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

Can East Asia Show the Way?

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jun 3 2025 (IPS) - With two-fifths of the world economy, East Asia can inspire others by creatively responding to the US President’s tariff challenge by promoting fair, dynamic and peaceful regional cooperation.

No winners in economic war

Trump’s Liberation Day tariff announcement on April 2nd poses a common challenge that everyone needs to take seriously. Dismissing it as crazy or stupid for rejecting conventional policy wisdom is useless.

Politics and economics have been said to be war by other means. This old insight helps make sense of our times. His announcement emphasised it is about world domination, not just tariffs.

His first shot was arguably fired when Canada arrested Huawei’s founder’s daughter at the behest of the first Trump administration. Others suggest different starting points.

Obama announced the US ‘pivot to Asia’ to contain China. The Nobel Peace Laureate also undermined the multilateral World Trade Organization (WTO)’s ability to settle disputes by blocking arbitration panel appointments.

Trump’s approach is termed transactional. It presumes ‘zero-sum games’ and ignores cooperative ‘win-win’ solutions. Its implications mean we live in perilous times.

His penchant for ‘shock and awe’ is well-known. As if demanding instant gratification, Trump seems uninterested in the medium-term, let alone the long-term.

He insists on bilateral one-on-one transactions – weakening ‘the other’ by refusing collective bargaining. He rejects plurilateral and other collective arrangements but embraces cooperation to share costs. China is different but exceptionally so.

ASEAN

The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) did not include all in the region when it was formed in 1967.

Malaysia had recently had conflicts with all other founding members. Indonesia and the Philippines both opposed the new British-sponsored Malaysian confederation established in 1963, and in 1965, Singapore seceded from it.

Like the European Union, ASEAN helped resolve recent conflicts. But ASEAN soon got its act together, even before the Vietnam, Cambodian and Laotian wars ended in 1975.

In 1973, ASEAN leaders agreed that Southeast Asia should become a zone of peace, freedom, and neutrality (ZOPFAN). But its progress has been mixed.

The Philippines removed all US military bases before the end of the 20th century, but now has eleven, with four new ones in the north, facing Taiwan.

ZOPFAN is especially relevant now as several Global North powers have a military presence in the South China Sea. Worse, several Asian leaders have made generous concessions to ‘circumvent’ personal legal ‘problems’ with US authorities.

The recent ASEAN summit will be followed by a second one later in 2025. Two ASEAN precedents, established in response to earlier predicaments, remain relevant.

Bandung

The 1955 Bandung conference of Asian and African leaders of newly emerging nations, which led to the birth of the Non-Aligned Movement, remains relevant.

Europe recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. Now rejecting peaceful coexistence with its erstwhile liberator, Europe insists on fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Military interventions after the first Cold War now exceed the number during it! Despite its rhetoric, the Global North seems uninterested in freedom and neutrality.

Western pundits deemed the world unipolar after the 1980s. However, many now see it as multipolar, with most in the Global South preferring not to be aligned with any particular world power.

Major Western powers have increasingly marginalised the UN, undermining its capacity for peacemaking. Few in the West, especially in NATO, remain seriously committed to the UN Charter despite giving much lip service.

But realistically, ASEAN cannot really lead international peacemaking. It can only be a pro-active, pro-UN voice of reason for peace, freedom, neutrality, development and international cooperation.

East Asia

Meanwhile, the world economy is stagnating, mainly due to Western policies since 2008. ASEAN+3 (including Japan, South Korea, and China) is especially relevant now with its Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

The earlier ASEAN+3 Chiang Mai Agreement responded to the 1997-98 Asian financial crises. After years of Northeast Asian encouragement, ASEAN nations agreed to move from bilateral to multilateral swap arrangements.

Meanwhile, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) has progressed little since its creation over three decades ago.

More recently, the governments of Japan, China, and South Korea met without ASEAN in late March to prepare for Trump’s tariffs.

Sadly, key ASEAN leaders can hardly envision regional economic cooperation beyond yet another free trade agreement.

Trump has declared he wants to remake and rule the world to make America great again. His tariffs and Mar-a-Lago proposals should be seen as long overdue wake-up calls that ‘business as usual’ is over.

Will East Asia rise to the challenge and go beyond defensive actions to offer an alternative for the region’s economies and people, if not beyond?

The UN-led multilateral system still largely serves the US, but not enough for Trump. Thus, the US still invokes multilateral language self-servingly, e.g., it claims its unilateral tariffs are ‘reciprocal’.

Hence, despite his blatant contempt for them, Trump is unlikely to withdraw from all multilateral organisations and arrangements, especially those which serve him well.

Related IPS Articles

• Will Europe Wage Peace?

• Trump Accord Sows Discord in US Empire

• Trump Wants World to Subsidise US Empire

• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs

• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South

• The Global South in the New Cold War

• How NOT to Win Friends and Influence People

• Reject CPTPP, Stay out of New Cold War

• Nothing to Learn from East Asia?

• Trade, Currency War Weapons Double-Edged

• What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?

• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective

Available online here: Can East Asia Show the Way?

Will Europe Wage Peace?

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, May 20 2025 (IPS) - With President Trump’s efforts to end the Ukraine war, Europeans are now mainly responsible for prolonging it. Despite lame protestations of peace, Europe seems committed to fighting ‘to the last Ukrainian’.

Unsustainable peace

As Europe celebrated the end of the Nazi-initiated Second World War earlier in May, it does not seem to know how to sustain peace after war.

Both ‘world wars’ of the 20th century started in Europe as inter-imperialist wars, killing millions. In 1884-5, the Berlin Conference divided Africa among the dominant European powers.

After attending the Versailles palace negotiations following WW1, the young John Maynard Keynes’ The Economic Consequences of the Peace warned the agreement’s terms undermined a sustainable peace, almost anticipating Nazism’s later rise.

Towards the end of World War II (WW2), FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, insisted Germany should not be allowed to re-industrialise after the War.

After starting and losing two world wars, German military aggression seemed unavoidable. For Morgenthau, reindustrialisation would inevitably lead Germany to war again.

For FDR, only postwar recovery for all would ‘win the peace’, not subjugating and destroying the loser.

His WW2 generals, famously Eisenhower, Marshall and MacArthur, imposed ‘pacifist’ constitutions and reforms for postwar growth on Germany and Japan.

Imperial oversight?

Despite his brilliant contemporaneous insights into the unsustainability of the peace secured at Versailles, Keynes ignored its outcome for China.

At Versailles, the Shandong peninsula, previously ruled by the Germans, was not returned to China, but given to Japan instead!

The resulting May 4th (1919) movement culminated in the Chinese revolution. Keynes was as blind to this as to WW2’s three million lives lost to the Bengal famine.

Although invisible in movies, tens of thousands from China were involved in WW1, mainly digging trenches for European troops in a war primarily remembered for trench warfare.

German possessions in southern Africa were not returned to Africans, but instead held ‘in trust’ by European powers, including the white South African regime.

While there have not been more ‘world wars’ since the end of the Cold War, there have been many more wars in the supposedly unipolar/multipolar world.

NATO v the UN

At the UN General Assembly, 141 countries condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But many also oppose North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion via Ukraine to threaten Russia.

This is reminiscent of broad international support for President John F Kennedy in 1962 when he insisted Soviet missiles be withdrawn from Cuba, just off Florida.

NATO was established for the Cold War and should have been dissolved at its end. Its raison d’être, the rival Warsaw Pact, was gone. Worse, NATO expansion continues while it conducts unlawful wars not sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have both confessed that the 2014 Minsk deal with the Russians was intended to buy time to arm Ukraine for war later, not to secure peace.

Similarly, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson successfully blocked negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in the last half-year of his tenure. A peace deal would have ended hostilities and saved hundreds of thousands of lives, mainly Ukrainian.

Europe has continued to insist on war despite worsening odds. And when NATO allies blew up the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, no protests followed.

NATO should have been dissolved at the end of the Cold War, once its raison d’être, the rival Warsaw Pact, was gone.

Despite Europe’s pretensions of leading worldwide efforts against global warming, it quickly reversed earlier commitments, even abandoning its 2021 Glasgow commitment to reject coal less than half a year later.

Unsurprisingly, the Global South remains sceptical of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), perhaps only the latest form of European trade protectionism.

The EU has already worsened world economic conditions by raising interest rates, imposing illegal sanctions, insisting on fiscal austerity and cutting social spending in favour of military expenditure.

European leaders now proudly announce military Keynesian policies, expecting growth from more war spending. Thus, the turn to war has meant less growth and more inequality.

A non-aligned South?

FDR envisaged a peaceful new multilateral order offering progress for all. But such hopes have been squelched by political pressures for informal empire abetted by a resurgent military-industrial complex.

A different world is needed based on much stronger commitments to peace, freedom and non-alignment. It may be time for the West, the Global North and others to learn from the South-East.

In 1955, Indonesia hosted the Afro-Asian summit in Bandung, which boldly spoke for the post-colonial South and made the case for non-alignment as the Cold War began.

Over half a century ago, in 1973, the Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), set up in 1967, committed to creating a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality (ZOPFAN).

Creating the enabling conditions for ongoing cooperation, development, and progress can help sustain the bases for a peaceful and progressive new world order.