Advertisement
A farmer works in a rice paddy in Vietnam. The diversity within the “Global South” defies simplistic narratives. Photo: AFP

The “Global South” has become a buzzword in international affairs, as developing nations demand a more equitable global order. But how well does this framing actually capture the complex realities of regions like Southeast Asia?

Advertisement
The resurgence of Global South discourse has been fuelled by intensifying great power competition, as China, India and others vie for influence by positioning themselves as its champion.
China has become adept at co-opting “Global South” language to critique the West and advance its own interests, touting the need for “true multilateralism” and “universally beneficial” globalisation. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged Asean leaders to “elevate the Global South for the common interest of all”. And Japan has sought to be a bridge between the Global South and North.

Yet the diversity within the Global South itself defies simplistic narratives. Southeast Asian nations, for instance, exhibit a range of development levels, security concerns, and economic ties that set them apart from a monolithic view of the “developing world”. While sharing some common challenges, these countries make foreign policy choices primarily based on their national interests rather than aligning wholly with Global South rhetoric.

This nuance is often lost amid the grand pronouncements of major powers. As they compete to lead and represent the Global South, they risk papering over the very heterogeneity that defines it. True solidarity requires understanding the Global South’s complexity, not subsuming it into convenient geopolitical categories.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has previously said his country is “becoming the voice of the Global South”. Photo: EPA-EFE
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has previously said his country is “becoming the voice of the Global South”. Photo: EPA-EFE

Global South: what’s in a name?

What the term “Global South” entails and whether it merits any analytical or policy relevance remains contentious, given the diverse array of developing countries it encompasses. Its meanings are often appropriated by different countries to advance their own agendas, but it generally denotes the socio-economic divide between the industrialised “North” and the postcolonial developing “South”.

Advertisement