then sovereignty must apply to allies and adversaries alike. If the principle is international law, it cannot bend before geopolitical alignment.
Otherwise, law becomes hierarchy.
History as Mirror: Authority and Humility
History complicates moral claims.
The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. That fact does not exist to inflame; it exists to remind.
Today, Washington positions itself as a guardian against nuclear proliferation. The question is not accusation; it is consistency. Does history strengthen moral authority or demand humility in its exercise?
Similarly, Israel frames its security posture as existential necessity. For many Israelis, historical trauma and regional hostility make security paramount. For many Palestinians and international observers, policies in the occupied territories represent prolonged injustice and systemic inequality.
Both narratives exist. The unresolved tension lies in whether international law and humanitarian principles are applied evenly within them. If existential fear justifies preemptive force for one state, it sets a precedent available to all states. That is not a rhetorical concern. It is a structural one.
Sanctions and silent suffering
Violence does not occur only through bombs.
The long-standing embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba has been condemned repeatedly in the United Nations General Assembly. Washington describes the policy as a tool to promote political reform. Critics argue that its most tangible effects are economic hardship for ordinary citizens, affecting access to medicine, food, and development.
If suffering caused by bombs is condemned, what of suffering caused by economic strangulation? If fear delivered by airstrike is morally unacceptable, is fear delivered by deprivation fundamentally different? Consistency requires that human dignity be defended regardless of method.
Institutions under strain
The global architecture built after World War III,the United Nations, the World BBank, andthe International Monetary Fund rreflecta world that no longer exists.
The balance of power in 1945 is not the balance of power today. The United Nations Security Council still reflects the victors of that war. Calls for reform, particularly from nations of the Global South and emerging powers, have intensified over decades. Alternative financial institutions, such as the New Development Bank created by BRICS nations, signal dissatisfaction with existing structures.
This is not a collapse. It is a transition. But transitions are unstable when legitimacy erodes. If powerful states appear to interpret rules flexibly while weaker states face strict enforcement, confidence in multilateralism declines. And when confidence declines, fragmentation follows.
Selective empathy and the Israeli–Palestinian fault line
No discussion of legitimacy and violence can ignore the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For many across the Global South, Palestine symbolizes selective justice one people’s right to security emphasized, another people’s right to sovereignty debated. For Israel and its supporters, national survival in a volatile region remains non-negotiable.
The moral challenge is clear:
If security is universal, it must include Palestinians.
If sovereignty is universal, it must include Israelis.
If civilian life is sacred, it must be sacred without hierarchy.
Selective empathy corrodes credibility.
The crisis of moral consistency
What we are witnessing may not be the collapse of the international order but its moral strain. If:
• Power defines legality,
• Alliance determines morality,
• Fear alone becomes a sufficient justification for force, then the rules-based system shifts toward perception-based enforcement. That shift is dangerous. Because if one state claims the right to strike preemptively based on a projected threat, every other state will eventually claim the same right. Consistency is not idealism. It is a strategic necessity.
The question that will not disappear
This debate is not solely about the United States.
It is not solely about Israel.
It is not solely about Iran.
It is about whether power now determines language.
Whether legitimacy is universal or selective.
Whether international law binds the strong as firmly as it binds the weak. If the label “terrorist” applies only to the powerless, the word loses moral coherence. And when definitions lose coherence, norms lose authority.
Facing the truth
It seems all Republican Party leaders always lift taxes for the rich, punish the poor and attack a country while hiding under the slogans of “terrorism”, “preemptive strikes”, etc. What is worse, they campaign under the slogans of “peacemakers”, “God’s chosen”, and “bringing democracy to the world”, yet the results show the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon, and attempts at regime change in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, etc. Was the bombing and killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro really about the enrichment of “nuclear programmes”, “fighting against drugs”, etc., or was it about regime change and using both Iran and Venezuela as strategic pieces to prevent China from having control of the oil facilities in those two countries? The world does not need more slogans. It needs clarity.
It needs the courage to question narratives without descending into hatred.
It needs principles applied evenly without exception.
It needs moral standards that survive contact with power.
In The Suit, the tragedy was not only the betrayal. It was the refusal to confront it honestly.
If contradictions in the global order remainunexamined if selective justice becomes normal then the system designed to prevent instability may begin to produce it.
Truth must be faced head on.
Not to condemn blindly.
Not to defend blindly.
But to insist that law is not hierarchy, that morality is not alliance, and that human dignity is not negotiable.
Because history will not ask who was strongest. It will ask who was consistent.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper. They are solely our personal views as citizens and pan-Africanists.
