by Erik Lenhart and Michael Tkacik – Asia Times
Term often perpetuates a stereotype that pits less developed countries against their more developed counterparts
The term “Global South” has become increasingly prevalent in discussions about international relations, development and geopolitics. However, unlike the more precisely defined “Indo-Pacific,” the “Global South” lacks clear geographic boundaries and explicit meaning.
This lack of clarity is problematic because it can lead to suboptimal policy choices. It is important to communicate clearly among policymakers and with other countries.
Origins and usage
The term “Indo-Pacific” was popularized by the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2016. In contrast, “Global South” emerged as an exonym, coined by American activist Carl Oglesby in 1969 during the context of the Vietnam War. While “Indo-Pacific” is an endonym, self-designated and propagated by Japan, other countries in the region including the US, Australia, India and South Korea later adopted it. In contrast, “Global South” lacks a unified self-designation or ownership.
Global North vs Global South
Interestingly, there isn’t as much talk about the “Global North” in the northern hemisphere. Unlike the “Global South,” which lacks clear boundaries, the Global North isn’t equivalent to specific groups like the G7, NATO, or the EU. Illiberal northern powers like China and Russia pursue an alternative multipolar world order, distinct from the collective West.
Even within Western countries, differences exist in how they address global challenges from Russian invasion to Ukraine to situation in Gaza. The lack of a “Global North” accurately reflects the diverse nature of the developed states and developing countries in northern hemisphere.
Institutional challenges
The “Global South” also lacks its own umbrella institutions. Regional organizations (for example, ASEAN, African Union, Mercosur) focus on specific areas rather than the entire southern hemisphere. Similarly, there are developing countries in Europe (for example, Albania, Moldova), challenging the notion that development issues are exclusive to the southern hemisphere.
Nuanced reality
The southern hemisphere encompasses a wide range of countries with varying levels of socio-economic and technological development. From developed liberal democracies like Australia and New Zealand to failed states like Somalia and South Sudan, the diversity is immense.
During the Cold War, the term “third world countries” was used, but it reflected a broad generalization that didn’t capture the nuances of development.
The term “Global South” often perpetuates a stereotype that pits less developed countries against their more developed counterparts. This patronizing attitude, unfortunately, persists among some developed nations.
Moreover, the practice of selectively inviting “Global South representatives” to forums like the G7 raises questions.
For example, Japan, alongside regional powerhouses such as Australia, Brazil, India and South Korea, extended invitations to Comoros (the chair of the African Union in 2023), the Cook Islands (holding the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2023), Indonesia (chairing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2023), and Vietnam (Japan’s strategic partner within ASEAN) to the 49th G7 Summit held in Hiroshima in May 2023.
This cherry-picking of participants is not arbitrary. Instead, it serves the interests of the organizers more than it benefits the invitees.
While it could provide a platform for ad hoc cooperation, guided by an external power, and for selected emerging and developing countries to recognize their shared interests and challenges, in essence this selective approach falls short of creating a robust and organic regional identity of the invitees.
In summary, the “Global South” is an imperfect label. As we discuss global issues, let’s recognize the rich diversity within the southern hemisphere and avoid oversimplification. Historically, positive examples abound:
– South Korea, once among the poorest Asian countries, transformed into an economic powerhouse and global technology leader.
-Taiwan, itself once poor, is nipping at the heels of Japan’s per capita income.
-The success stories of Central and Eastern European countries’ EU and NATO membership demonstrate remarkable transformations and resilience.
Conversely, Venezuela, wealthy in the mid-20th century, has faced significant challenges in recent decades.
As the UK exited the EU’s single market and customs union in 2021, it could be argued that Brexit hindered further growth. In the bigger picture, the UK’s trade relative to its economy size lagged behind other major nations post-pandemic. Most of the 71 new trade deals signed merely replicate old EU agreements, and their impact remains uncertain.
After all, success stories and failures can emerge from unexpected places, regardless of their position on the map.
………………………………….