Misalucha Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:7

DOI 10.1186/s40728-015-0022-x

RESEARCH Open Access

The challenges facing the global south:

perspectives from the Philippines
Charmaine G. Misalucha*

*Correspondence:
charmaine.misalucha@dlsu. Abstract
edu.ph International Relations scholarship highlights the differences of the countries in the
De La Salle University, Manila,
Philippines global south. The postcolonial histories of countries herein give rise to unique experi-
ences that push them to consolidate their states at the soonest time possible even as
they are inextricably integrated in an international system that is biased towards the
great powers. This double pressure either makes or break a state, and it is this tension
that is the focus of the special issue. This concluding article offers a bird’s-eye view of
the nuances of the differences of the global south and the problems associated with
it. I argue that while the differences may indeed be unique, not seeing beyond those
is problematic. In line with this, I first acknowledge the differences the global south
represents. I look at how the International Relations concepts of state, rational choice,
and the international system are seen as inapplicable to the workings of the global
south, and how this “misfit” is detected not only in the dynamics of Philippine foreign
policy, but also in its relationships with various regional powers like the United States
and China. I then turn to the problems associated with seeing only the differences of
the global south. I highlight the concepts of mimicry and hybridity before examining
the cases of the Philippines’ labor conditions, human security for migrant workers, and
disability-related issues. In all these, caution, mindfulness, and the need for dialogue are
therefore called for.
Keywords: Global south, Philippines, Postcolonialism

Background
International Relations scholarship highlights the differences of the countries in the
global south. The postcolonial histories of countries herein give rise to unique experi-
ences that push them to consolidate their states at the soonest time possible even as they
are inextricably integrated in an international system that is biased towards the great
powers. This double pressure either makes or break a state, and it is this tension that is
the focus of the special issue. How does a country in the global south deal with external
and internal forces? What kinds of negotiations take place that allow a state to balance
international and domestic pressures? More importantly, what strategies are used that
reflect a state’s own paradigms, worldviews, and realities?
To argue in favor of differences, however, is not unproblematic. For one, how different
is “different”? While on one hand it may be accurate to say that the global south is easily
distinguishable from the more affluent countries in the north, it is not too far a stretch

© 2015 Misalucha. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate
if changes were made.

Downloaded from Brill.com11/22/2022 02:08:09PM

via free access
Misalucha Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:7 Page 2 of 6

to also posit that so-called non-Western approaches have similarities with or overlap
with “Western” International Relations concepts. If no approach can thus be consid-
ered as purely “Western,” consequently then, no approach can likewise be seen as purely
“non-Western.” In addition, differences imply binary logics and stress the arbitrary lines
between north and south, West and non-West. Doing so therefore reproduces modes of
inclusion and exclusion.
As an exemplar to these nuances, the special issue offered perspectives from the Phil-
ippines. The country’s colonial past and struggles towards independence make it a prime
example for how a member of the global south participates in contemporary interna-
tional affairs despite certain constraints. The objectives of the special issue are to inter-
rogate the theoretical and empirical ways of studying the global south, to bring together
the works of young scholars and tease out the nuances of the Philippines’ role in the
international and domestic levels of analysis, and to contribute to the conversation about
the role of the global south in international relations.
This concluding article offers a bird’s-eye view of the nuances of the differences of
the global south and the problems associated with it. I argue that while the differences
may indeed be unique, not seeing beyond those is problematic. In line with this, I first
acknowledge the differences the global south represents. I look at how the IR concepts of
state, rational choice, and the international system are seen as inapplicable to the work-
ings of the global south, and how this “misfit” is detected not only in the dynamics of
Philippine foreign policy, but also in its relationships with various regional powers like
the United States and China. I then turn to the problems associated with seeing only the
differences of the global south. I highlight the concepts of mimicry and hybridity before
examining the cases of the Philippines’ development strategies, labor conditions, human
security for migrant workers, and disability-related issues. In all these, caution, mindful-
ness, and the need for dialogue are therefore called for.

Differently different
Pinar Bilgin points out how members of the global south are “differently different”
(Bilgin 2012). Countries herein share the idea that certain concepts in traditional IR
do not seem to “fit” with their historical and future trajectories (Neuman 1998). At the
same time, members of the global south are “differently different” because their experi-
ences, not least with the various regional powers and with each other, vary. The context
and rationale of Philippine foreign policy certainly differs from, say, the foreign policy of
Singapore. Moreover, the Philippines’ relations with the United States, China, and Japan
may indeed showcase asymmetry, but the levels or variance of asymmetry are still not
quite the same. Being “differently different” thus echoes Homi Bhabha’s “almost the same
but not quite” adage (Bhabha 1994).
Three International Relations concepts qualify as a “misfit.” The first has to do with
the state. IR’s Westphalian foundations celebrate the state as the basic unit of analysis
and that, metaphorically, it is as monolithic as a billiard ball. With statehood comes sov-
ereignty, that inviolable pillar of the modern international system. A state in the global
south, however, may meet the basic tenets of statehood (territory, people, government,
sovereignty), but its sovereignty is challenged by instances of intervention from the out-
side. This is because the statehood of a country in the global south still falls short of

Downloaded from Brill.com11/22/2022 02:08:09PM

via free access
Misalucha Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:7 Page 3 of 6

being fully consolidated. Mohammed Ayoob defines a prototypical “Third World” state
as displaying the following characteristics: lack of internal cohesion, lack of definitive
and legitimate state boundaries, vulnerability to internal and inter-state conflicts, une-
ven development, marginalization in international forums, and intervention by wealth-
ier states, international organizations, or transnational and multinational corporations
(Ayoob 1995). Whereas states in the global north are more outward looking in terms
of the sources of security threats, for instance, those in the global south have a more
inward orientation: insecurity for most of these states originate from within their bor-
ders instead of from without.
A second International Relations concept that does not seem to “fit” has to do with
the value placed on rational choice. In a world of insecurity, it is only rational for states,
whether they are strong or weak, to form alliances in order to minimize uncertainty. As
with the concept of statehood, this too is not without problems. In the first place, what
is considered rational may vary from culture to culture (Neuman 1998). For many in the
global south, rationality may lie in embracing nationalism for purposes of consolidating
their identity and hence, their statehood. Also, while alliances do work, arrangements
like these between and among members of the global south are few and far between
(Neuman 1998). The Philippines is a case in point: in the context of rising tensions in the
South China Sea, it beefs up its alliance with the United States more so than its partner-
ships with the other claimants.
Third, the international system may undeniably be anarchic and the occurrence of
interstate wars may but be typical. The case of the global south, however, depicts the
more regular, even more expected, occurrence of intrastate wars. In this sense, it is not
anarchy that constrains the external behavior of most states in the global south, but hier-
archy (Escude 1998). The international system thus represents a paradox for countries
in the global south, for while they may be predisposed towards the maintenance of the
international order, their security and economic dependence on the north readily guar-
antees the perpetuation of a structure that “at the same time and at a different level they
consider inequitable (Ayoob 1995).
The “misfit” of these concepts with the realities in the global south therefore under-
scores the power of the dominant paradigm in International Relations. The logic of
power politics is representative only of a handful of (great) powers, and its pervasiveness
results in the parochialism and provincialism of International Relations. This Americo-
centric and Eurocentric treatment of global affairs is detrimental not only to Interna-
tional Relations (the field of study), but also to international relations (the area of study)
(Barkawi and Laffey 2006; Hobson 2012). It is precisely this that leads scholars to advo-
cate worldviews that originate in the “non-Western” world. For instance, in acknowledg-
ing the colonial past, the struggles of the global south may be understood as a struggle
for political, economic, and cultural emancipation (Puchala 1998). Meanwhile, focusing
on culture, hybridity, and everyday life may account for alternative streams of knowledge
(Tickner 2003). “Non-Western” traditions likewise have significant contributions in bet-
ter explaining and understanding international relations (Acharya and Buzan 2009). To
be fair, it must be acknowledged that some “Western” IR thinking carry perspectives of
the “non-Western” world, such as dependency theory, world systems theory, postcoloni-
alism, critical theories, postmodernism, poststructuralism, and constructivism.

Downloaded from Brill.com11/22/2022 02:08:09PM

via free access
Misalucha Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:7 Page 4 of 6

Although members of the global south have similar experiences in regard to how dif-
ferent they are from the more developed countries in the north, they are nonetheless
“differently different.” The articles in this issue showcase the variance of the Philippines’
asymmetric relations with extra-regional powers. The Philippine experience is notewor-
thy, not least because of its role in the ongoing disputes in the South China Sea. How
then does the Philippines negotiate with the great powers in the region? What role does
the US–Philippine alliance play in the face of China’s assertive moves? How do the dis-
putes affect China-Philippine relations? Certainly, the Philippines’ ability to manage its
relations with the great powers is a testament to the challenges that a country in the
global south faces.
As a jump-off point, this special issue focused first on the Philippines’ relations with
the bigger powers. US–Philippine relations demonstrate continued engagement as seen
in the International Peace and Security Plan for the Philippines’ credible external defense
capability, the security sector reform, and further cooperation with other partners,
including Australia, Japan, and South Korea. The article on China–Philippine relations,
meanwhile, offered an analysis of the South China Sea dispute via asymmetric dilemmas
involving variances in military forces, economic capacity, territorial size, and population.
The rising tensions in the South China Sea can then be explained due to the failed man-
agement of asymmetric relationships. Coloring this is the factor of the US rebalance in
Asia, which shifts the asymmetric bilateral dilemma of China–Philippine relations to a
triangular entanglement between the US, China, and the Philippines.
In sum, the Philippines displays how a country in the global south maneuvers its way
in the international system. Indeed, there are significant differences in the way it inter-
acts with various actors. In the same way, some of the realities that the Philippines faces
are contrary to or are not totally aligned with the more stringent concepts of Interna-
tional Relations. The concept of the state and the deployment of rational choice in the
context of the international system all blend in and become more fluid when seen from
the perspective of the Philippines. Sovereignty, which is an anchor of statehood, might
not have been overstepped, but what became rational for a small state like the Philip-
pines was not so much to exercise force to defend its sovereign integrity, but to learn
how to hedge in an international system where great powers dominate. Seen in this light,
a global south perspective is indeed different. However, focusing solely on what makes
the Philippines different runs the risk of replicating the very modes of exclusion it tries
to veer away from.

The problem of difference

Seeing differences matters. The global south and the global north oftentimes do exhibit
stark contrasts. In the same way, International Relations concepts translate into some-
thing else when applied to the “non-Western” world (Inayatullah and Blaney 2004; Tick-
ner and Waever 2009). Within the global south, however, there is—surprisingly—not
enough difference (Tickner and Blaney 2012). There is, at best, limited difference. Sev-
eral factors explain this, such as that there are some disciplinary parameters that simply
work against diversity, and that International Relations, whether “western” or “non-
Western,” remains state-centric (Tickner and Blaney 2012). But the crux of the problem
of difference hinges on the concepts of mimicry and hybridity.

Downloaded from Brill.com11/22/2022 02:08:09PM

via free access
Misalucha Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:7 Page 5 of 6

The global south is said to mimic its counterparts in the north. By emphasizing differ-
ence, the implicit message is the need to bridge that gap via imitation: if only the global
south were more like the north, then life would be better. Ayoob subscribes to the same
logic: if only the “Third World” would consolidate its statehood like the “First World,”
then it could participate better and more fully in the international system, and it would
no longer be in a security predicament (1995). The colonial discourse of mimicry there-
fore “emerges as the representation of a difference that is itself a process of disavowal”
(Bhabha 1994, 86).
A second problem associated with highlighting difference is the notion of hybridity,
which is the representation of an incomplete or contested global project: “Hybrid space
is always contested—a push and pull between uniformity and difference. In this respect,
hybridity might be celebrated in that it preserves diversity in the face of homogenizing
practices (Tickner and Blaney 2012, 7). Hybridity enables the blending of categories.
“West” and “non-West” are no longer distinct. Instead, they are suffused with ideas from
both sides (Bilgin 2008).
Hybridity is reflected in three areas that the Philippines is facing: labor conditions,
human security for migrant workers, and disability issues. Some of the questions that
the articles posed were as follows. Given that one of the Philippines’ most significant
contributions to the global economy is its overseas labor, what are the conditions and
migration patterns of overseas Filipino workers? In a similar vein, how does the Philip-
pine state guarantee human security for Filipino migrants? An inclusive development
strategy must likewise take into account persons with disabilities. In 2008, the Philip-
pines ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. What have
been accomplished so far, and what more needs to be done?
The article on labor conditions examined the plight of Filipino nurses in crisis zones
like Libya. The authors find that while the migrants exercised risk calculation and
reduction, they nonetheless tended to commit risk denial and embrace a false sense of
empowerment and exceptionality. This provides a better justification for the Philippine
government to take steps in implementing policies regarding the security of its migrant
workers. The article on human security advocated institutionalizing human security pol-
icies and assumptions, but doing so carried risks. Ultimately, the solution would lay in
the building of a national consensus on migration where stakeholders could participate
in the debate. Finally, the article on disability issues evaluated whether the Philippines’
electoral processes are disability inclusive. Using the disability convention policy frame-
work, the author found that the Philippines needs to improve in both the institutional
and social levels. In closing, while the differences of the global south matter, focusing
only on what makes it distinct enables the practice of mimicry and underestimates the
power of hybridity. The Philippine experience in the areas of labor, human security, and
disability issues present the blending of arbitrary divisions.

Conclusion
The countries of the global south can be characterized as being caught between a rock
and a hard place. On one hand, they are distinct from their counterparts in the global
north. On the other hand, highlighting the difference undermines postcolonial reali-
ties. The Philippines captures these pressures succinctly. This begs several questions,

Downloaded from Brill.com11/22/2022 02:08:09PM

via free access
Misalucha Bandung J of Global South (2015) 2:7 Page 6 of 6

however. Would the same be experienced by another member of the global south, for
instance, countries like Ghana or Yemen or Ecuador? In what forms would “difference”
take across these countries? Would there be significant differences among these simi-
lar countries? Asking these questions allows the possibility of dialogue not just between
the global south and the global north, but more importantly, among the members of the
global south themselves. International relations can then be more inclusive and more
representative of what we call the “international.”

Competing interests
The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Received: 28 July 2015 Accepted: 29 October 2015

References
Acharya, A., and B. Buzan (eds.). 2009. Non-Western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. New
York: Routledge.
Ayoob, M. 1995. The Third World security predicament: State making, regional conflict, and the international system. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Barkawi, T., and M. Laffey. 2006. The postcolonial moment in security studies. Review in International Studies 32: 329–352.
Bhabha, H. 1994. The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Bilgin, P. 2008. Thinking past “western” IR? Third World Quarterly 29(1): 5–23.
Bilgin, P. 2012. Security in the Arab world and Turkey. In Thinking International Relations Differently, ed. A.B. Tickner, and D.L.
Blaney, 27–47. New York: Routledge.
Escude, C. 1998. An introduction to peripheral realism and its implications for the interstate system: Argentina and the
Condor II Missile Project. In International relations theory and the Third World, ed. S.G. Neuman, 55–75. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Hobson, J.M. 2012. The Eurocentric conception of world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inayatullah, N., and D.L. Blaney. 2004. International Relations and the problem of difference. New York: Routledge.
Neuman, S.G. 1998. International relations theory and the third world: An oxymoron? In International relations theory and
the Third World, ed. S.G. Neuman, 1–29. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Puchala, D.J. 1998. Third world thinking and contemporary international relations. In International relations theory and the
Third World, ed. S.G. Neuman, 133–157. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Tickner, A. 2003. Seeing IR differently: Notes from the third world. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32(2):
295–324.
Tickner, A.B., and D.L. Blaney (eds.). 2012. Thinking international relations differently. New York: Routledge.
Tickner, A.B., and O. Waever (eds.). 2009. International relations scholarship around the world. New York: Routledge.

Downloaded from Brill.com11/22/2022 02:08:09PM

via free access