A New Non-Alignment for the Global South

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

CAMPINAS, Brazil, Aug 26 2025 (IPS) - The Global South had little voice, let alone influence, in shaping the economically ‘neoliberal’ and politically ‘neoconservative’ globalisation leading to contemporary geopolitical economic conflicts. Pacifist non-aligned cooperation for sustainable development offers the best way forward.

Peace, Freedom, Neutrality

Realising non-alignment for our times should begin with current realities rather than abstract, ahistorical principles. 2025 is also the 70th anniversary of the beginnings of non-alignment, first mooted at the Asia-Africa summit in Bandung, Indonesia.

The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established in 1967 by anti-communist governments of the region. In 1973, its leaders agreed the area should be a Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN).

The world was deemed unipolar American discourse after the first Cold War. Meanwhile, most of the Global South remained non-aligned in what the Rest see as a multipolar world.

Despite critical dissent, the West seems to have lost interest in preserving peace. Unsurprisingly, the US and its NATO allies increasingly ignore the United Nations. Foreign military interventions since the first Cold War already exceed the many of that longer era.

During World War II, military production generated growth and employment in Germany, Japan and the US. But surely, development today is best achieved peacefully and cooperatively.

Pacifist non-alignment should cut unnecessary military spending. Although big powers compete for hegemony by weaponising international relations, they will still try to ‘buy’ support from the non-aligned.

Realistically, most small developing nations cannot lead international peace-making. But they can and should be a stronger moral force urging justice, peace, freedom, neutrality, development, and international cooperation.

Return of the Global South

The Group of 77 (G77) developing countries’ caucus and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) were both established in 1964. Headquartered in Geneva, UNCTAD is part of the UN Secretariat but has been steadily marginalised.

The G77 has a formal presence throughout the UN multilateral system. It now has over 130 members, including China, but its impact outside New York in recent decades has been limited.

Sustainability challenges and planetary heating are generally worse in the tropics, where most people in developing countries are. Meanwhile, hunger worldwide has worsened since 2014, while World Bank-reported income poverty has risen since the COVID-19 pandemic.

An inclusive and equitable multilateralism can better address the world’s challenges, especially peace and sustainable development – so crucial for progress in our dark times.

Global South needs better voice

While working for Goldman Sachs, Lord Jim O’Neill referred to Brazil, Russia, India, and China as the BRIC countries.

With South Africa joining, ostensibly representing Africa, they soon began meeting regularly. As members of the G20 group of the world’s twenty largest economies, the BRICS initially lobbied on financial issues.

They have since incorporated other large economies of the South, but also incurred the wrath of President Trump. While some nations have sought to join the enlarged BRICS plus (BRICS+), a few have hesitated after being invited.

BRICS has no record of strong and consistent advocacy of the interests of smaller developing economies. Most financially weak small nations doubt that BRICS+ will serve them well.

Higher US interest rates have triggered massive capital inflows, especially from the poorest countries, depriving them of finance at a time of greater need.

Meanwhile, aid levels have fallen tremendously, especially with Trump 2.0. Official development assistance (ODA) to the Global South is now below 0.3% of GDP, less than half the 0.7% commitment made in 1969.

Lowering tax rates has further squeezed the West’s already limited budgetary resources as stagnation deepens. Trump’s tariffs, US expenditure cuts, and greater Western military spending deepen worldwide economic contraction.

Non-alignment for our times

The Global South must urgently promote a new non-alignment for multilateral peace, development, and international cooperation to address Third World challenges better.

Even IMF number two, Gita Gopinath, agrees that developing countries should opt for non-alignment to benefit from not taking sides in the new Cold War.

With the exception of Brazil’s Lula, leadership by statesmen with international standing beyond their national stature largely passed with Nelson Mandela.

A few dynamic new leaders have emerged, but have not taken on the responsibilities of Global South leadership. Such leadership is in short supply despite the urgent need.

It is much easier to revive, reform, and reinvigorate NAM than to start from scratch. Although it has been less influential in recent decades, it can be revitalised.

Also, foreign policies are typically less subject to other typical national domestic policy considerations. Hence, they do not vary as much with the governments of the day.

Also, most developing country governments must appear to protect national interests to secure political support and legitimacy for survival.

Hence, conservative, even reactionary governments may take otherwise surprising anti-hegemonic positions in multilateral fora, especially with growing widespread resentment of bullying for extortion.

Related IPS Articles:

• Can East Asia Show the Way?

• Will Europe Wage Peace?

• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South

• The Global South in the New Cold War

• IMF Urges Non-alignment in Second Cold War

• Deepening Stagflation: Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire

• War or Peace, Barbarism or Hope

Available online at: A New Non-Alignment for the Global South

Inequality Worsens Planetary Heating

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Aug 12 2025 (IPS) - The accumulation of still growing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in an increasingly unequal world is accelerating planetary heating. It is also worsening disparities, especially between the rich and others, both nationally and internationally.

Unequal emissions

In our grossly unequal world, international disparities account for two-thirds of overall income inequalities. National income aggregates and averages can mislead by obscuring significant disparities within countries.

The World Inequality Report argues that GHG emission disparities are mainly due to inequalities within countries. Meanwhile, GHG emissions continue to grow as their accumulation accelerates planetary heating.

Emissions disparities within nations now account for almost two-thirds of worldwide emissions inequality, nearly doubling from slightly over a third in 1990.

The bottom halves of rich country populations are already at – or close to – the 2030 per capita carbon dioxide equivalent emission targets set by their governments. Yet North America’s wealthiest 10% or decile are the world’s biggest GHG emitters.

Their average emissions are 73 times those of the bottom half of the South and Southeast Asian populations! The East Asian rich also emit high GHGs, but much less than in North America.

The bottom halves of their populations emit nearly ten tons per capita yearly in North America, around five tons in

Europe, and about three tons in East Asia.

The much smaller carbon footprints of most of the Global South contrast with the GHG emissions of the top deciles in their own countries and those of the wealthiest 10% in poorer regions.

The top deciles in South and Southeast Asia emit more than double the GHG emissions of Europe’s lower half. Even sub-Saharan Africa’s top decile emits more than Europe’s lower half on average.

Inequality drives emissions

Jayati Ghosh, Shouvik Chakraborty and Debamanyu Das argue that inequality has been driving increases in GHG emissions. While the bottom halves in the US and Europe reduced per capita emissions by 15-20% between 1990 and 2019, the top 1% increased theirs.

The world’s top decile alone accounts for almost half of GHG emissions. As the wealthy become even richer, their adverse environmental impacts increase.

Despite misleading rhetoric, most carbon taxation is not progressive, typically burdening middle- and low-income groups much more than those most responsible, the rich.

Policies to cut GHG emissions must curb excessive consumption by the rich as well as ‘extractivist’ production worldwide to meet their demands.

Profits trump public interest

Meanwhile, transnational corporations and Western governments have refused to honour the public health exception (PHE) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) intellectual property (IP) rights agreement, TRIPS.

The PHE compromise was agreed to in 2001 to resume WTO trade negotiations at its Doha inter-ministerial meeting after the aborted Seattle conference in 1999.

But then, rich nation governments blocked developing countries’ requests for a PHE waiver to urgently produce enough affordable tests, treatments, equipment and vaccines for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hence, it is unlikely significant IP concessions will be forthcoming to boost developing countries’ efforts to mitigate and adapt to effectively address planetary heating.

The sources of global warming are local, while planetary heating is worldwide, albeit uneven. Effective coping policies and measures are costly and generally more burdensome to the poor and middle classes.

Alternative arrangements can enable greater equity and sustainability. However, mobilising more concerted and effective resistance to planetary heating has proved very difficult.

Climate injustice

Historical accumulation of GHG emissions is the leading cause of planetary warming. Developed countries were responsible for almost four-fifths of cumulative GHG emissions from 1850 to 2011.

Meanwhile, their adverse impacts on developing countries in the tropics are worse. The Global South is also less able to cope due to limited policy space and means.

‘Net-zero’ commitments by countries do not acknowledge the huge climate burden imposed by past GHG accumulation, thus undermining prospects for a just transition.

In international negotiations, wealthy economies have evaded historical responsibility for ‘climate debt’ by focusing on contemporary emissions and ignoring their accumulation over the last two centuries.

Ignoring this historical climate debt also serves to legitimise ignoring compensation for those most adversely impacted in low- and lower-middle-income countries, who have already suffered extensive damage and losses.

This pretence is not only unfair, but also counterproductive. It has undermined the international solidarity and cooperation needed to cope with planetary heating.

Breaching threshold

Current rich nations’ projected emissions will use up three-fifths of the remaining global warming threshold for the world’s ‘carbon budget’ until 2050, so as not to exceed the 1.5°C addition to pre-industrial levels!

However, the most optimistic recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario expected the 1.5°C threshold to be crossed by 2040!

But even before US President Trump re-accelerated planetary heating after his re-election, then UN Special Envoy and now Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned this threshold would be breached by the end of this decade!

Related IPS Articles:

• Western Climate Hypocrisy Exposed by NATO Energy Policy

• Net Zero by 2050 Delays Needed Urgent Climate Action

• Net Zero by 2050 Delays Needed Urgent Climate Action

• Global Poverty Grows as Super-Rich Get Richer Faster

• Rich Nation Hypocrisy Accelerating Global Heating

• Carbon Markets Biased, Distorted, Undermined

• Rich Distort Climate Problems, Offer Self-Serving Solutions

• Beware Climate Finance Charade

Available online at: Inequality Worsens Planetary Heating

Trump Tech Big Bro: Monopoly Is Best

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 15 2025 (IPS) - Trump’s billionaire cronies want more monopoly profits, not competition. With more policies crafted for them, wealth concentration is set to become greater than ever.

Neoliberalism?

There is no clear consensus on what neoliberal economics stands for now. Many who claim to be liberal economists have different, even contradictory views.

Some demand market competition and oppose monopolies and oligopolies. For others, property rights are crucial, typically strengthening monopoly rights.

Many avowed neoliberals deemphasise competition and hesitate to insist on antitrust action or opposition to abuses of market power.

Property rights confer monopoly or exclusive ownership rights to an asset, typically denying access to others except for payment. Many such rights are recent.

While UK Prime Minister from 1979, Margaret Thatcher triggered a worldwide neoliberal economic counter-revolution, especially in the Anglosphere.

With generally more limited public ownership, the US economy has long been more ‘private’, offering little scope for privatisation.

Tech Big Bro

PayPal and Palantir founder Peter Thiel is the most influential of the so-called ‘tech bros’ supporting re-elected US President Donald Trump.

Thiel was the two-term president’s biggest funder for his unexpectedly successful 2016 campaign. As former boss, funder and mentor, he is now Vice President JD Vance’s godfather.

In 2014, Thiel’s ‘Competition is for Losers’ established him as the lead apologist for lucrative rentier monopolies, especially those invoking intellectual property rights (IPRs).

Thiel noted ‘perfect competition’ is “both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101”. In textbooks, firms in competitive markets are presumed to be similar, selling the same goods.

Hence, they have no ‘market power’ and must sell at market-determined prices. When demand rises, firms invest to increase supply, reducing prices and profits.

In mainstream economics, there can be no economic rent under perfect competition. But prices can be raised more easily in cornered markets.

Buyers will then have no other source to buy from. Without competition, monopolies can maximise profits by controlling market supplies and prices.

Hence, profit maximisation involves capturing more rents in monopolistic conditions. To become richer, firms eschew competition in favour of monopoly.

Government role contradictory

Tech ‘Big Brother’ Thiel notes, “To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top.”

The state’s role is contradictory as government “works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions)” while enforcing antitrust law to undermine them.

Thiel claims to be uninterested in “illegal bullies or government favorites”, but surely knows governments create and sustain the monopolies he so cherishes.

He notes that “Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines”. But for him, “capitalism and competition are opposites”.

“Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away.”

The advocate of monopoly claims monopolists are “incentivized to bend the truth” and to “lie to protect themselves … [from] … being audited, scrutinized and attacked”.

Thiel unabashedly acknowledges that rentiers have every incentive to protect, disguise and “conceal their monopoly” and incomes.

Instead, the billionaire rentier wants monopoly powers and profits to grow faster without being taxed or having to share.

Monopoly best for capitalism?

Thiel acknowledges that monopolists accumulate rents in a static world.

But he insists they “invent new and better things … Creative monopolies aren’t just good for the rest of society; they’re powerful engines for making it better.”

He insists a monopoly is “so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute”. For him, “the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents”.

The tech billionaire insists decades of monopoly profits provide a powerful incentive to innovate. Thus, monopolies continue to drive progress.

He denounces mainstream neoliberal economists as “obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history … Their theories describe … perfect competition because that is what’s easy to model.”

“In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot … Monopoly is the condition of every successful business.”

Monopolies thrive under Trump

Unsurprisingly, many supposed neoliberals today stress property rights while ignoring liberal economics’ claim to promote competition.

Competition is dismissed as 19th-century economic liberalism. Meanwhile, contemporary monopoly capitalism accelerates wealth and income concentration.

But Thiel exaggerates monopolies’ contribution to human progress, capitalist dynamism and innovation, while understating their considerable harms.

With the tech bros increasingly supporting the president, Trump 2.0 promises to further enrich rentiers, especially those of their ilk.

His selective Liberation Day tariffs and other policies, especially his new ‘big beautiful bill’, will significantly increase, not reduce, US government debt while deepening American fiscal inequities.

As US tariffs, wars and other distractions preoccupy the world, unwitting MAGA loyalists remain loyal to Trump and his billionaire rentiers’ ‘counter-revolution’.