September 2025

Bandung to BRICS+: The Evolution of South-South Cooperation

Navodita Kumari

SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION has appeared as a defining theme in this era of multipolarity. The United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) defines South-South Cooperation (SSC) as “a common endeavour of peoples and countries of the South, born out of shared experiences and sympathies, based on their common objectives and solidarity, and guided by, inter alia, the principles of respect for national sovereignty and ownership, free from any conditionalities.” Started as a common voice against colonialism, imperialism, and oppression, the SSC has now become a major platform through which the Global South countries exchange technological know-how, resources, and best practices to help each other in socio-economic development and growth. The emergence of this Third World solidarity  can be traced back to the Asian-African Conference, and  Bandung conference of 1955. The ‘Bandung Spirit,’ which symbolized the emergence of New Asia and New Africa, was described as “the spirit of love for peace, anti-violence, anti-discrimination, and development for all without trying to intervene for one another wrongly, but to pay a great respect to one another.” It became a guiding light for the emergence of the non-aligned movement (NAM), which allowed the newly emerged nation-states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to remain free from the Cold War bloc politics and exercise strategic autonomy to safeguard their national interests. Thus, the Bandung Conference and NAM provided the political foundation for SSC, which later transformed into economic cooperation through platforms like the Group of 77 or G-77.

 

The divergent economic interests of the North and the South that came to the fore during the deliberations of the Preparatory Committee, established to finalise the agenda for the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), became the basis for the emergence of G-77 in 1964. The G-77 marked the institutionalisation of the SSC, which helped in enhancing the negotiating power of developing countries and promoting collective economic interests at the international level and within the United Nations system. The economic upheavals of the 1970s further advanced this agenda, which ultimately resulted in the adoption of the ‘Declaration and Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order’ by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974. Speaking at the Fourth Ministerial meeting of the grouping in 1979, Julius K Nyerere had pointed out that ‘complete liberation of the Third World countries from external domination’ is the very objective of the G-77. The term ‘complete liberation’ meant the end of economic dependence of the developing countries on the industrialised North in every form and the establishment of a fairer international economic order. Thus, while NAM advanced the political and diplomatic freedom of the global south countries, the G-77 echoed the same freedom in the economic domain. Furthermore, the establishment of UNDP’s special unit for SSC in 1974 expanded cooperation and coordination among the developing countries in different arenas. Later renamed as the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC), the platform facilitates knowledge sharing and technology transfer, promotes innovative development solutions, and helps implement climate change adaptation funds (such as IBSA and India-UNDP Fund) primarily to ‘enable developing countries to pursue more resilient and sustainable development.’

The latter half of the 1970s and early 1980s saw greater emphasis on enhancing technical cooperation among developing countries (TCDC). These efforts resulted in the first-ever United Nations Conference on TCDC in 1978 in Buenos Aires. The conference adopted the Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA), which ‘sets out a comprehensive conceptual and operational framework for the promotion of TCDC.’ Following this the UN High Level Committee on Technical Cooperation was established in 1980, which in its report titled ‘New Direction for Cooperation Among Developing Countries’ in 1995 highlighted that although TCDC has not been fully integrated into the United Nations system but the concept remains valid and should focus on major themes such as poverty alleviation, production and employment, debt, trade and investment, among others. Thus, BAPA became a guiding light for strengthening cooperation in the technical arena among developing countries.

Diagram 1: Evolution of South-South Cooperation

 

Source: https://cooperacionsursur.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/18-DT05-Chrono-South-South2014.pdf#:~:text=in%201990%20resulted%20in%20the%20establishment%20of%20the%20South%20Centre%2C%20an&text=slogan%20on%20South%2DSouth%20Cooperation»11%20(1980)%2C%20«South%2DSouth.

SSC in the Era of BRICS and BRICS+

The post-Cold War era was largely characterised by globalisation and economic liberalisation, and SSC during this period, called ‘SSC 2.0’, shifted towards development cooperation and trade. In this expansionary phase, SSC became more visible with the emergence of groupings and forums such as the IBSA Forum, BRICS, IAFS (India-Africa Forum Summit), etc. Among these, BRICS emerged as the largest platform for enhancing horizontal cooperation by challenging the North-led inequities, particularly in the commercial and financial arena. As raised by the NIEO, the reform in the Bretton Woods system to create a transparent and democratic global economic order has been a key demand of BRICS since its first Summit in 2009. Demands such as a reform in the governance structure of the IMF ‘to increase the quota allotted to developing countries’ and to enhance representation of developing countries in the administrative structure of the World Bank and the IMF have been successful due to greater cooperation among the BRICS countries. However, despite these reforms, BRICS has established its own financial institutions and currency swap arrangements, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA), largely to reduce dependence on West-led international financial institutions (IFIs).

The BRICS-led NDB was launched in July 2015 to mobilise ‘resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs).’ Since its inception, NDB has financed 108 projects worth USD 35.6 billion in various sectors such as social and digital infrastructure, clean energy, transportation, environmental protection, water and sanitation, creating ground-level impacts in developing countries (see Table 1). To give an example, NDB has financed the ‘Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System Project’ in India, which has provided a fast and reliable public transport system for people living in surrounding areas and has improved access to education and job opportunities, particularly for vulnerable groups.

 

Table 1: Project Portfolio by Area of Cooperation in NDB

Area of Cooperation USD Amount
Clean Energy & Energy Efficiency 3.026 billion
Transport Infrastructure 10.479 billion
Water & Sanitation 2.684 billion
Environmental Protection 680 million
Social Infrastructure 810 million
Digital Infrastructure 300 million
Multi-area 3.235 billion
COVID-19 Emergency Assistance 9.016 billion

Source: https://www.ndb.int/projects/

Furthermore, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement has provided a new impetus to the SSC framework by moving towards a transparent economic architecture. Announced in the Durban BRICS Summit, CRA is a ‘USD 100 billion pooled reserve fund (see diagram 2) created to help emerging nations deal with liquidity shortages and to strengthen financial systems during a crisis.’ Established as a regional safety net for developing economies, CRA can provide financial stability to Global South countries from macroeconomic volatility, primarily at a time when reforms in IFIs are moving at a very slow pace. The governance architecture of CRA is quite democratic in nature. Although it resembles the IMF’s quota-based voting distribution for operational decisions, it does not provide veto power to any single entity party to the arrangement, making the environment consensus-driven.

Moving forward, the successful political, economic, and diplomatic coordination among the five BRICS countries has led them to make it more inclusive and multilateral by admitting countries from Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The new members, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran, joined the grouping formally in 2024, representing the mature institutional phase of SSC. Marking an inflection point in the SSC, this expansion would not only help BRICS members present their demands more emphatically at the global stage, but it would also strengthen their aim to move away from the Western-dominated international order. The call for de-dollarization at the 2024 Kazan Summit emphasizes a critical geoeconomic shift in an era where protectionist policies and tariff diplomacy are taking center stage. Accounting for 40% of the world economy and 49.5% of the global population, BRICS nations have vast market potential with a huge consumer base. Thus, BRICS countries have the rigor and diplomatic clout to further strengthen SSC and create a more inclusive, multilateral, equitable, and representative international system where the voice of developing countries is not suppressed under the weight of ‘white man’s burden.’

 

Diagram 2: BRICS Countries Contribution to CRA

 

Source: Created by author from https://brics.br/en/about-the-brics/new-development-bank#:~:text=The%20Contingent%20Reserve%20Arrangement%20(CRA,needed%20to%20request%20CRA%20resources.

 

The transformation of SSC from the Bandung Spirit to BRICS+ has been a remarkable journey representing the resilience and commitment of developing nations to make their voice heard in the almost North-led and North-dominated global order. However, power asymmetry, fragmentation, and competition among the Global South countries are some of the key obstacles in the path of SSC. To succeed in the unequal global system, countries must prioritize cooperation and collaboration instead of competition.

 

[ Navodita Kumari is an Intern at COGGS and PhD Research Scholar at University of Allahabad, India.

Bandung to BRICS+: The Evolution of South-South Cooperation Read Post »

UN Day of South-South Cooperation Observed, Triangular Cooperation Stressed

United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation

United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 58/220 designated 12 September as the United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation. This commemorates the 1978 adoption of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action for Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (BAPA), a seminal framework that redefined collaboration among nations of the Global South. BAPA recognized the agency of developing countries not merely as aid recipients, but as partners, problem-solvers, and innovators in charting a shared path of development.

“On this United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation, we celebrate the growing momentum of opportunity, innovation and solidarity across the Global South. In an increasingly multipolar world, developing countries are demonstrating remarkable resilience and ingenuity – not only in responding to crises, but in driving transformation.

They are creating bold, homegrown solutions and sharing them across borders, such as climate-smart agriculture, green technologies, digital finance and health breakthroughs.  These solutions are forged in mutual respect, shared learning and common purpose.

 South-South and triangular cooperation are engines of progress and vital to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  Yet we also recognize the responsibilities of developed countries to help address rising inequalities and advance sustainable development. As we mark this important Day, let’s celebrate South-South collaboration as a catalyst for reinvigorated multilateralism and building a more inclusive, equitable world for all,”  António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN speaking on the observation said.

 

 

In 2025, as the international community moves beyond the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and reflects on the outcomes of the 2024 Summit of the Future, the imperative of South-South cooperation has gained renewed urgency. The Summit’s Pact for the Future has infused momentum into multilateral reform and underscored the indispensable role of solidarity, collective action, and equitable global governance in shaping a just and sustainable world.

Development Challenges in a Polycrisis World

The global landscape remains fraught with overlapping crises:

  • Climate change: intensifying disasters, from heatwaves to flooding, disproportionately affect Global South nations.
  • Debt distress: many developing countries continue to allocate more resources to external debt servicing than to essential social investments.
  • Digital inequality: uneven connectivity perpetuates divides in education, trade, and innovation.
  • Health security and food systems: fragile supply chains and pandemic aftershocks continue to compromise resilience.
  • Extreme poverty: as of 2025, over 650 million people remain trapped in conditions of deprivation.

These challenges not only undermine progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but also highlight the urgency of knowledge-sharing and context-sensitive solutions rooted in the realities of the Global South.

Focus on Triangular Cooperation

South-South and triangular cooperation function as dynamic development modalities. They are not a substitute for North-South engagement but provide complementary and adaptive pathways to address global challenges. This year’s theme, “New Opportunities and Innovation through South-South and Triangular Cooperation”, highlights the transformational potential of peer-to-peer solidarity in advancing sustainable development. Their added value lies in:

  • Practical, adaptable models: grounded in domestic experiences of resilience, recovery, and economic adjustment.
  • Innovation ecosystems: spanning digital transformation, climate-resilient agriculture, community-based health systems, and sustainable financing.
  • Inclusive partnerships: bringing together governments, civil society, the private sector, and multilateral agencies in co-designing solutions.
  • Triangular cooperation: scaling innovations by linking Global South initiatives with technical and financial support from Northern and multilateral partners.

The recent findings of UNOSSC’s Global Report on South-South Cooperation, “Bridging Horizons and Continents”, emphasize that solidarity-based cooperation is not just symbolic but a proven framework for resilience, scale, and sustainability.

Financing for a Stronger Future

At the 22nd Session of the High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation, Member States reaffirmed the necessity of sustainable financing mechanisms. Calls were made to:

Expand access to blended finance, debt-for-SDG swaps, and impact investment instruments.

Establish dedicated financing windows for South-South initiatives within UN entities.

Develop more predictable, longer-term financing models that move beyond ad hoc pledges.

These demands echo broader debates on reforming the international financial architecture to better serve low- and middle-income countries, an agenda also underscored by the Summit of the Future and the Third South Summit.

Strategic Arenas of Collective Action

The Global South today is not merely an arena of need but is emerging as an engine of innovation and leadership. Through South-South and triangular cooperation, countries are advancing systemic change in several key domains:

  • Digital Transformation: scaling digital public infrastructure to expand financial inclusion, promote e-governance, and bridge connectivity gaps.
  • Climate Resilience: advancing peer-driven climate adaptation strategies such as drought-resistant cultivation and regional renewable energy corridors.
  • Health Systems: sharing innovations in universal health coverage, pandemic preparedness, and technology-enabled care.
  • Sustainable Financing and Trade: strengthening regional value chains, building trade corridors, and creating South-led mechanisms to reduce vulnerabilities.

Toward a Just, Peaceful, and Sustainable World

The Global South is home to the majority of humanity and a critical source of solutions to today’s pressing challenges. By harnessing the strength of shared experiences, resources, and capacities, South-South cooperation embodies the spirit of global solidarity. It is central to achieving the Pact for the Future’s call for a just and peaceful world.

Member States across multiple fora — from BAPA+40 High-level Conference on South-South Cooperation to the High-Level Conference of Middle-Income Countries — have underlined the need to mobilize these modalities more strategically. The message is clear: countries of the Global South have much to offer, irrespective of their stage of development.

UN Day of South-South Cooperation Observed, Triangular Cooperation Stressed Read Post »

How Brazil Bridging Global South?

-Dhea Marsha Ananda

 Multilateralism, a Global South’s drive, aims to balance global power, raise issues of development, economic justice, and climate change from the perspective of developing countries, and form an international system that is more democratic towards the needs of all countries, not just a handful of major powers. The need to redefine multilateralism is because the system of international cooperation based on shared rules has lost its legitimacy and success since it has failed to deal with major problems such as terrorism, war, pandemics, climate change, and economic instability (Thakur, 2025). This failure has led to geopolitical divisions, allowing minilaterals (a small group of special-purpose countries) and the Global South (GS) a stronger voice. This is especially true for developing countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa. Thus, BRICS and SCO evolved in response to the inadequacies of conventional multilateral institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and WTO. However, due to their exclusive nature, they also have the potential to threaten the viability of multilateralism. Therefore, the Global South now demands greater representation in global governance, proposes UN reforms, and emphasizes the importance of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the role of civil society in maintaining international justice. 

 

However, it is possible that the plan faces real challenges such as high poverty and inequality, and dependence on foreign aid and debt with political or economic conditions. There is also a lack of representation in global institutions, despite their growing population and economic contribution. Despite these challenges, the countries of the Global South are still working to redesign the international order, because multilateralism is no longer just a matter of diplomacy between powerful countries, but also an arena of struggle for the redistribution of global power, recognition of colonial history, and strengthening the voices of countries that have been marginalized.

Brazil and Multilateralism

Brazil demonstrates a clear commitment to form a new, inclusive multilaterality in global forums through strategic roles in the G20, BRICS, and environmental agencies like COP. At the 2024 Summit, Brazil successfully promoted the theme “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet” by launching important initiatives such as the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, and G20 Social as a platform for civil society participation (The Brazilian G20 and the Climate Finance Agenda, n.d.). By encouraging the use of local currency in trade and working together on projects pertaining to artificial intelligence and climate change, Brazil also sought to strengthen the agenda for economic cooperation and increase the number of its members during its 2025 BRICS chairmanship. Brazil was successful in making BRICS a workable global model for developing countries. Additionally, by preparing for COP30, which was held in Belém do Pará, Brazil demonstrated its commitment to global environmental challenges—lowering greenhouse gas emissions, becoming ready for climate change, and giving the Global South money (Watts, 2025).

 

Black and white photo of the iconic Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The iconic Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

 

IBSA is a forum for strengthening diplomacy between the South and the South that was co-founded by India, Brazil and South Africa in 2003. The nation plays an active role in promoting UN reform and social justice, including food security and gender equality. It supports peace in the South Atlantic through ZOPACAS and advocates for UN Security Council reform as part of the G4. By rejoining UNASUR and leading the Brasília Consensus, Brazil has strengthened its regional influence. Its peacekeeping efforts in the DRC, Haiti, and Lebanon show its global commitment.

However, rising trade tensions with the U.S., including a 50% increase in export tariffs, pose major challenges to Brazil’s international ambitions. This triggered countermeasures from Brazil through the WTO, with a decision to favor dialogue (Paraguassu, 2025). Another challenge was that the organization of COP30 in Belém was hampered by the accommodation crisis with “extortionate” prices accompanied by infrastructure deficiencies, to the threat of moving the location, so the government prepared alternative lodging places such as cruise ships (Borenstein, 2025).

Brazil balances its relations with the Global South and the West as part of its non-aligned foreign policy. Its policy of diplomatic and economic diversification is seen in its improved ties with the United States, China, Japan, and Mexico. Key initiatives include cooperation with Japan on supply chains and climate justice, applying for full IEA membership, and launching the “Redata” scheme to attract green tech investment in renewable-powered data centers. In addition, a US$1 billion investment with IFC and BTG Pactual was made by Brazil for bioeconomy and climate resilience initiatives in the Amazon region.

It can be concluded that Brazil successfully combined formal diplomatic leadership with practical action to strengthen the multipolar global structure. Although multilateralism is in an identity crisis due to the weak performance of global institutions and increasing geopolitical fragmentation, recovery remains possible through reforms, stronger Global South representation, flexible minilaterals, and active civil society roles in promoting justice and sustainability. Brazil’s strategy has boosted its global image and empowered Southern nations in multilateral engagement.

 

[ Dhea Marsha Ananda is an intern at COGGS and student of International Relations, UPN “Veteran” East Java University ] 

How Brazil Bridging Global South? Read Post »

Is Global South Modern?

– Natasya Aulia

MODERNITY IS OFTEN understood as a product of European history that was then imposed as a universal standard for the world. This paradigm places the Global South as an entity that is always lagging behind, “less modern,” and must catch up by imitating Western development models. However, an important question that now arises is to what extent the Global South is able to define its own standards of modernity, not only as a critique of Eurocentric modernity, but also as an operational alternative. Through conceptual studies and case studies from Asia, Latin America, and Africa, evidence has emerged of a shift towards contextual plural modernities, although still overshadowed by structural obstacles such as financial and technological dependence (Fikriyah, 2024).

 

[ Russia based Political Philosopher Alexander Dugin on Global South and Modernity in an exclusive interview with COGGS. ] 

Historically, the category of the “Global South” was born not as a geographical description, but as a political construct rooted in the legacy of colonialism and Western-biased modernization. (Fry, 2017) emphasizes that the Global South was shaped by relations of domination that not only deprived it of resources, but also destroyed the value systems, knowledge, and future orientation of societies in the South. Modernity, in this case, cannot be separated from colonialism, which created conditions of “ruination” and ongoing dependency. This understanding shows that the Global South’s efforts to define standards of modernity are essentially an attempt at decolonizing knowledge (decoloniality) that seeks to dismantle old epistemic structures.

The concept of “multiple modernities” developed by Einstadt (2000) offers a theoretical framework for understanding these dynamics. Rather than a single linear path toward Western modernity, modernity can be understood as a plural process rooted in the traditions, institutions, and histories of each society. In the context of the Global South, multiple modernities are evident in the combination of global technology adoption and local values, such as the digitization of public services in India linked to social inclusion, or the solidarity economy model in Brazil that emphasizes distributive justice. In other words, the Global South is not only a consumer of modernity but also a producer of alternative standards.

However, the process of articulating plural modernities in the South is not easy. Structural barriers remain strong. A report (Aynaoui et al., 2023) published by ISPI, ORF, and PCNS shows that although the economies of the Global South now contribute a significant proportion of global GDP, political representation and decision-making capacity in international institutions remain uneven. For example, BRICS, which collectively controls 26% of global GDP, only has 14% of the votes in the IMF, an indication of epistemic and institutional injustice that hinders sovereignty in determining development standards. In these conditions, the discourse on epistemic sovereignty becomes increasingly relevant.

Indonesia and the ASEAN region provide concrete illustrations of how the Global South is attempting to negotiate its own modernity. As a country with a long colonial history, Indonesia has developed a development model that attempts to combine democracy with local cultural plurality. Meanwhile, ASEAN collectively promotes the concept of the ASEAN Way, which emphasizes consensus and non-intervention, a governance model that is often considered “unmodern” by Western standards, but is functional in maintaining regional stability (Fikriyah, 2024). Similarly, India, with its Digital India program, is not simply adopting Western technology, but emphasizing national data sovereignty. Brazil, through its social policies, presents a form of modernity that emphasizes the distribution of welfare, while South Africa seeks to articulate modernity through the discourse of Ubuntu, which emphasizes collectivity.

Although the discourse on the Global South is growing stronger, we must not turn a blind eye to the potential for fragmentation within it. As noted by (Shield, 2021), the term Global South often oversimplifies reality, given that countries included in this category have different political interests, economic orientations, and historical experiences. Differences in attitudes toward global issues, such as responses to the war in Ukraine or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, demonstrate that solidarity within the Global South is not always linear or consistent. Therefore, when discussing alternative modernity from the Global South, it is important to avoid viewing it as a homogeneous bloc. It is precisely this internal diversity that needs to be taken into account so that the proposed standards of modernity do not lose their legitimacy or relevance.

In the context of policy design and cultural practices, (Fry, 2017) asserts that criticism of Eurocentrism is only the first step. What is more urgent is to build a knowledge ecosystem based on the needs, values, and local realities of communities in the Global South. This means that the Global South must develop a policy architecture that tangibly supports sovereignty standards, whether in the form of technology regulations, digital data governance, or development indicators that are more sensitive to social and environmental contexts. If the Global South has often been in a position of being determined by global actors, now is the time to move towards becoming an active actor that determines its own path, not only in discourse but also in institutional practice.

The concept of sustainment proposed by Fry (2017) is crucial to understanding the new direction of modernity in the Global South. Sustainment emphasizes the importance of maintaining a sustainable relationship between design, modernity, and the survival of the planet. This sustainment-based model of modernity opens up space for the Global South to offer new standards that differ from the Western model of extractive industrialization. Examples can be found in renewable energy programs in Africa that emphasize local community solutions, or in digital economy practices in Asia that expand women’s participation. The report (Aynaoui et al., 2023) also highlights that more and more Southern countries are beginning to link their development agendas to principles of social inclusivity and environmental sustainability, rather than solely economic growth.

Overall, the question “Can the Global South define its own standards of modernity?” can be answered with cautious optimism. There is ample empirical and conceptual evidence showing that Southern countries are moving towards a form of modernity that is more in line with local needs and values. However, significant obstacles remain, ranging from financial dependence on international financial institutions, technological dominance by developed countries, to global knowledge hegemony that places Western theories and experiences as the main benchmark.

Therefore, efforts to build a Global South version of modernity cannot stop at criticizing the West, but must be realized in the form of strong policy development, regulations that favor domestic interests, and an independent knowledge ecosystem. This challenge is also a great opportunity. If successful, the Global South can show that modernity does not have to mean imitating European or American models, but can arise from the historical experiences, cultures, and creativity of Southern societies themselves. In other words, modernity from the Global South has the potential to bring about new standards that are more inclusive, fair, and sustainable for the world.

 

[ Natasya Aulia is an Indonesian intern at COGGS and student of International Relations.]

Is Global South Modern? Read Post »

Global South’s Climate Challenges: Victim or Negotiator ?

 

– Iftah Al Aqliyah

The biggest crisis of the twenty-first century is climate change and it threatens ecosystems, economies, and human security globally. The Global South, a broad term for nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific, is experiencing this crisis severely over the past few decades. These nations suffer the most from the effects of climate change, including persistent droughts, devastating floods, sea-level rise, and increasing food insecurity, even though they emit least in the world. Because of this systemic disequilibrium, the Global South has historically been perceived as the “victim” of global warming and reliant on the technological and financial assistance of the Global North. New global climate diplomatic patterns, however, herald a change.Global South nations are becoming more proactive negotiators rather than passive recipients of aid, as seen in the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund during COP27, the G77 + China’s braver step, and South-South cooperation taking shape. This article explores this ambivalence by examining the paradoxes and difficulties of the Global South’s dual role as a victim of global warming and a emerging new agenda-shaper in international climate negotiation.

Global South as the Victims

Even while the Global South contributes significantly less to global emissions than the Global North, they still face the brunt of the climate catastrophe.  In other areas, the influence is evident.  Food shortages, severe flooding, and protracted droughts are persistent issues in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most nations are classified as high vulnerability and low readiness.  While Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines are regularly struck by severe floods and tropical storms, small island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives in South Asia and the Pacific face the prospect of submersion.  Similar circumstances exist in Latin America, where forest fires and deforestation increase climatic sensitivity and pose a health risk to the populace. The Germanwatch Climate Risk Index report ranks Pakistan, India, and the Philippines as the countries with the highest impact of extreme climate disasters in the last three decades.

Some social groups in the Global South are more severely impacted by climate change than others, in addition to being geographically vulnerable.  For instance, when disasters occur, women and children are more likely to lose access to food, healthcare, and education.  People with impairments and older individuals frequently encounter obstacles when trying to evacuate or get emergency help.  Meanwhile, when droughts or floods devastate agricultural land and essential infrastructure, disadvantaged communities and informal laborers are the first to lose their livelihoods.  According to a comprehensive assessment, these populations face socioeconomic disparities that worsen their circumstances in addition to physical harm.

However, the Global South remains a victim because to its weak capacity for adaptation.  According to Columbia University’s 2025 Global Climate Risk Index on Vulnerability and Access to Finance, two-thirds of the nations in the “red zone” category are in Africa and have little access to international adaptation funding.  Countries in the Global South are dependent on aid from the Global North and international organizations due to a lack of financial resources, poor technology, and a weak infrastructure for adaptation.  This demonstrates that their situation will continue to be impacted by the global climate problem in the absence of equitable support. Protest sign at climate change rally reading 'There is no Planet B'.

Global South as Negotiator

Despite its reputation as the most climate-vulnerable region, the Global South has changed from being a victim to an active participant in international climate diplomacy.  In international forums, this shift in role is particularly noticeable since the 2022 COP27 in Egypt.  The establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, which acknowledges the historical responsibility of wealthier nations for the climate issue, was successfully pushed for at that gathering by countries in the Global South.  Because the voices of poor nations are now influencing the design of global climate policy for the first time, this achievement is regarded as a significant turning point.

Active engagement also strengthens negotiations. Diplomatic efforts by Global South countries in seeking climate justice and fairer access to funding are still led by the G77 + China. In addition, platforms such as the High-Level Global South Dialogue, to be held in 2025 from Marrakech to Belém, demonstrate the growing cross-regional coordination. As actors with the ability to steer international debate, Global South countries are not only addressing the impacts of climate change but also developing an agenda for a just energy transition. Additionally, South-South Cooperation (SSC) improves the Global South’s bargaining power outside of international venues.  Countries like South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia actively contribute to the development of adaptation capability in their areas, whether it be through disaster management, renewable energy, or sustainable agriculture technologies. These programs demonstrate that the Global South is providing practical answers that can be implemented globally rather than only waiting for assistance.

In fact, developing nations are now using the Columbia Climate Vulnerability Index (2025) study as a guide when calling for more equitable access to international finance, demonstrating their capacity to employ technical tools to bolster their diplomatic stance. Through various active initiatives, the Global South has successfully demonstrated that it is not merely standing by and waiting for assistance, but is moving forward to fight for justice for vulnerable countries and promote a more equitable and sustainable transformation of global governance.

Despite the fact that the Global South’s participation in climate diplomacy is becoming more significant, several significant obstacles still limit its efficacy.  Since the interests of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) diverge from those of big developing nations like China, Brazil, or India, priorities and interests are a significant problem.  Furthermore, several nations face a conflict between their commitments to climate change and economic growth due to their reliance on extractive sectors like coal, oil, and palm oil.  Their negotiating position at the table is further weakened by limited access to foreign funds and adaption technologies.

 

Conclusion

Being both a victim and a negotiator puts the Global South in a precarious situation.  It is undoubtedly the most susceptible to the effects of climate change, but it is also increasingly influencing the structure of international climate diplomacy.  It is no longer a passive actor, as evidenced by its leadership in the Global South dialogue and the successful negotiation of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27. But in order to be genuinely acknowledged as equal negotiators, the Global South must resolve its own issues, fortify regional unity, and make sure that climate diplomacy is implemented domestically. Whether the Global South can continue to hold this dual position as the foundation for the fight for global climate justice will have a significant impact on the direction of climate diplomacy in the future.

 

[ Iftah Al Aqliyah is an Intern at COGGS and student of International Relations, UPN Jawa Timur  Veteran University, Surabaya, Indonesia. Opinions expressed don’t necessarily reflect the views of COGGS.  ]

References

Adjani, W. K. (2022). Mapping Indonesia’s South-South triangular cooperation initiatives. Global South Review, 3(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.22146/globalsouth.64191

Columbia Climate School. (2025, June 25). Global Climate Risk Index ranks 188 countries by vulnerability and access to finance. Columbia University. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2025/06/25/global-climate-risk-index-ranks-188-countries-by-vulnerability-and-access-to-finance/

Germanwatch. (2024). Global Climate Risk Index 2024. Germanwatch e.V. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/cri

Golding, J. (2023). COP27 and the new rise of the Global South. New England Journal of Public Policy, 35(2), Article 9. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol35/iss2/9

Ngcamu, B. S. (2023). Climate change effects on vulnerable populations in the Global South: A systematic review. Natural Hazards, 118(2), 977–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06070-2

Sono, D., Wei, Y., & Jin, Y. (2021). Assessing the climate resilience of Sub-Saharan Africa. Land, 10(1205), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121205

United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation. (2025, July 30). From Marrakech to Belém: High-level Global South dialogue amplifies Southern leadership in shaping the climate agenda. UNOSSC. https://unsouthsouth.org/2025/07/30/from-marrakech-to-belem-high%E2%80%91level-global-south-dialogue-amplifies-southern-leadership-in-shaping-the-climate-agenda/

Wuppertal Institute. (2024). From COP28 to COP29: Climate negotiations at a crossroads. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. https://wupperinst.org/en/a/wi/a/s/ad/9003/

Budiana, M. (2024). Climate change and international politics: Cooperation or conflict. Journal of Law, Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.5555/jlssh.2024.6.2

 

Global South’s Climate Challenges: Victim or Negotiator ? Read Post »

What makes the SCO Resilient?

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has set a model for a new type of international relations, Chinese President Xi Jinping made the remarks while addressing the 25th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the SCO in China’s Tianjin on September 1. The member states were the first to put forward the vision of global governance featuring extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefit as an effort to practice true multilateralism,  President Xi said.

Against protectionist headwinds, true multilateralism is what the international community has called for several times.Under this vision, the SCO’s remarkable development over 24 years has propelled it into a vital platform for regional security, economic collaboration, and international diplomacy, demonstrating a model of multilateralism rooted in mutual trust and respect.

“We were the first to conclude a treaty on long-term good-neighborliness, friendship and cooperation, proclaiming our commitment to forge lasting friendships and refrain from hostilities,” Xi added.

Over the past decades, the SCO has made substantial strides in fostering mutual political trust and safeguarding regional security. What was initially founded as a security group has evolved into a comprehensive organization representing a quarter of global GDP over the years.

China’s investment stock in other SCO member states has exceeded $84 billion, and its annual bilateral trade with other SCO member states has surpassed $500 billion. Chinese companies have established over 3,000 enterprises in other SCO member countries, generating an average of more than 200,000 employment opportunities annually, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce.

This year’s summit has further consolidated these gains, reaffirming the SCO as a stabilizing force amid turmoil.

Xi pledged to provide 2 billion yuan ($281 million) in grants to SCO member states this year. The country will also issue an additional 10 billion yuan ($1.4 billion) in loans to the member banks of the SCO Interbank Consortium over the next three years. Pragmatism is a key word that was stressed several times in Xi’s Monday remarks. This perhaps explains the SCO’s increasing popularity on the international arena.

It is worth noting that this year’s summit is the largest in SCO history, reflecting the organization’s expanding membership and influence. The organization has now expanded into a 26-nation family spanning Asia, Europe and Africa.

This growth enhances the SCO’s significance as an alternative model for regional cooperation compared to Western-dominated organizations.

The inclusion of diverse members underscores the SCO’s appeal as a platform where sovereignty and non-interference are respected while pursuing common goals of security, economic development, and cultural exchange. This adherence to core principles has made the SCO attractive to countries seeking balanced partnerships.

China, as a founding member, has proposed the Belt and Road Initiative, the SCO Interbank Consortium and others to strengthen this vision of a shared future.

Hosting the summit in Tianjin is a showcase of China’s commitment to leading a cooperative, multipolar world order. China, on several occasions, has clearly indicated its dedication to making the SCO not just a forum for dialogue but a substantive actor in global governance.

This set the tone for the summit’s agenda, aiming to chart the course for a high-quality, sustained partnership among member states. China’s focus on equality, mutual respect, and shared growth resonates within the SCO framework, enhancing the organization’s appeal and influence.

 

This year’s summit comes at a challenging time. But the SCO’s enhanced cooperation mechanisms and expanding appeal underscore its relevance in today’s multipolar world. The SCO Tianjin Summit has further cemented the organization’s role in fostering a stable, prosperous and interconnected region, embodying the enduring “Shanghai Spirit” and setting a precedent for the future of international cooperation.

[ This article is republished from CGTN’s First Voice  under a content syndication arrangement. The views expressed are those of CGTN.] 

What makes the SCO Resilient? Read Post »

Scroll to Top