WHAT IS THE GLOBAL NORTH AND SOUTH?

Is There Any There There?

One hears much talk recently of The Global South which inevitably must be juxtaposed against something called the Global North.

Despite the directional language, the terms North and South don’t actually seem to mean very much. For instance, despite its location far south of the Equator, Australia is counted as part of the Global North, China on the border of Siberia is counted for the South. Similarly, India with borders in the Himalayas and much farther north geographically than Singapore is identified as a southerner but Singapore is identified as a northerner. In terms of location with regard to the Equator, the globe shows thirty two countries as being located south of it and one hundred sixty three north of it. Yes, as presented by the new map, the Global South and North seem to have swapped positions with only about thirty two countries in the Global North of which one is Russia whose small economy, low per capita income, and authoritarian style government would seem to be more appropriate to the members of the Global South.

If all of this looks a bit contrived to you, that is because it is - contrived.

Steve Walt of Harvard and Foreign Policy magazine is reporting that there was a new presence at the recent Munich Security Conference ( this is the Davos of security conferences ). He, of course, identified it as the Global South and argued that while these countries are not necessarily hostile to the so called Global North and its defense of Ukraine (just to show how mixed up this discussion is, Russia, the invader of Ukraine, is identified as being in the Global North), but do not see the contest in the apocalyptic terms of the Global North minus, of course, Russia.

He sees this as a new element in what has been a world divided in two between democracies and autocratic dictatorships. This new element, says Walt, does not support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but sees global hunger, disease, warming, and immigration as demanding at least the same level of attention and funding as the war in Ukraine.

It is an argument perhaps worth making, but it is wrong to describe the Global South as something new and the first group to make these arguments. These are not new commentaries made by new players. I am older than Walt and so perhaps remember things he is not so aware of. In the 1950s and ‘60s we had the First World in the alliance of the democratic countries, the Communist World consisting of the Soviet Union, its satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and China. In addition there was what was known as the Third World or non-aligned world led by India, Egypt, and Indonesia under leaders such as Nehru, Nasser, and Sukarno. This grouping emphasized de-colonization, regionalism, pan-asianism, pan-africanism, and so forth. It essentially wished a pox on the houses of both the First World and the Communist World.

This was followed by a Third Worldist movement in the 1960s-80s under the leadership of people like Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It focused on a more radical and revolutionary socialist vision and died in the late 1980s essentially of starvation.

So the Global South is nothing new nor does it seem to be making concrete proposals for addressing its issues beyond demanding that the Global North minus Russia (which really should be identified separately as perhaps the Global Russia) spend as much on relieving the poverty of the Global South as it is spending on helping Ukraine survive.

At first glance this appears to be an eminently reasonable and even righteous request. But let’s dig a bit deeper. Over the past year, the U.S. has spent about $120 billion on assisting Ukraine. At the same time, it accumulated a $1 trillion trade deficit with the world, but most of it with the so called Global South. Indeed, the U.S. deficit with China alone was nearly $400 billion. The overall U.S. trade deficit was about $1trillion and the largest part of that was with the Global South.

Of course, there are many causes of this enormous deficit, but a major one is currency manipulation that artificially raises the value of the dollar and thus the price of U.S. exports while reducing the prices of U.S. imports. China, a major Global South exponent, tightly controls and manages the value of its currency. You cannot just take money in and out of China as you in and out of the United States. The Bank of China sets targets for the value it wishes to maintain of the RMB against the dollar. That value is aimed at creating trade surpluses for China which, in fact, it does. But it is not just China. The United States runs a substantial trade deficit with every Asian country included in the so called Global South. In fact, the U.S. is sending far, far, far more money to the Global South than it is sending to Ukraine.

Another interesting aspect of the situation is that while India and some others have continued to buy Russian oil and refrained from putting much pressure on Russian President Putin with regard to the Ukraine situation, New Delhi has long simmering border disputes with China and has joined the “Quad” defense group consisting of the Global North states of Japan, the U.S., and Australia. Obviously India does not want China to imitate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and move its troops into northern India which as occurred several times in the not very distant past. India is taking advantage of Russia’s weakness to get cheap oil, but it does not want China to repeat Russia’s moves in northern India.

In fact, there is no Global South. If one removes Russia from the so called Global North, it certainly hangs together better than the so called Global South. The Global South is essentially a propaganda fiction being pushed by Russia, China, their fellow travelers, and inexperienced western scholars and commentators.