Opinion: The Global South is moving forward

The Global South is exhibiting political and economic power that the ‘developing countries’ and the ‘Third World’ have never had

Jorge Heine

The reluctance of many major countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America to side with NATO over the Ukraine war has brought the term “global south” into focus again.

“Why do so many countries in the global south support Russia?” check a recent headline; “Ukraine courts ‘global south’ to challenge Russia,” declares another.

But what does this term mean? Why has it become more and more popular in recent years?

The Global South refers to countries around the world that are sometimes described as “developing”, “less developed” or “underdeveloped”. Many of these countries (though not all) are located in the southern hemisphere, mainly in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

On the whole, they are poorer, have higher income inequality, lower life expectancy, and worse living conditions than countries in the “global north” (i.e., the wealthier countries mainly in North America and Europe, plus some). Oceania and elsewhere.

Beyond the “Third World”

The term “global south” appears to have been first used in 1969 by political activist Carl Oglesby. Writing in the liberal Catholic journal Commonwealth, Oglesby noted that the Vietnam War was the culmination of the North’s history of “domination of the global South.”

But it wasn’t until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 – which marked the end of the so-called “Second World” – that the term took off. Prior to this, the more common term for developing countries (countries that had not yet fully industrialized) was “Third World”.

The term was coined by Alfred Sauvy in 1952 to compare the three classes in French history: the nobility, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. The term “First World” refers to the advanced capitalist countries; the “Second World”, the socialist countries led by the Soviet Union; and the “Third World” to the developing countries, many of which were still colonial at the time under the rule.

The term was further popularized by sociologist Peter Worsley in his 1964 book, The Third World: The Important New Power in International Affairs. The book also notes that the “Third World” forms the backbone of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was founded three years ago as a reaction to bipolar Cold War alignments.

Despite Worsley’s positive views on the “Third World,” the term was associated with countries suffering from poverty, squalor and instability. The “Third World” became synonymous with banana republics run by useless dictators – a caricature spread by the Western media.

The collapse of the Soviet Union—and the consequent end of the so-called Second World—also provided a convenient excuse for the disappearance of the term “Third World.” The use of the term declined rapidly in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, “developed”, “developing” and “underdeveloped” have also faced criticism for portraying Western countries as ideal and backward. The term that is increasingly being used to replace them is the more neutral-sounding “global south”.

geopolitics not geography

The term “global south” is not geographical. In fact, the two largest countries in the southern hemisphere — China and India — are located entirely in the northern hemisphere. Instead, its use suggests a mixture of political, geopolitical, and economic commonalities between countries.

Countries in the South are mostly recipients of imperialism and colonial rule, with African countries perhaps the most obvious example. This leads them to think very differently about the relationship between the political-economic center and the periphery of the world—or, simply, “the West and the rest”—as described by dependency theorists.

Given the unbalanced relationship between many countries of the South and the North in the past (whether during the imperial era or during the Cold War), it is no wonder that many countries today choose not to ally themselves with either great power. While the terms “third world” and “underdeveloped” convey an image of economic impotence, the same is not true of the “countries of the South”.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, as the World Bank said, the “wealth transfer” from the North Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region has overturned many traditional ideas about where the world’s wealth is produced.

By 2030, three of the four largest economies are expected to be from the Global South, China, India, the United States, and Indonesia in that order. The purchasing power GDP of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), mainly in the southern hemisphere, has surpassed that of the G7 clubs in the northern hemisphere. Beijing now has more billionaires than New York City.

Economic Transformation

This economic shift has gone hand in hand with increased political visibility. Countries in the southern hemisphere are increasingly flexing their muscles on the global stage — whether it’s China brokering a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Brazil trying to push a peace plan to end the war in Ukraine.

This shift in economic and political power has prompted geopolitical experts such as Parag Khanna and Kishore Mahbubani to write about the coming “Asian Century”. Others, like the political scientist Oliver Stuenkel, have begun to speak of a “post-Western world”.

One thing is certain: the global South is exhibiting political and economic power that the “developing countries” and the “third world” never had.

theconversation.com