The rise of the Global South and what it means for the North

The Global South Summit, which will convene in India on Aug. 17, comes at a moment in which nations historically marginalized in global governance are beginning to assert renewed demands for a reshaping of the international order.
This ambition to recalibrate the global hierarchy is deeply rooted in decades of activism aimed at disentangling themselves from Western dominance.
From the Non-Aligned Movement of the mid-20th century to the economic alliances of today, the growing drive for a redistribution of power is both a reflection of past struggles and a strategic vision for future equity.
The timing of the summit, amid growing debates about economic dependency and geopolitical realignments, is testament to the rising influence of the South on the world stage.
In recent years, the Global South has experienced average annual gross domestic product growth of 4.7 percent, far outpacing the 2.1 percent in the Global North. This reflects not only the aspirational rhetoric but tangible shifts in economic clout.
Continuing to ignore the core issues and concerns raised by these Global South countries — including inequitable trade practices, the effects of climate change, and geopolitical marginalization — risks perpetuating a fractured global order. Acknowledging and engaging with the outcomes of this month’s summit will be crucial if the North is to foster cooperative international relations and address shared global challenges effectively.
Historically, the Global North’s interest in non-Western perspectives has broadened gradually since the end of the Cold War, as developing nations have adopted varying degrees of Western political and economic frameworks.
Despite this, many in the Global South perceive the continuing dominance of Western powers and their institutions as remnants of colonial hierarchies. Countries such as India and Brazil have sought to reconfigure the global economic order to reflect a more equitable distribution of power.
The motivations for this recalibration are multifaceted: a desire for enhanced economic dividends, more fair representation in international institutions, and greater autonomy in setting regional and global agendas.
More broadly, the push by the Global South for increased influence is also rooted in collective historical experiences and geopolitical strategies. Many countries below the notional Brandt Line that separates North from South have histories marked by colonialism, resource extraction, and political subjugation. These experiences cultivated shared grievances and a determination to address and transform perceived imbalances in the global system.
Leaders such as Narendra Modi in India and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil epitomize this new assertiveness.
While India held the presidency of the G20 in 2023, Modi advocated for the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member of the organization. Brazil holds the G20 presidency this year and Lula has used international platforms to champion a “fair and multipolar order.”
Recent multilateral initiatives, such as the G77 and the Non-Aligned Movement, demonstrate a persistent, albeit complex, effort among developing nations to negotiate as cohesive units, seeking to elevate their collective bargaining power on the world stage. This underlying unity, despite divergent national interests, exemplifies a strategic intent to redefine the role of the Global South and its influence on global governance.
However, while there has been acknowledgment of a distinct Global South, and its collective needs have permeated Western policy discussions, developing countries remain disappointed with the persistent vestiges of the North’s dominance in global affairs. Examples of this include tepid responses to escalations across the Middle East and the effects of the war in Ukraine on grain-importing economies, slow progress on climate financing, and resistance to reforms of major international institutions. Some of these concerns are pushing US and European officials to make rare overtures toward countries in the Global South but tangible action is still lacking.

Western policymakers continue to oversimplify the diversity that exists within the Global South.

Hafed Al-Ghwell

Unfortunately, North-South dynamics remain compromised by a fundamental issue: Despite its broad utility, the term Global South remains conceptually ambiguous. It encompasses a diverse array of countries, from G20 powers such as Brazil and Indonesia to less-developed nations such as Sierra Leone. These countries all share common historical experiences and objectives but they possess divergent interests, values, and perspectives.
However, Western policymakers continue to oversimplify the diversity that exists within the Global South and fixate on one-size-fits-all prescriptions. Policies focused narrowly on countries such as Brazil and India neglect the unique challenges faced by smaller and mid-sized states, such as unsustainable debt, domestic instability, the effects of climate change, and persistent conflict.
An example of this oversimplification can be seen in the varied economic landscapes within the Global South. Brazil and Indonesia boast diversified economies with significant industrial and service sectors, while countries such as Sierra Leone remain heavily reliant on agriculture and primary commodities.
Brazil’s per capita GDP is approximately $9,000, whereas Sierra Leone’s lags far behind at about $500. This disparity affects the capacity for international trade, the prospects for closer regional integration, and internal stability. Policymaking that fails to account for these disparities runs the risk not only of being ineffective but counterproductive.
Differing political climates and governance challenges further complicate the picture. Indonesia, a democracy with a relatively steady track record of political reforms, faces a different set of challenges compared with, say, Myanmar, which must contend with a civil war and political instability following a military coup.
Such internal dynamics influence how these countries interact on the global stage and what they can contribute to, or require from, external engagements. Therefore, policies that lump the Global South into a monolithic structure complicate the establishment of mutually beneficial partnerships that are tailored to the unique needs of each country.
It will not be easy to produce a set of targeted policy strategies amid the growing solidarity within this heterogeneous grouping that is unified by a shared history of colonial oppression and collective aspirations for a rebalanced global order.
However, the “unity” of the Global South is not without its fractures, as varying economic policies, ideologies, geopolitical maneuvering, and regional dynamics clash with the development of a more cohesive identity. For instance, while Latin American countries might embrace socialist economic models, nations in Southeast Asia often lean toward market-oriented reforms. Indonesia has focused on creating a stable investment climate, whereas countries such as Venezuela have pushed for state control of industries.
Such divisions extend to leading countries in the Global South, including China, Brazil and India, that are vying for eminence within the group but often prioritize national interests over collective solidarity. Each of them leverages international platforms in an attempt to advance their own influence. China has expanded the BRICS group, for example, while India used its G20 presidency to support a broader representation for African nations. Brazil plans to use its upcoming roles to promote its version of a more inclusive, multipolar global order.
Despite their divergent strategies, many countries in the Global South do see a lot of convergence on key priorities, including staunch advocacy for debt relief and more equitable trade. Overall, the multitude of perspectives within this grouping are challenging the dominance of the Global North in the shaping of international policy and the creation of a new global order.
Policymakers in countries north of the Brandt Line must remain proactive in this new reality, because failing to do so risks perpetuating a North-South divide that carries with it significant implications for international cooperation.

• Hafed Al-Ghwell is a senior fellow and executive director of the North Africa Initiative at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. X: @HafedAlGhwell