The news filtered through, almost like an aside in the grand theater of the United Nations General Assembly: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, meeting with Donald Trump, proposed an energy truce with Russia. The idea, as reported, is to halt attacks on each other's energy systems. On its face, it sounds like a sensible de-escalation, a moment of pragmatism in a brutal conflict. But from where I sit, looking out from the Global South, these pronouncements from the world’s power centers rarely tell the whole story, and often obscure the suffering of those furthest from the negotiating tables.
For generations, the Global South has been caught in the crosscurrents of geopolitical rivalries, often paying the highest price for conflicts not of its making. We've seen our resources extracted to fuel wars elsewhere, our markets destabilized by sanctions and counter-sanctions, and our people left to cope with the cascading effects of decisions made in faraway capitals. So, when the leaders of nations at war propose a "truce" that focuses on their own strategic assets, one can’t help but ask: who benefits, and more importantly, who is still left out in the cold?
Consider the context: for two years now, the world has grappled with the ripples of this war. Energy prices surged, fertilizer supplies dwindled, and food security became a desperate daily concern for millions in places like sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Southeast Asia. These weren’t abstract economic models; these were families unable to put food on the table, farmers facing ruin, and nascent industries struggling to keep the lights on. The "energy systems" being attacked and defended in Ukraine have global consequences, but the vulnerability is rarely distributed evenly.
A truce that protects the energy infrastructure of warring nations is, of course, a step towards stability for them. But does it address the underlying currents that continue to impact the world? Does it immediately lower the cost of fuel for a fisherman in Ghana, or bring down the price of bread in Cairo? Will it ease the burden of debt piled upon nations whose economies were already fragile, now pushed to the brink by inflation and supply chain disruptions exacerbated by this very conflict? The focus on "their" energy systems, while understandable from their perspective, can feel profoundly self-serving when viewed from the perspective of persistent global hardship.
Kwame Nkrumah, a voice of liberation from my continent, once spoke of neo-colonialism – the idea that even after independence, powerful nations could continue to exert control through economic means. In today's interconnected world, this control is often exercised through the manipulation of vital resources, like energy. When major energy producers and consumers go to war, and then negotiate a truce for their *own* benefit, it highlights the enduring vulnerability of those who are merely recipients, not architects, of global energy flows.
This isn't to diminish the suffering of those caught in the direct line of fire in Ukraine. War is a horror, and any genuine step towards peace is welcome. However, we must remain morally insistent that the pursuit of peace cannot be a narrow, self-interested affair. True peace, and true stability, demands a holistic view that acknowledges the interconnectedness of our world and the disproportionate burdens borne by the most vulnerable.
So, while the headlines herald a potential energy truce, I find myself thinking of the millions who still lack reliable access to energy, whose economies are still reeling, and whose voices are rarely heard in the opulent halls of the UN. Let us celebrate any reduction in hostilities, but let us also press for a broader understanding of peace – one that genuinely addresses the global impact of conflict and works towards energy justice for *all*, not just for those with the power to negotiate their own exemptions. The people of the Global South deserve more than just the leftovers of great power politics; they deserve a seat at the table, and a future where their survival isn't a footnote to another nation's truce.