Summary The Trouble With “the Global South” | Foreign Affairs www.foreignaffairs.com
3,185 words - html page - View html page
One Line
The term "global South" encompasses diverse developing countries, but may overlook the tensions between them, and the West should address their individual interests.
Slides
Slide Presentation (8 slides)
Key Points
- The term "global South" is conceptually unwieldy, as it lumps together diverse countries with different interests, values, and perspectives
- Western policymakers risk oversimplifying or ignoring the individual concerns of countries in the global South by treating it as a more or less cohesive coalition
- There is no single country or group that can claim to speak for the entire global South, as major powers like Brazil, China, and India vie to present themselves as the group's leaders
- Smaller and poorer countries in the global South worry about being marginalized or condescended to, even by non-Western states that are better off
- Addressing the real challenges facing vulnerable countries, such as debt distress, political instability, and humanitarian crises, is more pressing than determining global South leadership
- The West must see countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as they are, rather than falling for the fallacy that they operate geopolitically as a single entity
Summaries
20 word summary
The term "global South" covers diverse developing countries, but may obscure tensions among them. The West should address individual interests.
59 word summary
After the Cold War, Western expectations for developing countries were not met. The term "global South" encompasses diverse countries, creating conceptual challenges. Focusing on leading global South states like Brazil and India may obscure tensions among developing countries. The West should use the phrase "global South" carefully and address individual interests rather than treating them as a single bloc.
153 word summary
After the Cold War, Western policymakers expected developing countries to embrace Western democracy and globalization. The term "global South" now encompasses Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but it lumps together powerful G-20 members with the least developed countries and is conceptually unwieldy. Focusing on leading global South states like Brazil and India is insufficient and may obscure tensions among developing countries. These countries have common causes and incentives to coordinate, but they do not act as one. Major non-Western powers vie to lead developing countries, but some prioritize other relationships. The West should use the phrase "global South" with particular care and recognize that these states are not a monolithic entity. Addressing their individual interests rather than treating them as a single geopolitical bloc is crucial. The United States and its allies must work to ease the international debt crisis and help vulnerable states resolve internal conflicts and governance issues through multilateral negotiations.
308 word summary
Western policymakers used to expect developing countries to adopt Western democracy and globalization after the Cold War. Today, the term "global South" is used to refer to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but it lumps together powerful G-20 members with the least developed countries and is conceptually unwieldy. Policymakers risk losing sight of the diversity encompassed by the term.
Focusing on winning over leading global South states like Brazil and India is insufficient and may obscure tensions among developing countries. Treating countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a geopolitical bloc will not help solve the problems they face.
The countries of the global South have some common causes and incentives to coordinate, but they do not act as one. Splits within the global South extend beyond economic issues and include opposition on gender issues, LGBTQ rights, and regional rivalries.
Major non-Western powers vie to lead developing countries, but some prioritize other relationships. Claiming leadership of the global South offers advantages for these powers, but they face serious internal fractures and instability at home.
The spike in chatter about the global South has highlighted mounting problems faced by countries beyond the West. Almost two-thirds of the world's least developed countries now face serious debt distress, political instability, and deteriorating security conditions. Helping vulnerable countries navigate these challenges is more pressing than determining which powers they follow in international diplomacy.
The West should use the phrase "global South" with particular care and recognize that these states are not a monolithic entity. Addressing their individual interests rather than treating them as a single geopolitical bloc is crucial. The United States and its allies must work to ease the international debt crisis and help vulnerable states resolve internal conflicts and governance issues through multilateral negotiations and increased attention to each country or region's specific economic and political circumstances.
572 word summary
Policymakers in Washington and other Western capitals used to overlook the possibility that the rest of the world might have different opinions. After the Cold War, most Western policymakers expected developing countries to embrace Western democracy and globalization. Today, many Western policy discussions treat the global South as an established fact. The term is used to refer to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, lumps together powerful members of the G-20 with the least developed countries, and is conceptually unwieldy. Acknowledging the rest of the world's interests is a welcome development, but policymakers risk losing sight of the diversity the term encompasses.
Western officials who want to cultivate better ties with non-Western counterparts may become tempted to focus on winning over a few leading global South states, such as Brazil and India. However, this approach is insufficient and may obscure the tensions among developing countries and the unique pressures shaping politics in many of them. The term global South may offer a compelling but misleading simplicity. Treating countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a geopolitical bloc will not help solve the problems they face.
The countries of the global South have some common causes and incentives to coordinate. Most of these states fought against colonialism and cooperated in coalitions such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 during the Cold War. Recent global events have made schisms between these countries and the West more pronounced. However, similarities in outlook do not mean the members of the global South act as one. Splits within the putative global South extend beyond economic issues and include opposition on gender issues, LGBTQ rights, and regional rivalries.
Even as major non-Western powers vie to lead developing countries, some of their recent foreign policy choices suggest they prioritize other relationships. Claiming leadership of the global South offers clear advantages for these powers, including opportunities to expand their global diplomatic heft and firm up economic relationships. However, even these powers face serious internal fractures and instability at home.
The spike in chatter about the global South has at least done the service of highlighting mounting problems faced by countries beyond the West. Almost two-thirds of the world's least developed countries now face serious debt distress, and some are experiencing political instability and deteriorating security conditions. Helping vulnerable countries navigate these challenges is more pressing than determining which powers they follow in international diplomacy.
The terminology problem remains. Although many Western policymakers think they know better than to treat the non-Western world as an unvariegated whole, they should use the phrase global South with particular care. The West must see these states as they are, not fall for the fallacy that they operate geopolitically as a single entity. Ultimately, there is little value in striving to identify who can lead the global South. The parlor game of global South leadership pulls focus from the real challenges facing small and medium-sized states.
To head off future instability, the United States and its allies must work to ease the international debt crisis and help vulnerable states resolve internal conflicts and governance issues. Progress will require multilateral negotiations to reform the global financial architecture and increased attention to each country or region's specific economic and political circumstances.
In conclusion, policymakers need to recognize that developing countries are not a monolithic entity and should focus on addressing their individual interests rather than treating them as a single geopolitical bloc.