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-EFEGlobal 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”.
The term gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s as a less derogatory alternative to the “Third World”, used to distinguish non-aligned developing nations from the “First World” democracies and the now-defunct “Second World” communist bloc. For its proponents, the Global South signifies a desire for a multipolar world order that challenges Western liberal values and privileges.
These differences of opinion have become more pronounced in recent years, driven by the shift of global power from the transatlantic to the Indo-Pacific, the rise of non-Western powers like China and India, and the relative decline of the West. However, the fact that China and India, the two self-proclaimed leaders of the Global South, are unable to forge Asian solidarity due to their own territorial disputes and nationalist interests, underscores the inherent heterogeneities within the concept.
Despite these contradictions, certain characteristics are generally associated with the Global South. Primarily, it represents the state of underdevelopment and the economic divide between developing and industrialised nations, as reflected in membership of the Group of 77 vs the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or G7. This divide is perceived by the Global South as rooted in the colonial era and sustained by global capitalism, perpetuated by imbalances in the post-World War II international system that favour Western countries.The term Global South … references an entire history of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential economic and social change
Historically, Global South countries have also shared normative solidarity in anti-colonialism, anti-neocolonialism, anti-hegemonism, and advocacy for multipolarity. They have consistently called for global governance reforms, stressing the importance of national sovereignty, resisting Western-centric agendas on human rights and democracy, and demanding more equitable access to markets, technologies, and finance. As aptly put by Nour Dados and Raewyn Connel, “the term Global South functions as more than a metaphor for underdevelopment. It references an entire history of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are maintained.”
The Global South concept is also appealing to non-Western powers seeking greater influence. It puts pressure on the West to focus more on addressing the economic needs of the developing world, rather than just pushing a values-driven agenda. While the Global South is a diverse grouping, the term’s increasing usage demonstrates that the reality of its existence matters less than how nations leverage it to advance their interests.
China, in particular, has been active in championing the Global South. Portraying itself as the world’s largest developing country, China has cultivated deep institutional connections with the grouping of countries through frameworks like the “G-77 and China”. Beijing has also strategically expanded Brics to include more developing nations. This aligns with China’s efforts to reposition the Global South as central to its foreign policy, as seen in initiatives like the Global Development Initiative and the China International Development Cooperation Agency.China’s investment in the Global South serves its strategic goals amid intensifying competition with the United States and estrangement from the West. Aligning with the Global South allows China to challenge Western dominance and gain more influence in shaping the global order. This also has strong economic logic, as developing countries have emerged as major markets for Chinese goods, investments, and financing. Faced with increasing protectionism from the US and its allies, China is doubling down on its economic pivot towards the developing world.Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in Pretoria last year. Photo: BloombergWhile the US does not explicitly embrace the “Global South” framing, it recognises the strategic imperative to compete with China’s growing influence in the developing world. This is reflected in recent policy shifts, such as the new strategy towards sub-Saharan Africa, the inaugural Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, and substantial Covid-19 vaccine donations to 116 developing countries. The proposed US$63 billion budget for the State Department and USAID in 2024 underscores this strategic priority of “outcompeting China” and addressing global development challenges.
However, the US approach differs from China’s. While China’s focus is on infrastructure building and economic integration, the US development agenda is more values-driven, emphasising democracy, gender equality, anti-corruption, and climate action.
The US has also sought to pool resources with its Indo-Pacific partners to offer a “better value proposition” to developing countries. Initiatives like the Quad Vaccine Partnership and the G7’s Build Back Better World aim to meet infrastructure needs and tackle global challenges. But these efforts have faced limitations in terms of tangible outcomes, often due to a discrepancy between ambitious plans and insufficient financing.
Furthermore, the Biden administration’s shift towards economic security and industrial revitalisation at home has implications for developing nations. Increased emphasis on reshoring and friendshoring means more restrictions on access to the US market, technologies, and investments. Additionally, the US’s reliance on the private sector for outbound foreign investments poses structural constraints in matching China’s state-led investments in developing nations.
Fireworks light up the night sky in Singapore. Though Southeast Asia is often grouped with the Global South, the region exhibits a wide diversity in terms of economic development. Photo: XinhuaPoints of convergenceWhile Southeast Asia is generally categorised as part of the Global South, the region exhibits significant diversity in terms of development levels. Singapore and Brunei stand out as outliers, with gross domestic product levels per person exceeding the OECD average, and human development indices comparable to or even higher than OECD countries. The remaining Southeast Asian nations, meanwhile, fall well below the OECD average, ranging from US$1,000 to US$12,000 per capita GDP.Regarding membership in multilateral institutions associated with the Global South, all Southeast Asian countries are part of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the G-77, which advocate for the collective interests of developing nations. At these forums, Southeast Asian leaders emphasise the importance of sovereignty, reforming multilateral institutions for greater equity, eliminating trade discrimination, and securing financial assistance to meet sustainable development goals. On climate change, they uphold the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities”, highlighting the historical contributions of developed countries to greenhouse gas emissions and demanding climate support for developing nations.Politically, Southeast Asian countries have demonstrated normative alignment with the Global South – including China – through their voting patterns at the UN. They have advocated for “Asian values” as an alternative to the “hegemony of liberal democracy”, and consistently support resolutions aligned with Global South perspectives on human rights and democracy. This includes opposing unilateral coercive measures, advocating for “alternative approaches” to human rights, and affirming the right to development. Their voting behaviour on issues like decolonisation, such as condemning Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, also aligns with the Global South, in sharp contrast to the US position.
However, it is important to note that Southeast Asian foreign-policy decisions are primarily driven by respective national interests and priorities, rather than ideological solidarity with the Global South. The region’s diversity and pragmatic approach mean that their foreign policies do not always match the normative expectations associated with the Global South.
Russian soldiers fire a self-propelled cannon from an undisclosed location in this still from a video released this month amid the Ukraine war. Photo: Russian Defence Ministry Press Service via APSoutheast Asian responses to major global issues have been diverse, challenging assumptions of uniform alignment within the region or with the Global South. On the Ukraine war, countries span the spectrum – Singapore has imposed sanctions and supported UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia, the Philippines shifted from abstentions to support, while Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Thailand maintain neutrality, and Vietnam and Laos predominantly abstained.Similarly, despite their widespread sympathy for the Palestinian people and support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, Southeast Asian responses to the Israel-Gaza conflict have varied between Muslim majority nations and non-Muslim nations. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei condemned Israel’s occupation and actions, while Singapore and the Philippines condemned Hamas’ attacks. Thailand and Vietnam expressed concerns but stayed more neutral.Closer to home, the South China Sea issue reveals how Southeast Asian nations, and the Global South more broadly, have prioritised their own interests over upholding international law against larger powers like China. At recent NAM meetings, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations struggled to reach a consensus on language condemning China’s actions in the South China Sea.
Southeast Asia’s economic successes over the past decades have been more closely tied to North-South interconnections than South-South cooperation. The region stands out as a success story of economic globalisation. Except the Philippines, all Southeast Asian nations have climbed income levels since the Cold War. Their development is deeply tied to extensive trade, investment and technology flows with both developed and developing nations. Asean has consistently been a top recipient of foreign-direct investment, reaching US$224 billion in 2022 or 17 per cent of global FDI, despite representing only 8 per cent of the world’s population.
A container vessel berths at Tianjin Port in northern China. Collectively, Asean ranks as China’s largest trading partner. Photo: XinhuaCollectively, Asean ranks as China’s largest trading partner, Japan and South Korea’s second largest, the EU’s third largest, and India and the US’ fourth largest. As observed by scholar Ian Chong, much of this prosperity has been achieved by accessing capital and technology from the Global North, enabling Southeast Asia to integrate into global supply chains and produce goods primarily destined for the Global North’s market.
Notably, Asean has maintained a robust trade surplus with Global North countries, averaging US$82.4 billion from 2013-2022, while sustaining an equivalent trade deficit of US$84 billion with China over the same period. This trade dynamic increasingly resembles a North-South pattern, with China exporting high-value, hi-tech manufactured goods, while some Southeast Asian nations primarily export commodities or serve as assembly and packaging locations. In these economic relations, the pursuit of national economic power and the logic of capitalism take precedence over any abstract notion of South-South solidarity.
The economic realities of Southeast Asian countries demonstrate that they have been active participants and beneficiaries of the current economic system, not victims or passive price-takers. In fact, through Asean and other minilateral approaches, they have forged a network of regional free-trade agreements with major trading partners, actively shaping rules that align with their interests. While grievances exist, particularly regarding trade conditionalities imposed by developed nations on environmental or political grounds, they do not represent wholesale discontent with the system, as implied by the Global South rhetoric.
02:00
Japan sells itself to Global South nations as a China counterweight in Africa, South Asia
Japan sells itself to Global South nations as a China counterweight in Africa, South Asia
The resurgence of the Global South discourse has amplified the voices of developing nations, including those in Southeast Asia, enabling them to air their grievances and advocate for their interests more assertively.
However, the realities of global politics and economics are far more complex, diverse, and nuanced than what the simplistic North-South binary suggests. This complexity is particularly pronounced in Southeast Asia, as exemplified by Indonesia’s hedging of its bets between the Global South and North.
This pragmatic and inclusive approach is emblematic of Southeast Asia’s historical formula for success – the ability to integrate into and bridge between diverse value systems, rather than rigidly aligning with a particular ideological bloc.
Source link : https://amp.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3272032/southeast-asia-and-global-south-rhetoric-vs-reality
Author :
Publish date : 2024-07-27 23:00:16
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.