Global South using new-found voice to advocate an effective rules-based order

(JIN DING / CHINA DAILY)

Among the issues currently polarizing the international community are the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine. The first will turn two years old at the end of this month. The invasion of Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces, in response to the Hamas-led attacks that resulted in the death of 1,200 Israelis and the seizing of over 200 hostages, is now in its fifth month. The human and material costs of both conflicts are incalculable.

Both conflicts are matters of concern for many governments and they have been debated in both the United Nations’ Security Council and General Assembly. A well-defined pattern was established in successive votes for resolutions dealing with these crises. The G7 countries and their allies are on one side; the countries of the Global South are on the other. 

The most recent discussion concerns the filing by the government of South Africa to the International Court of Justice, denouncing the Israeli authorities for committing alleged acts of genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. This action had broad support from countries in the Global South, including several Latin American countries.

READ MORE: China calls for advancement of South-South cooperation

It is important to note that in regard to both conflicts the positioning of developing nations was not marked by ideological or cultural preferences but by dissatisfaction with the current configuration of the international order in which the nations find themselves excluded from the most critical decisions. Additionally, the resentment toward colonialism is worth mentioning, as it persists to this day. This resentment occurs in most nations in the Global South that have been victims of imperialism and colonialism.

Like the Non-Aligned Movement before, the Global South movement questions the so-called rules-based international order led by the US because it is pretty selective in its application. Since the end of World War II, Western countries have always chosen the rules that benefit themselves and simultaneously imposed rules on third parties that they did not follow. 

Free trade is one of them, as well as respect for the principles of integrity and sovereignty of nations, which are essential aspects of international relations. Theoretically, this should apply to Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, or Sudan. However, the same powers that question the independence of the Donbas region, or even the creation of a national state for the Kurds or the independence of Scotland, work together to break up other countries.

Another selectivity concerns the defense of “human rights”. This theme embarrasses countries that do not submit to the hegemonic powers. Many wars, hybrid or hot, were started under this pretext. Venezuela still faces the harsh impacts of US sanctions while Cuba’s government has faced an economic blockade for 61 years.

Still, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is real, with the destruction of infrastructure and the emigration of hundreds of thousands of families who have fled the conflict, as are the humanitarian problems that involve Haitians, Burmese, and others.

However, despite the similarity of human tragedies, the way each crisis is addressed differs substantively. “People of color” from the Global South are treated as second-class people and subjected to various types of humiliation by Western governments. 

In this aspect, it is important to return to the topic of the action taken by the Pretoria government against the atrocities committed in Gaza. As of now, the deaths in Gaza have reached more than 29,000 people, including civilians and combatants. 

For comparison purposes, between Feb 24, 2022, which marked the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, and Sep 24, 2023, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights recorded 9,701 deaths in Ukraine. It is worth remembering that the population of Gaza is almost 20 times smaller than that of Ukraine, which reveals the scale of the tragedy.

ALSO READ: The claim of Global South without China is a misnomer

In conclusion, when analyzing the recent positioning of countries from the Global South in international forums regarding the conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, in contrast to the G7, we must consider two aspects. 

First, the historical wounds of colonialism have not yet healed, as the harmful effects of domination, exploitation, and racism still affect subjugated nations. 

Second, it reflects the greater protagonism of developing nations, which, after being freed from colonial yoke, have managed to regain control of their destinies and gathered economic and political strength to guarantee their rights. 

This new protagonism of the Global South must be reflected in global governance to build a new international order that is effectively based on rules that respect democracy among nations and that are applied without the current selectivity. In this aspect, the recent expansion of the BRICS group is encouraging.

The author is a professor of international political economy at the Sao Paulo State University. The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.