Sure A Not

The unwillingness of many leading countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America to stand with NATO over the war in Ukraine has brought to the fore once again the term “Global South.”

“Why does so much of the Global South support Russia?” inquired one recent headline; “Ukraine courts ‘Global South’ in push to challenge Russia,” declared another.

But what is meant by that term, and why has it gained currency in recent years?

The Global South refers to various countries around the world that are sometimes described as “developing,” “less developed” or “underdeveloped.” Many of these countries – although by no means all – are in the Southern Hemisphere, largely in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

In general, they are poorer, have higher levels of income inequality and suffer lower life expectancy and harsher living conditions than countries in the “Global North” – that is, richer nations that are located mostly in North America and Europe, with some additions in Oceania and elsewhere.

Going beyond the ‘Third World’

The term Global South appears to have been first used in 1969 by political activist Carl Oglesby. Writing in the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal, Oglesby argued that the war in Vietnam was the culmination of a history of northern “dominance over the global south.”

But it was only after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union – which marked the end of the so-called “Second World” – that the term gained momentum.

Until then, the more common term for developing nations – countries that had yet to industrialize fully – was “Third World.”

That term was coined by Alfred Sauvy in 1952, in an analogy with France’s historical three estates: the nobility, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. The term “First World” referred to the advanced capitalist nations; the “Second World” to the socialist nations led by the Soviet Union; and the “Third World” to developing nations, many at the time still under the colonial yoke.

Sociologist Peter Worsley’s 1964 book The Third World: A Vital New Force in International Affairs further popularized the term. The book also made note of the “Third World” forming the backbone of the Non-Aligned Movement, which had been founded just three years earlier as a riposte to bipolar Cold War alignment.

Though Worsley’s view of this “Third World” was positive, the term became associated with countries plagued by poverty, squalor and instability. “Third World” became a synonym for banana republics ruled by tinpot dictators – a caricature spread by Western media.

The fall of the Soviet Union – and with it the end of the so-called Second World – gave a convenient pretext for the term “Third World” to disappear too. Usage of the term fell rapidly in the 1990s.

Meanwhile “developed,” “developing” and “underdeveloped” also faced criticism for holding up Western countries as the ideal, while portraying those outside that club as backward.

Increasingly the term that was being used to replace them was the more neutral-sounding “Global South.”

Geopolitical, not geographical

The term “Global South” is not geographical. In fact, the Global South’s two largest countries – China and India – lie entirely in the Northern Hemisphere.

Rather, its usage denotes a mix of political, geopolitical and economic commonalities between nations.

Countries in the Global South were mostly at the receiving end of imperialism and colonial rule, with African countries as perhaps the most visible example of this. It gives them a very different outlook on what dependency theorists have described as the relationship between the center and periphery in the world political economy – or, to put it in simple terms, the relationship between “the West and the rest.”

Given the imbalanced past relationship between many of the countries of the Global South and the Global North – both during the age of empire and the Cold War – it is little wonder that today many opt not to be aligned with any one great power.

And whereas the terms “Third World” and “underdeveloped” convey images of economic powerlessness, that isn’t true of the “Global South.”

Since the turn of the 21st century, a “shift in wealth,” as the World Bank has referred to it, from the North Atlantic to Asia-Pacific has upended much of the conventional wisdom on where the world’s riches are being generated.

By 2030 it is projected that three of the four largest economies will be in the Global South – with the order being China, India, the United States and Indonesia. Already the GDP in terms of purchasing power of the the Global South-dominated BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – surpasses that of the Global North’s Group Seven club. And there are now more billionaires in Beijing than in New York City.

Global South on the march

This economic shift has gone hand in hand with enhanced political visibility. Countries in the Global South are increasingly asserting themselves on the global scene – be it China’s brokering of Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s rapprochement or Brazil’s attempt to push a peace plan to end the war in Ukraine.

This shift in economic and political power has led experts in geopolitics like Parag Khanna and Kishore Mahbubani to write about the coming of an “Asian Century.” Others, like political scientist Oliver Stuenkel, have began talking about a “post-Western world.”

One thing is for sure: The Global South is flexing political and economic muscles that the “developing countries” and the “Third World” never had.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

On July 23, Cambodia will witness another historical milestone, the seventh quinquennial national election.

This election further reflects the peaceful democratization in Cambodia based on the rule of law.

Cambodia is a rare example among post-conflict nations in three aspects.

First, it is among the few post-conflict countries that did not fall back into civil war.

From a historical perspective, peace is the most important prerequisite for Cambodia as it continues to develop into one of the most successful post-conflict nations. Many nations, such as Afghanistan, Congo, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Sudan, that received United Nations peacekeepers in the 1990s are still in conflict.

In contrast, since the UN-brokered election in 1993, Cambodia has been generally peaceful without large-scale conflict.

After the integration of the remaining Khmer Rouge forces in late 1998 through the “win-win” policy of Prime Minister Hun Sen, Cambodia united its national army for the first time. That was key to eliminating a structure of violence that had existed in Cambodian politics for a long time.

For instance, until late 1998, Cambodian political parties still controlled different factions of the army, and therefore the system provided room for violence when different parties could not reconcile their differences. The clash in July 1997 was the prime example of armed struggle between troops that were loyal to the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) and the FUNCINPEC party.

Therefore, for a country like Cambodia, achieving unity of the national army cannot be underrated in terms of its contribution to peace.

It is important to note that all previous Cambodian governments had never been able to control the whole national army, and to occupy the whole sovereign territory without guerrilla forces or autonomous regions.

Constitution supports democracy

Second, Cambodia’s democratization is peaceful and irreversible.

According to Article 153 of the constitution, revisions or amendments affecting the system of liberal and pluralistic democracy and the regime of the constitutional monarchy are prohibited.

Despite criticism, Cambodia continues to organize regular elections without fail, and it does not appear that it will stop holding elections and adopt a different form of government.

One should not make haste to demand a complete democratization in a few decades of a postwar country like Cambodia. It takes time for the whole social system to adapt. It takes time for people to understand how to distinguish between the rights and the duties of citizens.

Some people only demand their rights, but they don’t really understand their civilian duties to respect the law. For political parties that have experienced only armed struggles and mutual elimination, it takes time to ensure that the culture of dialogue can take root.

Freedom of expression and political freedom should not be promoted to the level that democracy becomes an excuse for extremism and populism.

Cambodia pursues democracy that is adaptable to the Cambodian historical context, cultural identity, and Buddhism, which strongly respects peaceful co-existence and tolerance. Even if Buddhism is the state religion, Cambodia’s religious harmony stands out in the region and the world. Christianity and Islam can be practiced freely in Cambodia without discrimination, and there are no religious riots.

The elimination of foreign intervention in domestic politics and the democratization process is also a key trait of Cambodian politics. Cambodia has been firm in pursuing a peaceful democratization based on its own sovereign choice while strongly rejecting foreign intervention and interference in domestic affairs. The case of Kem Sokha is a case in point.

Cambodia is unapologetic for its own ways of democratization. After all, even the United States has over two hundred years of democratic history, the recent violence at Capitol Hill is not something that democratic countries aspire to. The US rejection of foreign influence in its election is nothing different from the Cambodian case.

Economic progress

Third, Cambodia has attained high-level economic growth with a significant contribution to poverty reduction and improvement of people’s well-being including protection and promotion of fundamental human rights.

With peace and stability, Cambodia’s economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.7% between 1998 and 2019, making it one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. As a result, poverty has been drastically reduced and Cambodia has made considerable strides in improving health outcomes, early childhood development, and primary education in rural areas.

Life expectancy at birth and maternal, under-five, and infant mortality rates improved significantly between 2000 and 2021.

This is something that developing countries in the world want in the first place.

As a matter of fact, not many post-conflict nations have the above three elements altogether for a sustained period like Cambodia.

Sometimes countries have peace and development, but their government is not inclined to adopt a democratic system. Sometimes countries have democracy, but their domestic politics is messy, their society is not peaceful, and the economy stagnates.

Therefore, to look at Cambodia’s democracy, one should step back a bit and view it from an international comparative perspective instead of a fixed paradigm and prejudice.

Cambodia is confident to say that it has done well in its own way considering its tragic past. Democracy is a process and not an end.

Cambodia has started gradually to transform itself into a society with positive peace that seeks to settle political differences through “ballots instead of bullets.” This is a great transformation for a country like Cambodia that had experienced endless bloodshed and great miseries for the people.

There is no looking back for Cambodia’s democracy. Cambodia will only move forward.

Continue Reading