orangecounty@worldaffairscouncil.org

Asia

The “Global South” Isn’t a Place. It’s a Position.

By: Naseem Qader

In today’s global landscape, terminology is never just descriptive— it’s diplomatic. And the language we use to frame the world often reveals more about power than geography.

In diplomacy, the terms we use aren’t just descriptors—they’re instruments. They shape alliances, steer resources, and determine whose interests are prioritized on the global stage.
Today, the phrase “Global South” appears in climate communiqués, policy memos, and development strategies—and increasingly in the language of public diplomacy. It’s meant to signal solidarity. But whose solidarity—and at what cost?

What we call the world reveals how it’s built. Labels like “Global South” often suggest inclusion. But more often, they encode a position—one of adaptation, not authorship. Behind the naming lies a deeper tension: Who is the global system designed for? And who is expected to adjust to it?

Let’s be clear: “Global South” is not a geography. It’s an assignment. The term stretches across more than 130 countries—from nuclear powers like India to digitizing economies such as Kenya and Vietnam, from Gulf oil monarchies to climate-vulnerable nations in the Pacific such as Tuvalu and the Maldives. What unites them is not proximity or governance—but a shared exclusion from global rule-making.

Like “Middle East” or “Latin America,” the term flattens. “Africa” becomes a single noun encompassing 54 countries and over 2,000 languages. As Chinua Achebe famously wrote, “Africa is people. It is not a concept. It is not a geographical expression… It is not the patrimony of European powers.” That reminder still resonates in diplomacy, where shorthand often obscures sovereignty. “The Middle East” groups Israel, Iran, and Yemen under a Cold War-era construct. “Latin America” erases Indigenous sovereignties like the Mapuche, Aymara, and Quechua into a colonial linguistic legacy.

These weren’t names chosen by the communities themselves. They were assigned by global systems that needed the world to be legible—on their terms.

But naming has never gone uncontested. And in that resistance, some of the most enduring insights have emerged.

In the 1950s, Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch warned that global trade rules weren’t neutral—they were designed to entrench advantage, laying the groundwork for what became the Prebisch–Singer hypothesis. His critique remains relevant today in how carbon credits are priced, how financial “risk” is modeled, and how access to aid is still conditioned by externally set criteria.

Tongan‑Fijian scholar Epeli Hauʻofa reframed the Pacific not as “islands in a far sea,” but as“a sea of islands”— relational, connected, expansive. His critique wasn’t merely geographic—it challenged the entire worldview that cast the Pacific as marginal and remote.

And decades earlier, Edward Said warned: “When you don’t define yourself, others will.”

These thinkers weren’t just critiquing terminology. They were reclaiming narrative sovereignty—the right to name, not just be named.

For public diplomacy professionals, these redefinitions are more than theoretical. They offer a model for how we engage—starting from lived experience, not inherited shorthand.

Today, the challenge continues in more complex forms. Borders are no longer only territorial. They are algorithmic, linguistic, and embedded in digital systems.

Consider that languages spoken by hundreds of millions—such as Swahili, Tamil, Quechua, and Hausa—remain underrepresented in AI systems, with low-resource languages comprising less than 1% of most training data.  When your language is missing from the dataset, your experience is missing from the future.

Digital finance now encodes old hierarchies through new tools. Smart contracts shape infrastructure lending. Debt is scored by algorithms built on external norms. Climate‑vulnerable communities are asked to fund their own adaptation—through systems they didn’t design.

These aren’t just technical shifts. As the global system digitizes, inherited frames are being embedded into the platforms and protocols that govern tomorrow’s diplomacy. The colonial template hasn’t disappeared—it’s been modernized and hard‑coded.

What makes this moment particularly urgent is how the term “Global South” is being revived—not just as critique, but as brand. It appears in bloc‑building, in strategic communications, and in institutional language—most notably at the 2025 BRICS Summit in Rio, which proclaimed a vision for “Global South cooperation” and “more inclusive governance.” Even when states or blocs use the term “Global South” to project unity or assert leverage, they’re still operating within a framework they didn’t author. Strategic use doesn’t equal narrative control.

Rhetorical solidarity isn’t structural transformation. The term may shift who speaks—but not always who decides. It’s often invoked to suggest alignment, even when the underlying systems remain unchanged.

And when recognition depends on aligning with trauma, donor frameworks, or geopolitical groupings, identity becomes a performance. The label begins to obscure more than it reveals.

This has real implications for diplomacy. AI governance is being shaped in dominant languages, with training data that leaves vast regions behind. Climate finance often centralizes power, reinforcing dependency. And the platforms through which global narratives flow—media, education, policymaking —continue to privilege dominant frameworks that define what counts as legitimate knowledge—and whose voice counts.

When these labels go unexamined, they shape how policies are framed, how trust is built, and who is invited to participate as an equal partner in global decision‑making. If diplomacy is the architecture of global understanding, then language is the scaffolding. And when that scaffolding is built on outdated frames, entire communities are misrepresented—or excluded altogether.

So the question is not whether to use the term “Global South.”

It’s whether we’re willing to interrogate what it does.

When multilateral institutions, diplomatic actors, or global alliances invoke inherited frames, we must ask: Which country? Whose voice? What assumptions are being reinforced —and for whose benefit?

Because it’s not just the map that’s being contested. It’s the right to hold the pen.

That’s the challenge—and opportunity—of public diplomacy today: not simply to translate across borders, but to help reimagine the frame itself.

Read more

The Maldives: An Intersection of Climate Crisis and International Politics

Turquoise water gently moves over soft, white sands. Palm trees dot the landscape. Boardwalks lead to over-water huts, showcasing its appeal as a favorite destination for tourists. Behind these picturesque beaches lies more than just natural beauty. The Maldives has emerged as a crucial battleground in the escalating struggle for influence between the U.S. and China, a conflict intensified by the rapid reshaping of the islands due to climate change.

Reflecting on this, Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, President of the Republic of the Maldives, stated at COP28, “In our island nations, every coral, every grain of sand, every fish, and every palm tree, carry value. Their loss is a loss to our economy. For our country.” This sentiment highlights the profound impact of climate change on the Maldives, where rising sea levels threaten not just its environment but its very essence.

By 2050, rising sea levels may render most of the nation uninhabitable. This environmental urgency intertwines with an expanding geopolitical struggle. For the U.S., national security interests extend beyond environmental concerns in the Maldives, largely due to its strategic position on key maritime routes. This is due to the nation’s strategic location along vital maritime routes. In this delicate balance of environmental and geopolitical interests, the U.S. has the opportunity to leverage climate change mitigation as a powerful diplomatic tool in the Maldives, creating a stark contrast with China’s approach. 

The U.S. can make a significant impact in the Maldives through targeted climate diplomacy, emphasizing local development and ecosystem preservation. Key initiatives could include blending traditional knowledge with modern science to support ecosystems and renewable energy, as well as responsibly scaling up sand dredging for island elevation, mindful of the ecological balance. Investing in research to minimize environmental impacts during island reclamation is also vital.

This innovative approach, focused on long-term climate adaptation, contrasts heavily with China’s infrastructure-centric strategy. Chinese infrastructure projects in the Maldives, a highlight of the Belt and Road Initiative, have prioritized fast construction. However, this rapid pace often overlooks the environmental cost, especially the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, a critical concern for a nation like the Maldives. While boosting infrastructure, this strategy creates significant risks to the Maldivian people. The increased carbon footprint and potential ecological disruption from these projects don’t align with the Maldives’ urgent need for sustainable development. As a nation with one of the lowest elevations, the Maldives faces existential threats from climate change, and the environmental impact of large-scale infrastructure projects cannot be overlooked. 

The U.S., pivoting towards sustainability and adaptability in climate change measures, faces a complex landscape. China’s assertive presence in the region necessitates thoughtful implementation of the US’ climate-focused strategy. The recent appointment of a China-friendly President in the Maldives adds another layer of complexity. In this context, adopting a grassroots approach to climate change mitigation could prove effective. Aligning closely with the concerns of the Maldivian population, who are very conscious of their environmental vulnerabilities, underscores the importance of climate resilience at the local level.

When navigating these challenges, the U.S. stands at the forefront of defining how global powers can meaningfully engage in climate diplomacy in a rapidly changing world. By leveraging climate change mitigation as a strategic tool in the Maldives, the U.S. not only counters China’s dominance but also supports a sustainable path that resonates globally. This action goes beyond being a policy choice, it’s an ethical necessity in a world facing unprecedented climate challenges. As the Maldives struggles with the threats of climate change, the actions of the U.S. could set a standard for environmental protection and diplomatic innovation in the 21st century. 

Written by: Elizabeth Feller, a candidate in Northeastern University’s M.S. in Global Studies and International Relations.

Read more

“How Asia is Reacting to a Less Dependable United States & More Assertive China” with Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Daniel Russel

*Luncheon Event*

“How Asia Is Reacting to A Less Dependable United States & More Assertive China”

with

Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs 

Daniel Russel

 

REGISTER HERE

 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership might be over, but the continual maneuvering of the United States and China towards the rest of East Asia continues.  As the US-China rivalry causes concern in Asia, the response from other countries in the region has created a new dynamic as they adapt to a less dependable America and a stronger, more assertive China.

Daniel Russel served as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 2013-2017 and as a major figure in the Obama Administration’s “pivot to Asia.”  He will be joining us to provide insights on:

 

*The changing relationship of America and China

*The reaction of other countries in the Asia-Pacific Region and how they are adapting to the dynamics between the two super powers

*How major economic powers such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan view the long-term impact of the changes

* Prospects for the negotiations with North Korea over denuclearization

 

Daniel Russel served as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 2013-2017. Prior to his appointment as Assistant Secretary, Mr. Russel was Special Assistant to the President and National Security Senior Staff Director for Asian Affairs. While working at the White House, he was a major figure in the Obama Administration’s “pivot towards Asia” strategy.  He also represented the Administration in negotiating with North Korea.

Date: Wednesday, June 5th

Time: 11:30am Reception/ Registration & 12pm Lunch/ Lecture

Location: Prego Mediterranean 2409 Park Ave. Tustin, CA 92782

 

Prices:

Members : $35

Premium Member Guests: $35

General Member Guests: $50

Non-Members: $50

Students: $20

Bundle of 10 Tickets : $350

 

Email us at: orangecounty@worldaffairscouncil.org or

Call us at: (949) 253-5751 for more information

 

Thank you to our Promotional Sponsors!

Read more