全球南方”概念模糊，存在误导性
2023-11-06 19:36阅读：
如今，“全球南方”一词经常被使用。例如，一些评论家警告说，以色列对加沙的入侵正在“疏远全球南方”，以及我们经常听到“全球南方”希望俄乌停火。但当人们用这个词时，他们的意思是什么？从地理上讲，“全球南方”指的是赤道以下（南半球）的32个国家，与完全位于赤道以北的54个国家形成对比。然而，它经常被错误地用作“全球多数”的简略表达，尽管全球大部分人口都生活在赤道以北（世界大部分陆地也是如此）。例如，我们经常听到印度（世界上人口最多的国家）和中国（人口第二多的国家）正在争夺“全球南方”的领导地位。两国最近都为此举办外交峰会，但这两个国家都位于北半球。
因此，这个词更像是一个政治口号，而不是对世界的准确描述。从这个意义上说，它似乎已经作为一种委婉的说法获得了认可，以取代不太被接受的术语。在冷战期间，没有与美国或苏联阵营结盟的国家被称为“第三世界”（Third
World）。1955年，不结盟国家在印度尼西亚的万隆举行了自己的会议，今天仍有120个国家组成了一个松散的“不结盟运动”。尽管如此，随着1991年苏联解体，“不结盟第三世界”的理念不再有多大意义。有一段时间，“欠发达国家”的说法变得很普遍。但这个词有一种轻蔑的意味，所以人们很快开始提及“发展中国家”。
尽管“发展中国家”这个词有其自身的问题——毕竟并非所有低收入国家都在发展——但它在联合国外交中被证明是有用的。77国集团
（G77）现在由135个国家组成，其存在的目的是促进它们的集体经济利益。然而，在联合国之外，会员国之间的差异太大，以至于77国集团无法发挥有意义的作用。
另一个流行的术语是
“新兴市场”，指的是印度、墨西哥、俄罗斯、巴基斯坦、沙特阿拉伯、中国、巴西和其他的一些国家。2001年，时任高盛主管吉姆·奥尼尔
(Jim O'Neill) 在一篇文章中创造了“金砖四国”
(BRIC)的缩写词，将巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国确定为具有高增长潜力的新兴经济体。尽管他此举是提供投资分析，但包括俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京在内的一些政治领导人抓住了契机，将该组织作为对抗美国全球影响力的潜在外交平台。
经过一系列会议后，首届“金砖国家峰会”2009年在俄罗斯叶卡捷琳堡举行。次年，随着南非的加入，该集团改为“金砖五国”（BRICS）。然后，在今年8月的第15届金砖国家峰会上，南非总统西里尔·拉马福萨宣布，六个新兴市场国家
(阿根廷、埃及、埃塞俄比亚、伊朗、沙特阿拉伯和阿联酋) 将在2024年1月1日加入该组织。
自从成为峰会举办主体以来，“金砖国家”就经常被视为“全球南方”的代表。但是，同样，只有巴西和南非 (现在加上阿根廷)
是来自南半球的成员。即使作为第三世界的政治替代品，“金砖国家”在概念和组织上都相当有限。只有少数成员是（西式）民主国家，大多数是传统体制国家，而且许多成员国之间存在持续的冲突。
例如，埃塞俄比亚和埃及在尼罗河水源上争议不断;
沙特阿拉伯和伊朗是波斯湾战略影响力的竞争对手以及中印边界争端。此外，俄罗斯的参与使其任何代表“全球南方”的说法成为笑柄。
“全球南方”这个术语的主要价值体现在外交上。尽管中国是位于北半球的中等收入国家，并正与美国争夺全球影响力，但它喜欢将自己描述为在“全球南方”发挥重要领导作用的发展中国家。尽管如此，在最近一次北京之行期间与中国学者的交谈中，我发现了他们对“全球南方”看法的差异。一些人认为该术语是有用的政治工具;
其他人则建议用更准确的术语把世界分为高收入、中等收入和低收入国家。但即便如此，并非所有低收入国家都有相同的利益或优先事项。例如，索马里和洪都拉斯就面临非常不同的问题。
对于记者和政客来说，高、中、低收入的术语不容易说出口，也不适合成为新闻标题。由于缺乏另一种可选的简写，他们将继续使用
“全球南方”。但是，任何一个对于更准确描述世界感兴趣的人，都应该警惕这样一个误导性的术语。
Defining the Global South
Joseph Nye
The term 'Global South' is in constant use nowadays. For example,
some commentators warn that Israel's incursion into Gaza is
'alienating the Global South' and we often hear that the 'Global
South' wants a ceasefire in Ukraine.
But what do people mean when they use it?
Geographically, the term refers to the 32 countries below the
equator in the southern hemisphere in contrast to the 54 countries
that lie entirely north of it.
Yet it is often misleadingly used as shorthand for a global
majority even though most of the global population is above the
equator as is most of the world’s landmass. For example, we often
hear that India, the world’s most populous country, and China, the
second most populous, are vying for leadership of the Global South,
with both having recently held diplomatic conferences for that
purpose. Yet both are in the northern hemisphere.
The term, then, is more of a political slogan than an accurate
description of the world. In this sense, it seems to have gained
traction as a euphemism to replace less acceptable terms.
During the Cold War, countries that were not aligned with either
the United States or the Soviet Union blocs were said to belong to
the ‘Third World’. Non-aligned countries held their own conference
in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955, and there are still 120 countries
constituting a weak non-aligned movement today.
Nonetheless, with the Soviet Union’s demise in 1991, the idea of a
non-aligned Third World no longer made much sense. For a time, it
became common to refer to ‘less-developed countries’. But that term
had a pejorative ring to it, so people soon began to refer to
‘developing countries’.
Although that term has its own problems – not all low-income
countries are developing, after all – it proved useful in the
context of United Nations diplomacy. The Group of 77 now comprises
135 countries and exists to promote their collective economic
interests. Outside of the UN context, however, there are too many
differences between members for the organisation to serve a
meaningful role.
Another fad term that has come into vogue is ‘emerging markets’,
which refers to countries like India, Mexico, Russia, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil, and a few others. In 2001, Jim
O’Neill, then a managing director at Goldman Sachs, coined the
acronym BRIC in a paper that identified Brazil, Russia, India, and
China as emerging economies with high growth potential. Though he
was offering investment analysis, some political leaders, including
Russian President Vladimir Putin, seized on the grouping as a
potential diplomatic platform to counter American global
influence.
After a series of meetings, the first BRIC summit was held in
Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2009. With the addition of South Africa
the following year, the group became the BRICS. Then, at the 15th
BRICS summit this past August, South African President Cyril
Ramaphosa announced that six emerging-market countries – Argentina,
Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates –
would join the bloc on January 1, 2024.
Ever since it became a conference-holding body, the BRICS has often
been seen as representing the Global South. But again, Brazil and
South Africa, and now Argentina, are the only members from the
Southern Hemisphere, and even as a political replacement for the
Third World, BRICS is rather limited conceptually and
organisationally. While a few of its members are democracies, most
are autocracies, and many have ongoing conflicts with each
other.
For example, India and China have fought over a disputed border in
the Himalayas; Ethiopia and Egypt have disputes over Nile River
water; and Saudi Arabia and Iran are competitors for strategic
influence in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, Russian participation
makes a mockery of any claim to represent the Global South.
The term’s main value is diplomatic. Though China is a
middle-income country in the Northern Hemisphere that is competing
with the United States for global influence, it likes to describe
itself as a developing country that plays an important leadership
role within the Global South. Still, in conversations with Chinese
academics on a recent trip to Beijing, I found differences among
them. Some saw the term as a useful political tool. Others
suggested that more accurate terminology would divide the world
into high-, middle-, and low-income countries. But even then, not
all low-income countries have the same interests or priorities.
Somalia and Honduras, for example, have very different
problems.
For journalists and politicians, the high-, middle-, and low-income
terminology does not roll easily off the tongue or fit well in
headlines.
For want of an alternative shorthand, they will continue to rely on
‘Global South’. But anyone interested in a more accurate
description of the world should be wary of such a misleading
term.
