The Global South in a shifting world: Challenges and aspirations

The Star

27-04-2025

MANY of us would quite readily align with the notion that the Bandung Conference in 1955 was transformative. It was more than an event where leaders simply gathered and had a wonderful time. Nowadays, not many conferences are of quite the same type.
Back then, leaders of 29 nations in Asia and Africa came to Bandung with all the various problems and challenges facing them, and yet, they had wisdom and dared to transform the world. Leadership matters. And that's what the leaders demonstrated.
In 1955, there were some 76 member states of the United Nations. In two decades, this number almost doubled to 144. People became independent and freed from colonial domination. That, I think, is transformative – it unleashed the birth of new ideas on how we can deal with the challenge of geopolitical competition.
Before Bandung, we were led to believe that we must choose sides. You were either with the East or the West, however one chose to describe the contesting parties in the then-prevailing Cold War.
Essentially, the suggestion made was that for countries like ours in the Global South, we simply follow. This is what Bandung rebelled against. We said we have a third voice, that we have alternatives, we have choices.
Because of Bandung, we have the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which was born soon after. The idea was that countries like Indonesia, India, and others have autonomy. We also have an independent capacity to decide on the merits of each case and how we should position ourselves. Not least of all, we brought the development agenda very much to the forefront.
We may recall actual talks in the 1970s of the need for a new international economic order. That's why we have the G77 plus China, UNCTAD and all the important processes. These were born from the Bandung Spirit that others have referred to.
In other words, Bandung has been transformative. I yearn for similar conferences today, where leaders provide thoughtful guidance for the next 70 years. Looking at the state of our world today, we see that fragmentation, division and geopolitical competition have become deeper and wider.
Wider such that the impact is no longer merely in the geopolitical domain, but also in common global issues like technology and trade. We have diplomacy in our DNA. We are driven to solve disputes. But we are seeing headwinds against diplomacy nowadays.
Diplomacy is seen to be a sign of weakness, acquiescence or even appeasement. Multilateralism is facing headwinds, including an enhanced risk of miscalculations and many other ailments.
The fact that we are facing those problems vindicates, rather than detracts from, the Bandung Principles. The fact that we are still grappling with those problems, that the geopolitical competition prevalent in 1955 remains prevalent now as well, though in different forms, surely reminds us how eternal and continually relevant Bandung's message is.
The issue is, therefore, how we respond to these challenges; how countries of the so-called Global South, or the 'global majority' as I prefer to call it, should react in the domain of geopolitical alignment.
The original meeting in Bandung was Asia-Africa focused, a geographic concept, but the Bandung Principles resonate far beyond the two continents. But even in the terminology we use, whether it be Global South, emerging powers or global majority, they are mixed and matched.
Perhaps the label does not matter much. I do believe, however, that first and foremost, we need to consolidate within ourselves.
For instance, is the Global South our first point of reference when we face a common crisis like the pandemic, trade barriers or, now, the climate disaster?
We need to build the habits of cooperation and consultation. That's what we did in Asean. The feeling of mutuality in Asean was not legislated. It didn't come about by sheer adoption of declarations, but through patient and painstaking communication, as well as building the habit of connecting between leaders.
It is possible the Global South could be a victim of its own success. Given the number of countries involved, how can we, within such a large group, develop better communication to consolidate our thoughts and be seen to be on the same page?
I can't speak of the present, but I can speak of the past. At the UN, for instance, whenever we had the UN General Assembly, foreign ministers of the NAM used to meet. This was done at a proper ministerial level, not simply as an occasion for some foreign ministers to come, deliver a statement and depart. We actually met and compared notes.
The NAM Caucus within the UN Security Council was also a very powerful group. Whenever issues were to be discussed in the council, the NAM Caucus gathered to come up with a common position. Communication opens possibilities, but we cannot be sure to what extent before we talk about global governance or whether our governance is fit for purpose within the Global South.
The reality is that much of the world's conflict occurs in the Global South. Whether it be interstate or within the state, we need to get our house in order.
Let's begin with ourselves. Let's apply those Bandung Principles in the way we behave with one another.
The Bandung Principles prescribe the non-use of force in the settlement of disputes among countries.
Let's apply the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Then we can deliver on the promise that we have, including the economic dynamics that are moving to the Global South and the natural resources and riches that we are endowed with and enjoy.
In short, several actionable policy bullet points are needed for us to consolidate within the Global South itself.
We can be a smarter, more fit-for-purpose Global South that is agile and able to respond quickly to developments. Nowadays, one theme that has gained traction is the notion of our common position on reform of global governance.
This is the 'how' issue that our policymakers need to address. When you say reform of the global governance, whether it be the Bretton-Woods, UN Security Council or the UN in general, how do you deal with our respective intra-, inter-Global South divisions?
We need to have a concrete manifestation, a solid example of quick wins to illustrate what a global governance may look like. Reform of global governance is not simply tinkering with organisations, methodologies or membership, but rather it is also about the mindset. Multilateralism is an '-ism', it's a perspective, a paradigm.
And the threat against multilateralism is coming not only from the so-called major powers in their rivalry and geopolitical contestation, but also from inward-looking foreign policies, many of which are also being entertained by countries in the Global South.
The Global South can be far more detailed and eloquent than simply saying we are a bridge. We cannot simply earn a bridging role by repeating that mantra. There is a need to earn the trust, confidence and reputation.
The Bandung Conference produced a remarkable document that promotes respect for fundamental human rights. Lest there be the belief that human rights are a purview of Western countries, Bandung declares respect for human rights and the principles of democracy. — The Jakarta Post/ANN
Marty Natalegawa is a former Indonesian foreign minister as well as founder and chair of the Amity Circle.