By
Charles Matseke
Africa-Press – Mauritius. For decades, the term Global South has served as a geopolitical shorthand, grouping together countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Oceania that shared histories of colonialism, underdevelopment, and marginalization in the global economy. It stood as a counterpoint to the Global North, representing the industrialized, wealthy nations of Europe, North America, and parts of East Asia. But today, as China’s rise continues to reshape the global balance of power, a pressing question emerges: Can China still be meaningfully classified as part of the Global South?.
The Global South is more than a geographical label; it is a political and economic identity. It includes countries that historically experienced exploitation under colonial rule, economic dependency, and structural disadvantage within global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. The term gained traction during the Cold War and the post-colonial era, symbolizing a solidarity movement among developing nations seeking a more equitable world order.
Historically, China fit this model because it was colonized, economically underdeveloped, and politically marginalized. Its leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Bandung Conference in the 1950s cemented its identity as a champion of the Third World. For decades, China positioned itself as a voice for the voiceless, advocating South-South cooperation and resisting Western dominance. Today, China is the world’s second-largest economy, a technological powerhouse, and an assertive geopolitical player. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) stretches across continents, its military ranks among the most powerful, and its foreign policy increasingly mirrors the strategic calculations of major powers, not the moral imperatives of the marginalized.
Despite its rhetoric of solidarity with the Global South, China’s behavior often mirrors that of traditional hegemons. From its assertiveness in the South China Sea to its complex role in Africa as both investor and creditor, China’s actions raise legitimate questions about whether it still belongs in the same category as countries struggling with basic development challenges. No other nation in the Global South comes close to matching China’s combination of economic weight, technological sophistication, and military strength. Brazil and India, as members of the BRICS grouping, have significant regional influence, but they lack China’s global reach and systemic importance. South Africa, too, plays a symbolic and diplomatic role, especially in Africa, but it cannot project power or capital at the scale China does. This leaves China as an outlier, economically and militarily comparable to the Global North but still rhetorically aligned with the Global South. That contradiction is at the heart of today’s geopolitical confusion. If China is no longer a “developing country” in any traditional sense, is the Global South still a useful framework for understanding today’s world?
There are compelling reasons to rethink the term. First, the binary Global North/South divide masks internal inequalities within both groups. Countries like Singapore, South Korea, and the Gulf States have long since outgrown the development challenges of their peers but are still often lumped into the Global South due to geography. Conversely, marginalized communities exist within Global North countries, facing poverty, exclusion, and racial injustice.
Second, global power is increasingly becoming multipolar. Alliances, interests, and ideologies are no longer cleanly split between “rich” and “poor” or “North” and “South.” The emergence of cross-cutting coalitions like the BRICS, the G20, and the African Continental Free Trade Area reflects a world that resists old dichotomies. Finally, the persistence of the Global South label may obscure power asymmetries within the South. China’s dominance in forums supposedly aimed at South-South cooperation can eclipse the voices of smaller nations. Without a recalibration, these platforms risk becoming instruments of Chinese soft power rather than forums for equitable dialogue.
China’s transformation challenges long-standing geopolitical assumptions. While it may continue to claim solidarity with the Global South for strategic and historical reasons, the reality is that it increasingly operates like a global superpower. This doesn’t mean China’s past can be erased or that its development is complete, but it does require more nuanced thinking. We must ask, is the geopolitical vocabulary keeping up with geopolitical reality? If the answer is no, then the time has come to reimagine categories like the Global South, not to abandon the struggle for equity, but to better reflect the complexity of today’s world and the new configurations of power within it. In 2015, China unveiled the “Made in China 2025” strategy with a sweeping industrial policy aimed at turning the country into a global leader in high-tech industries such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, robotics, aerospace, and green energy. The goal was clear then: escape the “middle-income trap” and move from a factory of cheap goods to a high-value innovation powerhouse.
This was not a plan from a developing country trying to “catch up”; it was a blueprint for technological domination. China is no longer just participating in the global economy; it is reshaping it. While many Global South countries struggle to industrialize, China is leapfrogging into the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Its tech companies now rival Silicon Valley giants. It has become the largest producer of solar panels, EV batteries, and 5G infrastructure industries that many Global South countries cannot even enter, let alone lead.
Even more telling is China’s 100-year geopolitical vision, embedded in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013. Spanning over 140 countries and involving trillions of dollars in infrastructure financing, the BRI is not just about ports, roads, and railways; it’s about influence. China is building the future of global trade on its terms by integrating markets, securing supply chains, and cultivating economic dependency. For many countries in Africa, South Asia, and Eastern Europe, Beijing is now more important than Washington or Brussels. China argues that the BRI is about “win-win” cooperation, but the power asymmetries are stark. Debates over debt-trap diplomacy, strategic ports like Hambantota in Sri Lanka, and digital infrastructure controlled by Chinese firms show how China’s global reach often resembles the behavior of imperial centers in the past.
If the Global South is to remain a useful concept, it must evolve. It cannot be a static list of countries from the 20th century. It must consider shifting power dynamics, economic asymmetries, and strategic ambitions. China may retain emotional and historical ties to the Global South, but its future lies increasingly in great power competition, global rule-setting, and technological supremacy. That doesn’t make China a Global North country in the traditional sense, but it certainly places it outside the typical developmental paradigm. One may need to consider new terms such as ‘Neo-Middle Powers,’ ‘System-Shapers,’ or ‘Hybrid Hegemons’ to describe countries like China, which defy binary categories. Similarly, we must ensure that the Global South label isn’t co-opted by states that use it for strategic positioning rather than solidarity.
moderndiplomacy
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
