To understand the geopolitics of the present, one cannot afford to be blinded by the immediacy of current events. Contemporary international relations are deeply rooted in the history of imperialism and colonialism. The borders, institutions, economic relationships and hierarchies that shape the world today did not emerge in a historical vacuum. They are, in significant ways, products of centuries of conquest, extraction and unequal exchange. While formal colonialism has largely disappeared, most of its underlying structures have survived in new forms.
This is where the idea of neo-colonialism becomes relevant. Political independence did not necessarily mean complete economic or strategic independence. Many countries of the Global South continue to operate within an international system in which economic resources, financial institutions, technological capacities and geopolitical influence remain disproportionately concentrated in the countries of the Global North. The language and instruments of domination may have changed, but unequal power relations have not disappeared.
Western Europe and North America continue to exercise enormous influence over the institutions and norms governing the international order. This influence operates through multiple channels: global financial institutions, trade arrangements, military alliances, technological monopolies, control over strategic resources and, importantly, the ability to shape the dominant narratives through powerful media and knowledge-producing institutions. The question, therefore, is not simply who possesses military power, but who has the capacity to define the rules, establish the terms of economic engagement and determine what constitutes legitimate international behaviour.
Against this background, greater solidarity among countries of the Global South is certainly a welcome development. Cooperation among countries that have historically experienced colonial domination and continue to confront unequal relationships with the dominant centres of global power can potentially contribute to a more multipolar and democratic international order. Such solidarity can create greater bargaining power in trade, finance, technology, climate negotiations and international institutions. It can also challenge the assumption that the political and economic interests of the North should automatically define the interests of the entire world.
However, there is an important caution that must accompany this optimism. Global South solidarity cannot be reduced to meetings between governments, diplomatic declarations, strategic partnerships or agreements among political elites. If solidarity remains confined to the corridors of power, it risks becoming another instrument of statecraft rather than a project of social transformation. The crucial question is therefore: solidarity for whom?
A country may acquire greater geopolitical influence without necessarily improving the lives of its working population. A government may successfully challenge the dominance of another state while simultaneously reproducing deep inequalities within its own society. National sovereignty and geopolitical autonomy are important, but they cannot be treated as substitutes for social and economic justice.
For the working people of the Global South, the meaning of international solidarity must ultimately be measured in material terms. Does it create decent employment? Does it strengthen public health and education? Does it improve food security? Does it expand access to housing, social protection and essential services? Does it strengthen the bargaining power of workers and peasants? Does it reduce the concentration of wealth and productive resources in the hands of a small elite? If the answer to these questions is no, then geopolitical solidarity, however impressive at the diplomatic level, remains incomplete.
There is a danger that the language of anti-imperialism itself can be appropriated by ruling classes. A government can invoke national sovereignty and resistance to Western domination while pursuing economic policies that place the burden of adjustment upon workers, farmers and the poor. Similarly, the emergence of new economic powers within the Global South does not automatically mean the end of exploitation or unequal relations. The replacement of one dominant power by another should not be mistaken for liberation. This is why the struggle against imperialism must be connected with the struggle against exploitation within societies themselves. The objective cannot simply be to create a world in which different national elites compete for influence. The more transformative objective should be to build an international order in which sovereignty is accompanied by social justice, economic democracy and dignity for ordinary people.
This also requires solidarity from below, not merely solidarity among states. Workers' movements, farmers' organisations, progressive intellectuals, social movements and democratic organisations across the Global South have much to gain from greater cooperation with one another. Their shared concerns often transcend national borders: precarious employment, agrarian distress, corporate concentration, indebtedness, privatisation, climate vulnerability and unequal access to resources and technology. Such a perspective does not diminish the importance of the nation-state. Rather, it asks that national sovereignty be understood as a means toward human emancipation rather than an end in itself. A genuinely democratic international order must give countries the policy space to pursue their own development while ensuring that the benefits of development are not monopolised by domestic elites.
The present moment therefore carries both an opportunity and a warning. The growing assertion of the Global South can contribute to breaking the monopoly of the traditional centres of global power. But geopolitical multipolarity by itself is not synonymous with justice. A multipolar world could still contain enormous inequalities if economic and political power remains concentrated within individual countries. The real promise of Global South solidarity lies elsewhere: in its potential to connect national sovereignty with popular welfare, international cooperation with economic justice, and resistance to external domination with resistance to internal exploitation.
The challenge before the Global South is consequently not merely to demand a greater share of power within the existing world order. It is to ask what kind of world order should replace it. If the answer is simply a redistribution of geopolitical influence among states, the transformation will remain limited. If, however, the objective is an international system that places human welfare, economic equality, democratic participation and the dignity of labour at its centre, then solidarity can become more than diplomacy. It can become a genuine project of emancipation.
Manish Kumar
13 Sep 2026
