The Global South has emerged as a concept of significant interest in recent decades. While its nature is a subject of debate, the Global South is more than a mere counterpoint to the West or a passive follower of China or Russia.
Can you tell us a bit about your background and how you relate to the concept of the Global South?
My journey began in Brazil, but it was in Argentina over 20 years ago that I discovered my interest in Africa. Despite being born in South America, I’ve spent most of my adult life in Africa, shaping my Southern worldview. The concept of the Global South is deeply influenced by our shared histories of colonisation, economic exploitation, and ongoing efforts to assert our autonomy in a globalised world.
Can you explain how identities of the Global South manifest, particularly in a country like South Africa?
The Global South isn’t just a geographical label; it shares a mix of cultural, political, historical, economic, and social elements, creating a complex but recognisable identity that acknowledges shared struggles and aspirations. This diversity of identities feels to me like the famous Tube map in London – it’s not geographically accurate, but it effectively represents something meaningful.
South Africa exemplifies a country with a complex, layered identity. It is a Southern African country bordering two oceans, multi-racial, diverse, and upper-middle-income. As part of BRICS, the UN, G20, and AU, it reflects diverse historical, cultural, and political connections. These multiple identities sometimes clash and require further reflection.
How can we move beyond the simplistic dichotomy of ‘the West’ versus ‘the rest’ and develop a more nuanced understanding of the diversity and complexity of the Global South?
While the Global South is diverse, the West also has internal differences and internal conflicting values. However, a certain cohesion has allowed the West to influence global narratives and institutions for a long time. The concept of the West has evolved over centuries, from connections with ancient Rome and Greece to a pillar of European colonialism, often with an undertone of cultural superiority.
By many in the West, the Global South is often presented as the ‘rest’ of the world order, almost as if part of a static scenery that only becomes an issue when dynamic or demanding. However, the Global South is increasingly asserting its agency, redefining its role, and challenging the status quo. We are not passive recipients of Western policies but active participants in shaping international relations’ future. The relationship between the Global South and the West is evolving, and it requires a more inclusive, less deterministic and respectful engagement, acknowledging our contributions and perspectives.
What are Russia and China’s roles within the Global South? Are they like honorary members?
I believe Russia and China are not part of the Global South, and it’s essential to think about the global order beyond binaries. The Global South does not exist in opposition to the West. We have perhaps multiple worlds: South, North, East, and potentially others.
Now, Russia and China do have some points in common with the Global South, but they also recognise their different paths, histories, capacities, and concerns. We see this in how the G77 has become ‘G77 + China’ in recent years. Russia has also increasingly pursued increased engagements with the Global South as a space to reduce its international isolation, calling it ‘the Global Majority’. When countries say they are non-aligned, they are not saying they are not aligning themselves just with the West. Instead, they are saying they are pursuing such positions to increase autonomy from all global powers, and that equation is valid as much for the US as it is for China. Non-alignment is not irrational. Rather than sitting on the fence, it is more of a pragmatic and self-serving choice.
And how about BRICS? Many see that as a vehicle for the Global South agency.
For me, BRICS works almost as a bridge that brings together the claims and demands of many Global South countries with Russia and China. Even bitter rivals like India and China understand that there are pragmatic reasons for being part of the same grouping like BRICS. This pushes interesting dynamics within the group, particularly in decision-making and selection of priorities, where they often choose or are forced to agree to disagree. It is because they realise that they need to focus on the issues where they can find consensus, not the issues that separate them. In a way, the expansion of BRICS brings a new element to the debate. It reflects a broader Southern dimension within the group but does not represent the entire Global South. By their very nature, Global South countries are far more fluid in their interactions internationally. Some are closer to the West, some are closer to the East, but many – and I would even dare to say most – are somewhere in between.
How does the Global South navigate its international relations compared to the West?
The Global South often navigates international relations flexibly and pragmatically. We may sometimes subscribe to the same ideas as the West, but our perspectives shift based on local dynamics and foreign environments. This is particularly evident in the current geopolitical rivalry between the US and China, where Southern countries are often caught in the middle.
The West’s insistence on presenting its values as universal can be challenging, especially when many in the South see these positions as selectively applied. The contrasting approaches to crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, the DRC, Haiti, and Armenia highlight this selectivity.
Southern countries are growing in relevance but remain relatively smaller than global powers. Our adaptability is crucial in navigating a world of changing power structures and alliances. Most Global South countries aren’t seeking global or even regional domination but aim to ensure their development and benefit from stability. This contrasts with the often more hegemonic aspirations of some Western and Eastern global powers.
What do you think about the mutual understanding between the West and the Global South?
Our perception has evolved over centuries. We now recognise that Western nations and institutions are neither infallible nor inherently superior, a shift driven by our increasing capabilities and the relative weakening of Western dominance. This has led to more confident interactions and a growing influence on global narratives and action.
This change in perception affects our view of both the West and ourselves. As the Global South becomes more active and influential in international relations, we anticipate a significant transformation in global dynamics. While the West remains a significant power hub, it is no longer the sole central force in the global order.
States are not bound to have emotions by definition and character, but the decisions taken on their behalf are taken in a context full of them. If individuals feel insecure about who they are and where they belong, states do, too, by default. Recognising this emotional dimension can help us better understand and navigate the complexities of international relations. It can also foster empathy and cooperation, leading to more effective and sustainable solutions to global challenges.
You can follow Gustavo de Carvalho on X at @gb_decarvalho. One of Gustavo’s recent posts on X inspired this conversation.
