For centuries, people have argued that morality should guide human behavior. We praise honesty, condemn injustice, and celebrate compassion. Yet when we examine the conduct of nations, a different reality emerges. States often speak the language of morality while acting according to the language of interest. This uncomfortable truth lies at the heart of geopolitics.
The international system is not governed by a world government capable of enforcing moral behavior. Instead, it is an arena where sovereign states pursue survival, security, prosperity, and influence. While morality influences public opinion and diplomacy, it is rarely the deciding factor when vital national interests are at stake. Perhaps no statement captures this reality better than the words attributed to the Thucydides during the Melian Dialogue: the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. Though written more than two thousand years ago, this observation remains remarkably relevant. It describes a world in which power shapes outcomes more than justice does.
The Hierarchy of State Decision-Making
When governments make strategic decisions, they generally follow an unwritten hierarchy.
First comes survival.
A government’s primary responsibility is protecting its territory, people, and sovereignty. Without survival, every other principle becomes meaningless.
Second comes national interest.
Economic prosperity, access to resources, military security, technological superiority, and geopolitical influence become central objectives.
Third comes leverage.
Leverage is the ability to influence others through military strength, economic power, diplomatic alliances, technological leadership, or strategic geography.
Only after these considerations does morality significantly influence policy. This does not mean morality disappears. It means morality often operates within the boundaries established by power.
The Difference Between Moral Language and Strategic Behavior
Governments frequently justify their actions using moral principles. Military interventions are presented as humanitarian missions. Economic sanctions are described as defending international law. Alliances are framed as protecting democracy or preserving peace. Sometimes these claims are sincere. Sometimes they are not. More often, morality and national interest overlap. When they do, governments can pursue strategic objectives while simultaneously claiming moral high ground. However, when morality directly conflicts with vital national interests, history suggests that interests usually prevail.
History’s Lessons
During the Second World War, democratic nations formed an alliance with Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union despite its authoritarian nature. The reason was simple: defeating Nazi Germany was considered a greater strategic necessity. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union supported authoritarian governments around the world whenever doing so strengthened their respective geopolitical positions. Even today, nations often criticize the human rights records of rival states while remaining comparatively silent about similar behavior from important allies. These contradictions are not random. They reflect the reality that states calculate costs and benefits before acting.
Why Leverage Matters More Than Moral Arguments
One of the harsh realities of international politics is that moral arguments become far more persuasive when backed by leverage. A country with a strong economy, advanced technology, capable armed forces, and reliable allies possesses influence that weaker nations do not. Power does not determine what is morally right. But power often determines whether moral claims are heard, respected, or ignored. Justice without leverage may inspire sympathy. Justice with leverage can produce results.
This explains why powerful countries often shape international institutions, negotiate favorable agreements, and influence global norms more successfully than weaker states. The same pattern shows up in how moral scrutiny itself gets distributed. Western media outlets will readily sit a Ghanaian or Ugandan lawmaker down and press them on LGBTQ rights but rarely extend the same line of questioning to officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or other Gulf states, where the legal position is often just as restrictive. The inconsistency is not really about principle. Gulf states control energy supplies the West depends on, host strategic military bases, and anchor trade and investment relationships that most African states do not have comparable leverage to offer. Moral scrutiny, in other words, tends to flow toward those who can least resist it and away from those who hold the cards.
Nigeria and the Politics of Power
This principle has important implications for Nigeria.
Dwelling on the past is not where progress lies. The more useful question is forward-looking: what does Nigeria need to build so that it can meet the rest of the world as a peer rather than a supplicant? The answer is the same leverage that shapes outcomes everywhere else in geopolitics: a diversified and productive economy, political cohesion, technological capability, a credible security apparatus, and disciplined diplomacy. Not moral appeals, but the kind of strength that makes a seat at the table something other countries have to grant rather than something Nigeria must request.
A stronger, more self-sufficient Nigeria would negotiate from a position of leverage rather than dependence. History suggests that nations listen more carefully when the speaker possesses influence, and that the surest way for Nigeria to shape outcomes in its own favor is to build the kind of strength that makes its interests impossible to ignore.
Does Morality Matter at All?
Absolutely.
Morality influences international law. It shapes public opinion. It affects diplomacy. It contributes to a country’s reputation and soft power. Over time, moral legitimacy can become a strategic asset. However, morality alone rarely overrides a state’s core interests. Governments may sacrifice profits for principles. They may even accept economic costs for moral reasons. but very few governments willingly sacrifice their survival or long-term security purely for ethical ideals.
Conclusion
The world is often described as a contest between right and wrong. Geopolitics reminds us that it is also a contest between strength and weakness. This does not mean morality is irrelevant. It means morality is most effective when reinforced by leverage. The enduring lesson of Thucydides is not that justice has no value, but that justice is difficult to secure without power. In geopolitics, morality gives states legitimacy. Interests determine objectives. Leverage determines outcomes. For nations seeking justice, the path forward is not to abandon morality, but to build the strength that allows morality to be translated into lasting political reality, and that guarantees the past is never repeated.