By Fernando Brancoli
Abstract: This essay, the second published by Security in Context on the G20 preparatory meetings in Rio de Janeiro, delves into the dilemma faced by countries of the Global South between aligning with major powers or maintaining a stance of strategic neutrality in a multipolar world. Based on observations during the global conference "Retrofit for Purpose: Reforming the International Financial Architecture," organized by IDEAs and UFRJ, as well as diplomatic meetings at the Museu do Amanhã, both in Rio de Janeiro, the text explores how leaders and authorities are debating the future of international financial governance and the implications of multipolarity for emerging economies. The analysis dives into the complex strategic decisions that Global South countries must navigate, balancing the preservation of their autonomy with the pursuit of greater influence in global institutions.
Introduction
While participating in the G20 preparatory events in Rio de Janeiro, it became obvious to me that U.S. primacy, a cornerstone and long-held belief of the United States foreign policy elite, is increasingly facing significant obstacles. As the Global South articulates its own ambitions and strategies, their own elites are less willing to accept a subordinate role on the international stage. Yet the path those states will chart is also unclear. During two critical events in Rio de Janeiro—the global conference "Retrofit for Purpose: Reforming the International Financial Architecture," organized by International Development Economics Associates (IDEAs) and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and the preliminary BRICS meetings at the Museu do Amanhã—I closely observed how leaders and official representatives from the Global South are grappling with a strategic dilemma that permeates global discussions. As one participant summarized, the central theme of these discussions revolves around the choice between building "walls" or connections to align themselves more directly with major powers in search of security and immediate benefits, or "sitting on the fence" by adopting a strategy of neutrality and flexibility in an increasingly multipolar world. The discussions indicate that, in a world where both the United States and China seek to consolidate their influence, Global South countries are exploring new forms of strategic navigation, challenging the notion that any global power can claim an uncontested position of primacy.
The participants in these forums, both at the G20 and in regional events, articulated how their decision-making processes and dilemmas have significant implications for the future of global governance, as well as the stability of their own economies.
As the United States and China continue to vie for global influence, the strategies of Global South countries reveal a sophisticated understanding of the shifting power dynamics. While the U.S. has historically relied on its military and economic might to maintain global primacy, China's approach has been characterized by strategic investments and infrastructure projects through initiatives like the Belt and Road. Global South states, recognizing the potential and the pitfalls of aligning too closely with either power, are increasingly adopting a nuanced and non-traditional foreign policy. This approach is not merely about avoiding dependency; it’s about leveraging the competing interests of these “global giants” to carve out more autonomous and advantageous positions in the international system.
Global Dynamics and the Dilemmas of the Global South
Located in the revitalized port area of Rio de Janeiro, the Museu do Amanhã — Museum of Tomorrow — stands as a controversial icon of modernity. Constructed as part of the reforms for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which displaced hundreds of poor residents from the area, the museum seems to float above the waters of Guanabara Bay, its solar panels resembling wings that open toward the future.
Within this setting, diplomats and scholars from the expanded BRICS convened to address critical topics surrounding strategic neutrality and global alliances. The gatherings at the Museu do Amanhã spanned July 2024, serving as key preparatory sessions for the upcoming G20 leaders' summit in November. Convened under Chatham House rules, the conversations revealed profound reflections on the complexities of these decisions, highlighting the importance of structured, albeit somewhat restrained, discourse in such high-stakes settings.
A diplomat from a BRICS member country elaborated on his country’s approach to strategic neutrality, stating,
"[it] goes beyond mere pragmatism; it serves as an essential safeguard for preserving national autonomy amid the shifting tides of global uncertainty. In a world where alliances are fluid and power dynamics are increasingly unpredictable, maintaining a stance of calculated neutrality allows us to navigate the pressures exerted by larger powers without compromising our sovereignty or long-term strategic interests."
This idea was repeated by many other similar comments, all variations on the theme that, “Flexibility is crucial in a multipolar world” whereby flexibility and strategic neutrality are code words for refusal to fully sign on to any major country’s agenda or simply act as strategic assets of the Big Powers.
However, an academic present noted that maintaining neutrality isn't just a strategy, it’s also a calculated risk. Prolonged neutrality could be seen as a sign of weakness or indecision, potentially undermining a country’s credibility and influence over time. Moreover, the ability to remain neutral is also contingent on the state's capacity to withstand external pressures and maintain internal stability.
Towards the end of the discussions at the Museu do Amanhã, the concept of the Third World was evoked by some academics, recalling the historical struggles of Global South countries for self-determination and international equity during the Cold War. However, unlike the early years of the movement, when Third World states sought, often unsuccessfully, to form a solid bloc against imperialism and neocolonialism, some participants surprisingly argued that strategic neutrality is superior to bloc formation under the current global conditions. Nevertheless, the spirit of the Third World was still remembered positively given the way it energized and inspired these states in shifting the global policy landscape, despite some arguments appearing somewhat idealistic or naïve.
Discussion on the Reform of the International Financial Architecture
However, the embrace of ‘strategic neutrality’ was not universal, and when it came to international economic reform, there was some belief that there is no escaping economic bloc formation. This was evident in another global conference that was also held in July 2024, titled "Retrofit for Purpose: Reforming the International Financial Architecture," organized by the International Development Economics Association (IDEAs) and Universidad Federal Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). The event brought together economists, diplomats, and scholars to discuss how Global South countries could reshape international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, to better address their needs. Reforming these institutions to ensure greater representation and equity for emerging economies, often marginalized within the global financial system, was the central focus of the discussions.
There was widespread debate over concrete proposals, such as creating alternative financing mechanisms outside the control of Western powers. Participants saw the possibility of strengthening institutions like the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as a way to increase the financial autonomy of Global South countries, thereby reducing their reliance on traditional institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. While these ideas were met with cautious optimism, there was also a recognition of the need for careful implementation to avoid unintended consequences.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development at the United Nations, brought a critical perspective to the conference.Sundaram emphasized the growing complexity of a multipolar world and the central role of global alliances in this context. According to him, "there is little alternative for Global South countries but to eventually choose a side in an increasingly polarized world." Sundaram argued that while strategic neutrality has its merits, global economic and political pressures will, at some point, force these countries to make a clearer decision.
Ana Garcia, a professor at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), also contributed to the discussions by addressing the limitations of the G20 as a contested space. With a strong academic background in international politics and development, Garcia highlighted that, although the G20 provides an important platform for global negotiations, it also reflects the tensions and inequalities of the international system. She emphasized that "the G20 is both a forum for cooperation and a diplomatic battleground, where the interests of dominant powers often prevail over the needs of the Global South."
During the panel on “New Challenges in Finance”, which I chaired, Professor Carlos Medeiros from UFRJ offered an in-depth analysis of China’s growing role in the global economic landscape and how this is reshaping the debate on choosing sides for Global South countries. Medeiros pointed out that, while China was traditionally viewed as part of the Global South, its rapid rise to economic superpower status is shifting this perception. With massive infrastructure projects and investments across various regions, China now occupies a position that sometimes challenges the traditional logic of alliances within the Global South. China’s ascent as a dominant economic force has transformed its role from a member of the Global South to a global power in its own right through its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative and other regional investments. This presents opportunities and risks since it allows countries to significantly expand their economic base, but might also create new forms of dependence.
Medeiros stressed that this transformation of China from a Global South partner to an emerging hegemonic power further complicates the multipolar landscape. The strategic balancing act for many Global South countries, therefore, lies in their ability to harness Chinese investment and support without sacrificing their autonomy. This delicate equilibrium was a recurring theme at the G20 meetings, with several leaders expressing caution over the long-term consequences of relying too heavily on China for economic development. The challenge, as articulated in the discussions, is to engage with China on equal footing while preserving the capacity to negotiate with other global powers.
Navigating Power Dynamics: Strategic Approaches of the Global South in International Relations
The discussion on strategic balancing—the practice of maintaining relationships with multiple powers without fully aligning with any—was a recurring theme at both events. At the Museu do Amanhã, an African diplomat from a country recently incorporated into the BRICS observed, "Maintaining this position of strategic neutrality is not merely a matter of survival but an active strategy to maximize national benefits in a volatile international environment." The debate focused on the effective utilization of this approach to enable Global South countries to negotiate on equal footing with major powers, while maintaining their sovereignty and autonomy.
Examples of Brazil, India, and South Africa were frequently mentioned as successful cases of strategic balancing. Brazil, for instance, has sought to balance its relations with both the United States and China, avoiding definitive commitments to either side while using its position in the BRICS to expand its global influence. Similarly, India has maintained diplomatic and trade relations with the United States, Russia, and China without fully aligning with any of these blocs, ensuring its strategic autonomy in a volatile international landscape. However, the participants also highlighted the challenges of this approach, including the risk of alienating potential allies or losing credibility in international forums. The discussion underscored that despite the risks, many Global South countries view this strategy as essential for navigating the contemporary global landscape.
Brazil, as the host of the G20 preparatory meetings in 2024, provides a unique lens through which to examine the complexities of Global South diplomacy in a multipolar world. On the one hand, Brazil is a significant regional power in Latin America, a country that has long sought to balance its relationships with both the Global North and fellow Global South nations. Historically, Brazil's foreign policy has alternated between periods of closer ties with Western powers and phases of strong South-South cooperation, emphasizing its independence and leadership among emerging economies. The country’s involvement in forums like BRICS and the G20 reflects its aspiration to be a voice for developing nations, advocating for a more equitable global order. Yet this stance often clashes with the internal economic and political pressures that pull the country in different directions.
One of the core tensions within Brazil's political landscape is the divide between those who support a more nationalist, developmentalist approach, and those who favor a neoliberal, market-driven model. Under Lula’s presidency, Brazil has leaned towards the former, promoting industrialization, regional cooperation, and greater autonomy from Western financial institutions. This is seen in Brazil’s active participation in strengthening the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) and promoting the reform of global financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank to better reflect the realities of emerging economies. However, these policies face opposition from sectors of the Brazilian elite, who advocate for closer ties with the United States and Europe, prioritizing access to international capital markets and foreign investment over regional alliances. This internal division underscores the broader dilemma faced by many Global South nations—whether to align with traditional Western powers or carve out a more independent path.
Moreover, Brazil’s shifting foreign policy orientation highlights the role of leadership in shaping these strategies. Under Bolsonaro’s administration, Brazil's foreign policy took a decidedly more pro-Western, neoliberal approach, aligning closely with the United States on many issues. This pivot led to a cooling of relations with other BRICS nations and a downplaying of Brazil's role as a champion of the Global South. In contrast, Lula’s return to power has signaled a renewed commitment to South-South cooperation and a more critical stance towards Western-dominated global governance structures. Yet, the question remains: how sustainable is this balancing act? Participants warned of potential long-term impacts as they discussed the economic consequences of these strategies in depth.
Global governance reform represents both challenges and opportunities for Global South countries. In the discussions I observed, it became clear that the tension between maintaining a neutral stance and seeking greater involvement in multilateral institutions remains a central issue for these nations. Proponents support the strategy of "sitting on the fence" to maintain flexibility and avoid commitments in an increasingly competitive and polarized international landscape.
Matias Spektor, in his writings on Global South dynamics, argues that criticizing what he calls "Western hypocrisy" offers an opportunity for these countries to push for real change. By highlighting inconsistencies between the West's declared values and its practices, Global South countries can demand more substantial reforms in global governance. However, this strategy also requires careful navigation of the conflicting interests of major powers.
During discussions at the Museu do Amanhã, this issue was particularly emphasized. A representative noted that "the Global South must leverage divisions within the Global North to advance its own agendas without fully committing to either side." This reflects the complexity of the position these countries are in, needing to balance their demands for reform with the necessity of maintaining favorable relations with dominant powers.
The Global South has the opportunity to redefine the international financial system in a way that better serves their needs. However, the path to this reform is fraught with obstacles, such as resistance from established institutions and a lack of consensus among Global South countries themselves. The inclusion of the African Union in the G20 was seen as a positive step, but much remains to be done to ensure that this increased representation translates into concrete changes. However, as previous debates have shown, the Global South can use criticism of perceived "Western hypocrisy" as a powerful tool to advocate for genuine change.
Thus, the Global South faces the challenge of maintaining its strategic autonomy while seeking to reform a system that often works to its detriment. The ability to navigate these complex dynamics will be critical in determining whether these nations succeed in shaping the future of global governance.
Conclusion: The Future of Global Governance and the Role of the Global South
The conclusion of the discussions in Rio de Janeiro, both at the "Retrofit for Purpose: Reforming the International Financial Architecture" conference and the meetings at the Museu do Amanhã, emphasizes the critical role that the Global South can play in reshaping international governance. Personally observing these debates, I found that while there is a genuine desire for reform, the discussions often remain mired in theoretical exchanges, making it challenging to translate them into practical outcomes. The growing relevance of the G20, particularly with the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member, signals a shift towards a more inclusive platform where the voices of the Global South are not only heard, but also begin to shape the future of global decisions.
However, the struggle to move beyond discourse and towards actionable steps was palpable. In these encounters, I noted that, despite the importance of the issues discussed, the tendency to rely on prepared statements often limited the interactivity and spontaneity that could drive more dynamic and practical solutions. This underlines the need for the Global South to take on a more proactive and strategic role, utilizing the G20 not merely as a venue for dialogue but as a platform for concrete action.
The future of global governance depends significantly on the G20's capacity to evolve and address the needs of a shifting world order. If the Global South can effectively use this platform to articulate its demands and forge strong coalitions, the G20 could become a crucial tool for advancing a more just and sustainable international order. Ultimately, the success of the Global South in the G20 will hinge on its ability to navigate the complexities of multipolarity while steadfastly asserting its own interests and values on the global stage.
