Global South

China, through its Belt and Road Initiative, is playing a role in promoting “global prosperity,” as this is the shared goal of the Global South. During the United Nations’ celebration of Global South Day on September 12, 2025, China calls on countries of the Global South to actively participate in and lead the reform of the global economic governance system, which will further unite developing countries and make them companions on the path to development and recovery. Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, China also supports civilizational dialogue and harmony with diversity among various developing countries of the Global South under the umbrella of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, as this represents the true nature of the world pursued by the Global South. China proposed “enhancing communication and dialogue and supporting each other in taking a modernization path appropriate to national conditions.” China also announced that it would take the lead in establishing a “Think Tank Cooperation Alliance for the Global South,” which will inject new impetus into mutual learning among the world’s civilizations.

  Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed, while delivering a speech at the “BRICS Plus Leaders’ Dialogue” on October 24, 2024, that “China will take the lead in establishing a (collaborative alliance of think tanks in the Global South). In this context, the Chinese capital, Beijing, hosted the “Conference of Think Tanks of the Global South” on October 21, 2024. Representatives from more than 70 countries from the Global South participated in the conference, which was held under the theme of “Peace, Development, and Security.”

  China positions the Belt and Road Initiative as a key platform for South-South cooperation. From an academic standpoint, I can classify the BRI as South-South cooperation, triangular cooperation, and a hybrid paradigm for many reasons. From my academic perspective, as an internationally renowned Egyptian expert on Chinese politics and the policies of the ruling Communist Party of China, I believe that China’s Belt and Road Initiative serves as a model for cooperation between China and developing countries in the Global South, as well as for trilateral cooperation. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, under the slogan of “Working together for modernization and building a community with a shared future,” has led to increased political mutual trust between China, developing countries in the Global South, and all countries that have joined the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. This has been achieved through coordinating positions and policies to reach consensus on regional issues and global challenges, thus strengthening the power of countries in the Global South and raising the voice of developing countries, led by China.

   Here, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward new ideas and proposals for building a “high-level community with a shared future between China and developing countries of the Global South,” with China announcing new measures and procedures for practical cooperation with countries of the South, addressing new topics, such as “state governance, industrialization and agricultural modernization, peace and security, as well as high-quality cooperation within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative,” and others, to the mutual benefit of all, in accordance with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s well-known principle of “win-win and mutual benefits for all.”

 China’s Belt and Road Initiative represents a new Chinese journey toward modernization, the advancement of a community with a shared future between China and the global South, and a new chapter in the friendship between the Chinese people and the people of developing countries, generating strong momentum for global modernization.

  From my academic perspective, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is an attempt by China to propose an alternative global economic system in cooperation with developing countries of the Global South, in opposition to US hegemonic policies. China opposes the current global economic order dominated by the United States and its Western allies, which is based on protectionism, unilateralism, and hegemony. Therefore, Beijing is working to present an alternative vision for a global economic system based on cooperation, a point President “Xi” sought to emphasize at the forum, describing his initiative as a comprehensive alternative to the Washington-led global order.

  Unsurprisingly, in the context of this vision, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated his criticism of what he called “unilateral sanctions, geopolitical competition, and bloc policies.” This was an implicit reference to recent US policies toward Beijing, which, in Washington’s view, are a means of mitigating risks, while Beijing views them as aimed at hindering its development and rise.This vision was also expressed in the “white paper,” in which Beijing described the Belt and Road Initiative as an alternative to the current global economic model, which is “dominated by a few countries.”

  Based on the above analysis, we understand the reasons behind China’s support for developing countries in the Global South through its Belt and Road Initiative and its efforts to establish a think tank for an alliance of developing countries in the Global South. For years, China has made no secret of its dissatisfaction with the current US-dominated global order, which it describes as a system built on Western hegemony and treating other countries with duplicity and condescension. It asserts that this system has failed to resolve international crises, emphasizing the need for a new, more just, and effective system. China argues that the current global order is unfair and excludes the interests of developing countries, citing economic disparities, political interventions, and the imposition of Western standards on the majority of the world’s countries.

The 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, reflects a major display of solidarity among the countries of the Global South in the face of US and Western hegemony. Chinese President Xi Jinping called on the leaders and members of the SCO countries participating in the summit in China to play a greater role in protecting regional and global peace and stability, considering his country a stable global power that will support the developing world. Chinese President Xi Jinping urged all SCO members to take advantage of their huge market, and in his opening speech to the leaders participating in the summit, he revealed his ambition to establish a new global security and economic order that poses a direct challenge to the United States. President Xi’s statements during the summit come amid Beijing’s efforts to present itself as a major leader of the developing world, and considering that the summit in Tianjin, China, will provide China with an opportunity to build solidarity with the developing countries of the Global South. The international community, particularly the countries of the Global South, also has high hopes for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to play an important role in global security and economic governance in the face of American hegemonic policies and dictates.

  Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed in his opening speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, that “the SCO represents a model for a new type of international relations, and that we must advocate for equal and orderly multipolarity in the world, inclusive economic globalization, and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system.” Many leaders of developing countries in the Global South agreed with and endorsed Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech, most notably Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey), Min Aung Hlaing (Myanmar), KP Sharma Oli (Nepal), Prabowo Subianto (Indonesia), Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia), and Mohamed Ma’azo (Maldives), with the participation of UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Kaw Kim Horn.

  The 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China is the most important for the organization since its establishment in 2001. It is being held amid multiple crises that have directly affected its members, from the trade standoff between the United States, China, and India to the Russian war on Ukraine, the Iranian nuclear issue and Israeli and American military strikes on Tehran, the Gaza war, the Taiwan issue, and other burning international issues. This summit is subject to unprecedented and stringent security and military measures compared to previous summits. Armored vehicles have been deployed on many streets, blocking traffic in large parts of the Chinese city of Tianjin, where the summit is being held. Signs in both Mandarin and Russian have been posted on the streets, praising the Tianjin spirit and the mutual trust between Moscow and Beijing.

  It is important to understand China’s commitment this year, during the summit in Tianjin, China, to working diligently on three main tracks to assist developing countries of the Global South and the Third World. On the political front, the Tianjin Declaration and the Ten-Year Development Strategy will be adopted to establish a long-term vision for cooperation. On the security front, cooperation will be strengthened by strengthening joint arrangements to combat terrorism and support regional stability. Economically, cooperation will be advanced in the digital economy, green development, and smart cities, as well as promoting trade and investment as fundamental pillars for strengthening the cohesion of the “Shanghai Family.”

 Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Ping commented that the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, this year will be the largest in the organization’s history, stressing that the rapidly evolving international situation calls for enhanced solidarity and cooperation.With his veiled reference to the United States of America, he said that “the old mentalities of hegemony and power politics are still influential, as some countries try to prioritize their own interests at the expense of others, threatening global peace and stability.”

 It should be noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech was unanimously approved by all participating leaders, especially with the growing call by Chinese President “Xi” for all SCO partners at the Tianjin Summit to oppose the Cold War mentality and bloc-based confrontation, emphasizing the need to support multilateral trading systems. This message is a clear reference to US President Trump’s tariff war on China, which has disproportionately impacted the economies of developing countries, including India, a recent ally of Washington. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also stated that “China plays a fundamental role in supporting global multilateralism.”

  While Russia has succeeded in attracting the majority of members to its positions, India is attempting to balance its call for peace and maintaining relations with the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, at a time when New Delhi is purchasing large quantities of Russian oil. Ukraine has called on the organization’s members to take a clear stance and reject Russian aggression against it. During the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin described Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as his dear friend. Putin considered relations between the two countries to be developing dynamically and unprecedentedly. This all reflects a strong solidarity between the policies of developing countries of the Global South, led and supported by China and its close ally, Russia.

   Regarding the United States’ position on the gathering of developing countries of the Global South in the Chinese city of Tianjin, Washington considered the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin unwelcome, given US President Trump’s repeated attacks on the Global South blocs, his threats to paralyze and obstruct the BRICS group through punitive tariffs, and his description of it as anti-American policies.

  Therefore, we understand that the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, in 2025, presents a multilateral model designed by China, distinct from the models dominated by Western powers and the United States. Furthermore, the broad participation in the summit’s events demonstrates China’s growing influence and the SCO’s ability to attract non-Western countries capable of embracing Washington and its policies and monopolizing the West.

States no longer employ war as a tool to achieve their goals. Preferring to utilize more peaceful methods, states employ it to pursue highly consequential objectives. BRICS serves as a manifestation of this notion. The emergence of BRICS increasingly challenges the Global North. The establishment of this cooperation reflects the efforts of the Global South to alter the global order and break free from the long-standing dominance of the Global North.

BRICS represents more than a symbol of cooperation. It is actively engaged in a geopolitical chessboard that shapes today’s global economy. Gradually yet steadily, it is shifting the global balance of power through the strength it has accumulated. This is evident in the growing interest among developing countries to join the group.

Led by two major powers perceived as threats to the Global North, China and Russia hold substantial leadership roles. China dominates the global economic landscape and poses a challenge not only to the United States but also to Europe. The European Union consistently asserts that China is a rival in the renewable energy sector, particularly in electric vehicles. Russia, on the other hand, holds significant energy leverage over Europe and poses a geopolitical challenge to NATO, which is led by the United States. The development of this cooperation is further reinforced by the accession of strategically significant global actors such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with their vast oil reserves; Ethiopia, with its port access; and Egypt, with its strategic geographic position in relation to the West.
The inclusion of these countries further destabilizes the seemingly absolute dominance of the Global North.

Power has long been synonymous with the realist approach, which is grounded in strength.
However, the definition of strength and power has evolved. Power is no longer solely defined in terms of military capability or weaponry. In today’s global context, power is also measured by a state’s influence in shaping the rules of the game. Cooperation serves as the foundation of this new form of power.

BRICS leverages this expanded notion of power and influence. It builds coalitions to undermine dominance not by overt force, but by subtly shifting the balance—leaving its opponents unaware that a transformation is underway. BRICS undoubtedly presents a substantial challenge to the Global North’s dominance. In response, Western countries have adopted equally measured diplomatic strategies aimed at undermining BRICS from within.

During a G7 summit, former U.S. President Donald Trump expressed regret over Russia’s removal from the G7 following its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

“I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if Russia were still in, and you wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump had been president four years ago.”

Trump also did not object to the possibility of China joining the G7, stating:

“Well, it’s not a bad idea. I don’t mind that. If someone wants to suggest China joining, I think we should suggest it, but you want people you can talk to,” he added.

At first glance, these remarks appear to suggest a constructive approach to U.S.–China relations. However, upon closer examination, they may be interpreted as part of a broader strategic effort to weaken U.S. involvement in China’s global agenda.

This statement illustrates the extent to which the Global North powers are monitoring and responding to the actions of two principal BRICS members—China and Russia—as part of their efforts to undermine alliances among the Global South countries. Beyond these two core members, the G7 extended invitations to three strategically important BRICS countries—India, South Africa, and Brazil—to attend the forum as guest participants. This move represents a calculated geopolitical effort by the Global North to engage selectively with the Global South actors on the international stage.

In early July 2025, BRICS convened a summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 6–7 July. The summit was attended by all member states, including Indonesia as the newest addition to the group. Amid widespread global instability, the summit focused on pressing international issues, particularly those concerning the global economy and sanctions imposed by the United States. The meeting also addressed and condemned the Israel–U.S. military action against Iran, characterizing it as a violation of international law. These discussions served to foster a shared perspective and unity among BRICS members, with the expressed objective of challenging and dismantling systemic dominance.

The global chessboard, once governed exclusively by the most powerful Global North actors, is now being gradually redefined by emerging powers. These new actors, having grown weary of external direction, are seeking to establish their own platforms for influence and victory.

In conclusion, cooperation may serve as a strategic instrument for gaining power—one that cannot be easily condemned by any state. It represents the power to shape a new world order. Moreover, cooperation can also function as a tool for existing powers to engage with emerging actors and potentially undermine them from within the very system those new actors have established. Thus, cooperation in this context is not merely a symbol of unity but a form of conflict—one that is waged without conventional weaponry or the noise of warfare, yet still aimed at securing or contesting global dominance. Whether that dominance is preserved or overtaken remains the central struggle.

The specter of global food insecurity looms larger than ever, with 783 million people facing chronic hunger and 18 hunger hotspots—spanning Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and conflict zones like Sudan and Syria—teetering on the brink of famine. From a progressive perspective, acute food shortages are not merely logistical failures but symptoms of deep-seated inequities rooted in colonialism, neoliberal trade policies, and inadequate global governance. Diplomacy, when wielded with a commitment to justice and solidarity, can be a powerful tool to address these crises. By prioritizing multilateral cooperation, dismantling systemic barriers, and centering the needs of the Global South, progressive diplomacy can pave the way for sustainable solutions to food insecurity.

Hunger is not an isolated issue but a consequence of structural injustices. Decades of extractive economic policies, driven by wealthy nations and multinational corporations, have left low-income countries vulnerable to food crises. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, reliance on cash-crop exports, often mandated by IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs, has undermined local food sovereignty. Climate change, disproportionately caused by industrialized nations, exacerbates droughts and floods, devastating smallholder farmers who feed much of the world. Conflicts in regions like Sudan, where 12 million people are displaced, and Gaza, where 96% of the population faces acute food insecurity, are compounded by sanctions and blockades that restrict aid flows. These are interconnected crises requiring diplomacy that challenges power imbalances rather than perpetuating them.

Multinational efforts to improve the situation on the ground must prioritize multilateral frameworks to ensure food security is treated as a global public good. The United Nations, despite its imperfections, remains a critical platform for coordinating responses. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) must lead efforts to scale up emergency food aid, but they require robust funding and political support. Diplomats must push for increased contributions to the WFP, which faces a $4.5 billion funding gap for its humanitarian operations. Wealthy nations, particularly G7 members, should commit to doubling their pledges, redirecting funds from military budgets to humanitarian aid—a move aligned with progressive values of prioritizing human welfare over militarism.

Moreover, diplomacy should reform global trade rules that disadvantage poorer nations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) must address subsidies that allow Western agribusiness to flood markets with cheap imports, undercutting local farmers. A well-planned diplomatic agenda would advocate for trade agreements that protect smallholder agriculture, promote agroecology, and ensure fair pricing for producers in the Global South. For example, negotiations at the WTO’s 2026 ministerial conference could prioritize exemptions for food security programs, allowing countries like India to maintain public stockholding for staple crops without facing punitive measures.

Conflict is a primary driver of acute food shortages, and progressive diplomacy must focus on peacebuilding to ensure aid reaches those in need. In Syria, where sanctions have crippled food and medical supply chains post-Assad, diplomats should negotiate humanitarian exemptions to facilitate aid delivery. The U.S. and EU, often quick to impose sanctions, must adopt a human-centered approach, prioritizing civilian access to food over geopolitical leverage. Similarly, in Sudan, where 25.6 million people face acute hunger, regional diplomacy through the African Union can mediate ceasefires and establish safe corridors for aid distribution. Diplomats should amplify the voices of local civil society, ensuring that peace processes are inclusive and address root causes like resource inequity.

Climate change, a crisis disproportionately affecting the Global South, demands diplomatic efforts rooted in justice. At COP30 in Brazil, diplomats must advocate for a $300 billion climate finance package, with a significant portion allocated to adaptation for smallholder farmers. This includes funding for drought-resistant crops, irrigation systems, and community-led seed banks. Wealthy nations, responsible for 80% of historical emissions, owe a moral and financial debt to vulnerable countries. Diplomacy should also push for technology transfers, enabling poorer nations to adopt sustainable farming practices without reliance on corporate-controlled inputs like genetically modified seeds.

A decisive diplomatic approach centers the agency of food-insecure regions. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offer opportunities to strengthen regional food systems, reducing dependence on volatile global markets. Diplomats should support capacity-building programs that empower local farmers, particularly women, who produce up to 80% of food in some African nations. By facilitating South-South cooperation, such as knowledge-sharing between Latin American and African cooperatives, diplomacy can foster resilient, self-sufficient food systems.

Acute food shortages are a moral and political failure, but coordination among nations offers a path forward. By reforming global trade, prioritizing humanitarian exemptions in conflict zones, securing climate finance, and empowering the Global South, diplomats are able to address the root causes of hunger. This requires a rejection of failed policies that prioritize profit over people and a commitment to equity, solidarity, and systemic change. In 2025, the world cannot afford half-measures—diplomacy must be bold, inclusive, and unwavering in its pursuit of a hunger-free future.

A Civil Service Transformed: The Case of Hong Kong

Hong Kong is currently conducting one of the most significant experiments in applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the civil service. The aim: to increase government efficiency and address a growing fiscal deficit. According to a report by CNA on February 26, 2025, the city plans to leverage AI to manage a major civil service restructuring effort.

By April 2027, Hong Kong plans to cut around 10,000 civil servant positions — reducing approximately 2% of staff annually. These reductions are part of a strategic push to trim government spending while maintaining, or even enhancing, public service quality through digital transformation. AI is expected to shoulder some of the workload left behind. For example, the Census and Statistics Department is already using AI to handle verification tasks previously done manually.

To support this shift, Hong Kong has committed over HK$11 billion (approx. US$1.4 billion) in AI innovation and digital transformation funding. This includes a HK$1 billion allocation for R&D institutions and a HK$10 billion innovation and technology fund targeting strategic future industries.

A Global Pattern: AI as Evaluator, Not Just Executor

This ambition mirrors a broader global pattern. In Indonesia and across the Global South, artificial intelligence is no longer a distant buzzword. It is quietly reshaping the public sector — not just by automating tasks, but by evaluating the very people behind them.

Civil servants in several pilot regions are now being rated by AI systems based on data traces: collaboration metrics, email patterns, task outputs. These scores are then used to “recommend” which roles are redundant, inefficient, or low impact.

This echoes trends around the world. In the United States, the Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General (DOE OIG) has tested AI to flag anomalies in procurement and performance. In South Korea, AI has been trialed to detect underperformance in public health roles. Across parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, donor-funded projects use algorithmic scoring to evaluate local staff performance for continuity.

The Distorted Lens of Efficiency

On the surface, this sounds fair. After all, who wouldn’t want a government that works better?

But look deeper, and the danger reveals itself.

AI is not just a tool. It is a lens. And any lens distorts reality based on how it was shaped — by whom, for what purpose, and with which blind spots. In the name of objectivity, we risk building systems that reproduce the very inequalities we failed to fix manually.

The real question is not: “Can AI detect inefficiency?”
It is: “Who defines efficiency? And who benefits from its definition?”

Jobs with emotional, preventive, or contextual value — often held by women or marginalized communities — rarely register well on digital data. Loyalty and discretion, the backbone of many silent roles in diplomacy or social cohesion, are invisible to algorithms. The AI sees output. But not intention. It scores impact. But not nuance.

A Looming Social Risk in the Global South

Beyond governance concerns, there are critical social risks, especially in developing nations. The displacement of human workers by AI can exacerbate unemployment, particularly where alternative job opportunities are scarce. The digital literacy divide means many workers may not have the skills to transition into new roles that require AI fluency. And in countries where digital infrastructure remains uneven, the push toward AI-first public service may deepen inequality rather than bridge it.

A hopeful counterexample: Rwanda’s AI policy includes mandatory community consultations and AI literacy programs as preconditions for any government automation project. While still in early stages, this localized, participatory approach reflects an awareness of both technical and social impact.

Governance That Protects Human Dignity

Worse, the introduction of AI in bureaucratic job assessments often lacks three critical governance pillars:

Explainability – Can employees understand why they are marked “low value”? Or are they just shown a score?

Human-in-the-loop decision-making – Is there room for compassion, second chances, or clarification before action is taken?

Public transparency – Who audits the system? Who sets the parameters? And is the public informed?

Without these guardrails, AI becomes not a tool for reform — but a tool of quiet elimination. You are not fired. You are “scored out.”

In Global South contexts, this is particularly risky. Power is often personalized, and resistance to automation is framed as “anti-progress.” The pressure to adopt AI for prestige, for cost-cutting, or donor appeal creates a climate where ethical reflection is deemed a luxury.

But dignity is not a luxury.

Contextual Governance, Not Imported Frameworks

The solution is not to reject AI. It is to govern it.

We need multidisciplinary teams to co-design such systems. Ethics officers must be embedded from day one. Auditability must be built in, not patched later. And most of all, we must recognize that governance is not just about outcomes — it is about the process of deciding what counts as valuable.

Crucially, this governance must be contextually rooted. Borrowing AI regulatory frameworks from the Global North without adaptation risks deep mismatch. Social structures, political systems, cultural dynamics, and levels of digital literacy vary widely across the Global South. Most developing countries are still primarily users, not developers, of AI — making them more vulnerable to biases embedded in foreign-made systems. If not critically assessed, these biases could further marginalize local communities under the guise of algorithmic neutrality.

At the same time, reskilling and upskilling efforts must be scaled to support those displaced by AI-driven efficiency measures. Governments, educational institutions, and industry must work together to ensure that affected individuals — especially those from vulnerable communities — can transition into meaningful roles in the evolving digital economy.

What Kind of System Are We Building?

When AI becomes a gatekeeper of human worth, our silence becomes complicity.

It is not enough to build systems that work.
We must build systems that understand why people matter.