Israel’s war on Gaza has reignited discussions about the potential for an alternative world order, one less centred on Western interests.
A notable development occurred when South Africa, a prominent member of the Global South and part of BRICS, pursued legal action against Israel for its indiscriminate targeting of Palestinian civilians. Similarly, China has intensified its rhetorical support for the Palestinian cause, advocating for a two-state solution on various international platforms. Calls for an alternative world order have become the talk of the town, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated, “Yet the international system is out of date, out of time, and out of step, reflecting a bygone age when many of your countries were still colonised” at this year’s G-77 Summit in Uganda.
These developments have fuelled optimism among many who see Gaza as a milestone in the quest to reform the current world order.
However, it is essential to temper expectations. Even if the Palestinian resistance were to achieve a victory and a fully independent Palestinian state were established, significant structural barriers of the international system, together with the complex web of interests, would hinder a drastic systemic transformation.
Hence, a healthy dose of realism is needed. While some argue that the growing vocal opposition from developing nations like China signals a rapid shift towards multipolarity, the Global South, as a concept, is still elusive. The patchwork of nations described in this grouping does not operate within adequate institutions, nor does it have the vision to replace the current world order.
Beyond rhetorical battles, this grouping has yet to mature and reach a level capable of challenging the status quo. This is more so since all emerging powers in the Global South, including China and India, benefit from the global economy and lack a genuine commitment to transform the system radically.
Two Faces of the Global South: China and South Africa
China has consistently deployed pro-Palestinian rhetoric, advocating for the two-state solution across various international platforms such as the United Nations General Assembly and the G-77. Since October 7, Beijing has reaffirmed this stance, which enhances its standing within the Global South.
Beyond the rhetorical aspect, the Chinese leadership is pragmatic and continues to nurture the country’s economic interconnectedness, including with Israel’s high-technology and start-up ecosystem.
On the other hand, South Africa’s legal action against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is considered a genuine milestone in shaping the contours of a Global South. The ICJ’s decision to rule for provisional measures to prevent further harm underscored South Africa’s emergence as a beacon of hope for global peace and human rights protection.
Despite this legal intervention, the capacity of South Africa and like-minded nations remains limited as the Israeli leaders remain defiant and the war on Gaza continues unabated, with the US military aid flowing abundantly.
The current order is a street with no exits
The current international system was built per the principle of balance of power among the victorious states after WW2. Therefore, a hierarchy of power was established. Even China has risen to its current economic position thanks to the financial gains facilitated by its adherence to the WTO. And despite increasing decoupling rhetoric from Western quarters in recent years, economic interconnectedness has made many states dependent on China, just as China relies on these states. For many observers, it is quasi-impossible to reverse this trend.
From a security and military standpoint, China cannot guarantee the security of any other nation. Can the global south benefit from a Chinese security umbrella? No, it cannot because non-intervention is a strong constitutional principle for Beijing. The most optimal scenario for China is to navigate the system as a probing actor that tests the waters in times of war, crises, and conflicts.
Conversely, with Article 5, NATO can protect under certain conditions its 31 members. Why was Poland not targeted by Russia even though it is a main hub for channelling weapons to Ukraine? This is because Russia is not keen to face the full wrath of the transatlantic alliance.
Hence, the lofty expectations of China as the visionary ‘architect of an alternative order’ couldn’t be further from reality. The current shift of economic power towards Asia creates a promising landscape thanks to defining norms of the existing order like free trade and economic integration. China isn’t interested in rocking this boat. Despite some loud critiques aimed at structures claiming to champion global justice and human rights – though often just for show – China isn’t looking to disrupt the status quo in the international system anytime soon. Take the BRICS, for instance, initially hyped up as a beacon of an alternative economic bloc to challenge the existing order. Yet, it remained a coalition of diverse economies, lacking even a headquarters. And amidst this ensemble, China is just one among the expanding cast of characters after the latest enlargement of the bloc.
Dissatisfied Parties
Every world order contains satisfied and dissatisfied parties, and it has always been this way. Dissatisfied parties in the bipolar order, which we can refer to as the Global South, formed by movements like the Non-Aligned Movement or today’s G-77, existed in the past. An example from the Non-Aligned Group is Indian leader Nehru, who, during his tenure, managed to navigate between the Eastern and Western blocs with delicate balances he formulated, enabling his nation to stay away from conflicts and focus on its economic development. Nevertheless, these movements did not have the glue that holds them together, suffering from irreconcilable differences and leadership issues.
In summary, it must be emphasised that the Gaza conflict is a critical juncture in expressing the affliction of the Global South. Attention is drawn to the dysfunctionality of the institutions of the current system in establishing global peace and justice, and rightly so. The current world order is inefficient, and the multiple genocides (Palestine, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc.) and war crimes and crimes against humanity (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) are cases in point.
When one discusses alternative world orders, this discussion is not merely confined to GDP per capita; rather, it encompasses a multifaceted array of factors, including military might, alliance dynamics, resilience, deterrence, and what Joseph Nye aptly termed “smart power.” Despite the hype surrounding China’s ascent as a potential leader, the global south concept has some way to go before posing a credible challenge to the Western-dominated order.
