> But, economic liberalization can sometimes look like colonization, and this hurts the ego of proud global-south nations.
As an aside, this categorization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South) has always seemed problematic to me.
> The Global South classification, as used by governmental and developmental organizations, was first introduced as a more open and value-free alternative to Third World,[6] and likewise potentially "valuing" terms such as developed and developing.
But I don't think it's "more open and value-free" at all. The rhetoric around it always seems to be alluding vaguely to racist and/or colonialist causes of the economic disparities; but labeling the disadvantaged places as "South" reinforces that colonialist view (cf. maps presented upside-down to avoid supposed biases), and also brings in connotations of specifically American political history (Union vs Confederacy kinda stuff, you know).
Excluding Australia and New Zealand also seems intellectually dishonest. If places like Moldova are "North" because of the physical reality rather than than economics, than Australia and New Zealand (which also were colonized) should be "South" (just as the wealthier parts of the Middle East are). The border isn't anything like straight, either.
If we want to highlight a problem with economic disparity, we should not turn up our noses at terms that are fundamentally about the economic disparity.