Resolving the Russia-Ukraine Impasse
Lessons from an African Cosmological Viewpoint
This paper makes a case for the utility of Ubuntu philosophy in providing a context within which resolving the conflict and post‑conflict stages of the war between Russia and Ukraine may take place. Before speaking to Ubuntu’s conflict resolution utility, it is first necessary to provide an explanation of its basic tenets because it is not likely to be well‑known to the readers of Baku Dialogues.
Ubuntu philosophy affirms the animating spirit of the organic wholeness of humanity. As an ethical notion, Ubuntu has been decisive in shaping and informing the normative content of human dignity. Ubuntu’s malleability makes it an attractive tool, as it has been employed in dispute resolution situations such as during the South Africa Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission and the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda in an endeavor to achieve restorative justice. Ubuntu can contribute, give shape, and provide meaning to dignity. In addition, with respect to certain crucial areas of law, such as socioeconomic rights, Ubuntu can help define obligations and even democratic processes.
Before speaking to Ubuntu’s conflict resolution utility, it is first necessary to provide an explanation of its basic tenets because it is not likely to be wellknown to the readers of Baku Dialogues.
Everyday life in Africa has always been centered around the community. With the onset of colonialism, Europeans attempted to impose their own alien norms, which were centered on the individual as the focal point of social organization, attitudinal behavior, and motivational achievement. European colonization aimed to establish and maintain the European conception of reality, knowledge, and truth in all colonized parts of the world. An intricate part of the African worldview is community and being in harmony with African society.
Recourse must be made to Ubuntu philosophy to appreciate the essence of being from an African perspective. Ubuntu is an ethical and philosophical concept that traces its origins back to pre‑colonial knowledge systems in Africa. The being of an African is inseparably linked to Ubuntu. Ubuntu or its linguistic equivalents—‘botho’ in Sesotho and Setswana, ‘utu’ in Swahili, or ‘hunhu’ in the Nguni grouping of languages—remains useful in addressing the challenges faced in Africa. Be it in the context of resource allocation or dispute resolution, Ubuntu has ontological resonance from the Nubian desert to the Cape of Good Hope and from Senegal to Zanzibar as the foundation and edifice of African philosophy.
Ubuntu describes a symbiotic and cooperative relationship between people that can provide the basis many acts in a community. It has been argued that the core meaning of the concept of Ubuntu is frequently expressed using the Zulu‑Xhosa aphorism “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”—a human being is a human being through other people.
Ubuntu is two words in one, consisting of the prefix ubu‑ and the suffix ‑untu. Ubuntu can be explained through three sayings that draw from the Sepedi, a Northern Sotho language‑speaking group in Southern Africa: first, “motho ke motho ka batho,” second “feta kgomo o tshware motho,” and third, “kgosi ke kgosi ka batho.” The first means that to be human is to affirm one’s humanity by recognizing the humanity of others and, on that basis, establish respectful human relations with them. The second aphorism means that if and when one is faced with a decisive choice between wealth and the preservation of another human being’s life, then one should opt for the preservation of life. The third maxim, a principle deeply embedded in traditional African political philosophy, states “that the king owed his status, including all the powers associated with it, to the will of the people under him.”
It has thus been argued that Ubuntu is associated with the affirmation of personhood and human dignity. It is important to note that both human dignity and Ubuntu are intrinsically tied to an ethical ideal of what it means to be a human being.
From a moral perspective, moreover, Ubuntu is viewed as a basic attitude of mutual respect and recognition of the rights of others in order to promote human dignity and harmonious, peaceful coexistence.
Therefore, Ubuntu makes a powerful case for a shared humanity, and it is this concept of shared humanity that provides for the possibilities of reconciliation in conflict and post‑conflict societies.
The Principle of Pacific Dispute Resolution in International Law
The bedrock of international dispute settlement is captured in the UN Charter, which states that the first purpose of the United Nations is:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
The UN Charter additionally provides that:
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Furthermore, there are several UN General Assembly resolutions that are fundamental in articulating the principle of Pacific Dispute Resolution, such as resolutions 2627 (XXV) adopted in October 1970, 2734 (XXV) adopted in December 1970, and 40/98 adopted in November 1985.
However, the most important of the UN General Assembly’s resolutions in the present context is the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (the Friendly Relations Declaration), which states that “States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.”
The 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, which is an annex the General Assembly resolution 37/10, reaffirmed the principles set out in the UN Charter to the effect that all states shall settle their disputes by peaceful means. These “peaceful means” for dispute settlement are identified in Chapter VI, Article 33 of the UN Charter and include negotiations, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, or resort to regional agencies.
The principle of pacific dispute settlement is related to other principles of international law. These corollary principles are mainly captured in the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration:
- States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
- The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, in accordance with the UN Charter.
- The principle that states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered.
- The principle of sovereign equality of all UN member states.
- The principle that states shall fulfill in good faith the obligations and duties assumed by them to cooperate with one another in accordance with the UN Charter.
These principles are interrelated, and in their application, the ideal position is that each principle should be construed in the context of other principles.
Ubuntu identifies with a deeply cohesive and relational versions of power, as it is argued to be circular, organic, and collectivist as opposed to linear, materialist, and individualistic.
The breadth of vision and the loftiness of the principle of pacific settlement of disputes has had tremendous influence on the global order. Significantly, it finds resonance with the principle of Ubuntu in so far as dispute resolution is considered a desirable ideal.
Ubuntu and Dispute Resolution
The adversarial paradigm that is characteristic of the conception of power in the global North is thought of in conflictual terms. Power can be considered a complex reality, with breadths of facets that can be operationalized in different ways. If power can be examined in terms of a broad spectrum, then on one end we could identify authoritarian and oppressive forms, while on the other end, we could speak of deeply cohesive and relational versions of power. Ubuntu identifies with the latter notion of power, as it is argued to be circular, organic, and collectivist as opposed to linear, materialist, and individualistic.
An agreed consensus of Ubuntu philopraxis is that peace through the concrete realization of justice is the fundamental law of Ubuntu philosophy, and that justice and peace contribute to cosmic harmony.
Ubuntu has to be examined in the context of the African socio‑political and cultural milieu, whereby rationality is interpreted in terms of societal harmony. Harmony in the African socio‑cultural and political context understands that the well‑being of every member is dependent on the well‑being of the social body as a whole. In other words, a web of relations free from friction and conflict constitutes rationality.
Ubuntu‑inspired dispute resolution discourse would require a display of humanness, showing hospitality, generosity, care, and compassion as well as the acknowledgment that that opponents bear intrinsic worth as human beings. Ubuntu cultivates dialogue and communication not only for its own sake but with a higher purpose in mind. Ubuntu strives for cohesion, consensus, and mutual exposure in dialogue. Ubuntu ingrains an appreciation that the notion of humanness underlies our being—that our common humanity allows us to think and talk differently about our perceived interests and identity. In essence, Ubuntu inculcates an understanding that any society cannot be considered to be in its best‑possible, much less ideal state if it does not embrace or use, as a regulatory maxim, the basic and universal values that underlie all human nature—dignity, mutual recognition, and respect. These values, which are integral to Ubuntu, ought to characterize all dealings between human beings.
Ubuntu fashions an organic worldview that is premised on harmony and cohesion, and which operates from the premise that human nature is profoundly relational and oriented to minding others.
Ubuntu fashions an organic worldview that is premised on harmony and cohesion, and which operates from the premise that human nature is profoundly relational and oriented to minding others. Ubuntu, therefore, becomes useful in negotiations, as like‑minded individuals are able to transcend their differences and identity in the pursuit of a higher principle and grounded in the belief that the other possesses dignity and is worthy of respect—namely, that “my humanity is caught up, inextricably bound up in yours.”
Dispute resolution entails identifying the root cause of the problem and engaging all concerned in addressing the underlying issues. The offending party is usually saddled with the obligation of offering apologies and compensation. The sense of justice derived from an Ubuntu‑influenced process is based on the idea that whatever outcome is the result needs to improve the relationship of the protagonist parties and that the outcome will be wise and practical.
Resolving the Russia‑Ukraine Impasse: Lessons from Ubuntu
Armed conflict in eastern Ukraine erupted in early 2014 following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Therefore, the dispute between the two countries can be traced to a dispute regarding territory. State territory is an emotional matter in international relations, law, and politics because territory is the spatial sphere within which a state’s sovereignty is ordinarily manifested. The external intervention by Russia on Ukrainian territory has put severe stress on Ukraine, continuing a pattern in recent years where the principle of territorial integrity has faced tremendous challenges.
Skepticism has been expressed about the inability of the traditional tools of international law to resolve the impasse between Russia and Ukraine owing to the fragile, uncertain, and ineffective status of the international system capstoned by the UN Charter in establishing durable peace and cooperation between states and peoples. One challenge that has been identified with regards to the weakness of the international legal system in terms of its effectiveness is the lack of a centralized authority to enforce its edicts. The envisaged interdependence within the global order under the UN framework has also been significantly frayed by the inability of states to respect the rules that ought to govern world order.
The inability of the United Nations to deal with the Russia‑Ukraine dispute has to be understood in the context of the organization’s institutional architecture. The function of international peace and security is primarily placed within the ambit of the UN Security Council, with UN member states obligated to carry out the Security Council’s decisions pursuant to the powers granted to it under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. In the context of the Russia‑Ukraine dispute, the contentious politics within the UN Security Council—especially amongst its five permanent members—has ensured that a paralysis ensues, and as such, not much has been achieved in terms of the UN’s peace and security mandate.
The fashionable portrait of international law as a “toothless tiger,” which is premised on the assumption that national self‑interest takes precedence over the rules of international law, is therefore reinforced by the apparent paralysis. In this regard, the use of force (except in instances allowed under the UN Charter, like the inherent right of the self‑defense of UN member states in the event of an armed attack) becomes an obvious example of national interests overriding considerations of international law. Though it must be admitted that the domain of politics and the realm of law are inextricably intermeshed, the current dire state of affairs threatens the relative peaceful order that has been ensured under the aegis of the UN system. It is not entirely hopeless, if the ideals that animate the UN are reconsidered and reinvigorated by the use of pollinating ideals drawn from Ubuntu.
Although it is difficult to render precisely into Western language and thought, Ubuntu should be understood as simply denoting three things that connote humanity in line with the vision, ideals, and principles that undergird the United Nations: sharing, belonging, and participation. For example, interdependence and humanness ideals are resplendent in the UN Charter, reflected in the enumeration of requirements for state cooperation and respect of human rights.
The utility of Ubuntu is that its embrace can ensure that the efforts to resolve the dispute between Russia and Ukraine cascade down to the ordinary people, shaping their views about each other by engendering an attitude of hospitability, friendliness, care, and compassion.
The utility of Ubuntu is that its embrace can ensure that the efforts to resolve the dispute between Russia and Ukraine cascade down to the ordinary people, shaping their views about each other by engendering an attitude of hospitability, friendliness, care, and compassion. In denying individuality and by defining an individual in terms of wholeness, Ubuntu—as a concept—orients thinking in two ways.
Firstly, the interests of the people of Russia and Ukraine are thought of in relational and higher principal terms. The emphasis on interdependence and the inherent dignity of the people of either country becomes a pivotal focus of negotiations, engendering mutual respect. Ubuntu will emphasize the fact that the people of Russia and Ukraine share a common heritage and a common bond as human beings with dignity, making it important that negotiations and a resolution to the conflict that respects their collective humanness be found.
Secondly, having recourse to Ubuntu means that the conversation is elevated to move beyond personalities and personal interests. For example, the needs and interests of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians—understood as being above or beyond the interests and politics of presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy—become urgent and more pressing items for negotiation and eventual resolution. Ubuntu’s appeal to higher normative ideals ensures that politicians and their political interests cede way for a broader conversation about common ground and the binding, traditional ties between the two countries that should resuscitate the brotherly/sisterly bonds that have existed for years. The concept of Ubuntu—in its emphasis on the value of collective existence within the community instead of individual value—trains the eye on the importance of working together so as to ensure survival.
The deliberative tools of conflict resolution can derive benefit from the deeply relational values embedded in Ubuntu: tolerance, respect, and the acknowledgment of a shared humanity.
The Ubuntu value of fairness should inform a post‑conflict inquiry rooted in acknowledged relationships and justice. Ubuntu should be able to help nurture restoration and healing in a post‑conflict situation, since it recognizes a connection between all people and a need for harmonious living. Ubuntu would reinforce the idea that conflicts must be resolved in order to prevent them from escalating into violent actions and thereby ensure the peaceful, harmonious, and stable existence of peoples, who would come to view each other not as antagonists but, rather, as persons that share the same humanity.
Dispute resolution using the Ubuntu ideal has always been employed at the community level in Africa, whereby councils of elders or community leaders take the lead in resolving disputes and seeking justice. This local dispute resolution model can be used in the Russia‑Ukraine conflict, which has been characterized by nationalistic fervor and tension. These local communities that have lived together for years can resolve their differences by sourcing answers to divisive issues from among themselves and then doing the same at higher levels.
Being that conflicts must be understood in their social context, it would be profitable to deal with the fears, suspicions, needs, interests, values, and root causes of the conflict from a local perspective through dialogue. As construed in local paradigms, justice plays a significant moral and ethical role as it imbues a feeling of widespread acceptability.
Ubuntu’s Aim
Conflicts are inevitable in human life. The aim of conflict resolution in African societies, at least from the perspective of Ubuntu, is to mend broken or damaged relationships, rectify wrongs, and restore justice. From an Ubuntu perspective, conflict resolution aims to induce a mood of cooperation and the achievement of harmony by settling disputes in a manner that improves relationships. As an animating philosophy of conflict resolution in Africa and of widespread application and appreciation, Ubuntu is malleable enough to be of use in multiple aspects of international life, including sociology, a moral quality, a worldview, a philosophy, or an ethical framework.
Ubuntu is particularly attractive as a tool for its potential dovetailing properties, which can fit within the existing framework of conflict resolution in the existing global order and, as such, should not be subjected to the accusation that it is mere romanticism. Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with the pacific settlement of disputes, provides for methods of dispute settlement that can accommodate Ubuntu’s conceptual advantages. Mediation, good offices, conciliation, negotiation, and other unnamed peaceful means envisaged under Article 33 of the UN Charter are discursive processes. The deliberative tools of conflict resolution can derive benefit from the deeply relational values embedded in Ubuntu: tolerance, respect, and the acknowledgment of a shared humanity.
The significance and meaning of Ubuntu as a one‑word social statement is certainly not vaunted as an elixir or panacea that will solve all problems. But Ubuntu does serve to remind us of values considered essential for all human beings.
