This is an occasional post where I look into something of interest that my latest reading has thrown up.
During my reading of Deep Water by James Bradley he regularly used the terms Global South and Global North. At first I thought this was a fancy new way of referring to the Southern and Northern Hemispheres, but the context didn’t quite match. So I dug a little deeper.
Starting with wikipedia I learnt that these two labels were in fact socioeconomic and political terms that group countries together by their standard of living rather than their position on the globe.
Within the United Nations (UN) is a subgroup called the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was created in 1964 to promote the interests of developing countries. Over time there has been a general desire to move away from value-laden terms like ‘developing countries’ and ‘Third World’.
In 1969, writer and political activist, Carl Oglesby has been credited with the very first use of the term ‘global south’ in a piece about the War in Vietnam were he argued that ‘an intolerable social order‘ had come about due to centuries of ‘dominance over the global south‘ by the northern nations (“Vietnamism has failed … The revolution can only be mauled, not defeated”, Commonweal, 90).
It has been noted that most of the countries designated Global South are current or former subjects of imperialism and colonialism. They are identified as countries which have ‘lower incomes, high levels of poverty, high population growth rates, inadequate housing, limited educational opportunities, and deficient health systems, among other issues’ (Wikipedia 4th May 2024 revision).
- Global South broadly comprises Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia (excluding Israel, Japan, and South Korea), and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand).
- Global North, as described by UNCTAD, broadly comprises Northern America and Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.
Of course, this is not the whole picture.
The 1980 report North-South: A Programme for Survival (which became known as the Brandt Report) by the Independent Commission on International Development Issues, stated that “the nations of the South see themselves as sharing a common predicament. Their solidarity in global negotiations stems from the awareness of being dependent on the North, and unequal with it; and a great many of them are bound together by their colonial experience.” This sense of solidarity has waxed and waned since then.
China in particular has pushed back against the definition of global south and India claims that treating these countries as one big group denies agency to individual countries. Some articles have even referred to a new term, ‘South of the Global South’ to account for the disparity of growth within this Global South group. Whilst others argue that a more accurate and just divide would be those countries who have pumped the most harmful emissions into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution on one side with those who stand to suffer the most thanks to climate change on the other.
It is this particular environmental/climate lens that Bradley seems to be using when he uses the terms Global South and Global North. But now I know that they are terms that come with historical baggage and that they are prone to subtle changes in meaning and symbolism.
Sources (not already acknowledged above):
- A Closer Look at the Global South | Erica Hogan and Stewart Patrick, 20th May 2024 (Carnegie Europe)
- Everyone’s talking about the Global South. But what is it? | David Rising, 7th September 2023 (AP News)
- Why does so much of the Global South support Russia, not Ukraine? | Joshua Askew, 31st March 2023 (Euro News)
- International reaction to Gaza siege has exposed the growing rift between the West and the Global South | Jorge Heine, 9th November 2023 (The Conversation)
This post was written in the area we now call the Blue Mountains within the Ngurra [country] of the Dharug and Gundungurra peoples. This Reading Life recognises the continuous connection to Country, community and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. They are the traditional custodians of the lands, seas, and skies on which we live and they are this nations first storytellers.
This Reading Life 
The interesting thing about the emergence of this term ‘global south’, is how rarely we hear it in mainstream media. It’s as if there is just one world and everyone thinks the same way. But there’s a podcaster called Jeff Rich who hosts The Burning Archive, and although he has some odd opinions about some things, he’s very interesting about different kinds of civilisations and the way nations align themselves in ways different to the way we’re used to thinking about them. For example, the prevailing narrative is about great power rivalry between China and the US, but in the global south, it’s about the rivalry between China and India.
Fascinating stuff!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a similar thought as I was researching this post Lisa. As you say our mainstream media almost never use the term but once I started googling, I found articles in all the smaller presses and news sites with lots of articles written by Indian journalists in particular. And they all use the term and discuss its pros and cons. It was suggested that ignoring the terminology is now another way of the Global North (or the Western world, whichever you prefer) to keep their former colonies in their place and to not have to deal with the issues they raise.
And yes, I was fascinated to read about the growing rivalry between China and India for dominance in Asia and within the Global South grouping.
LikeLike
Yes, and that raises a whole ‘nother issue.
Sometimes, when your instincts tell you that you’re not getting the nuances in some news story, you go looking for alternatives… but how do you know whether the source you’ve found is reputable, or some crackpot conspiracy theorist dressed up to look like it’s not?
That is when I think, no wonder people read escapist novels and watch footy, it’s all too hard!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Incendiary language is often a give-away as is the use of disparaging terminology, but yes, it can be very hard to discern these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, I didn’t know the expression either.
Interestingly, in French we say La limite Nord/Sud
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a quick look and it would seem that the French choice comes from the Brandt report mentioned above. He created a map using GDP per capita (that looks quite similar to the one above excpet for China) from which the term the Brandt Line comes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting, I have heard “Global South” but don’t often hear “Global North”. And then there’s Western vs Eastern (sometimes you still hear “Western Civilization”). This is helpful context!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Several articles I read suggested that there is a shift in thinking about the world (at least in political and socioeconomic terms) from the old east-west divide, to a north-south one.
I also learnt about the BRICS+ nations for the first time. The original group was Brazil, Russia, India and China who came together to play a leadership role within the Global South. South Africa joined in 2010. The plus sign includes Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE who were added just this year.
They have a website here – https://www.brics-plus.com
LikeLike
I had to look up an atlas to see what the blue country was in South America (it’s France, as in French Guiana). The map shows just how isolated Australia is as a Global North/Western, middle-rank power, hanging off the bottom of Asia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Brandt line is just as odd with a wiggly line going across (roughly) the middle of the map which suddenly swoops down into a big loop around Aust and NZ.
LikeLike
Thanks for this. It’s a term I’ve heard and broadly understood, but it’s so good to find out how, and why, it developed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Jonathan. My knowledge of geopolitics is very sketchy – researching this post showed me just how sketchy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Jonathan said, so thanks Brona. And, I like Bill’s point to re Australia. We (and NZ) are such weird outliers in the world, which in a way tells us something about our colonial origins and our history, doesn’t it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve been thinking about that too Sue and wondering why Aust/NZ and North America are different from India, the Caribbean, Indonesia and Africa that were also colonial outposts.
I wonder if it was because the other countries had something that the colonists wanted – resources, trade routes, slave labour, influence, power – so it wasn’t so much much about invading, settling and taking over those countries by sheer force of numbers (although they certainly tried and ended up playing havoc with local politics and customs).
Whereas we were definitely seen by the English as a country to invade and take over as a solution to the overcrowding of their criminal system. They wanted Australia, NZ and North America for the land. As a result, within relatively short periods of time, white colonisers outnumbered the Indigenous populations.
I’m not sure if this holds up – maybe it’s the difference between a dominion and a colony? Something else to research 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes … I mean they all had local populations? Is it to do with numbers and density of the existing population. Easier to over-run? You could be right about resources. Australia has them, but the best ones have to be dug up! They probably didn’t know about those. Surely Bill Gammage or one of the FN historians or someone else has discussed this?
LikeLike
Very interesting. I have come across the terms quite a lot but then I do read a fair bit about geopolitics, I suppose, when I come to think of it, or the carryovers from empire, etc.
LikeLike