Britain and Russia set out their stalls this week at the Commonwealth and BRICS summits, in a competition to court global opinion. And there was one clear winner.
As an isolated Keir Starmer still fends off mounting demands for slavery reparations, Vladimir Putin smugly hosted 36 world leaders – as well as the UN’s Secretary-General – to bring about the end of Western hegemony. While British representatives engaged in discussions around climate change, health justice, and gender inclusivity, the leaders of Russia, China, India and Iran advanced de-dollarisation initiatives and beckoned a ‘new world order’.
This juxtaposition brings to light the growing perception that the British Government is out of touch with the character and major trends of an evolving world order. That’s because it is – stemming from a misinterpretation of the drivers of a shifting geopolitical landscape.
This fundamental analytical failure is embodied in Labour’s ‘Global South’ foreign policy agenda. Per this analysis, Britain is haemorrhaging global influence because we have displayed a selective commitment to the ‘rules-based international order’. Appalled by our hypocrisy, countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America are leaving the West’s flock – firing a Parthian shot as they go by gravitating towards our adversaries: China and Russia.
The solution, according to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, is for Britain to course-correct and lead by example once more. This explains the suspension of weapons licences to Israel, the flurry of humanitarian aid packages committed to Africa in recent weeks, and the decision to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
However, this approach will bear little fruit across the so-called ‘Global South’. The reason for this, as Policy Exchange’s report The Myth of the ‘Global South’: A Flawed Foreign Policy Construct shows, is because the ‘Global South’ does not really exist. It is instead an artificial composite of states – with no historical, geographical, economic or political basis – which are guided by, and acting upon, their individual material interests.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about this. Throughout history, nations have sought to navigate their environment in a manner conducive to their security, prosperity, and freedom. Contrary to the ‘end of history’ narrative, this did not change after the end of the Cold War. It was simply the conditions which changed, as the US – supported by its Western partners – reached the apex of its power. Under American hegemony, there was little to be gained by not playing ball.
This is no longer the case, as rival poles increasingly destabilise the previous geopolitical equilibrium. In this context, non-aligned states – some tentatively, others audaciously – are shopping around and hedging their bets. They feel enabled and emboldened to accept Chinese largesse, and to sign ‘security for resources’ deals with Russia – knowing full well that hesitant Western powers feel unable to do anything about it. It is for this reason we saw the leaders of Turkey – a NATO ally – and India – a member of the ‘Quad’ security partnership alongside the US, Japan, and Australia – pay Putin a visit this week. This central geopolitical fact also explains why the bonhomie and limited good-will gestures of Commonwealth summits will not translate into geopolitical advantage, unless – as Policy Exchange’s new report One Family: Harnessing the Strategic Potential of the Commonwealth argues – the association is imbued with greater strategic ambition.
One of Lammy’s peculiarities is that his diagnosis is correct: that ‘hard power’ interests are dictating non-aligned state behaviour. But his solution – to double down on ‘soft power’ – is wrong. Our strategy must be based on the rules of the game, not the one we wish were in play. The Myth of the ‘Global South’ proposes what that strategy might entail.
First, we must stop basing strategy and foreign policy on the framework of the ‘Global South’. It is a meaningless, generalising concept which obfuscates the material drivers of state behaviour. What’s worse, it promulgates a narrative – ‘Global Southism’ – which exists to drive a wedge between us and the rest of the world. As Russia and China now actively promote ‘Global Southism’ as a ‘clash of civilisations’ battle stacked against us, we do nothing but harm ourselves and help our adversaries by granting it legitimacy.
Second, we must develop specific regional approaches in place of ‘one-size-fits-all’ frameworks. What is happening in Africa is not the same as what is happening in Central Asia or Oceania. A complex geopolitical environment demands specificity and nuance. This calls for bespoke regional strategies, new counter-disinformation units to track and rebut Russia’s rampant anti-Western invective, and establishing a diplomatic presence in all strategically important ‘Southern’ states.
Third, we must work alongside our global partners to present the non-aligned world with counteroffers to those of Russia and China. Alone, we cannot compete with Beijing’s economic heft, nor neutralise Moscow’s sprawling disinformation networks. Together, we can overwhelm both.
This week’s international gatherings serve as a serious wake-up call. We must heed it to arrest the slide towards a future we wish to avoid.