National security advisers of the BRICS nations gathered in Johannesburg recently. But participants were not limited to the security leadership of the five nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — that make up the acronym.

It included security experts from Iran, Burundi, Egypt, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, United Arab Emirates and Belarus. With every BRICS meeting since 2021, the stress on the need to contribute to an equitable global architecture is becoming glaringly apparent in both the expansion of the grouping and the discussions surrounding issues of the “Global South.”

Global South is a terminology that has found a resurgence since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is in common parlance in China, India and even Russia’s discussions with partners. However, it is still not a widely accepted terminology in the Western world and scholars skeptical of that description go with the so-called Global South. Some have issues with what the term really means; others have concerns of acknowledging the term and the costs associated with it — validating anti-Western sentiments, particularly hitting at West’s Achilles heel of history.

In that backdrop, Beijing’s recent actions signal a clear attempt at targeting that Achillies heel, i.e. weaponizing history, particularly through sensitive topics such as race.

Earlier in July, when Wang Yi, the director of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee Foreign Affairs Commission Office, called for racial solidarity amongst East Asians through statements such as “how sharp you make your nose, you'll never become Europeans or Westerners” China was positioning itself (or attempting to) as the progressive alternative to the United States on the global stage on the topic of race.

But evoking racial sentiments did not necessarily sit well with his Japanese and Korean counterparts. Simply put, the veteran Chinese diplomat was talking to the wrong audience. His message may have resonated more with nations of the Global South over nations of the Global North like Japan and Korea.

The messaging is more in line with the views of postcolonial societies and nations that have been victims to past Western aggression over nations that have not.

While Wang attempted to evoke racial sentiments in East Asia, in another part of the world, renowned Pan-Africanism scholar Patrick Lumumba was talking of Britain’s attitude toward the African continent; South African leaders were deciding on convening the BRICS meeting in-person or not and addressing the U.S. threat of economic sanctions for its relationship with Russia; and farther west, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva decried Europe’s double standards on the environment and his commitment to take on the European powers if put under pressure.

Wang would’ve had better luck complaining about race and Western imperialism had he reached out to those countries, especially those in Africa and the Caribbean. After all, Wang’s comments about sharp noses echo renowned Francophone, Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist Frantz Fanon’s theory, “epidermalization of inferiority” where Fannon referred to Africans' (and colonized peoples') self-hatred and their ensuing efforts to emulate powerful whites or colonizers.

Over the last three years, nations of the Global South have sought alternatives to the U.S.-led world order. Nineteen nations have applied to join the BRICS grouping. This is a clear sign of a dearth or void in global leadership and the center of gravity shifting from the Western-led postwar world order.

Notably, major poles in the emerging multipolar world order such as South Africa, Brazil, Russia and India are taking on more assertive roles on the world stage. For example, Vladimir Putin hosting the Forum with African leaders in Sochi, used the opportunity to inflame the colonial grievances of the Africa leaders by blaming the Western world for the ongoing conflicts in Africa. He went on to claim that “remaining a hotbed of tensions in Africa is the heritage of colonial divide and (the) conquer policy by the West.”

Interestingly, the major poles on the world stage and several African nations have refrained from siding with the Western world on global issues — from climate change to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Furthermore, they have on multiple instances supported the upliftment of each other such as with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advocating for a place for the African Union in the Group of 20.

While these nations' abstentions or even opposition to the U.S.-supported conflict is not unique to the Ukrainian war, unlike in the past, these nations have an alternative grouping with the center of gravity shifting toward Asia, particularly China.

Historically, America’s direct invasions and democracy promotion projects, and even indirect support for invasions abroad, created communities into refugees (think of Vietnam, Central America, Libya and more recently Afghanistan), consequently, leaving them at the mercy and magnanimity of the Western world to open its borders when they land at its shores. Progressive writer Teju Cole described it as, “the white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, and founds charities in the afternoon, and receives awards in the evening.”

The eagerness to join the BRICS grouping, or the recent historic gathering of African and Caribbean leaders in Barbados where they called for reparations for slavery, could after all be the yearning for self-determination on the global stage and the righting historical injustices. This yearning reflects the disconnect Africa has with the Western world on global conflicts. African leaders repeatedly reference Libya and Iraq when confronted by Western media to explain their position on the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, their complaints on Europe’s attitude toward their continent is even more puissant in the Global South, and understandably so.

Europe has an even bloodier imperial history than the United States. While Martin Luther King Jr. was marching for civil rights in 1958, Belgium was displaying African children in zoos — not very different from the U.S. putting Filipinos on display in the early 1900s.

Over the last year or so, several African leaders have challenged European leaders publicly. Examples include the leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, getting into a spat with President Emanuel Macron of France at a news conference; Namibia President Hage Geingob dismissing Germany’s concerns over China’s alleged nefarious involvement in its affairs as sheer hypocrisy; and more recently, the leader of South Africa speaking his mind on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and lamenting Britain's failure to acknowledge its own imperial past.

While leaders of the Global South air their grievances publicly, Macron in a recent trip to the Indo-Pacific implicitly referenced China’s role in the Pacific Islands as new imperialism. Many nations in the Global South, however, still have memories of colonization by European powers and don't equate China’s actions as equivalent.

As witnessed with the applications to the BRICS grouping, nations are eager to engage in forums that provide an alternative to the West-dominated multilateral fora. Quite possibly, the next BRICS session could even have a discussion on race in global affairs.

The West plans to compete with China on delivering public goods, infrastructure and military hardware. But can the Western world take on China if it weaponizes race?

At a time when there is growing opposition to identity politics in the Western world, these issues could curtail the West’s engagement with the Global South.

Akhil Ramesh is a senior fellow at the Pacific Forum.