Africa-Press – Zimbabwe. The tragedy unfolding in Gaza is more than a regional conflict; it is a rupture in the foundations of the global order. For decades, the system of international law, universal human rights, and multilateral institutions largely conceived and enforced by the West was presented as the unassailable moral bedrock of the modern world. Yet, under the merciless glare of the Gaza crisis, this supposed moral framework has crumbled. The principle of universal human rights has been exposed, in the eyes of much of the Global South and a rising non-Western coalition, as a tool of selective foreign policy, a privilege reserved for geopolitical allies, and a mechanism of control rather than genuine protection.
The myth of Western human rights, predicated on the post-World War II commitment to non-discrimination and the equal sanctity of life, has arguably died amidst the rubble and starvation of Gaza. The political impotence of the United Nations (UN) and the structural limitations of global human rights organisations have not just been challenged; they have been brutally laid bare, creating an overwhelming demand for a new international architecture, one that finds an assertive blueprint in initiatives like China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI).
The Hypocrisy unveiled
The foundational indictment against the Western-led order is the charge of selective enforcement, or the “double standard.” The global community witnessed a swift, comprehensive, and united political, economic, and legal mobilisation against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Financial sanctions were immediately applied, international arrest warrants were issued, and humanitarian aid flowed unimpeded. This response, while justified under international law, stands in stark, damning contrast to the political paralysis and institutional weakness displayed regarding the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza.
When an ally is accused of actions that, according to various UN experts and human rights groups, include collective punishment, forced displacement, and potential war crimes, the response from the architects of the human rights system, specifically the United States and several key European powers, has been characterised by protection and enablement.
This contrast forms the heart of the “myth’s” demise:
The Veto as a Weapon of Impunity. The repeated use of the veto power by the United States in the UN Security Council (UNSC) has systematically blocked resolutions demanding a ceasefire, the unfettered flow of aid, or even basic protective measures for civilians. The veto, intended as a check on aggression, functions here as a license for impunity for a key strategic partner. This structural flaw proves, for the developing world, that the UNSC is not a pillar of global peace but a mere political tool of the P5, where the supposed sanctity of international law bends instantly to the will of a single superpower.
The Devaluation of Palestinian Life. In a global system that claims universality, the lack of political consequence for the immense civilian death toll and the engineered humanitarian crisis sends a chilling message: some lives are politically essential, and others are expendable. The refusal to enforce accountability measures like arms embargoes or sanctions, despite evidence presented by international courts and human rights monitors, fundamentally undermines the claim that human rights are “universal” rather than “conditional.”
The world is watching an entire legal and moral superstructure, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the very concept of a “rules-based order” be reduced to a rhetorical flourish by the powers that claim to uphold it.
The UN: A crisis of power and a museum of good intentions
The United Nations and its vast ecosystem of agencies, from the Security Council to UNRWA, stand exposed not as a bulwark against global atrocity, but as a museum of good intentions trapped by structural powerlessness.
The crisis reveals two critical failures of the UN:
The Sovereignty Trap (and the Humanitarian Deadlock), UN agencies like the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF are dependent entirely on the cooperation and consent of the belligerents—particularly the occupying power to execute their humanitarian mandate. When food, fuel, and medicine are weaponised, the UN cannot compel entry; it can only appeal. Its role is reduced from a decisive, independent force to a pleading administrator of calculated scarcity. The inability to unilaterally enforce aid delivery in the face of mass starvation transforms the UN from an executive global authority into a mere coordinating NGO with a flag.
The Systemic Hypocrisy, The UN is constantly torn between its noble charter and its brutal political reality. The Secretary-General may invoke Article 99 to call for a ceasefire, but his action is overridden by a single veto in the UNSC. This institutional schizophrenia, where the General Assembly (representing the majority of the world’s population) votes overwhelmingly for peace, only to be neutralised by one or two permanent members, demonstrates that the UN is not a democratic global government but a hierarchical oligarchy rooted in the power dynamics of 1945. This confirms the critique that the organisation’s structure is fundamentally incompatible with the principle of global equality.
Human rights organisations: The paradox of exposure
International Human Rights Organisations (HRW, Amnesty International, etc.) find themselves trapped in a profound paradox: they are meticulous documenters of crime, yet they are utterly devoid of executive power. They produce comprehensive reports citing specific violations, identifying command responsibility, and utilising forensic evidence. Yet, their entire mechanism relies on the willingness of states to act on their findings.
In the context of the Gaza crisis, these organisations are exposed as “toothless” because:
The Barrier of Political Shielding, When the alleged perpetrator of mass violations is shielded by the world’s most powerful states (through arms transfers, diplomatic cover, and vetoes), the NGOs’ findings become essentially academic. The voluminous evidence of war crimes and alleged genocide becomes mere noise against the roar of political support.
Accountability without Consequence, The HR framework becomes an exercise in moral documentation rather than enforcement. The organisations perform the critical task of maintaining a factual record for a future, more just world, but in the present moment, they lack the tools to compel a halt to the violence. This perceived impotence leads to the widespread cynicism that they are part of a liberal intellectual elite that can diagnose the illness but is powerless to prescribe the cure against great-power obstruction.
China’s Global Governance Initiative
The failure of the Western-led system has not occurred in a vacuum. It has accelerated the rise of alternative visions for the international order, most explicitly codified in China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI). This initiative, alongside the Global Development, Security, and Civilisation Initiatives, offers a coherent ideological counter-framework designed specifically to appeal to the Global South’s frustration.
The GGI’s core appeal lies in its fundamental challenge to the perceived Western hegemony:
Sovereign Equality as the Anti-Hegemonic Principle, The GGI’s primary tenet is a literal and absolute interpretation of Sovereign Equality: that all countries, regardless of size, wealth, or ideological system, are equal and that their internal development paths are immune from “external interference.” This directly targets the Western practice of using human rights and democracy promotion as a condition for aid, trade, or political cooperation, the very “conditions” that many non-Western states view as neo-colonial coercion.
Rule of Law without Double Standards, The GGI champions the international rule of law but insists on its uniform application, explicitly rejecting double standards and the imposition of a few countries’ “house rules” on others. The Gaza crisis provides the GGI with its most compelling evidence: the very architects of the current legal order are those who are most conspicuously failing to apply its rules equally.
A People-Centred, Development-First Approach, The GGI pivots the global focus away from ideological disputes and confrontation (which it labels “Cold War mentality”) and towards practical, people-centred outcomes like shared development, poverty alleviation, and addressing climate change. This “development-first, stability-first” approach resonates deeply with nations whose most urgent needs are economic and security-related, not necessarily political liberalisation imposed from outside.
The GGI argues for a truly multipolar world where global affairs are decided by all, governance is built by all, and its benefits are shared by all. The spectacle of the current order’s collapse in Gaza, its moral authority drowned out by the noise of its own bombs, makes the GGI’s vision of mutual respect and non-interference a compelling and attractive political reality for states weary of Western sermonizing and strategic self-interest.
The unavoidable shift
Gaza is a tragic watershed moment. It did not create the flaws in the international order, but it amplified them to an unbearable pitch, rendering them politically fatal. The conflict has forced a global realisation that the current legal and institutional framework is not a neutral, universal shield for humanity, but rather a structure highly vulnerable to the strategic interests of its most powerful founders.
The response to the crisis has cemented the Global South’s conviction that the world requires a profound shift away from a model where human rights are selectively deployed and international law is enforced a la carte. The increasing acceptance of concepts like the GGI signals a decisive move towards a multipolar system where sovereignty, non-interference, and shared development are prioritised as the foundational principles.
The myth of Western human rights died in Gaza, not because its principles are inherently flawed, but because its greatest champions failed to defend them when it mattered most. That failure has not just discredited an ideology; it has created an irreversible demand for a new global architecture, one that the rising powers are now ready to build. The world will henceforth be measured by its ability to construct an order that applies law equally to all, or it will risk a descent into an era where only power, not principle, dictates justice.
For More News And Analysis About Zimbabwe Follow Africa-Press
