Resisting Neoliberalism: The Path to Global South Autonomy

Dominated by neoliberal logic and colonial history, the global food system marginalizes the Global South. To achieve true sovereignty, nations must decolonize agriculture through South-South cooperation. This requires integrating indigenous wisdom with modern reforms to dismantle Eurocentric power and ensure a just, sustainable future. 

he global food system is dominated by neoliberal logic, profit maximization, efficiency, and free market control, which often exacerbate food insecurity and marginalize traditional consumer systems. These systems are rooted in colonial histories and reproduce power imbalances, especially in the Global South. This involves finding methods to explore how Global South cooperation can help countries decolonize neoliberal food chains and promote a more just, sustainable, and sovereign food system, in which local bodies get their rights to participate in the food systems of local areas.

Colonial Roots of Food
Insecurity

The colonial era, under the title of the "white man's burden," put forward many civilizational changes, imposing a new mixed culture on the colonies from the bottom up, covering dressing style, theological bases, and especially the food system or chain of that region. Farmers in the colonies had to produce cash crops rather than food crops to uplift their economy, thinking that would matter most. As a continuation of colonial thought, this agricultural transformation made a significant change in the economy of the colonies, pushing their cultures into a pit of emptiness. Modern food cultures are the after-effects of these ideas, by which traditional farmers lost their jobs and the countries became reliant on other countries.
Having identified this common concern, farmers' organizations started to debate the normative implications the idea of food sovereignty brings about. The most prominent fruit of such deliberation is the declaration on "The right to produce and access land," proposed by the farmers' organization "Via Campasina" in Rome. From then onwards, food security was redefined as "The right of each nation to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its basic food, respecting cultural and productive diversity." Eliminating existing hunger by giving farming families a larger role in the development of food trade policy was the core principle set in the 1996 declaration. It focused on internal production rather than exports to ensure local control.

Reclaiming Indigenous Knowledge

Decolonizing food systems carries more purposes, which will allow local bodies to govern the regions of their own food. One aspect of this movement is the reclaiming of indigenous knowledge in the agricultural base, as traditional farmers are usually aware of the fertility of their own land, along with what will make their products sustainable to avoid hasty losses. This is also crucial for the survival of formerly colonized nations from Eurocentric food cultures. Land resources can be distributed justly to their owners, as colonizing countries had seized lands without knowing their proper usage. Traditional farmers are valued for their pragmatic approach to orally conveyed tips and see the earth as their mother. Global South civilizations arose from seeing their own land as their mother deity who provides them their livelihood. Redistribution ensures fair access to resources, supporting indigenous land management practices.

Hurdles of Traditional Systems
While the reclamation of this indigenous knowledge is vital for ecological resilience and cultural preservation, it also faces significant practical hurdles that a purely celebratory narrative can obscure. A critical question remains: how can these often localized, labor-intensive, and context-specific practices be scaled to reliably feed rapidly growing, and increasingly urbanized, modern populations? Critics argue that an uncritical or romanticized view of traditional methods may overlook potential limitations in yield, efficiency, and resilience to new, climate-change-induced pests and weather patterns that did not exist in the past.

The most pragmatic path forward, therefore, may not be a simple replacement of the "Western" system with a "traditional" one, but rather a sophisticated and critical integration. This involves using modern scientific methods—such as genomic research, soil analysis, and data modeling—to validate, adapt, and enhance traditional practices, creating hybrid systems that combine the ecological sustainability of indigenous methods with the productive capacity of modern agronomy. Without this careful integration, "food sovereignty" risks becoming a slogan that cannot guarantee "food security" for millions. These facts, balanced with modern needs, are what allow people to define their own food, in contrast to the colonial system of profit and external control in food culture.

South-South Cooperation

In this evolving landscape, countries in the Global South must increasingly look to one another, not just to traditional donors and partners, for collaborative home-grown solutions. This is where South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) becomes indispensable. The Global South is rich in indigenous knowledge, context-specific technologies, and tested development models. At a more practical and applied level, institutions grounded in the Global South continue to be instrumental in this transformation to unprecedented levels.

A prime example is the "International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics" (ICRISAT), headquartered in India with research sites across sub-Saharan Africa. To advance its commitment ICRISAT is taking bold steps to institutionalize. The Centre of Excellence for South-South Cooperation in Agriculture (ISSCA) and knowledge across the Global South. National agricultural research and innovation systems (NARIS) should play a pivotal role in supporting the projects and interventions of SSTC. NARI is a network of public and private organizations that work to improve agriculture through research, education, and extension services. The Indian NARI is a prime example, comprising the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), state agricultural universities, and research institutions, which together form one of the largest agricultural research networks in the world. Its goal is to develop new technologies, increase food production, and improve the livelihoods of farmers.

Critiquing South-South Cooperation

Yet, this praise for South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) must also be tempered with a critical analysis of its own internal complexities and potential pitfalls. SSTC is not a monolithic good; it is a complex political and economic process fraught with its own power dynamics. There is a tangible risk that new forms of dependency may arise, merely replacing a "North-South" axis with a "South-South" one dominated by regional hegemons. The interests of emerging economies like China, India, or Brazil, while aligned with the Global South in rhetoric, are not always identical to those of smaller, developing nations. These larger partners may pursue their own food security or geopolitical interests, which could still result in exploitative land deals or technological dependencies. Moreover, SSTC initiatives often face chronic underfunding, a lack of robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and significant bureaucratic hurdles that can stifle the very innovation they aim to foster. For SSTC to be truly transformative, it must consciously embed principles of genuine equality, mutual benefit, and transparent governance to avoid replicating the hierarchical patterns it claims to reject.

Enduring Northern Influence
It is important to understand how institutions in individual countries could help to coordinate actions across sectors and facilitate international cooperation. To be effective members of SSTC, these local institutions have to be active role players... by giving and taking research results to increase multinational marginal growth. Although these organizations play their role in an efficient manner, outer interference also limits their independent existence, controlling the organizations and local bodies which are basically following Eurocentric ideas. Independent institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and others are hindering their functioning by imposing laws and regulations which hinder the efficiency of these bodies. The paradoxical fact is that these controlling bodies are from the North and interfere in the affairs of the South. This fact is indicative of the dependence of South-South Triangular cooperation on Europe and its whitewashed ideas. Yet these institutions are pulled backward as their way to interfere is fading away. The complete independence of these institutions is the only way to lead to an efficient way.

From a progressive perspective, acute food shortages are not merely logistical failures but symptoms of deep-seated inequities rooted in colonialism, neoliberal trade policies, and inadequate global governance. By prioritizing multilateral cooperation, dismantling systemic barriers, and centering the needs of the Global South, progressive diplomacy can pave the way for sustainable solutions to food insecurity.

The Missing Internal Dimension

However, this exclusive focus on external factors—colonial legacies and neoliberal policies—presents an incomplete and arguably simplified diagnosis of the problem. While these external pressures are undeniable and powerful, they do not operate in a vacuum. Their detrimental effects are often critically magnified by internal, domestic challenges that the decolonial framework frequently overlooks. In many nations within the Global South, systemic corruption diverts vast public funds that could be allocated to agricultural research, rural infrastructure, and farmer subsidies. Weak institutional governance and a lack of political will often mean that even well-intentioned development policies fail in implementation.
Furthermore, internal political instability and protracted civil conflicts are devastating drivers of food insecurity, destroying crops, displacing farming populations, and shattering local markets in ways that have little to do with direct foreign intervention. Any pragmatic approach to food sovereignty must therefore adopt a dual focus: one that resists external economic paternalism while simultaneously demanding internal accountability, transparency, and structural reform. To ignore the role of domestic elites and state failure is to absolve internal actors of their responsibility in perpetuating food insecurity.
In a pragmatic approach, the deep roots of all developments are in independence, which implies developments in all fields have the right to earn support without any limitation. The European approach to the development of the Global South will be based on a European superiority mentality, which is not desirable in the progression of "backward classes."

From Colonial Mandates to Modern Debt

In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, this dependency is not merely a historical footnote. The structural adjustment programs (SAPs) mandated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank throughout the 1980s and 1990s actively dismantled state support for local farmers. These programs forced governments to cut subsidies for essential inputs like fertilizer and seeds, dissolve state-run marketing boards that guaranteed stable prices, and prioritize production for export to service foreign debt. This policy-driven dismantling of local food systems created a vacuum filled by multinational agribusiness corporations, undermining local food sovereignty.

In India, a similar problem occurred in Bengal, where rice cultivators were compelled to replace their food crops with cash crops, a way put forward by the colonial British government. Later, their mentality was affected by the idea of profit-making, which made them cultivate indigo, which in turn affected the fertility of their land. As an after-effect, a revolt erupted in their land in 1858 named the Indigo Revolt. This historical echo highlights a crucial modern dynamic: external pressures from global financial institutions often find willing partners in domestic elites who profit from export-oriented economies, even at the cost of national food security.

Moreover, diplomacy should reform global trade rules that disadvantage poor nations. The contemporary movement toward agricultural sovereignty within the Global South represents a decisive shift away from Eurocentric dependency and towards collective self-determination. For decades, international organizations—often guided by Western political and economic interests—have framed agricultural development through the lens of modernization theories, promoting technological and market-oriented reforms that align with European and North American models of productivity. Yet these frameworks have rarely accounted for the social ecology of the Global South, nor have they fostered true independence from foreign control.

This critique of "modernization theories" is central to the decolonial project. These theories, popularized in the mid-20th century, operated on the assumption that "development" was a linear process, and that all nations must follow the path set by the West: industrialization, market liberalization, and the adoption of high-input, chemical-intensive agriculture. This "Green Revolution" model, while credited with increasing yields in some regions, is now also critiqued for its long-term negative consequences. These include severe soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, increased farmer debt due to reliance on expensive patented seeds and chemicals, and the contamination of water systems. The "Eurocentric dominance" mentioned is, therefore, not just a vague political complaint; it refers to this specific, prescriptive model of development that was exported globally, often ignoring or actively suppressing local knowledge systems that had sustained populations for millennia. The promotion of monoculture crops, for example, directly replaced diverse farming systems that were more resilient to pests and drought, leaving entire regions vulnerable to shocks when a single crop fails.

An Epistemic Reawakening
In response, nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have begun to pursue South-South cooperation as a means to reclaim agency over their agricultural future. Initiatives such as the Brazil-Africa Agricultural Cooperation program, the China-CELAC forum, and the African Union's Agenda 2063 exemplify this transition, as they encourage knowledge exchange, regional innovation, and investment grounded in mutual respect rather than conditionality. Such collaborations aim to dismantle the structural dependency imposed by European-dominated trade regimes and financial institutions, establishing, instead, a horizontal model of development. Through shared technologies, indigenous knowledge systems, and climate-resilient strategies, Global South Triangular cooperation challenges the historic narrative that progress must emanate from the West, asserting instead a pluralistic vision of agricultural modernity defined by sovereignty, solidarity, and sustainability.

The liberation of Global South agriculture from European intervention signifies more than an economic transformation—it marks an epistemic and political reawakening. By centering cooperation among post-colonial nations, the Global South defines agricultural development not as a process of catching up to Western standards but as a project of decolonial restoration. This cooperation allows for the revival of traditional farming systems, seed sovereignty, and land stewardship practices that were systematically undermined by colonial and neocolonial agrarian policies. International organizations such as the G77, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the South Centre have played pivotal roles in fostering collective advocacy for fairer trade terms, equitable access to technology, and the protection of smallholder farmers from exploitative global markets.

Furthermore, partnerships between countries of the Global South have begun to subvert Eurocentric hierarchies of expertise, recognizing that innovation and sustainability can emerge from the lived experience and adaptive practices of marginalized communities. The goal is not isolation from the global economy but the creation of an alternative framework—one that resists the economic paternalism of Western powers while promoting cooperative autonomy among nations sharing similar histories of colonial exploitation.

In this sense, the Global South’s agricultural cooperation embodies both resistance and renewal, carving out a path toward a multipolar world order in which food systems reflect equity, cultural integrity, and ecological resilience rather than Eurocentric dominance.

Convened by the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS)—an autonomous institute under India's Ministry of External Affairs—the conference provides a dynamic and inclusive platform to amplify Global South leadership in fostering collaborative and equitable development. However, the dialogue at such forums must evolve beyond a simple narrative of external imposition.

A Dual Path

Food system decolonization, at its core, is indeed a process of undoing imposed structures. But it must be understood as a dual process. It requires, on the one hand, a robust external strategy to challenge and reform the global trade, finance, and governance architectures that perpetuate inequity. This involves collective bargaining through bodies like the G77 and reforming institutions like the WTO. On the other hand, it demands an equally courageous internal strategy of reform. This means confronting domestic corruption that siphons away agricultural investment, demanding good governance to implement pro-farmer policies effectively, and building state capacity to manage resources transparently. It means moving beyond the rhetoric of 'indigenous knowledge' to build practical, integrated systems that are both sustainable and productive enough to feed growing nations.

Ultimately, the liberation of the Global South's agriculture will not be achieved merely by severing ties with the North, but by combined resistance and internal renewal, creating a multipolar world order where food systems reflect equity not just in global trade, but in local reality.