Skip Navigation
19 comments

  • Lol holy fuck...

    OK so they find the term "Global South" confusing geographically (South Korea is in the ‘Global North’, and North Korea in the ‘Global South’, what a conundrum) and economically (tax havens have high GDP which apparently means they're rich lol).

    Of course they proceed using the term "Western states" repeatedly without getting confused over implied geography! Germany is to the east of France and China is to the west of Japan, how do you tell which ones are Western?

    They also repeatedly use the term "neo-imperialist" in relation to China and Russia not bothering to explain what "neo-imperialism" is supposed to be and how those states fit that description.

    Anyway, their actual gripes are with the following:

    • The concept of "Global South" delegitimises the international order and the West’s place within in
    • Instead of pursuing hard-nosed strategies driven by their own interests, Western states are expected to consider what the ‘Global South’ wants – be that climate reparations, slavery indemnities, or multilateral institution reform
    • The West is trading its "hard power" for "soft power", "interests for values".

    The horror! The rightful place of The West as slave owners and colonisers is under attack, and other nations expect their needs to be heard rather than The West rolling over everything as they did for centuries. The West needs to exercise some of that good old military "hard power" against them, no more mister nice guy!

    But enough about what they don't like! What would they actually like? The answer to that is in the link at the bottom, here are my highlights:

    • Create units in the National Security Secretariat and FCDO to counter the anti-Western ‘Global South’ narrative.
    • Ringfence 75% of the aid budget for projects which clearly serve Western overseas national interests.
    • Increase UK diplomatic presence across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania.
    • Make the competition with (China and Russia) a key objective of the Government’s foreign policy.

    In short - more of the good old imperialism to combat the "neo-imperialism"! More spooks, more propaganda, more meddling both diplomatic and economic via "aid" programs... And first and foremost, more escalation against China and Russia.

  • The article starts out red fuckin hot with it's "Global South not even literally southern

    logicbomb.

    Does it keep getting funnier? I had to take a quick sanity break hee hee eee

  • But what’s more, it is a danger to our strategic interests. Russia and China have seized upon the rising popularity of the term and its attendant world view –‘Global Southism’ – to damage the West’s reputation globally. By using the phrase ‘Global South’ unquestioningly, our policymakers advance the causes of our adversaries and undermine our own.

    The West is damaging its own reputation, not that they had a good one in the first place.

  • While this article is complete nonsense, I think he raises one good question by complete accident. Would Saudi Arabia be in the global south? It's not part of the imperial core but it is a very important vassal state for American interests. They kinda cosplayed being independent for a bit when MBS has Khashoggi chopped up and tried to build ties with China but with the genocide in Palestine it is clear is it completely subordinated to western interests.

    Besides that I don't know about the economic situation of the people there, and whether or not they are subject to imperial resource and labour exploitation like your run of the mill global south country is.

    • Saudi just like the rest of gulf countries uses foreign labour, they're currently basically at the level of 1950s America, middle xlass saudis with filipino maids and south asian gardners drivers and workers

  • Marcus Solarz Hendriks

    Sounds like a butthurt Balt.

    Marcus Solarz Hendriks is a Senior Research Fellow in National Security at Policy Exchange

    And then some.

19 comments