Is Lula the new face of the Global South?

A new term has appeared to be used frequently by Luis Lula de Silva in his last year’s speeches: Global South. The Brazilian president now uses this concept assiduously and emphatically, previously absent from his glossary. This was the case on February 17, during a speech delivered at the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa. “The Global South is becoming an essential element of the solution to the main crises afflicting the planet”, he said then.

This is not a first. In November 2023, Lula spoke at the virtual summit of Voices from the Global South, a forum sponsored by Narendra Modi’s India. “There are many more interests that unite us than differences that separate us. Assuming our identity as the Global South means recognizing that we see the world with a similar perspective”, he argued, calling for mobilization for a “more just international order”.

Hostile declarations towards the Western countries

Lula even seems to want to follow in the footsteps of the Indian Nehru, the Indonesian Sukarno or the Egyptian Nasser, leading figures of the Bandung conference in 1955. “We will not participate in any Cold War!”, he said at the beginning of 2023, regarding the opposition between the West and the Sino-Russian axis.

It seems that Lula decided to endorse the Global South, of which he aims to become a spokesperson, if not the leader. Although he has affirmed his intention not to “antagonize the North”, he has recently increased the number of hostile declarations towards the West and its allies. He judged Volodymyr Zelensky as responsible for the war in Ukraine as Vladimir Putin, compared the conflict in Gaza to the Holocaust, defended the Venezuelan regime against sanctions, harshly attacked the European Union on the subject of negotiations on a free trade agreement with Mercosur, and in particular France, whose agriculture is considered “protectionist”.

This aggressive tone contrasts with that of his first two mandates. It caused surprise and indignation among many politicians. Political analysts say that Lula’s diplomatic missteps have sown doubt about his role as peacemaker, coalition builder and defender of the marginalized.

Critics say that Lula claims to be equidistant from the two blocs, but in practice he finds himself in the Sino-Russian camp. An icon of the 2000s, the historic leader of the left had then accumulated international successes, like obtaining of the Olympic Games in 2016, sending of a peace force to Haiti, the creation of the G20 and BRICS. But today, because of his unnatural alliances, he is harming Brazil’s credibility.

Lula’s declarations were welcomed by some countries

The Brazilian president’s declarations met with real success among the public opinions of several dozen states in the Global South, hostile to a West considered arrogant and dominating, which is struggling to fully appreciate the weight of its colonial liabilities. In Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, Lula’s comments on Israel were widely welcomed, if not applauded.

But is this really the case? At home, in South America, the former trade unionist is far from unanimous. Lula maintains stormy relations with the very right-wing Argentina of Javier Milei. A silent rivalry pits him against his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, on the Amazon question and against the Chilean Gabriel Boric on the subject of Venezuela. For this “local South”, Lula is not its leader.

Lula is far from having put his words into practice. He did not propose any concrete plan to structure the “new non-aligned”. In the very disunited Global South, Brazil is far from being a leader. India, with a population six times larger, has a much more dynamic economy and infinitely greater military capabilities.

The enlargement of BRICS to ten members, reluctantly accepted by Brasilia, has ended up diluting the weight of the Latin American giant within this circle dominated by China. Beyond lyricism, Lula pursues a pragmatic and very legitimate foreign policy goal: obtaining from the West an in-depth reform of international institutions to take into account the new global reality or, failing that, obtaining some concessions on key subjects.