Defending universal rules: Why sovereign equality matters for the Global South

Standing with Cuba and upholding Iran’s sovereignty is fundamentally about defending sovereign equality. It does not mean endorsing every policy of either government.

Africa and the broader Global-South community ought to stand for Cuba and Iran not because they agree with all their domestic policies, but because core principles are at stake.

The core question is straightforward: should powerful states be permitted to impose coercive economic measures or threaten the use of force against another sovereign state without meaningful multilateral mandate and accountability?

 If the Global-South accepts this as normal practice, similar logic may one day be directed against themselves.

Supporting Cuba and defending Iran’s sovereignty is, therefore, not purely ideological solidarity. It acts as institutional insurance for the Global South.

It is critical to distinguish between sanctions authorised by multilateral UN bodies and unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions imposed by individual nations outside UN frameworks.

Recent decades furnish abundant real‑world examples: the United States has frequently deployed unilateral and secondary sanctions outside UN mandates, and changes in domestic political leadership can shift the scope and targets of such coercive tools with little advance consultation with affected third‑world states.

Cuba: Six decades of a sanctions regime

For decades, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly called for an end to U.S. economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba.

The issue has appeared on its agenda since 1991 through successive resolutions.

Controversy intensified in 2026 following new measures targeting third-party nations supplying fuel to Cuba.

The UN secretary-general voiced concern over humanitarian harm from Cuba’s fuel shortages and called for dialogue, cooperation and respect for international law.

The stakes extend well beyond Cuba itself.

Sanctions often originate from specific political disputes, yet they set precedents: can one major power dictate the economic relations of another sovereign state and pressure third-country trading partners? If sovereign equality means anything, it must apply equally to small states and great powers.

Summit‑time rhetorical commitments to multilateralism offer limited safeguard against such unilateral instruments, because domestic political priorities can override international diplomatic statements.

Iran: The danger of selective rules

Iran presents distinct yet connected challenges. Legitimate international concerns persist regarding its nuclear programme, regional posture and human-rights situation.

The United Nations has stressed such disputes ought to be resolved under the UN Charter and international law.

In February 2026, the president of the General Assembly urged the United States, Israel and Iran to de-escalate and return to diplomatic negotiation.

Still one principle cannot be overlooked: international rules should not bind only states lacking power to resist.

 The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, requiring peaceful settlement of disputes.

This principle does not oblige African or Global-South states to approve every Iranian policy; it demands consistency in rule-application across all nations.

A credible international order cannot demand compliance from weaker states while treating violations by powerful states as geopolitical expediency.

 UN officials have repeatedly highlighted the special responsibility of major powers to uphold peace and the UN Charter.

Why Africa cannot afford to stand aside

Three sets of practical considerations explain why Africa cannot remain indifferent.

First, immediate economic spill-over. Middle-Eastern instability rarely stays confined within the region.

Shocks spread through energy prices, shipping costs, fertiliser and food markets, fuelling inflation across Africa.

 The president of the UN General Assembly has warned that regional turbulence threatens global oil supply, fuel costs and international trade.

Many African economies already struggle with high import bills and limited fiscal space; prolonged geopolitical confrontation may quickly escalate into development crises.

When unilateral coercive measures are activated by a major power, third‑party developing nations often absorb a large share of the resulting economic damage, even if they play no part in the original dispute.

Second, multilateralism is one of the few sources of leverage for developing nations. Most African states lack the military, financial and technological weight of great powers.

Their influence depends heavily on collective diplomacy, international law and multilateral institutions.

The UN system is imperfect; the Security Council is constrained by geopolitical rivalry and veto power. Abandoning multilateralism would not empower Africa; it would leave smaller countries more exposed to unilateral pressure.

The realistic path is reform toward greater representativeness and consistent enforcement rather than wholesale rejection. Reform progress faces huge practical political barriers.

Third, today’s exception can harden into tomorrow’s norm. History shows extraordinary coercive measures tend to become normalized over time.

Unilateral sanctions, secondary sanctions, extraterritorial restrictions and threats of force expand the boundaries of what powerful actors regard as permissible.

Once accepted, the dividing-line between temporary exception and standard state behaviour blurs. Silence offers no guarantee of immunity.

Solidarity without blind endorsement

Standing with Cuba or defending Iran’s sovereignty must never equal unconditional approval of every government action. This distinction is indispensable.

African nations may criticise human-rights violations, question nuclear-related policies, oppose terrorism and demand governance transparency, while simultaneously upholding sovereign equality and rejecting unilateral coercion.

These positions are not contradictory; they underpin a genuine rule-based international system.

The Global South should reject the assumption that solidarity requires complete political conformity.

The guiding norm should be simple: identical international rules apply to powerful states and developing states alike. All countries are expected to abide by international law.

A question of self-preservation

Ultimately debates over Cuba and Iran are not only about these two countries. They shape what kind of international order Africa and the Global South will inhabit.

 If sovereignty depends on geopolitical alignment, developing countries remain permanently vulnerable.

 If international law is applied selectively, small states lose protection. If unilateral coercion becomes routine, economic sovereignty grows fragile.

By consistently defending sovereign equality, peaceful dispute settlement and multilateral decision-making, developing countries gain more than temporary political support: they acquire a rules-based shield against arbitrary power.

Africa and the Global-South do not face a forced binary.

They can defend the sovereign rights of other nations and maintain independent foreign policy at the same time.

It is possible to disagree with governments while defending foundational principles; to demand accountability while opposing unilateral coercion; to engage all major powers without becoming tools for any single side.

Above all, they should recognise international law is not a privilege granted by the strong to the weak. It exists to protect the weak from arbitrary exercise of power.

Defending the sovereignty of other states is ultimately self-defence for the Global South. Universal rules cannot exist if they apply only to weaker nations.

While multilateral institutions carry structural flaws, reform — not rejection — offers the most realistic path for developing countries.

The alternative of accepting arbitrary power will leave small and medium-sized states perpetually exposed.

Upholding sovereign equality does not require blind endorsement of every government’s conduct. It requires consistent respect for shared international norms for all.

*Saxon Zvina is an independent commentator focusing on international relations, resource governance, energy transition and African development. His writings examine how developing-world nations can pursue strategic autonomy amid shifting global geopolitics, covering topics spanning critical mineral value chains, multilateral diplomacy, people-centred modernisation and renewable-energy development.