Simplifying complex phenomena by generalization and breaking them down into their constituent parts is necessary for anybody involved in International Relations. These intellectual activities are known as synthesis and analysis, and we need them to categorize various units of international relations, among other things. When improperly performed, they might lead to a skewed understanding of the complex phenomena. This understanding (or rather misunderstanding) reduces, instead of augmenting, our capacity to make appropriate decisions.
The term “Global South” was coined by scholars of the left-wing intellectual tradition to emphasize the oppressed status of certain states and, at the same time, move away from the hierarchical nature of the previously popular designations of economically less developed and politically less stable countries such as “third world,” “periphery,” and “developing.” However, this term came to represent everything and nothing simultaneously.
As mentioned, any categorizations and generalizations, by definition, simplify the complex reality into easier-to-understand terms that can be discussed, analyzed, and used as the basis for future projections. However, the “Global South – Global North” dichotomy is particularly reductionist as no states are the same across most characteristics. Two states might be from the same region and have the same political regime. However, they will not simultaneously share the same history and its interpretation, have the same political culture, GDP per capita, level of social progress, and geopolitical allegiance. Nevertheless, forcing states into the narrow “Global South-Global North” binary became popular, usually for ideological reasons, ignoring the nuance and outright geographical inaccuracies. This term became widespread in media, think tank reports, and respected journals. Its use has increased over 15 times since 2009. Politicians, world leaders, and the heads of international organizations actively employ this term in their speeches and interviews.
“Global South” in the Left Tradition
According to Marxist theory, material conditions play an essential role in society, and the capitalist system is the root cause of most, if not all, problems. This framework produced multiple explanations of relationships between the North and South. For example, in his “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Lenin argued that capitalism in its late stages evolves into imperialism, which, in turn, leads to the expansion to other states in search of new markets, resources, and, ultimately, profit. It inevitably leads to violence and colonialism. However, it is unclear why the imperialist states not only abandoned colonialism but also no longer tried to reestablish it.
Another Marxist thinker, Antonio Gramsci, offered an elaborate vision of the relations between the rich and poor states. He described the hegemonic status of developed countries to the rest of the world. This hegemony is sustained simultaneously through consent and coercion, which sets it apart from pure domination or imperialism. Most, if not all, international organizations are meant to uphold this hegemony and cannot be relied upon in forming “counter-hegemony.” Many left-wing scholars see international relationships through these lenses. The Global South-Global North dialectic is natural for this framework.
However, these notions struggle to explain how formerly poor countries, such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan, became wealthy and developed in the oppressive capitalist system of domination. More importantly, they are oblivious to the unjust nature of non-capitalist states not only in their domestic affairs but internationally. The most obvious example is the People’s Republic of China, which is presently executing full-scale genocide of its Muslim Uigour population, suppresses other national movements, and, perhaps, is one of a few countries that systematically persecute Christians. Besides, the state is known for its aggressive practices with its economic partners, which manifest in predatory loans, financial and military pressure, and interference in their domestic affairs. Hambantota International Port is one of the most known examples of China’s predatory loans to other states. The Chinese government provided high-interest financing for the new port under the condition of giving construction contracts to the Chinese firms and workers, all knowing that the project was not feasible from the beginning. When the port failed to generate desired return on investment and Sri Lankan government could not repay the loan, China took over the port for the 99-year lease and tweeted triumphantly, “Another milestone along the path of #BeltandRoad.” The Chinese government provides similar supposedly “no strings attached” loans across Africa, Latin America, and Europe. This example ideally fits Marxist hegemonic concerns as the root of all injustices, except in this case, the hegemon is the Chinese Communist Party, and its victims are non-socialist states across the world.
There are countless other contemporary and historical examples where the “Global South” oppresses the “Global South,” the phenomenon that is hard to elucidate within the South-North binary, and questioning how “Global” the South is. The popular on-campus postcolonial theory provides even less value in explaining the oppressor-victim South-North dynamic, as brilliantly illustrated by Maximilian Felsch in “The Scientific Shortcomings of Postcolonial Theory.” First, the framework is explicitly one-sided in blaming Western states for foreign interventions. For example, it focuses on the short-lived presence of the UK and France in the Middle East in the 20th century while overlooking the more profound effects of 500 years of Ottoman conquest and colonization. It virtually ignores the Russian colonization of Siberia, the Far East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. The postcolonial movement pays no heed to Chinese expansion in Africa, which strikingly resembles colonialism, and does not mention its present-day genocide of the Muslim minority. Suppose the “North” was always an oppressor. What can we say about the Arab conquest of Spain and Northern Africa, the Ottoman’s takeover of the Byzantine Empire, and its subsequent slave trade from Africa and Eastern Europe? What should we make of Turkish actions in Cyprus in 1974, the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, and Mongol invasions across Europe? It is not an exhaustive list of examples that postcolonial theory and the South-North dichotomy ignore.
Thus, it presents states of the South as passive victims, taking away their agency, which is not only factually inaccurate but also disrespectful to these states and their history.
Complex Reality
Outside of the ideological attempts to force the North-South dichotomy on popular discourse, over 100 states of the Global South share nothing in common. Highly developed Taiwan and struggling Zimbabwe, Hinduist India, and Catholic Ecuador have very little that unites them. History, mentality, level of human and economic development, religion, geopolitical ambitions, and interests are all different, often opposite among the “Global South states.” Even their position in the poststructuralist “oppressor-victim” binary would be different.
Besides, the “Global North” countries are often stereotyped as more developed and advanced regarding social issues. According to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security, the United Arab Emirates scores higher than France, Spain, Poland, and even the United States due to women’s higher participation in parliament, mean year of schooling, cell phone use, and perception of safety. Argentina, Chili, and Malaysia also score higher than many East European states. Their achievement is incomparable to the “fellow” Global South states of Afghanistan, Yemen, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is no North-South divide on the question of rights of women in society either.
The Russo-Ukrainian War raises interesting questions about where each country belongs. Ironically, Russia is branded as a Global South state and even has the ambition to become the leader of this “community” as it attempts to challenge the United States (the supposed leader of the Global North). However, if the Global South is associated with victimhood, then Ukraine should be a better candidate to become the Global South state. However, it is uncharacteristically openly pro-NATO and oriented towards the European Union and the United States. It is difficult to reconcile these contradictions, especially considering that both countries are geographically located in the North. A very similar paradox is observed in the Israel-Palestine conflict as both states claim victimhood and are located in the South. Nevertheless, Israel is labeled as the bastion of the Global North, and Palestine is the classic victim representing the South.
Thus, the reductionist Global South term does not serve its purpose of helping us understand international relations better; in fact, it impedes our understanding and sets us up for the non-existent opposition between the two poles. The term also has particular ideological weight, biasing scholars and decision-makers. Based on the abovementioned arguments, it becomes clear that neither theorists from think tanks and Universities nor practitioners at the high offices should operate in these terms for intellectual and practical purposes.
Leave a Reply