Challenge vs. Restoration: The Global South’s Influence on the International Order

By Faisal Devji, Professor of Indian History, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford

It is not surprising that the war in Ukraine has revealed so-called revisionist powers like Russia and China challenging the international order led by the United States. What did come as a surprise was that much of the rest of the world – at least outside North America, Western Europe, and some parts of East Asia – seemed to go along with them. Since then, the Global South’s allegiances have been the subject of intense scrutiny. But it would be a mistake to see these countries as being motivated by pro-Russian sentiments dating back to the Cold War, or by anti-Western feelings linked to memories of colonial rule. Instead, we should consider the possibility that for many if not most of them it is the Western powers that are the revisionist ones. And that it is the Global South that is more firmly invested in shoring up the post-war international order represented by the UN.

Shifts in post-Cold War international relations

Given their historically non-dominant if not subordinate role in the international order, these countries recognise that it has always been a structure of compromise. The UN was set up precisely to bring together the Cold War’s great rivals and their respective allies in order to enable diplomacy and global governance even under conditions of distrust and hostility. It was only with the end of the Cold War, and the apparent retreat of the nuclear threat, that this order started to crumble as the great powers chose to ignore or operate outside its remit. None more than the United States, which in wars from Bosnia and Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq chose to act pre-emptively and outside the UN. Beyond military action, it also relies on unilateral and third-party sanctions to cripple others’ economies and expel its enemies from the global financial system.

Reaffirming neutrality: The Global South’s strategic approach to Ukraine

Many countries in the Global South still believe that any international order that does not include enemies within it is doomed. They see Russia as a regional power whose relatively modest military abilities and economic clout prevent it from posing any kind of global threat to the international order. While difficult to defeat, as seen in Ukraine, Russia can only threaten its immediate neighbours. And this is a situation that can and should be addressed diplomatically within the UN. But, no matter how diminished Russia is, its status as a regional power is also seen as guaranteeing the international order’s entirely liberal feature of pluralism. Indian policymakers, for example, think that their country’s rise to great-power status is only possible in a world without the hegemony of a single superpower like the United States. The response of countries in the Global South to the Ukraine war has been faithful to the principles of the post-war international order. By insisting on diplomacy rather than war and dealing with both sides, they have brought neutrality back to the heart of geopolitics.

Understanding conflicts through the lens of neutrality

Hitherto a central tenet in any understanding of international politics, neutrality was steadily marginalised following the Cold War and discarded entirely during the War on Terror. Its role is to limit the spread of conflict and allow for mediation by third parties. Neutrality is proclaimed literally in the Ukraine war, it also appears in the widespread calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. Rather than seeing these conflicts as being distinct and even opposed, both are understood in the Global South as Western proxy wars. We should consider the possibility that it is countries in the Global South that now represent political maturity in the international order they seek to preserve. They have brought neutrality back to geopolitics while reinvigorating international law. This is most evident in the charges brought against Israel and Hamas at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, in which international law is very unusually being treated as if it pertained to a domestic jurisdiction. Traditionally, international law has been voluntary, with one’s good behaviour guaranteeing that of one’s enemies. Only states defeated in wars are subjected to tribunals. But this is exactly what both courts are being urged to do with regard to the Gaza war.

The way forward: an inclusive post-war international order

Whether the Global South’s efforts to rebuild the international order by way of neutrality and law will succeed is an open question. They may well end up destroying this order altogether by insisting on its universality. For in order to succeed a great deal more is required, including making the UN Security Council more representative regionally and perhaps empowering the UN General Assembly more. The two ongoing wars that are transforming global politics offer not just risks but also opportunities, with the remaking of the post-war international order the chief one. Such a project has to be inclusive, and for this the Global South is already prepared. But, in the view of these countries, the chief problem that this faces is the desire to renew and extend US-led Western hegemony by military and financial means.