RAO NARENDER YADAV I The structural, systemic, and enduring divide between ‘North’ and ‘South’ has always existed; It was never a temporary aberration of modern history. Rather, it has been a carefully manufactured feature of the lop-sided international system created through the combination of colonial extraction and military might and sustained by asymmetries in capital, technology, and narrative power
The term “Global South” was coined in 1969 by American political activist and writer Carl Oglesby to describe a group of countries subjected to the economic and political dominance of the Global North. However, the concept gained wider traction only two decades later, particularly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, when it began to acquire greater visibility and a more cohesive identity – an evolution that became especially pronounced in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Yet long before this academic and political nomenclature entered common usage, the sentiment of South–South solidarity already existed, albeit without a platform large enough or a voice powerful enough, to be meaningfully heard in the international system.
The post–World War II international order rested as much on narrative-building power as on economic or military strength of the North. Its institutions, norms, and vocabularies, designed largely by and for Northern states, showcased development as a linear journey toward a Northern ideal; poverty was individualized and depoliticized; and structural inequality was rebranded as ‘backwardness’.
This dominant narrative frequently dismissed Global South solidarity as a mere ideological posturing and a regional grievance rather than a legitimate alternative vision of world order. The South’s shared experiences—colonialism, underdevelopment, dependency, and external political intervention—were treated as historical footnotes, not as foundations for collective political agency.
The first major breach in this narrative monopoly came even before the emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The Bandung conference (1955) brought together Asian and African countries on a shared platform to promote cooperation, anti-colonial solidarity, and independent foreign policies outside Cold War power blocs. It is Often regarded as the intellectual and political precursor to the Non-Aligned Movement formed in 1961 in Belgrade. NAM was not merely a refusal to choose sides in the Cold War; it was an assertion that the newly decolonized world had interests, identities, and futures that did not neatly align with either superpower bloc. It offered a platform—however imperfect—for Global South countries to articulate shared concerns about sovereignty, development, and peace.
Yet NAM’s potential was constrained from the outset. Economic dependency limited political autonomy. Internal divisions—between revolutionary and conservative regimes, resource-rich and resource-poor states—further weakened collective leverage. As bipolar rivalry intensified, South–South solidarity was increasingly overshadowed by superpower competition, reduced to a sideshow in a drama written elsewhere.
Globalization and the Repackaging of Hierarchy
If the Cold War narrowed the political space for Global South solidarity, the era of globalization reshaped it altogether. Globalization was sold as a universal good: open markets, free trade, global supply chains, and the promise that growth would lift all boats. In reality, it often entrenched existing hierarchies. Institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank became central to global economic governance, yet their decision-making structures reflected Northern priorities. Policy prescriptions—liberalization, privatization, fiscal austerity—were applied most rigorously to the South, often at the expense of social welfare and state capacity.
Here, South–South cooperation was tolerated so long as it did not challenge the core assumptions of globalization. Solidarity was acceptable as rhetoric; structural critique was not.
2008 and the Crisis of Credibility
The global financial crisis of 2008 marked a turning point. Originating in the financial centers of the Global North, the crisis shattered the myth of Northern economic infallibility. More importantly, it exposed a well-entrenched hypocrisy: the very states that had championed open markets and minimal state intervention now rushed to bail out banks, subsidize industries, and protect domestic interests.
Since then, the shift has only accelerated. Tariffs, protectionism, industrial policy, and ‘resilient supply chains’ have returned to the centre of Northern economic strategy. Economic systems are increasingly designed to serve national or bloc-specific interests, often under the banner of security or resilience. The language of globalization remains, but the practice has become selective.
The Re-Emergence of South–South Confidence
Against this backdrop, Global South solidarity is not merely reappearing; it is evolving. Unlike earlier moments, today’s South–South cooperation is less ideological and more pragmatic. It is driven by trade diversification, development finance, technology sharing, capacity building and political coordination in multilateral forums.
Groupings such as BRICS reflect this shift. There is a functional heterogeneity, which signals a desire to build multiple mechanisms of cooperation that reduce dependence on Northern-dominated financial and diplomatic systems. Regional development banks, local currency trade arrangements, and shared infrastructure initiatives all point to a growing confidence in collective capacity.
Crucially, this resurgence is occurring in a tumultuous world. No single power – Northern or otherwise, despite U.S President Donald Trump’s tariff war, can easily monopolize the global narrative. This creates space for the Global South not only to speak, but to be heard. Today, there is a growing emphasis on agenda-setting and countries like India, South-Africa and Brazil are making strategic moves.
The Global South is no longer a temporary category in a Northern-centered world order; it is a permanent and increasingly influential feature of global politics. Demographically, economically, and politically, its weight is growing. More importantly, its confidence in articulating alternative futures is returning.
The irony of the present moment is striking: just as the Global North retreats from the universalist claims of globalization, the Global South is rediscovering the value of collective voice. And this time, the Global South is not waiting for permission to speak—it is building the platforms to ensure it cannot be ignored.
(Author is a Geo-Political Analyst and Director, African Centre of India)