The term ‘global south’ is pernicious claptrap

It’s neither global nor southern: just anti-Western rhetoric

The ‘Global South’ is neither ‘global’ nor ‘southern’. Its members have no common historical heritage, no geographic rationale, and no economic congruity. The concept has no value as an analytical tool for explaining state behaviour.
But what’s more, it is a danger to our strategic interests. Russia and China have seized upon the rising popularity of the term and its attendant world view –‘Global Southism’ – to damage the West’s reputation globally. By using the phrase ‘Global South’ unquestioningly, our policymakers advance the causes of our adversaries and undermine our own.
Let’s start with geography and history. The label includes former colonies, states that were never formally colonised (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan), others that remained imperial powers into the 20th century (Ethiopia, Turkey), and others which seek neo-imperial aggrandisement today (China). Australia and New Zealand are ‘Northern’, but Russia – with its Arctic territory – is a self-proclaimed ‘Southern’ state. South Korea is in the ‘Global North’, and North Korea in the ‘Global South’.
The label makes even less sense on economic terms. Eight of the world’s twenty richest countries by GDP are in the ‘Global South’. Puerto Rico’s GDP per capita is higher than Spain and Portugal; the Seychelles higher than Romania. And what do the economies of Lesotho, China, and Argentina possibly have in common?
This is more than just a game of intellectual whataboutery. In an increasingly complex and contested world, it is more important than ever to base foreign policy on a firm grasp of reality. Far from providing objective analysis, ‘Global Southism’ promotes a particular interpretation of world history which delegitimises the international order and the West’s place within in. Its proponents demand a fundamental global rebalancing between an oppressed ‘South’ and oppressive ‘North’.
In this environment, it is impossible for Western states to pursue hard-nosed strategies driven by their own interests. Rather than focus on what we want, we must ask what the ‘Global South’ wants – be that climate reparations, slavery indemnities, or multilateral institution reform. The kind of policy this results in is the Government’s decision to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius to show – in Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s words – “we mean what we say on… [our] desire for partnerships with the Global South.” ‘Hard power’ for ‘soft power’, interests for values.
This is music to Russian and Chinese ears. Their leaders sense opportunity in our confusion, and now promote the term and accompanying world view to drive a wedge between us and the ‘Global South’. Despite being infamous neo-imperial powers, both tout themselves as ‘champions of the Global South’, leading the charge against their perennial subjugation by the West.
To do so, Moscow has returned to its Cold War era playbook of ‘active measures’ – sophisticated disinformation campaigns and political influence campaigns. Media channels linked to the Kremlin peddle anti-Western propaganda across Africa and Latin America to sabotage our credibility and ‘legitimise’ the invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Beijing blends red-carpet diplomacy with economic largesse to outbid the US. Their means and ways may differ, but the ends are the same: to promulgate a ‘clash of civilisations’ struggle stacked against the West; to distract us from our interests; and to legitimise their own plunderous neo-imperialism.
The ‘Global South’ concept is more than just hackneyed. It is strategically pernicious. We must halt our growing obsession with it.
Marcus Solarz Hendriks is a Senior Research Fellow in National Security at Policy Exchange. He is the co-author of the Policy Exchange report The Myth of the ‘Global South’: A Flawed Foreign Policy Construct