#####
######
####
> # [The Global South is tired of the West's disrespect](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/630)
>
>
>
> ArrowArtboardCreated with Sketch.ArtboardCreated with Sketch.Title ChevronTitle ChevronIcon Mail ContactPath LayerPositive Arrow
>
> [Opinion](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion)
>
> Relationship can be repaired with fulfillment of past promises and more sincerity
>
>
>
> Dino Patti Djalal and Michael Sheldrick
>
> June 17, 2023 05:00 JST | [Rest of the World](https://asia.nikkei.com/Location/Rest-of-the-World)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Image](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%253A%252F%252Fcms-image-bucket-production-ap-northeast-1-a7d2.s3.ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fimages%252F8%252F0%252F0%252F7%252F46087008-4-eng-GB%252FCropped-16867926302023-01-25T151453Z_198373769_RC2QXY9AWKUX_RTRMADP_3_IRAN-DAILYLIFE.JPG?width=700&fit=cover&gravity=faces&dpr=2&quality=medium&source=nar-cms)
>
> An anti-U.S. mural in Tehran: The most negative perception of the West relates to the prevalence of double standards. (West Asian News Agency via Reuters)
>
> _Dino Patti Djalal, previously Indonesia's ambassador to the U.S., is founder and chairman of the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia. Michael Sheldrick is co-founder of international social justice advocacy group Global Citizen where he is in charge of policy, impact and government affairs._
>
> Across the Global South, certain perceptions of the West prevail -- and for many, represent the reality they see.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ## Sponsored Content
>
> ### About Sponsored Content This content was commissioned by Nikkei's Global Business Bureau.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nikkei Asian Review, now known as Nikkei Asia, will be the voice of the Asian Century.
>
> ### Celebrate our next chapter
> Free access for everyone - Sep. 30
>
> [Find out more](https://asia.nikkei.com/Nikkei-Asia-Launch)
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
You just wear clothes manufactured in the sweat shops we forced on them and eat food farmed using exploitative, borderline slave labor. I'm not saying you evil for doing this (I do to, we all do in the west) but you should acknowledge the roll we (ie, the collective west) has played in their current situation.
Why don’t those countries close their sweatshops then? I’m pretty sure people from those countries don’t like being infantilized by random westerners either.
Same reason we in the US don't close ours, nor fix any of the myriad problems we have. Because the people negatively affected by the issues aren't the ones making the decision.
Glass houses. Stones.
Because they are obligated to live up to the conditions of their loans, and their economies have no become dependant on these industries. It's not that simple.
Loans only matter if you want to continue receiving credit. They could tell the lenders to screw themselves.
They *want* this. Industrialization has lifted nation after nation out of poverty. Japan, Singapore, China, Vietnam, India...
Those factory workers are sending their kids to college.
Literally any nation would complain about that, but sure blame the guys that actually allow them into our nations to improve their life. Since when is reddit full of coping thirdies and self hating westiods
Who are "they"? The people making the decisions are just politicians that are easily bribed and manipulated, especially over the course of decades and from foreign powers with *extreme* economic and technological advantages over your own. Did all the people who died in war under the decision of politicians sitting back in their office decide to go to war? Then why do we assume the citizenry of a country "chose" to grow their society through sweatshops, corporate towns, paving over villages to make room for factories, etc.? Wouldn't it have just been some rich dudes behind the most expensive desk in the country making these "decisions"?
I remember when Haiti was crippled by decades on decades of debt forced upon them, and anytime they even looked like they might miss a payment, particularly in the 20th century, the US happily rolled in and overthrew their government to ensure they continued payment.
Yeah, most of these weren't industrialized under normal circumstances. World loans basically set up economies that are dependent on the first world and keep them from growing out from under their thumb.
Every rich country ever has had either it's ass full of oil or a sweatshop stage. I'm only seeing small finance hubs as the exceptions, and that's usually due to size.
Yeah... Almost like any guy who stood up to fix the issue got framed out of power (DSK who was to become the chairman of IMF, or Gaddafi who wanted to create the United States of Africa. I'll pass on the coups in South America)
Because they have no realistic alternatives if they want to enable economic growth and improve living standards in the long-run.
In a substantial number of industries, low wages allow developing countries to break into world markets. The growth of manufacturing, and the number of jobs that the new export sector creates, has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban citizens shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise.
Western companies exploiting the labour of global south is disgusting and immoral, and even worse: the workers have to accept these horrible working conditions and pay, in an absence of better alternatives. The global south doesn't really have a choice on the matter; their labour has to accept these horrendious working conditions or remain a subsistence farmer etc, with little potential to improve their living standards.
Obviously I don't think "business as usual" is okay and that the horrendous working conditions in the global south are justifiable. The workers in the global south should receive fair compensation and proper working conditions, while allowing them to retain their competetive advantage as labour providers, leaving room for export-lead economic prosperity.
Probably because those countries want to develop their economy and be more productive. And if you work in a sweatshop making 2$ it's better than farming and making 1$.
Funny a yankee is asking this question. Last time my country was developing it's national base industries, US's apparatus came down on it, CIA style.
[https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/)
>You just wear clothes manufactured in the sweat shops we forced on them and eat food farmed using exploitative, borderline slave labor. I'm not saying you evil for doing this (I do to, we all do in the west) but you should acknowledge the roll we (ie, the collective west) has played in their current situation.
The local leaders have allowed the creation of those sweatshops the same way local leaders in my country have allowed for our primaeval forest to be cut for Austrian companies. Corruption has always been a dance of 2 or more and it is rarely forced on anyone. Secondly, most western countries have their food made in their own countries and are it is heavenly subsidized. Spare me your collective guilt crap as it is only an excuse for the corruption and poor management that plagues the global south. As a Romanian, I could always blame the corruption on the habits formed during the Ottoman occupation or the Soviet occupation but ultimately it is the ruling class we have constantly voted for and the bad choices we have made during historic events that have landed us where we are and nothing else.
To be fair, the global south is so mismanaged in part because every time they get a competent leader who starts strengthening a country, America, Europe, Russia or China will either fund their overthrow, or a corporation with a private army will do it for them.
Also do you somehow think we are the only ones buying cheap manufactured goods? My dude most of that goes to china, India or other “global south” markets, the west if anything buys less sweatshop stuff. Your saying this like every other nation are poor idiots who just exist to make clothes for the west, so as usual you bleeding heart anti west types end up sounding more racist than conservatives
China has had 800,000,000 people lifted out of poverty as a direct consequence of the evil western money.
They have the largest and fastest growing middle class on the planet.
I feel terrible. /s
That's why I clarified that it doesn't make you evil. If we, the people, pretend these issues don't exist the political will to make change will never appear.
You mean the sweat shops people voluntarily work in because the pay allows for a much better life than slaving away in subsistence farming?
And btw, the food I eat is farmed using mechanized agriculture, not slave labor. Thank you very much.
All the countries producing products for "the West" are much better of for it. Before you go on a crusade for other people's sake you should maybe ask them what they want first. And fair enough: they want more pay, better working conditions and more safety. But they don't want those factories to go away, because they know how their lives where before.
Some people just wanted you to feel bad about something your country did in the past you had no hand in and you have to endlessly repeat for past sins you didn't do.
At the same time don't point out how a lot of these countries have huge amounts of natural resources that never seem to be used for the good of the people. And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level.
But if you suggest that the global north should help with loans and programs to curb the issues these countries face you are simply a neo-colonialist and wanted to subjugate these people.
It's pointless to bother with it.
While the global South have their fair share of responsibility, the developed nations have, for centuries, exploited the underdeveloped ones and used their resources to grow to the level that the North is now.
So yes, the developed countries have to see that they had their sweet time and that it's now fair for them to start helping the places they have used/exploited. You cannot expect places that were left without resources, no development and no good management to just in a few years get to your level.
Those same underdeveloped countries, when they try to use their own resources in the same way the north has used, are criticized nowadays for being inconsequential and receive a lot of pressure from the north to stop doing that, without really any other way for them to boon themselves.
I am not saying that the south problems are entirely due to the North, but a big share of them are direct consequences on how the North has chosen to develop themselves. The least you can do is understand the resentment the south has due to that, it requires a lot more than simply loans and programs, it's a harder issue to tackle it.
I've tried to simplify the issue the most I could, because this is something that would require an entire essay about to actually explain it, and I don't really like "north/south" division but I've used it for the sake of discussion.
>So yes, the developed countries have to see that they had their sweet time and that it's now fair for them to start helping the places they have used/exploited. You cannot expect places that were left without resources, no development and no good management to just in a few years get to your level.
This is just political suicide. I don't know of any ruling party that would be willing to just hang out aid to countries based on past exploitation of countries that were before them. Plenty of these countries have many natural resources and still struggle to provide anything of value to their people.
And we are talking about it as if this is a homogenous group. And not vastly different countries with different problems. Is the West supposed to just hand out endless amounts of aid? Are countries like Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, and Sweden also expected to pay even though they didn't have direct colonial possessions? And do we impose liberal democracy on all of countries who get help?
>Those same underdeveloped countries, when they try to use their own resources in the same way the north has used, are criticized nowadays for being inconsequential and receive a lot of pressure from the north to stop doing that, without really any other way for them to boon themselves.
To my knowledge, the pressure is just to combat climate change, and the quotas are adjusted to each country's development level. I don't know what other pressure you are talking about. I don't know of anything that's actually legally binding.
>The least you can do is understand the resentment the south has due to that, it requires a lot more than simply loans and programs, it's a harder issue to tackle it.
I understand it but to me, it just seems dumb. How are you going to move forward in life if you are holding on to resentment decades or even centuries in the past? And what more can be done?
>This is just political suicide. I don't know of any ruling party that would be willing to just hang out aid to countries based on past exploitation of countries that were before them. Plenty of these countries have many natural resources and still struggle to provide anything of value to their people.
Yes, it's not something I really expect nor should I expect, countries to hurt themselves to help. I have never advocated to give out aid, it's not exactly an issue that can be tackled with just throwing money at it, because it has devolved into a myriad of other problems that money itself, can't really fix, and those issues might take years to be resolved.
Underdeveloped countries have really corrupt and inefficient governments, which isn't really a surprised, the population of said countries are too busy surviving/developing to be able to have the energy, education and time to actually pay attention to other issues. Which leads to even more dysfunctional governments, hence why they can't really use their own resources efficiently.
>And we are talking about it as if this is a homogenous group. And not vastly different countries with different problems. Is the West supposed to just hand out endless amounts of aid? Are countries like Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, and Sweden also expected to pay even though they didn't have direct colonial possessions? And do we impose liberal democracy on all of countries who get help?
This is why I dislike treating everything as a block of south/north, but for the sake of discussion I've used it. Each underdeveloped country has its own sets of issues and we can't really turn it into a block, the same way each country at the north is its own.
Even if we could hold each country that had direct involvement, just throwing money at the issue, like I said, wouldn't fix it. It has turned into other problems that require a lot more external and internal effort to fix. And you can't really generalize all countries with issues either, some might enjoy having a liberal democracy, some others might not, it was never meant to be a "block", but I mistakenly used it for the sake of simplifying the issue.
>To my knowledge, the pressure is just to combat climate change, and the quotas are adjusted to each country's development level. I don't know what other pressure you are talking about. I don't know of anything that's actually legally binding.
The pressure is to combat climate change, yes, a goal I very much am into, but it has to be acknowledged that the developed countries have used their resources uncaringly, built megastructures that deeply affect the environment, engaged in a lot of deforestation and nowadays those practices are very much frowned upon, with ample campaigns to discourage those practices, and this leaves those underdeveloped countries having to scratch off those resources, that were once a boon to developed countries, as something they can't really use nowadays, without really any other viable option because they don't have the industry to develop any other way, and importing it would be too expensive.
This puts even more instability/pressure on the already very stranded capabilities of those countries/societies that don't really have the leeway to effectively deal with it.
>I understand it but to me, it just seems dumb. How are you going to move forward in life if you are holding on to resentment decades or even centuries in the past? And what more can be done?
I mean, it's easy to scratch the resentment off and ask to move away, but this will be an issue for a long time, it's hard for those left behind to move on. There is a lot that can be done, but most of it will require a lot of pain, from both sides.
>At the same time don't point out how a lot of these countries have huge amounts of natural resources that never seem to be used for the good of the people. And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level.
Let me give you another perspective.
I'm gonna talk about my country, Brazil. I'll try to be brief. I'll just say one thing for you to keep in mind, imperialism is done largely through "divide et impera". You divide the people you want to dominate against themselves.
From 1500 to the napoleonic wars, we had been erected from the base as an extraction colony to Portugal. After we got our independence, UK came knocking with good old boat diplomacy.
This meant that, up until WWI, our elite had their economic interests closely linked to a exportation model. Cattle, soy, spices, coffe and so on. This meant that it is true, our elites generally are as much part of the problem as the ones imposing it.
The problem is, during WWI and WWII, because the great powers were too occupied bashing themselves to death, Brazil managed to play a duplicious game and industrialize. It fought a internal political struggle to align the national economic elites to a developmentalist, industrial, economic plan. We won the divisive political problem, and development went very well, that is, until US decided they had to stop it. And since then, every time we managed to solve the political questions and put on the table a solid national development plan, US intervened hard.
In 1964 they couped us. During the dictatorship, they worked hard to realign our elite's economic interests away from a developing industry to base natural resources extraction. In the late 80's and beggining of the 90's, they imposed their agenda together with a gigantic debt made to them by the dictatorship they put in place(it's the major part of our debt to this day). In 2014, they struck again against a mild socdem party which helped in a big way build BRICS and was managing to redevelop our base industries like construction, naval and petroil.
[https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/)
So, my point is, political independence does not mean independence de facto. Imperialism perpetred by the west in the modern age is done mainly through economic imperialism. US in SA and ME. France in Françafrique. They do it by coopting local elites, so it's true that part of our population has their share of guilty, but that's how "divide et impera" works by design. And the defining element that comes into play every time a poor nation start to get it's shit together is massive hybrid warfare done, in the modern times, mainly through US operations, which the collective west is the beneficiary. If a country does resolve it's internal contradictions that allow economic exploitation by the west, then it is the target of massive interventions, all of the CIA trick book is applyied. Coups of all shades and colours, lawfare, economic terrorism, economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, pressure over third parties, funding of thinktanks, paramilitaries. You name it.
It's not that CIA is everywhere and is the cause of every problem. It's that they intervene in crucial moments to keep the boat going their way, and not the way of it's self interests.
>Imperialism perpetred by the west in the modern age is done mainly through economic imperialism.
I mean that's so vague it could literally mean any form of economic cooperation can be seen as imperialism. I don't get what would be satisfactory in your view. And as far as I know, Brazil is looking for deeper ties with China and all the BRIC nations. Are all their intentions pure and altruistic?
I don't think the CIA is plotting many coups since the end of the cold war. For te coup in Brazil, I understand the president lost support from the center and failed to enact crucial reforms. And the coup was done at large by local governors the US just backed it because of the fear of communism.
Also, weird how all of your political leaders seem to be involved in massive amounts of corruption. But yeah I guess blame it on imperialism.
>I mean that's so vague it could literally mean any form of economic cooperation can be seen as imperialism.
Not really, and it\`s not some strange proposition too, you would find different iterations ranging from Celso Furtado to Lenin.
>I don't get what would be satisfactory in your view.
Not intervening through hybrid warfare through CIA trick book would be nice.
>And as far as I know, Brazil is looking for deeper ties with China and all the BRIC nations. Are all their intentions pure and altruistic?
You pushed us to it, after fucking us continually. Our president has been arrested in a lawfare unjust trial and put to prison by a US stooge. The national industries he worked hard to build up destroyed too. BRICS is an alliance of necessity, the unifiyng interest of not getting fucked by the US. No country's intentions are pure and altruistic.
>I don't think the CIA is plotting many coups since the end of the cold war.
I've just linked you hard proof of all the US state apparatus to make a white coup, arrest the target political party, and destroy the national industries in the process. It is proof analyzed and validated by both our national tribunals and UN tribunals.
>For te coup in Brazil, I understand the president lost support from the center and failed to enact crucial reforms. And the coup was done at large by local governors the US just backed it because of the fear of communism.
The "center", also known here by all political spectrum as "business tend", because you can just buy them, got convinced to coup the president Dilma. There wasn't crucial reforms. What was there was an economic crisis catalyzed by US economic warfare. Operation Lava-Jato, together with petroil price control and indirect sanctions threw us into an economic crisis. The center refused to do literally anything to counter the crisis, the lawfare lava-jato operation tighten the noose, and the moment people went to the streets to protest, the center got with the opposition to impeach the president on charges which were later found false.
Yes, there was ample movement of internal forces, but it was all possibilited by US in the first place. If it were not for operation lava-jato, none of this would have gotten to such crisis point. And it has nothing to do with communism, just like it wasn't about communism in the 60's. It was about keeping Brazil down, as it's US's backyard. Pure geopolitical realism.
>Also, weird how all of your political leaders seem to be involved in massive amounts of corruption. But yeah I guess blame it on imperialism.
I don't blame corruption, which also exists in US but is legalized, on imperialism. It does not affect my argument in the least. Yes there's ample of problems here, but every time we sort it out and start to grow, we become a threat to US domination, and so are attacked.
>Some people just wanted you to feel bad about something your country did in the past you had no hand in and you have to endlessly repeat for past sins you didn't do.
No, more the fact you are still actively benefitting from those actions of the past.
>And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level.
How you see that and come to conclusion that these people are "inferior" and "incompetent" instead of realising thats just how much Imperialists fucked up these countries and even after their "independence" most of these countries are still de facto ruled by Western interests is mindblowing.
>No, more the fact you are still actively benefitting from those actions of the past.
Okay so if I acknowledge that how is that helping anyone in the global south? Is the average person supposed to feel guilty about it?
>How do you see that and come to the conclusion that these people are "inferior" and "incompetent" instead of realizing just how much Imperialists fucked up these countries even after their "independence" Most of these countries are still de facto ruled by Western interests is mindblowing.
I don't see them as inferior and incompetent. Some of the most successful minority groups are from developing countries.
I'm saying that their leaders and governments are corrupt and incompetent. If you just blame all the social issues on imperialism sure ok. But at what point are the people there responsible for their actions? Are they all just victims of imperialism forever and ever? I don't see how infantilizing them and taking all agency from them is helpful.
You do realize that the plentiful lifestyle you live is a fruit of colonization/imperialism right?
> At the same time don’t point out how a lot of these countries have huge amounts of natural resources that never seem to be used for the good of the people. And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level.
Also there significant geopolitical intervention from the global north to keep this status quo.
Hell, I live in Brazil. There is already released proof that the CIA helped the process that deposed our president in 2014. Not 1964 (which they also did, BTW), 2014
>It's almost like we raped and pillaged their nations for centuries and stunted the development of their societies for the sake of profit or something
And so did they during the dark ages. What is your point?
Yeah after america orchestrated a coup to overthrow their democratically elected socially progressive leader and replaced him with the prior religious theocracy things got pretty rough over there.
Ive decided to read some of your other comments, to see if maybe I judged too harshly.
This is 100% true and was one of the biggest mistakes the US ever made. Not only from a foreign policy perspective, but a humanitarian one.
You don't even have your coups right...
The US was involved in the 1953 coup which kept the Shah in power, not the 1979 coup where the theocrats grabbed power.
And calling Mossadegh a "democratically elected socially progressive leader" is historical revisionism *at best*.
Ironically it was Mossadegh who had spent years supporting the theocratic groups that, decades later, would go through with the 1979 revolution, which he did because he needed a violent group to assault other politicians and intimidate voters. He used them as a replacement for the communist gangs he'd previously used when the commies realized he was playing them.
At the time of the coup in 53, which was partially funded by Americans but done entirely by Iranian military supporting the Shah, Mossadegh had dissolved the Iranian senate equivalent, handed himself a vast amount of executive powers, and was setting himself up as a dictator.
But somehow him trying to nationalize the oil production of Iran has retroactively turned him into a socially progressive hero of idiots worldwide.
Oh yes, Reza Pahlavi, such a nice guy, isn’t it?. All thes progressive and social reforms he did like unemployment compensation, beneficts for sick and injured workers, implementation of social security, healthcare, ban the forced labor, use the land reform money to found rural housing projects and pest controls, try to stabilize the country by controlling tribal chiefs and extremists, allow Iran to control its own resources, refusing to institute Islamic law, refusing to give government or power positions to Fada'iyan supporters and members.
Oh no wait, that was done by Mossadegh… wow. Good thing the British gave 10,000 pounds a month to radicalize opponents of Mossadegh, finance the royalists and buy the press and public opinion from the most conservative sectors, so that the country would remain a safe zone for slave-owning landlords and exploitative British corporations, where Iranian workers cannot have even the slightest right to anything other than die working.
Literally everything you said in this comment was wrong, the theocracy came from a revolution that ousted the shah that was installed by the US, and the shah was very secular. I’m not saying that the US should have overthrown Mossadegh, but you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, so you should act as if you do.
The west definitely can be blame for alot of global south issues, but their are countries that have succeded despite such histories. People need to look into the internal politics of these struggling global south countries instead of blaming the west for all the misfortunes of these countries.
Just don't tell the colonies that are still inhabited by non natives like Canada, Brazil, venuzala etc that they arnt part of this global south, they are part of the oppressors
This describes the history of humanity. Every nation, everywhere. Some more recent than others, but warfare, pillaging and theft of resources has been the norm for 99% of human history. WW2 mostly put an end to that, and some nations that were raped, pillaged or even nuked end up fine. Others chronically struggle to even feed their populace and are corrupt on a scale that's hard to imagine. The answer isn't always "West bad, poor country good, muh colonization" when dealing with a complex issue like this.
Yeah, that's why Africa didn't made NASA instead? Don't mean to be rude but I didn't find any reasoning as to colonialism being the reason why africa has not really evolved.
Asking as an eastern european..
It's almost like civilization tends towards anyone with an overwhelming military advantage using it nefariously, and the West had the biggest coupled with the means to take the oppression show on the road. Value judgments only work when the values are different- not just the positions.
There is only one definition of "global south" that makes any sense, and that is: all dysfunctional democracies and autocracies of the world. This is the only common factor and their leaders are strongly united in the fight against people kicking them out of their jobs.
They love when Western corporations come to exploit their resources and population, because there are money and bribes to be made. Privatization? Neoliberal market reforms? Bring it on baby, we're gonna have our own skyscraper for our clan. They adore western cultural decadence, sending their precious heirs to study in the top universities of the world.
But what they are especially touchy about are comments about the state of their political systems: how dare you suggest us we have fair elections when you bought and sold slaves from our territories, barely three centuries ago?
Yes, just ignore the west financed coups, creation of drug crisis, exploitation of our resources, production of weapons for criminal groups, abuse of cheap labor, abuse of child workers, market manipulation, economical abuse, contamination and all the other stuff. And is not like this are secrets or anything, but I guess is easier to just ignore.
> There is only one definition of "global south" that makes any sense, and that is: all dysfunctional democracies and autocracies of the world.
And even that is an incredibly stupid definition. The only way that would make sense is when you think of the "global south" as "the parts of the globe that are going south". And nobody uses the term that way.
The term is stupid.
And also locking almost every latin America country to one type of economics that only works in the conditions of global north nations have due to IMF debt. Argentinians economists, for example, are not less capable than north americans. Then why are they fucked? Try not to be manichean
???
The global south is a common term when it comes to international relations and development aid in general, not just "among lefties online and in schools".
But clearly an Uruguayan street sweeper and a Ugandan bus driver have *so much* in common that they banded together to form the Global South.
I mean their country's both start with a **"U"**!
Global south is such a weird term come to think of it, why has the wokedemics coined these term to encompass a wide array of half the globe? I guess ‘global periphery’ fell out of fashion, but global south more or less denotes the same ‘non-west’ i.e *those* people feeling it want to stray away from
They want to make a value judgement about certain countries around the world, but don't want to say the quiet part loud, so they euphemize until the stigma catches, then move on to the next term that they will gaslight and swear has no negative connotations this time.
This sub has become a joke, the amount of tribalist nonsense in this thread is laughable. Like watching a bunch of 8 year old argue about whose daddy is the strongest.
If someone would like to have an actual discussion:
What can the West do to aid the "global south"? It's no secret that the West has meddled in many developing nations over the last century. Many attempts and stabilization have failed but some have flourished (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Israel, Indonesia). Many here mention that the West uses other countries for cheap labor, but if that brings new industries to the region and creates some skilled (or semi-skilled) labor is not that a good thing? Should it also be the West's responsibility to educate these populations?
Korea? Hong kong? Israel??? Those are some really bad examples. Hong kong just got politically lobotomized and is part of mainland china, USA could not win so now we got 2 koreas and one is a nuclear threat to asia. Israel, clearly troubled and a lot of innocent lives are subjected to terrorist acts thro and fro.
How about Taiwan, looks good, just on the brink of invasion, being the hub of electronics and whatnot
They are realistic examples, not meant to be good or bad.
Hong Kong was developed by British influence and was the major Asian economic powerhouse for many years. Previously it was a fishing village.
Sotuh Korea exists as it does because of USA intervention in the war and consistent support afterwards it is now the 10th largest economy. North Korea also exists as it does because of the results of the war.
I knew someone would bring up Israel which is why I mentioned it. From a purely developmental standpoint Israel has been a success. It boasts a 97% literacy rate, and has developed an advanced economy. This is largely due to western influence. However there are obvious negatives associated as well that bring up questions regarding the League of Nations and their intentions. But we can acknowledge both in a proper discussion.
Generally speaking when the West gives out loans through the IMF and World Bank they attach caveats, not all unreasonable, but things like privatizing government services (which usually get bought by Western companies) and austerity measures harm the general populace while profits leave the country via international corporations instead of necessarily being reinvested to the struggling country in question. That's why the Chinese loan model is starting to compete with the Western model, they have less strings attached and the property acquisition is based on failure to pay the loan rather than an up front sale to investors.
Realistic that the West can't do much. Any type of generous aid would be political suicide come election time. Any other types of loans would be seen as neo-colonialism. So you are more or less left with charity.
If you want aid to be a viable option you have to condition it with some sort of reform and oversight which would be something like the IMF. And you would have to sell the aid to the voters as something you have to do to protect from further migration crises and combatting climate change.
Most of the countries you mentioned got to where they are by accepting Western help or being open to trade and doing business with the West. Or Indonesia because of their location.
I don't think the West has a responsibility to help anyone. Especially if they don't want you to help them.
There is also the fact that not all aid is helpful for the countries that receive it. Give a country struggling with food free food, and people won't buy from their local farmeres, driving them to poverty. It's better for Western governments to buy from the farmers and build the roads to distribution centers, but doing that is going to piss off a lot of farmers that vote back home, since you aren't buying from them for your international aid.
I think there was a study about this and it's more beneficial for the people if you just give them the money directly and they buy what they need. I also read that donated clothing more or less wiped out any clothing industry in that country.
So there is a lot to consider on top of this being deeply unpopular in any country where political parties have to care about reelection.
This is why this sub is a joke. "cheap labor" doesn't necessarily mean sweat shops. If you can't recognize that then there's nothing for me to tell you other than to stay in school.
The Chinese automotive industry has been built from the offshoring of the tier 1 and 2 supply chains over the last 30 years.
Not only that, but cheap labor is often the only thing that poor countries offer. they don't have the infrastructure, the logistics, the energy, the education levels, the stable government, are quite corrupt, and have a host of other problems. If you mandated paying people in poor countries middle income wages, businesses would just invest in middle income countries that already developed their infastructure and education. Then, rather than getting low income wages, they'd not get anything at all.
Yeah, it sucks, but every country goes through a period of cheap labor as part of industrialization and development. Even the US went through a period of it. It's just that since today those countries are lagging behind, they are poor compared to us, but when we went through it we weren't poor compared anyone since we were some of the first.
Also, how can the "global South" got tired of what "the West" did when they let Russia and China exploit them, e.g., extracting natural resources in exchange for regime security and high-risk loans for questionable projects that tied the country financially to the loaner?
>Many attempts and stabilization... Indonesia
Say what now?
>Should it also be the West's responsibility to educate these populations?
If the west could educate their own populace fully that would be a good start.
Russia and China have really had enough of the West as well.
The global North would appreciate if we would stop trying to melt the ice caps, although there is a bit of dissent from the penguin coalition…
>Russia and China have really had enough of the West as well.
The West "Don't invade other countries and take over their territory."
China/Russia "This is completely unacceptable. How are we supposed to live like this if we can't turn everything into China/Russia"
What else can they do? A government cannot survive without the people's support. Democracies get it mostly by voting, authoritarians have to substitute it somehow. A good way to unify a country **under** it's leader is ideology, and in places like russia and china which were once empires but have since fallen, restoration seems an obvious choice.
Remember, both of these countries' identities have been shaped by revolutions when a seemingly underdog fraction of leftist revolutionaries took control of the country. They have every reason to fear an armed insurrection and know that political control will not guarantee a victory if it forms.
Not like those two are a monolith any more. Russia alienated China with its failure to take Ukraine in timely fashion and put the whole world on high alert for annexations. Really threw a wrench in the plans for Taiwan, no matter whether you're looking short or long-term.
Russia isn't too miffed about their permafrost thawing, they might be able to actually use a sliver of Siberia for something other than penal colonies.
Once again, the first step to "regaining trust" is money ($100 billion) in this case. We're supposed to shell out huge amounts of free money for...what exactly?
I don't disagree with any of the greivances laid out in this article. But the solution is to treat these countries as equal sovereign nations. This means not preaching for a moral high ground, but rather pushing interests based on explicit interests with explicit terms for expected returns on funding provided.
For example, don't demand Brazil stop burning rainforests bc it's 'bad'. Tell them it's a US interest to limit climate change, and find terms on what concessions they want in return for specific reduction to rainforest destruction. Otherwise don't be mad they do the same shit to their forests the rest of the world did 100 years ago.
However, also don't give them $10 billion for some "carbon reduction pledge"
What grievances were laid out in the article?
> Across the Global South, certain perceptions of the West prevail -- and for many, represent the reality they see.
Unless I'm not seeing something, that is the full article available on the posted link.
That westerners preach their morals and expect following despite having done most of the same shit earlier. That they preach morals despite really looking for their own self interest, and short term gains with the electorate at home. Also that they stand on a moral high ground despite a long and recent history of interventions that hurt those regions.
>We're supposed to shell out huge amounts of free money for...what exactly?
Because western leaders promised it, and it's been the west historically that has been the biggest polluter on CO2.
Climate change is mostly on the west.
Ok. And if developing nations weren't following the exact same trend as western nations did. If they were generally more eco friendly, or were taking significantly better care to be carbon neutral than western nations did at the same point in development, then I'd have sympathy.
But they aren't. They're doing the same stuff, worsening the climate much as western nations did through the 20th century. They arent due some kind of reparations.
Also these countries didn't give anything in return for that $100 billion. It's not payment for anything. They're basically mad that a promised gift hasn't been given, and the thing about gifts is that they aren't owed.
>Ok. And if developing nations weren't following the exact same trend as western nations did. If they were generally more eco friendly, or were taking significantly better care to be carbon neutral than western nations did at the same point in development, then I'd have sympathy.
>But they aren't. They're doing the same stuff, worsening the climate much as western nations did through the 20th century. They arent due some kind of reparations.
Because they aren't capable of it.
Fossil fuels are cheaper than eco friendly alternatives.
Even more so 10, 40 or 60 years ago.
You expected developing nations to be ahead of the curve basically on an issue beyond their control that the west caused and is mostly guilty of.
An issue the developed world themselves still hadn't gotten a handle on.
To expect developing states to ditch their economic progress using fossil fuels that the west enjoyed is beyond selfish andthe height of arrogance.
If the west wants the global south to leapfrog that development, they will have to pay for it, because the global south cannot afford it, and again.
The developed world is the one at fault for climate change.
And comparatively, per capita the west still pollutes more than the global south does.
>Also these countries didn't give anything in return for that $100 billion.
What is given in return is more control on climate change.
You can call it a gift if you want (it wasnt) but that 100 billion was promised for a reason.
>It's not payment for anything. They're basically mad that a promised gift hasn't been given, and the thing about gifts is that they aren't owed.
And the west is the one that is especially owed nothing, taking slavery, C02 abuse and colonialism into account.
The global south however will not compromise its development over nothing.
Payments need to be made for it.
Or shut up, and cost yourself the business of a growing middle class in the global south ever more aligning with China.
>Even more so 10, 40 or 60 years ago. You expected developing nations to be ahead of the curve basically on an issue beyond their control that the west caused and is mostly guilty of.
The west caused the current situation sure. Maybe we even ignore that the largest current polluter is china and has been for nearing 2 decades.
But if we're saying that developing countries have no choice, then why is the west 'guilty'? Wouldn't they also have had no choice at that point in their development?
>What is given in return is more control on climate change
But there isn't. I'm not anti giving funds in return for specific reductions. Ephemeral pledges however aren't worth shit, as has been shown repeatedly.
>taking slavery, C02 abuse and colonialism into account.
One has nothing to do with the other. If you want reparations for slavery, negotiate that. If you want them for colonialism, negotiate that. Don't however pile it into an "all of the above" shitfest and call it good to go.
>Or shut up, and cost yourself the business of a growing middle class in the global south ever more aligning with China
China doesn't give away 100s of billions in free money tho. They do loans, taking things like entire fucking ports when those loans can't be repaid. Giving loans, or giving grants for specific development or carbon reduction is a wold away from just giving away money without specifics
>Wouldn't they also have had no choice at that point in their development?
maybe, but they did what they had to do and are now trying to prevent others from doing the same. And they are still the highest per capita polluters. If they are sincere about preventing climate change and don't want to give others necessary funds, they must force their citizens to reduce their carbon footprint, meaning a reduction in quality of life and increased cost of goods.
It's the west that has historically been the worst polluter, they had a head start. But they are also the ones making the most noise about climate change. So if they want others to minimise their carbon footprint, they absolutely owe them aid so they can transition to renewables. Otherwise the third world would just keep polluting, and while it may harm them more the west won't be insulated from the effects of climate change. Their choice.
>For example, don't demand Brazil stop burning rainforests bc it's 'bad'. Tell them it's a US interest to limit climate change, and find terms on what concessions they want in return for specific reduction to rainforest destruction. Otherwise don't be mad they di the same shit to their forests the resto of the world did 100 years ago.
>
>However, also don't give them $10 billion for some "carbon reduction pledge"
Actually a good take. It was very laughable to see france calling for intervention in brazil to prevent rainforests being burnt. It just creates more animosity towards the west, then the west is like "they hate us, because they are corrupt and jealous". Its surprising a lot of the top comments don't realise that.
It's funny to label "west" and "south" as opposites. Such nonsensical terms to avoid saying "third-world" or "underdeveloped".
What is even West anyway? Most of Europe is in the Eastern Hemisphere. Japan is mostly aligned with the "West" economically and politically but is obviously not West. South America is culturally Western, but too poor to be in the club?
Damn, seeing the amount of brain worms from the replies makes me wish that the sub had stayed closed.
Also, good riddance from western liberals not showing an ounce of nuance or understanding on how the global south got to be on the place that it is today.
I mean to Congolese yeah but who cares about them, least of all Europeans to Belgians at least he was the grand builder.
Lets give a hand to Leopold 👏.
China is fairly high on the Human Development Index, but continues to self-classify (to the IMF for example) as a developing country. It's technically on par with Brazil, but I think its high population messes with how the per capita measurements are used.
China is not at a developed level on the Human Development Index: both income and average years of education are much too low. While parts of their cities are as good as any major Western city, once you factor in the lives of rural and migrant workers the stats align with what would be described as a developing economy.
>lol at the extreme white salt in this thread. the "global south" makes everything your entitled lifestyles depend on.
Everything the global south makes can be made somewhere else as those industries are not high-tech in any way or shape. Cheap labor is not as important as you think it is.
Then the cost of those goods will go up, the average west citizen mill save less money or maybe even forced to spend less. Quality of life will go down.
Secondly, if the west forces all their manufacturing to return to their shores, the third world can also close their markets to the west. This will also make manufacturing in the west less profitable.
It's not that one sided as you might think. The west will also bear the brunt of decoupling from the rest of the world. Do you not see the current eurozone recessions?
We raped and pillaged their nations for centuries, stunting their development, and locked them into predatory loans to catch up to the rest of us, forcing them to be subservient to the will of the western economic powers. Sure they make their own mistakes In governance (hilarious you think that's only something that happens in the south), but the west does shoulder the lions share of the blame for the economic instability of these nations. And they SHOULD hate us for it.
Countries with strong developed markets are almost always better off than those without. Admittedly the IMF programs of the 70s-90s were pretty ill conceived but corruption plays a much larger role in holding Africa back than the IMF.
Hmmmmm country who's entire economy is centered around western corporations taking there stuff for cheap dosent have successful economy I can't believe it
Theyre not, its a russian troll.
The account is 17 days and repeatedly says shit about "putler" as a way to try and downplay Putins bullshit.
The internet overly compares everything to hitler, and because of that, its become kind of weakened to do so. By mockingly combining the terms, the goal is to get people to believe that Putin is having a smear campaign against him as opposed to being a weak willed, dying old psycopath yearning for the good ol'days when he was in the KGB.
Its a common tactic of dictators and demigogues to normalize their acts and drone up support.
Edit: forgot to add, the name is designed to do exactly what it tried to here - turn support away from Ukraine. By pretending to be Ukrainian and saying offensive or self serving things, it makes people associate Ukraine with negative feelings. Its pretty much the definition of trolling
What really depresses me is how easy it seems to be for corporations and evil leaders to drive a wedge between the people they are oppressing all over the world.
Some people are being oppressed more than others it is true. But can we please stop falling for this nationalistic bull shit. The wealthy are actively trying to stoke these fires.
To the people claiming the west has no fault in the situation in many global south countries is bullshit. Many wester countries colonized and damaged these countries and the effects are still felt today.
But to the people who are angry at all westerners for the problems in your country is not a reasonable take. Just about everyone on Reddit were either not alive or were to young during much of the violence that western nations did to the global south.
Today we have corporations and single people who are becoming more powerful than a nation state. And they are hoping that they can keep all of the people they are oppressing distracted with stupid nationalistic arguments. Let’s try to use just a little bit of empathy at least for the other people in the world.
"The global south is tired of West's disrespect"
Follows dozens of western redditors disrespecting the global south block trying to deny we even are a cohesive block formed through the dialectic response to 500 years of exploitation. Lol.
>Western nations preach free trade but increasingly engage in protectionism. They promote competition but as Mahathir Mohamad, the former Malaysian prime minister, pointed out, they resent those who outcompete them.
>Wiryono Sastrohandoyo, who served as Indonesia's ambassador to Australia and other countries, said once that Western nations "like to sit on a high pedestal, pontificating to others, acting both as judge and jury to the rest of the world."
Way too many broad generalizations and vague claims in this post and thread.
I agree that governments and corporations need to be held accountable for past and current offenses, but I don’t even know where to start when the opening statement divides the world into just four opposing hemispheres.
The term global south is really stupid. The regions of Latin America, Asia and Africa can't be placed on the same monolith because of how radically different their histories, culture and material conditions are
There is one key aspect that unites them all, the colonialism they endured and still endure to this day. We are not talking about their views on civic issues or matters that are precise to their region, we are talking about the oppression and exploitatation they endure from the west (and yes, China too, we know that)
Maybe that is because the US staged coups all over SA, and not the other way around? NA used to be colonies and then turned out to be the colonizer, SA did not have the same fate as far as I know
Being part of the west doesn't mean being white. You thinking I'm being disingenuous is just you projecting your own self identification with "western" and not being able to separate that from the identity of being white. America didn't suddenly become economically progressive in its foreign policy when Obama was in office.
##### ###### #### > # [The Global South is tired of the West's disrespect](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/630) > > > > ArrowArtboardCreated with Sketch.ArtboardCreated with Sketch.Title ChevronTitle ChevronIcon Mail ContactPath LayerPositive Arrow > > [Opinion](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion) > > Relationship can be repaired with fulfillment of past promises and more sincerity > > > > Dino Patti Djalal and Michael Sheldrick > > June 17, 2023 05:00 JST | [Rest of the World](https://asia.nikkei.com/Location/Rest-of-the-World) > > > > > > > > [Image](https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%253A%252F%252Fcms-image-bucket-production-ap-northeast-1-a7d2.s3.ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fimages%252F8%252F0%252F0%252F7%252F46087008-4-eng-GB%252FCropped-16867926302023-01-25T151453Z_198373769_RC2QXY9AWKUX_RTRMADP_3_IRAN-DAILYLIFE.JPG?width=700&fit=cover&gravity=faces&dpr=2&quality=medium&source=nar-cms) > > An anti-U.S. mural in Tehran: The most negative perception of the West relates to the prevalence of double standards. (West Asian News Agency via Reuters) > > _Dino Patti Djalal, previously Indonesia's ambassador to the U.S., is founder and chairman of the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia. Michael Sheldrick is co-founder of international social justice advocacy group Global Citizen where he is in charge of policy, impact and government affairs._ > > Across the Global South, certain perceptions of the West prevail -- and for many, represent the reality they see. > > > > > > > > > > ## Sponsored Content > > ### About Sponsored Content This content was commissioned by Nikkei's Global Business Bureau. > > > > > > Nikkei Asian Review, now known as Nikkei Asia, will be the voice of the Asian Century. > > ### Celebrate our next chapter > Free access for everyone - Sep. 30 > > [Find out more](https://asia.nikkei.com/Nikkei-Asia-Launch) - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Nice to hear the "global south" can agree on something for once.
They always agree when its time to say "miew miew miew the West is mean and always tell us what to do"
It's almost like we raped and pillaged their nations for centuries and stunted the development of their societies for the sake of profit or something
I didn't do anything but alright
You just wear clothes manufactured in the sweat shops we forced on them and eat food farmed using exploitative, borderline slave labor. I'm not saying you evil for doing this (I do to, we all do in the west) but you should acknowledge the roll we (ie, the collective west) has played in their current situation.
Why don’t those countries close their sweatshops then? I’m pretty sure people from those countries don’t like being infantilized by random westerners either.
Same reason we in the US don't close ours, nor fix any of the myriad problems we have. Because the people negatively affected by the issues aren't the ones making the decision. Glass houses. Stones.
Because they are obligated to live up to the conditions of their loans, and their economies have no become dependant on these industries. It's not that simple.
Loans only matter if you want to continue receiving credit. They could tell the lenders to screw themselves. They *want* this. Industrialization has lifted nation after nation out of poverty. Japan, Singapore, China, Vietnam, India... Those factory workers are sending their kids to college.
give it 20 years or so, and the west would complain about how these newly educated kids are stealing their jobs, again.
The West brings in the largest amount of educated immigrants every year though.
Literally any nation would complain about that, but sure blame the guys that actually allow them into our nations to improve their life. Since when is reddit full of coping thirdies and self hating westiods
Who are "they"? The people making the decisions are just politicians that are easily bribed and manipulated, especially over the course of decades and from foreign powers with *extreme* economic and technological advantages over your own. Did all the people who died in war under the decision of politicians sitting back in their office decide to go to war? Then why do we assume the citizenry of a country "chose" to grow their society through sweatshops, corporate towns, paving over villages to make room for factories, etc.? Wouldn't it have just been some rich dudes behind the most expensive desk in the country making these "decisions"?
I remember when Haiti was crippled by decades on decades of debt forced upon them, and anytime they even looked like they might miss a payment, particularly in the 20th century, the US happily rolled in and overthrew their government to ensure they continued payment.
Yeah, most of these weren't industrialized under normal circumstances. World loans basically set up economies that are dependent on the first world and keep them from growing out from under their thumb.
Every rich country ever has had either it's ass full of oil or a sweatshop stage. I'm only seeing small finance hubs as the exceptions, and that's usually due to size.
Yeah... Almost like any guy who stood up to fix the issue got framed out of power (DSK who was to become the chairman of IMF, or Gaddafi who wanted to create the United States of Africa. I'll pass on the coups in South America)
Gaddafi was a nut job who should not be taken seriously.
They did, and got bombed or overthrown by USA backed coup d etats.
Short of criminally burning them down, the decision is not theirs to make.
Because they have no realistic alternatives if they want to enable economic growth and improve living standards in the long-run. In a substantial number of industries, low wages allow developing countries to break into world markets. The growth of manufacturing, and the number of jobs that the new export sector creates, has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban citizens shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Western companies exploiting the labour of global south is disgusting and immoral, and even worse: the workers have to accept these horrible working conditions and pay, in an absence of better alternatives. The global south doesn't really have a choice on the matter; their labour has to accept these horrendious working conditions or remain a subsistence farmer etc, with little potential to improve their living standards. Obviously I don't think "business as usual" is okay and that the horrendous working conditions in the global south are justifiable. The workers in the global south should receive fair compensation and proper working conditions, while allowing them to retain their competetive advantage as labour providers, leaving room for export-lead economic prosperity.
Probably because those countries want to develop their economy and be more productive. And if you work in a sweatshop making 2$ it's better than farming and making 1$.
Funny a yankee is asking this question. Last time my country was developing it's national base industries, US's apparatus came down on it, CIA style. [https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/)
Yeah, nothing bad ever happens to governments in the global south that turns against the status quo/s
Capitalism. These countries want money and it is the best option available.
>You just wear clothes manufactured in the sweat shops we forced on them and eat food farmed using exploitative, borderline slave labor. I'm not saying you evil for doing this (I do to, we all do in the west) but you should acknowledge the roll we (ie, the collective west) has played in their current situation. The local leaders have allowed the creation of those sweatshops the same way local leaders in my country have allowed for our primaeval forest to be cut for Austrian companies. Corruption has always been a dance of 2 or more and it is rarely forced on anyone. Secondly, most western countries have their food made in their own countries and are it is heavenly subsidized. Spare me your collective guilt crap as it is only an excuse for the corruption and poor management that plagues the global south. As a Romanian, I could always blame the corruption on the habits formed during the Ottoman occupation or the Soviet occupation but ultimately it is the ruling class we have constantly voted for and the bad choices we have made during historic events that have landed us where we are and nothing else.
To be fair, the global south is so mismanaged in part because every time they get a competent leader who starts strengthening a country, America, Europe, Russia or China will either fund their overthrow, or a corporation with a private army will do it for them.
Also do you somehow think we are the only ones buying cheap manufactured goods? My dude most of that goes to china, India or other “global south” markets, the west if anything buys less sweatshop stuff. Your saying this like every other nation are poor idiots who just exist to make clothes for the west, so as usual you bleeding heart anti west types end up sounding more racist than conservatives
Bruh your really blaming the west for those countries internal laws? I swear you guys just wanna blame everything on white people
You're understanding of geopolitics is stunted
China has had 800,000,000 people lifted out of poverty as a direct consequence of the evil western money. They have the largest and fastest growing middle class on the planet. I feel terrible. /s
It's not like you really have a choice
That's why I clarified that it doesn't make you evil. If we, the people, pretend these issues don't exist the political will to make change will never appear.
You mean the sweat shops people voluntarily work in because the pay allows for a much better life than slaving away in subsistence farming? And btw, the food I eat is farmed using mechanized agriculture, not slave labor. Thank you very much. All the countries producing products for "the West" are much better of for it. Before you go on a crusade for other people's sake you should maybe ask them what they want first. And fair enough: they want more pay, better working conditions and more safety. But they don't want those factories to go away, because they know how their lives where before.
Criticizing me about speaking for others and then proceeding to so yourself is pretty funny
>sweat shops people voluntarily work in Imagine actually believing this holy fuck. Just how ignorant of the real can you be ?
The irony here is that biggest agricultural buyers of the global south… is China.
Some people just wanted you to feel bad about something your country did in the past you had no hand in and you have to endlessly repeat for past sins you didn't do. At the same time don't point out how a lot of these countries have huge amounts of natural resources that never seem to be used for the good of the people. And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level. But if you suggest that the global north should help with loans and programs to curb the issues these countries face you are simply a neo-colonialist and wanted to subjugate these people. It's pointless to bother with it.
While the global South have their fair share of responsibility, the developed nations have, for centuries, exploited the underdeveloped ones and used their resources to grow to the level that the North is now. So yes, the developed countries have to see that they had their sweet time and that it's now fair for them to start helping the places they have used/exploited. You cannot expect places that were left without resources, no development and no good management to just in a few years get to your level. Those same underdeveloped countries, when they try to use their own resources in the same way the north has used, are criticized nowadays for being inconsequential and receive a lot of pressure from the north to stop doing that, without really any other way for them to boon themselves. I am not saying that the south problems are entirely due to the North, but a big share of them are direct consequences on how the North has chosen to develop themselves. The least you can do is understand the resentment the south has due to that, it requires a lot more than simply loans and programs, it's a harder issue to tackle it. I've tried to simplify the issue the most I could, because this is something that would require an entire essay about to actually explain it, and I don't really like "north/south" division but I've used it for the sake of discussion.
>So yes, the developed countries have to see that they had their sweet time and that it's now fair for them to start helping the places they have used/exploited. You cannot expect places that were left without resources, no development and no good management to just in a few years get to your level. This is just political suicide. I don't know of any ruling party that would be willing to just hang out aid to countries based on past exploitation of countries that were before them. Plenty of these countries have many natural resources and still struggle to provide anything of value to their people. And we are talking about it as if this is a homogenous group. And not vastly different countries with different problems. Is the West supposed to just hand out endless amounts of aid? Are countries like Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, and Sweden also expected to pay even though they didn't have direct colonial possessions? And do we impose liberal democracy on all of countries who get help? >Those same underdeveloped countries, when they try to use their own resources in the same way the north has used, are criticized nowadays for being inconsequential and receive a lot of pressure from the north to stop doing that, without really any other way for them to boon themselves. To my knowledge, the pressure is just to combat climate change, and the quotas are adjusted to each country's development level. I don't know what other pressure you are talking about. I don't know of anything that's actually legally binding. >The least you can do is understand the resentment the south has due to that, it requires a lot more than simply loans and programs, it's a harder issue to tackle it. I understand it but to me, it just seems dumb. How are you going to move forward in life if you are holding on to resentment decades or even centuries in the past? And what more can be done?
>This is just political suicide. I don't know of any ruling party that would be willing to just hang out aid to countries based on past exploitation of countries that were before them. Plenty of these countries have many natural resources and still struggle to provide anything of value to their people. Yes, it's not something I really expect nor should I expect, countries to hurt themselves to help. I have never advocated to give out aid, it's not exactly an issue that can be tackled with just throwing money at it, because it has devolved into a myriad of other problems that money itself, can't really fix, and those issues might take years to be resolved. Underdeveloped countries have really corrupt and inefficient governments, which isn't really a surprised, the population of said countries are too busy surviving/developing to be able to have the energy, education and time to actually pay attention to other issues. Which leads to even more dysfunctional governments, hence why they can't really use their own resources efficiently. >And we are talking about it as if this is a homogenous group. And not vastly different countries with different problems. Is the West supposed to just hand out endless amounts of aid? Are countries like Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, and Sweden also expected to pay even though they didn't have direct colonial possessions? And do we impose liberal democracy on all of countries who get help? This is why I dislike treating everything as a block of south/north, but for the sake of discussion I've used it. Each underdeveloped country has its own sets of issues and we can't really turn it into a block, the same way each country at the north is its own. Even if we could hold each country that had direct involvement, just throwing money at the issue, like I said, wouldn't fix it. It has turned into other problems that require a lot more external and internal effort to fix. And you can't really generalize all countries with issues either, some might enjoy having a liberal democracy, some others might not, it was never meant to be a "block", but I mistakenly used it for the sake of simplifying the issue. >To my knowledge, the pressure is just to combat climate change, and the quotas are adjusted to each country's development level. I don't know what other pressure you are talking about. I don't know of anything that's actually legally binding. The pressure is to combat climate change, yes, a goal I very much am into, but it has to be acknowledged that the developed countries have used their resources uncaringly, built megastructures that deeply affect the environment, engaged in a lot of deforestation and nowadays those practices are very much frowned upon, with ample campaigns to discourage those practices, and this leaves those underdeveloped countries having to scratch off those resources, that were once a boon to developed countries, as something they can't really use nowadays, without really any other viable option because they don't have the industry to develop any other way, and importing it would be too expensive. This puts even more instability/pressure on the already very stranded capabilities of those countries/societies that don't really have the leeway to effectively deal with it. >I understand it but to me, it just seems dumb. How are you going to move forward in life if you are holding on to resentment decades or even centuries in the past? And what more can be done? I mean, it's easy to scratch the resentment off and ask to move away, but this will be an issue for a long time, it's hard for those left behind to move on. There is a lot that can be done, but most of it will require a lot of pain, from both sides.
>At the same time don't point out how a lot of these countries have huge amounts of natural resources that never seem to be used for the good of the people. And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level. Let me give you another perspective. I'm gonna talk about my country, Brazil. I'll try to be brief. I'll just say one thing for you to keep in mind, imperialism is done largely through "divide et impera". You divide the people you want to dominate against themselves. From 1500 to the napoleonic wars, we had been erected from the base as an extraction colony to Portugal. After we got our independence, UK came knocking with good old boat diplomacy. This meant that, up until WWI, our elite had their economic interests closely linked to a exportation model. Cattle, soy, spices, coffe and so on. This meant that it is true, our elites generally are as much part of the problem as the ones imposing it. The problem is, during WWI and WWII, because the great powers were too occupied bashing themselves to death, Brazil managed to play a duplicious game and industrialize. It fought a internal political struggle to align the national economic elites to a developmentalist, industrial, economic plan. We won the divisive political problem, and development went very well, that is, until US decided they had to stop it. And since then, every time we managed to solve the political questions and put on the table a solid national development plan, US intervened hard. In 1964 they couped us. During the dictatorship, they worked hard to realign our elite's economic interests away from a developing industry to base natural resources extraction. In the late 80's and beggining of the 90's, they imposed their agenda together with a gigantic debt made to them by the dictatorship they put in place(it's the major part of our debt to this day). In 2014, they struck again against a mild socdem party which helped in a big way build BRICS and was managing to redevelop our base industries like construction, naval and petroil. [https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/) So, my point is, political independence does not mean independence de facto. Imperialism perpetred by the west in the modern age is done mainly through economic imperialism. US in SA and ME. France in Françafrique. They do it by coopting local elites, so it's true that part of our population has their share of guilty, but that's how "divide et impera" works by design. And the defining element that comes into play every time a poor nation start to get it's shit together is massive hybrid warfare done, in the modern times, mainly through US operations, which the collective west is the beneficiary. If a country does resolve it's internal contradictions that allow economic exploitation by the west, then it is the target of massive interventions, all of the CIA trick book is applyied. Coups of all shades and colours, lawfare, economic terrorism, economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, pressure over third parties, funding of thinktanks, paramilitaries. You name it. It's not that CIA is everywhere and is the cause of every problem. It's that they intervene in crucial moments to keep the boat going their way, and not the way of it's self interests.
>Imperialism perpetred by the west in the modern age is done mainly through economic imperialism. I mean that's so vague it could literally mean any form of economic cooperation can be seen as imperialism. I don't get what would be satisfactory in your view. And as far as I know, Brazil is looking for deeper ties with China and all the BRIC nations. Are all their intentions pure and altruistic? I don't think the CIA is plotting many coups since the end of the cold war. For te coup in Brazil, I understand the president lost support from the center and failed to enact crucial reforms. And the coup was done at large by local governors the US just backed it because of the fear of communism. Also, weird how all of your political leaders seem to be involved in massive amounts of corruption. But yeah I guess blame it on imperialism.
>I mean that's so vague it could literally mean any form of economic cooperation can be seen as imperialism. Not really, and it\`s not some strange proposition too, you would find different iterations ranging from Celso Furtado to Lenin. >I don't get what would be satisfactory in your view. Not intervening through hybrid warfare through CIA trick book would be nice. >And as far as I know, Brazil is looking for deeper ties with China and all the BRIC nations. Are all their intentions pure and altruistic? You pushed us to it, after fucking us continually. Our president has been arrested in a lawfare unjust trial and put to prison by a US stooge. The national industries he worked hard to build up destroyed too. BRICS is an alliance of necessity, the unifiyng interest of not getting fucked by the US. No country's intentions are pure and altruistic. >I don't think the CIA is plotting many coups since the end of the cold war. I've just linked you hard proof of all the US state apparatus to make a white coup, arrest the target political party, and destroy the national industries in the process. It is proof analyzed and validated by both our national tribunals and UN tribunals. >For te coup in Brazil, I understand the president lost support from the center and failed to enact crucial reforms. And the coup was done at large by local governors the US just backed it because of the fear of communism. The "center", also known here by all political spectrum as "business tend", because you can just buy them, got convinced to coup the president Dilma. There wasn't crucial reforms. What was there was an economic crisis catalyzed by US economic warfare. Operation Lava-Jato, together with petroil price control and indirect sanctions threw us into an economic crisis. The center refused to do literally anything to counter the crisis, the lawfare lava-jato operation tighten the noose, and the moment people went to the streets to protest, the center got with the opposition to impeach the president on charges which were later found false. Yes, there was ample movement of internal forces, but it was all possibilited by US in the first place. If it were not for operation lava-jato, none of this would have gotten to such crisis point. And it has nothing to do with communism, just like it wasn't about communism in the 60's. It was about keeping Brazil down, as it's US's backyard. Pure geopolitical realism. >Also, weird how all of your political leaders seem to be involved in massive amounts of corruption. But yeah I guess blame it on imperialism. I don't blame corruption, which also exists in US but is legalized, on imperialism. It does not affect my argument in the least. Yes there's ample of problems here, but every time we sort it out and start to grow, we become a threat to US domination, and so are attacked.
>Some people just wanted you to feel bad about something your country did in the past you had no hand in and you have to endlessly repeat for past sins you didn't do. No, more the fact you are still actively benefitting from those actions of the past. >And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level. How you see that and come to conclusion that these people are "inferior" and "incompetent" instead of realising thats just how much Imperialists fucked up these countries and even after their "independence" most of these countries are still de facto ruled by Western interests is mindblowing.
>No, more the fact you are still actively benefitting from those actions of the past. Okay so if I acknowledge that how is that helping anyone in the global south? Is the average person supposed to feel guilty about it? >How do you see that and come to the conclusion that these people are "inferior" and "incompetent" instead of realizing just how much Imperialists fucked up these countries even after their "independence" Most of these countries are still de facto ruled by Western interests is mindblowing. I don't see them as inferior and incompetent. Some of the most successful minority groups are from developing countries. I'm saying that their leaders and governments are corrupt and incompetent. If you just blame all the social issues on imperialism sure ok. But at what point are the people there responsible for their actions? Are they all just victims of imperialism forever and ever? I don't see how infantilizing them and taking all agency from them is helpful.
Global southerner here. I'll accept help with loans.
You do realize that the plentiful lifestyle you live is a fruit of colonization/imperialism right? > At the same time don’t point out how a lot of these countries have huge amounts of natural resources that never seem to be used for the good of the people. And they have had independence for a solid 70 years or so but still, the global north is to blame for their mismanagement of resources and corruption at every level. Also there significant geopolitical intervention from the global north to keep this status quo. Hell, I live in Brazil. There is already released proof that the CIA helped the process that deposed our president in 2014. Not 1964 (which they also did, BTW), 2014
Hey, good luck with blaming others for your problems. That really is a great way to get ahead.
Nope, it's all your fault. You specifically.
Noooo 😭😭
Such an immature reaction. You might not have done anything but you're benefiting off of it.
>It's almost like we raped and pillaged their nations for centuries and stunted the development of their societies for the sake of profit or something And so did they during the dark ages. What is your point?
Yeah cause the Iran government has been so progressive for the past 40 years…
Yeah after america orchestrated a coup to overthrow their democratically elected socially progressive leader and replaced him with the prior religious theocracy things got pretty rough over there.
Ive decided to read some of your other comments, to see if maybe I judged too harshly. This is 100% true and was one of the biggest mistakes the US ever made. Not only from a foreign policy perspective, but a humanitarian one.
Yeah I agree, thank you
You don't even have your coups right... The US was involved in the 1953 coup which kept the Shah in power, not the 1979 coup where the theocrats grabbed power. And calling Mossadegh a "democratically elected socially progressive leader" is historical revisionism *at best*. Ironically it was Mossadegh who had spent years supporting the theocratic groups that, decades later, would go through with the 1979 revolution, which he did because he needed a violent group to assault other politicians and intimidate voters. He used them as a replacement for the communist gangs he'd previously used when the commies realized he was playing them. At the time of the coup in 53, which was partially funded by Americans but done entirely by Iranian military supporting the Shah, Mossadegh had dissolved the Iranian senate equivalent, handed himself a vast amount of executive powers, and was setting himself up as a dictator. But somehow him trying to nationalize the oil production of Iran has retroactively turned him into a socially progressive hero of idiots worldwide.
Oh yes, Reza Pahlavi, such a nice guy, isn’t it?. All thes progressive and social reforms he did like unemployment compensation, beneficts for sick and injured workers, implementation of social security, healthcare, ban the forced labor, use the land reform money to found rural housing projects and pest controls, try to stabilize the country by controlling tribal chiefs and extremists, allow Iran to control its own resources, refusing to institute Islamic law, refusing to give government or power positions to Fada'iyan supporters and members. Oh no wait, that was done by Mossadegh… wow. Good thing the British gave 10,000 pounds a month to radicalize opponents of Mossadegh, finance the royalists and buy the press and public opinion from the most conservative sectors, so that the country would remain a safe zone for slave-owning landlords and exploitative British corporations, where Iranian workers cannot have even the slightest right to anything other than die working.
The Shah was very secular it wasnt a theocracy, the theocracy came from the Iranian revolution that the Iranian people put in power
But was he democratic, the shah? Sometimes you need to understand what the west wants is different from what the indigenous people want.
Literally everything you said in this comment was wrong, the theocracy came from a revolution that ousted the shah that was installed by the US, and the shah was very secular. I’m not saying that the US should have overthrown Mossadegh, but you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, so you should act as if you do.
The west definitely can be blame for alot of global south issues, but their are countries that have succeded despite such histories. People need to look into the internal politics of these struggling global south countries instead of blaming the west for all the misfortunes of these countries.
Sure, just make the west stop meddling in their internal politics and they might actually have a chance at doing just that.
Just don't tell the colonies that are still inhabited by non natives like Canada, Brazil, venuzala etc that they arnt part of this global south, they are part of the oppressors
I'm sure canada was never considered part of the global south.
This describes the history of humanity. Every nation, everywhere. Some more recent than others, but warfare, pillaging and theft of resources has been the norm for 99% of human history. WW2 mostly put an end to that, and some nations that were raped, pillaged or even nuked end up fine. Others chronically struggle to even feed their populace and are corrupt on a scale that's hard to imagine. The answer isn't always "West bad, poor country good, muh colonization" when dealing with a complex issue like this.
Yeah, that's why Africa didn't made NASA instead? Don't mean to be rude but I didn't find any reasoning as to colonialism being the reason why africa has not really evolved. Asking as an eastern european..
It's almost like civilization tends towards anyone with an overwhelming military advantage using it nefariously, and the West had the biggest coupled with the means to take the oppression show on the road. Value judgments only work when the values are different- not just the positions.
No, we didn't.
There is only one definition of "global south" that makes any sense, and that is: all dysfunctional democracies and autocracies of the world. This is the only common factor and their leaders are strongly united in the fight against people kicking them out of their jobs. They love when Western corporations come to exploit their resources and population, because there are money and bribes to be made. Privatization? Neoliberal market reforms? Bring it on baby, we're gonna have our own skyscraper for our clan. They adore western cultural decadence, sending their precious heirs to study in the top universities of the world. But what they are especially touchy about are comments about the state of their political systems: how dare you suggest us we have fair elections when you bought and sold slaves from our territories, barely three centuries ago?
Yes, just ignore the west financed coups, creation of drug crisis, exploitation of our resources, production of weapons for criminal groups, abuse of cheap labor, abuse of child workers, market manipulation, economical abuse, contamination and all the other stuff. And is not like this are secrets or anything, but I guess is easier to just ignore.
When we have fair elections that elect ppl that the west don't like we get couped, like Bolivia, a couple years ago and many more countries.
> There is only one definition of "global south" that makes any sense, and that is: all dysfunctional democracies and autocracies of the world. And even that is an incredibly stupid definition. The only way that would make sense is when you think of the "global south" as "the parts of the globe that are going south". And nobody uses the term that way. The term is stupid.
And also locking almost every latin America country to one type of economics that only works in the conditions of global north nations have due to IMF debt. Argentinians economists, for example, are not less capable than north americans. Then why are they fucked? Try not to be manichean
Not untrue about the west
"For once"? As if that's a common phrase? This is literally the first time I've heard the term "global south".
That's a you problem, it's a very common phrase among lefties online and in schools.
??? The global south is a common term when it comes to international relations and development aid in general, not just "among lefties online and in schools".
is this global south in the room with us?
Where did this global south touch you?
In the back pocket, trying to reclaim stolen money
We absolutely are. This is nothing but the truth.
It's a classic moment. Global South "Waaah stop disrespecting us." West "Oh were you there? We didn't notice."
Global South is tired of being treated as a monolith
But clearly an Uruguayan street sweeper and a Ugandan bus driver have *so much* in common that they banded together to form the Global South. I mean their country's both start with a **"U"**!
absolutely my best friend is from Uganda
A "U" stralia too.
Also Nuzealand
Global south is such a weird term come to think of it, why has the wokedemics coined these term to encompass a wide array of half the globe? I guess ‘global periphery’ fell out of fashion, but global south more or less denotes the same ‘non-west’ i.e *those* people feeling it want to stray away from
They want to make a value judgement about certain countries around the world, but don't want to say the quiet part loud, so they euphemize until the stigma catches, then move on to the next term that they will gaslight and swear has no negative connotations this time.
Yeah lmao, as part of this supposed "Global south" I'm tired of being referred as so
This sub has become a joke, the amount of tribalist nonsense in this thread is laughable. Like watching a bunch of 8 year old argue about whose daddy is the strongest. If someone would like to have an actual discussion: What can the West do to aid the "global south"? It's no secret that the West has meddled in many developing nations over the last century. Many attempts and stabilization have failed but some have flourished (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Israel, Indonesia). Many here mention that the West uses other countries for cheap labor, but if that brings new industries to the region and creates some skilled (or semi-skilled) labor is not that a good thing? Should it also be the West's responsibility to educate these populations?
Criticizing from a position of ignorance is easier and more fun
Thank god the mods took the brave decision of reopening it, what would the world have done without the brain trust of tankies and propagandists here.
I’m on this sub just for this nonsense, honestly
Go to r\worldnews, you'll find 100x more
Yeah but that sub is one-sided nonsense. Here you get it from all angles
Couldn't have said it better myself
Only place with sensible shit is r/worldpolitics
Korea? Hong kong? Israel??? Those are some really bad examples. Hong kong just got politically lobotomized and is part of mainland china, USA could not win so now we got 2 koreas and one is a nuclear threat to asia. Israel, clearly troubled and a lot of innocent lives are subjected to terrorist acts thro and fro. How about Taiwan, looks good, just on the brink of invasion, being the hub of electronics and whatnot
They are realistic examples, not meant to be good or bad. Hong Kong was developed by British influence and was the major Asian economic powerhouse for many years. Previously it was a fishing village. Sotuh Korea exists as it does because of USA intervention in the war and consistent support afterwards it is now the 10th largest economy. North Korea also exists as it does because of the results of the war. I knew someone would bring up Israel which is why I mentioned it. From a purely developmental standpoint Israel has been a success. It boasts a 97% literacy rate, and has developed an advanced economy. This is largely due to western influence. However there are obvious negatives associated as well that bring up questions regarding the League of Nations and their intentions. But we can acknowledge both in a proper discussion.
Generally speaking when the West gives out loans through the IMF and World Bank they attach caveats, not all unreasonable, but things like privatizing government services (which usually get bought by Western companies) and austerity measures harm the general populace while profits leave the country via international corporations instead of necessarily being reinvested to the struggling country in question. That's why the Chinese loan model is starting to compete with the Western model, they have less strings attached and the property acquisition is based on failure to pay the loan rather than an up front sale to investors.
Realistic that the West can't do much. Any type of generous aid would be political suicide come election time. Any other types of loans would be seen as neo-colonialism. So you are more or less left with charity. If you want aid to be a viable option you have to condition it with some sort of reform and oversight which would be something like the IMF. And you would have to sell the aid to the voters as something you have to do to protect from further migration crises and combatting climate change. Most of the countries you mentioned got to where they are by accepting Western help or being open to trade and doing business with the West. Or Indonesia because of their location. I don't think the West has a responsibility to help anyone. Especially if they don't want you to help them.
Altruism is the answer, as always
There is also the fact that not all aid is helpful for the countries that receive it. Give a country struggling with food free food, and people won't buy from their local farmeres, driving them to poverty. It's better for Western governments to buy from the farmers and build the roads to distribution centers, but doing that is going to piss off a lot of farmers that vote back home, since you aren't buying from them for your international aid.
I think there was a study about this and it's more beneficial for the people if you just give them the money directly and they buy what they need. I also read that donated clothing more or less wiped out any clothing industry in that country. So there is a lot to consider on top of this being deeply unpopular in any country where political parties have to care about reelection.
“Fellas, are sweatshops actually good?” You’re right, this sub is a joke
This is why this sub is a joke. "cheap labor" doesn't necessarily mean sweat shops. If you can't recognize that then there's nothing for me to tell you other than to stay in school. The Chinese automotive industry has been built from the offshoring of the tier 1 and 2 supply chains over the last 30 years.
Not only that, but cheap labor is often the only thing that poor countries offer. they don't have the infrastructure, the logistics, the energy, the education levels, the stable government, are quite corrupt, and have a host of other problems. If you mandated paying people in poor countries middle income wages, businesses would just invest in middle income countries that already developed their infastructure and education. Then, rather than getting low income wages, they'd not get anything at all. Yeah, it sucks, but every country goes through a period of cheap labor as part of industrialization and development. Even the US went through a period of it. It's just that since today those countries are lagging behind, they are poor compared to us, but when we went through it we weren't poor compared anyone since we were some of the first.
Yes but they’re different than me so they’re bad 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 /s
Also, how can the "global South" got tired of what "the West" did when they let Russia and China exploit them, e.g., extracting natural resources in exchange for regime security and high-risk loans for questionable projects that tied the country financially to the loaner?
>Many attempts and stabilization... Indonesia Say what now? >Should it also be the West's responsibility to educate these populations? If the west could educate their own populace fully that would be a good start.
The obvious question though is, what does the East and the North think?
Russia and China have really had enough of the West as well. The global North would appreciate if we would stop trying to melt the ice caps, although there is a bit of dissent from the penguin coalition…
>there is a bit of dissent from the penguin coalition… Penguins are part of the global south.
And they're really fed up about the polar bears from the global north and their lies.
>Russia and China have really had enough of the West as well. The West "Don't invade other countries and take over their territory." China/Russia "This is completely unacceptable. How are we supposed to live like this if we can't turn everything into China/Russia"
Irak, afganistan, africa....... You dont take land, but sure as fuck put troops on the ground.
Hey we didn’t claim the land, we just killed the sand /s
What else can they do? A government cannot survive without the people's support. Democracies get it mostly by voting, authoritarians have to substitute it somehow. A good way to unify a country **under** it's leader is ideology, and in places like russia and china which were once empires but have since fallen, restoration seems an obvious choice. Remember, both of these countries' identities have been shaped by revolutions when a seemingly underdog fraction of leftist revolutionaries took control of the country. They have every reason to fear an armed insurrection and know that political control will not guarantee a victory if it forms.
Not like those two are a monolith any more. Russia alienated China with its failure to take Ukraine in timely fashion and put the whole world on high alert for annexations. Really threw a wrench in the plans for Taiwan, no matter whether you're looking short or long-term. Russia isn't too miffed about their permafrost thawing, they might be able to actually use a sliver of Siberia for something other than penal colonies.
The US and Europe are part of the global north, so I think were fine.
The North remembers
The Canadian North here is busy trying to put out our fires to have an opinion, we'll get back to you.
Once again, the first step to "regaining trust" is money ($100 billion) in this case. We're supposed to shell out huge amounts of free money for...what exactly? I don't disagree with any of the greivances laid out in this article. But the solution is to treat these countries as equal sovereign nations. This means not preaching for a moral high ground, but rather pushing interests based on explicit interests with explicit terms for expected returns on funding provided. For example, don't demand Brazil stop burning rainforests bc it's 'bad'. Tell them it's a US interest to limit climate change, and find terms on what concessions they want in return for specific reduction to rainforest destruction. Otherwise don't be mad they do the same shit to their forests the rest of the world did 100 years ago. However, also don't give them $10 billion for some "carbon reduction pledge"
What grievances were laid out in the article? > Across the Global South, certain perceptions of the West prevail -- and for many, represent the reality they see. Unless I'm not seeing something, that is the full article available on the posted link.
That westerners preach their morals and expect following despite having done most of the same shit earlier. That they preach morals despite really looking for their own self interest, and short term gains with the electorate at home. Also that they stand on a moral high ground despite a long and recent history of interventions that hurt those regions.
>We're supposed to shell out huge amounts of free money for...what exactly? Because western leaders promised it, and it's been the west historically that has been the biggest polluter on CO2. Climate change is mostly on the west.
Ok. And if developing nations weren't following the exact same trend as western nations did. If they were generally more eco friendly, or were taking significantly better care to be carbon neutral than western nations did at the same point in development, then I'd have sympathy. But they aren't. They're doing the same stuff, worsening the climate much as western nations did through the 20th century. They arent due some kind of reparations. Also these countries didn't give anything in return for that $100 billion. It's not payment for anything. They're basically mad that a promised gift hasn't been given, and the thing about gifts is that they aren't owed.
>Ok. And if developing nations weren't following the exact same trend as western nations did. If they were generally more eco friendly, or were taking significantly better care to be carbon neutral than western nations did at the same point in development, then I'd have sympathy. >But they aren't. They're doing the same stuff, worsening the climate much as western nations did through the 20th century. They arent due some kind of reparations. Because they aren't capable of it. Fossil fuels are cheaper than eco friendly alternatives. Even more so 10, 40 or 60 years ago. You expected developing nations to be ahead of the curve basically on an issue beyond their control that the west caused and is mostly guilty of. An issue the developed world themselves still hadn't gotten a handle on. To expect developing states to ditch their economic progress using fossil fuels that the west enjoyed is beyond selfish andthe height of arrogance. If the west wants the global south to leapfrog that development, they will have to pay for it, because the global south cannot afford it, and again. The developed world is the one at fault for climate change. And comparatively, per capita the west still pollutes more than the global south does. >Also these countries didn't give anything in return for that $100 billion. What is given in return is more control on climate change. You can call it a gift if you want (it wasnt) but that 100 billion was promised for a reason. >It's not payment for anything. They're basically mad that a promised gift hasn't been given, and the thing about gifts is that they aren't owed. And the west is the one that is especially owed nothing, taking slavery, C02 abuse and colonialism into account. The global south however will not compromise its development over nothing. Payments need to be made for it. Or shut up, and cost yourself the business of a growing middle class in the global south ever more aligning with China.
>Even more so 10, 40 or 60 years ago. You expected developing nations to be ahead of the curve basically on an issue beyond their control that the west caused and is mostly guilty of. The west caused the current situation sure. Maybe we even ignore that the largest current polluter is china and has been for nearing 2 decades. But if we're saying that developing countries have no choice, then why is the west 'guilty'? Wouldn't they also have had no choice at that point in their development? >What is given in return is more control on climate change But there isn't. I'm not anti giving funds in return for specific reductions. Ephemeral pledges however aren't worth shit, as has been shown repeatedly. >taking slavery, C02 abuse and colonialism into account. One has nothing to do with the other. If you want reparations for slavery, negotiate that. If you want them for colonialism, negotiate that. Don't however pile it into an "all of the above" shitfest and call it good to go. >Or shut up, and cost yourself the business of a growing middle class in the global south ever more aligning with China China doesn't give away 100s of billions in free money tho. They do loans, taking things like entire fucking ports when those loans can't be repaid. Giving loans, or giving grants for specific development or carbon reduction is a wold away from just giving away money without specifics
>Wouldn't they also have had no choice at that point in their development? maybe, but they did what they had to do and are now trying to prevent others from doing the same. And they are still the highest per capita polluters. If they are sincere about preventing climate change and don't want to give others necessary funds, they must force their citizens to reduce their carbon footprint, meaning a reduction in quality of life and increased cost of goods.
It's the west that has historically been the worst polluter, they had a head start. But they are also the ones making the most noise about climate change. So if they want others to minimise their carbon footprint, they absolutely owe them aid so they can transition to renewables. Otherwise the third world would just keep polluting, and while it may harm them more the west won't be insulated from the effects of climate change. Their choice.
>For example, don't demand Brazil stop burning rainforests bc it's 'bad'. Tell them it's a US interest to limit climate change, and find terms on what concessions they want in return for specific reduction to rainforest destruction. Otherwise don't be mad they di the same shit to their forests the resto of the world did 100 years ago. > >However, also don't give them $10 billion for some "carbon reduction pledge" Actually a good take. It was very laughable to see france calling for intervention in brazil to prevent rainforests being burnt. It just creates more animosity towards the west, then the west is like "they hate us, because they are corrupt and jealous". Its surprising a lot of the top comments don't realise that.
I always hate it when they say the west like bitch those are individual countries making their own decisions.
Is that the whole article? "we don't Like the West"
I really hate the “west this south that” bullshit. name some names, we can take it
It's funny to label "west" and "south" as opposites. Such nonsensical terms to avoid saying "third-world" or "underdeveloped". What is even West anyway? Most of Europe is in the Eastern Hemisphere. Japan is mostly aligned with the "West" economically and politically but is obviously not West. South America is culturally Western, but too poor to be in the club?
[удалено]
Weird how many folks here think it's their job to reply to every comment..
Damn, seeing the amount of brain worms from the replies makes me wish that the sub had stayed closed. Also, good riddance from western liberals not showing an ounce of nuance or understanding on how the global south got to be on the place that it is today.
That would require introspection and self criticism which is death to their egocentric world view.
lol at the extreme white salt in this thread. the "global south" makes everything your entitled lifestyles depend on.
Speaking of which when will my shoes be finished?
Leopold probably cut the hand of at least some shoemakers dude.
He was a bit unpleasant I admit
I mean to Congolese yeah but who cares about them, least of all Europeans to Belgians at least he was the grand builder. Lets give a hand to Leopold 👏.
Plenty of the natives did 💀😭
This thread is something else.
Would you say it's getting out of hands ? ... 👋🤚🖐....
Wait, how powerful does your country needs to be to get out of the global south ? Surely China must be out by now right ?
China is fairly high on the Human Development Index, but continues to self-classify (to the IMF for example) as a developing country. It's technically on par with Brazil, but I think its high population messes with how the per capita measurements are used.
China is not at a developed level on the Human Development Index: both income and average years of education are much too low. While parts of their cities are as good as any major Western city, once you factor in the lives of rural and migrant workers the stats align with what would be described as a developing economy.
>lol at the extreme white salt in this thread. the "global south" makes everything your entitled lifestyles depend on. Everything the global south makes can be made somewhere else as those industries are not high-tech in any way or shape. Cheap labor is not as important as you think it is.
Then the cost of those goods will go up, the average west citizen mill save less money or maybe even forced to spend less. Quality of life will go down. Secondly, if the west forces all their manufacturing to return to their shores, the third world can also close their markets to the west. This will also make manufacturing in the west less profitable. It's not that one sided as you might think. The west will also bear the brunt of decoupling from the rest of the world. Do you not see the current eurozone recessions?
connect forgetful impossible pot rinse soup hunt rotten pause abundant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We raped and pillaged their nations for centuries, stunting their development, and locked them into predatory loans to catch up to the rest of us, forcing them to be subservient to the will of the western economic powers. Sure they make their own mistakes In governance (hilarious you think that's only something that happens in the south), but the west does shoulder the lions share of the blame for the economic instability of these nations. And they SHOULD hate us for it.
Let's not talk about what the IMF privatisation did to Subsaharan Africa that basically set them back🥰
Countries with strong developed markets are almost always better off than those without. Admittedly the IMF programs of the 70s-90s were pretty ill conceived but corruption plays a much larger role in holding Africa back than the IMF.
Hmmmmm country who's entire economy is centered around western corporations taking there stuff for cheap dosent have successful economy I can't believe it
How is that the fault of Western countries? Does the global south have any agency if everything is the fault of the west?
can i ask you something, have you ever head the term banana republic?
[удалено]
Theyre not, its a russian troll. The account is 17 days and repeatedly says shit about "putler" as a way to try and downplay Putins bullshit. The internet overly compares everything to hitler, and because of that, its become kind of weakened to do so. By mockingly combining the terms, the goal is to get people to believe that Putin is having a smear campaign against him as opposed to being a weak willed, dying old psycopath yearning for the good ol'days when he was in the KGB. Its a common tactic of dictators and demigogues to normalize their acts and drone up support. Edit: forgot to add, the name is designed to do exactly what it tried to here - turn support away from Ukraine. By pretending to be Ukrainian and saying offensive or self serving things, it makes people associate Ukraine with negative feelings. Its pretty much the definition of trolling
What really depresses me is how easy it seems to be for corporations and evil leaders to drive a wedge between the people they are oppressing all over the world. Some people are being oppressed more than others it is true. But can we please stop falling for this nationalistic bull shit. The wealthy are actively trying to stoke these fires. To the people claiming the west has no fault in the situation in many global south countries is bullshit. Many wester countries colonized and damaged these countries and the effects are still felt today. But to the people who are angry at all westerners for the problems in your country is not a reasonable take. Just about everyone on Reddit were either not alive or were to young during much of the violence that western nations did to the global south. Today we have corporations and single people who are becoming more powerful than a nation state. And they are hoping that they can keep all of the people they are oppressing distracted with stupid nationalistic arguments. Let’s try to use just a little bit of empathy at least for the other people in the world.
"The global south is tired of West's disrespect" Follows dozens of western redditors disrespecting the global south block trying to deny we even are a cohesive block formed through the dialectic response to 500 years of exploitation. Lol.
> trying to deny we even are a cohesive block *Looks at africa* 😬
BTW how are you doing chomskysgrave?
Wtf, Sense, in my nutty geopoltics pride thread? get out of here.
>Western nations preach free trade but increasingly engage in protectionism. They promote competition but as Mahathir Mohamad, the former Malaysian prime minister, pointed out, they resent those who outcompete them. >Wiryono Sastrohandoyo, who served as Indonesia's ambassador to Australia and other countries, said once that Western nations "like to sit on a high pedestal, pontificating to others, acting both as judge and jury to the rest of the world."
Reading these comments, its incredible the amount of Western ignorance and whitewashing of their own crimes holy fuck.
I love anglos having an issue with the term "global south" but use and abuse "third world" all the time lmao.
yo, we're tired of your everything, "global south".
Define " Everything ".
Cheap labors, cheap resources ? West must be so tired of exploitation
tired of cheap labor and cheap conflict minerals? sure you are
Way too many broad generalizations and vague claims in this post and thread. I agree that governments and corporations need to be held accountable for past and current offenses, but I don’t even know where to start when the opening statement divides the world into just four opposing hemispheres.
the amount of CIA apologism in these comments is shocking. Yall need to read some history books for a change.
[удалено]
Perhaps this sub should have stayed dead....
ITT: Liberals who forgot about every event before 2020.
For a moment I was concerned we’ve done something to anger the emperor penguins in Antarctica.
“git gud noob” -The West
Hahahaha this thread is an example of westerners believe in exceptional ism proving that the article is correct
We spent centuries invading, murdering and pillaging and now we’re entering another age where Asia runs the show
Good thing Asian countries never invade or murder anyone
"The west is selfish" Makes sense that if a government doesnt put its voters first they cease being leaders.
American here… they’re not wrong. 🤷🏾♂️ Understand that’s kind of the US’s MO, because honestly Canada is NOT the problem.
The term global south is really stupid. The regions of Latin America, Asia and Africa can't be placed on the same monolith because of how radically different their histories, culture and material conditions are
There is one key aspect that unites them all, the colonialism they endured and still endure to this day. We are not talking about their views on civic issues or matters that are precise to their region, we are talking about the oppression and exploitatation they endure from the west (and yes, China too, we know that)
Latin American colonialism is very different than African or Asian
It's funny how Latin America managed to portray themselves as victims of colonialism rather than perpetrators like in North America
Maybe that is because the US staged coups all over SA, and not the other way around? NA used to be colonies and then turned out to be the colonizer, SA did not have the same fate as far as I know
Being part of the west doesn't mean being white. You thinking I'm being disingenuous is just you projecting your own self identification with "western" and not being able to separate that from the identity of being white. America didn't suddenly become economically progressive in its foreign policy when Obama was in office.
America bad
If Chinese imperialism can be characterized by one word it's respect.
Some pathetic-ass propaganda here