Global politics is once again shaped by “military logic”. As geopolitical rivalries between major powers intensify, securitisation is increasingly seen as a primary tool of statecraft. This article is inspired by the public dialogue hosted by FriEnt on “Geopolitics, Militarisation, and the so-called Global South” that took place at Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Berlin on 28 October 2025. As FriEnt, we have decided to use the term “so-called Global South” recognising the term’s political, geographic, and analytical limitations.
Wars and armed conflicts are on the rise as well as its number of casualties. The use of military means to resolve political disputes appears to be increasingly normalised. Military expenditure reached record highs in 2024, while new defense plans among so-called Western powers indicate further acceleration.
This trend has implications for the so-called Global South which bears the human and developmental costs of global insecurity. The surge in military budgets is diverting resources away from peacebuilding and development. For countries like Germany, the decision to increase defense spending will affect both domestic social policies and international engagement. For many partner countries, reduced aid and diminishing international attention risk reversing progress in poverty reduction, governance as well as conflict prevention and transformation.
Across regions, militarisation and securitisation manifest differently, but are driven by interconnected dynamics. For instance, the great-power competition in the Indo-Pacific and conflicts like Russia’s war against Ukraine are influencing other regions as well.
In South Asia, unresolved border disputes (e.g. India-Pakistan, India-China) persist and can escalate from low- to high-intensity conflicts. At the same time, great-power competition has deepened strategic volatility. The retreat of the United States as a global security provider and the decline of Russian influence have created a vacuum which is filled by fragmented security arrangements. Additionally, cross-cutting defense value chains among middle powers are emerging.
India faces growing “strategic anxiety” and is diversifying its defense partnerships by rather seeking multi-alignment and joint venture than investments to preserve some level of autonomy. India’s foreign policy is said to be driven by interests rather than values. At the same time, the country has a record of humanitarian aid and limited mediation in international conflicts. There is a call for more informed conversations about India’s defense industrial corridors and opportunities for cooperation with Europe.
China’s trajectory illustrates the complexities of long-term securitisation. Although Beijing’s defense spending, as a share of GDP, has declined, absolute investments have multiplied. Chinese policy focuses on military modernisation in new domains and technologies, linked to a comprehensive national security concept. China’s security strategy integrates conventional strength with new domains (from cyber to space).
China emphasises partnership, development, and disarmament, advocating for trust and values as central to peace. The country also highlights the importance of informal security dialogues and the need for international institutions to adapt to changing power dynamics. China’s foreign-policy discourse remains anchored in sovereignty and non-intervention which limits its role as a conflict mediator.
In Africa, the African Union (AU) is under strain. It faces challenges due to rising militarisation and shifting geopolitical dynamics. Major African countries are often inward-looking and struggle to provide regional leadership. Regional bodies show signs of institutional weakness and waning political commitments from its members. Moreover, hegemons like Nigeria and South Africa are increasingly inward-looking; they are hesitant to lead and focus on regional agenda setting. The shift back to favoring bilateral arrangements over regional and multilateral ones weakens collective security and thus also regional bodies like the AU. External actors, including Gulf states, are expanding their footprint on the continent, often prioritising pragmatic and bilateral deals over shared peacebuilding frameworks. Predictable funding for African peace operations remains uncertain, while conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, and the Sahel continue to escalate.
Latin America remains a paradox: a largely peaceful region on a strategic level plagued by societal violence. Brazil emphasises the need to move from being “combat-ready” to “peace-ready”, drawing lessons from Europe’s post-war integration. This means development through cooperation, not deterrence.
There is a perception of a structural change in the world order, with a shift from liberal values to power politics and growing global interdependence. Europe is seen as increasingly inwardly focused, with political attention shifting from global issues such as climate, migration, and economic cooperation towards security and defence.
Amid eroding norms and multilateralism under stress, partners in the so-called Global South call for reforming international institutions. Strengthening the United Nations (UN) system, revitalising regional organisations, and fostering dialogue are essential to prevent miscalculations. Informal security dialogues – such as those promoted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – are valuable for maintaining communication and preventing strategic miscalculations, even if they do not produce concrete outcomes.
Successful alliances in Latin America include peacekeeping cooperation and diplomatic resolution of disputes, such as between Chile and Peru. These models can inspire other regions. The challenge ahead is to reimagine alliances for peace and development in an era of aggressive geopolitics as well as reduced funding and political interest in these sectors. This means investing in trust building, supporting conflict prevention, and strengthening multilateralism to allow smaller and developing states to act as architects of global security.
For countries like Germany and its European partners, sustainable peace must be built through dialogue, development, and diplomacy. There is a need for change and for courageously reachig out for new global partnerships – based on trust building, respect, and a decolonised attitude.
