Trap for the West: Why BRICS cannot be dismissed any longer
The BRICS summit in Kazan was nothing short of a geopolitical firestorm. The assembling of the world’s prominent emerging economies in a country declared as a ‘pariah’ and under comprehensive sanctions is at best a denunciation and, at worst a harsh rebuke to Western policymakers who, according to Foreign Policy, tend to dismiss the grouping as an “incoherent grab bag.” This is undoubtedly Russia’s finest moment.
The Kazan summit is effectively turning out to be the death knell of the Western-led international order. Rejecting “unilateral trade-restrictive measures” or sanctions as being detrimental to the sustainable development goals, such measures were clearly labelled as “undermining the UN Charter,” being “inconsistent with WTO rules” and “contrary to international law.”
Although differences still persist regarding whether BRICS should develop towards a neutral ‘non-Western’ or a radical ‘anti-Western’ stance, there is nonetheless agreement amongst the member states that given the democratizing geostrategic landscape, Western institutions and projects needn’t be the only game in town. For instance, regarding the Ukraine conflict, while the BRICS Declaration called for all states to act “consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter,” Moscow achieved a diplomatic victory with the grouping’s acknowledgement of the need to combat the “glorification of Nazism, [and] neo-Nazism…”
In rather crisp and certain terms, the Declaration took a hard line that it strictly “denounced” Israeli attacks against humanitarian operations, facilities and personnel and expressed “grave concern” over the “unprecedented escalation of violence.”
Such well-articulated messaging points to a rising non-Western platform which is confident enough to come out of the shadows with a unified voice of its own. It went further by invoking the ICJ’s legal proceedings against Israel and denounced in uncompromising terms the “premeditated terrorist attack” involving communication devices in Beirut as a “grave violation of international law.”
As heads of state congregated for one of the “largest-scale foreign policy events ever” in Kazan, Russia, this is the first summit of the expanded BRICS membership where seven new states were invited to join the flagship non-Western platform.
At first glance, it may seem that there cannot exist a common thread of agreement between member states placed along the entire spectrum, with their diverse foreign policy stances and national political systems. New members include both states under the American security umbrella and those under American sanctions. While some countries, like India for instance, may be accustomed to such intimidating diversity, most aren’t.
Yet the consistent resolve towards establishing a grouping that isn’t dominated by the industrialized North highlights the pent-up frustration with historical Western double standards (one case in point being the demise of the concept of Responsibility to Protect due to shortsighted Western chauvinism).
The lack of say in a dollar-dominated world economy where the US holds special privileged veto power in the Bretton Woods system and institutions that hardly represent the contemporary multipolar realities will invariably push unrepresented yet globally significant powers to mold a separate architecture. The “call for reform of the Bretton Woods institutions” with greater representation of Economically More Developed Countries (EMDCs) in leadership positions combined with increased geographical representation was in the Kazan summit is a case in point.
However, with diversity comes challenges. Although there is unanimous agreement that we’re in a post-Unipolar order, there are still competing viewpoints on the evolving world order. While the Kremlin and New Delhi view the change as more towards multipolarity, Chinese academics believe the coming age will be largely bipolar. Nevertheless, reflecting the shifting currents, the Kazan Declaration squarely mentions the “G20 as the premier global forum” for deliberation on contentious global issues – “a platform for dialogue of both developed and emerging economies on an equal and mutually beneficial footing.”
However, the truth is that while the West is in decline, it isn’t by definition not significant or influential by any means. The US dollar is still the global reserve currency, major trade and transactions are done in USD, Washington’s military budget is still unrivalled, and the global sea lanes are de facto controlled and patrolled by the US Navy.
In such times, it is natural that states hedge their bets and insure themselves against future geostrategic turbulence by currying favor with the emerging as well as the established powers. The membership queue of states to join the BRICS grouping can partly be viewed in this light, and partly due to the exclusivity of Western-led institutions, which fail to accommodate the majority of global interests.
A more 'democratic' era?
Democratic societies proudly lay claim to the smooth and peaceful transition of power following elections as one of the signature elements of democracy. Yet the US, one of the oldest modern democracies, has shown a surprising lack of flexibility when it comes to promoting the greater representation of emerging market economies in the IMF and the World Bank.
A separate, more dangerous outcome is the inevitable emergence of what American political scientist Graham T. Allison calls the Thucydides Trap, wherein the propensity of war increases when a rising power threatens to displace an established power from its hegemonic position. According to Allison’s calculations, historically 12 out of 16 such cases in the past 500 years have ended in conflict.
Thus, instead of dismissing the BRICS grouping as a disparate bunch of hotshot rebels, the US (and the West by extension) would benefit immensely more by proactively engaging with the grouping and charting a blueprint for closer cooperation between the G7 and BRICS, and between the Bretton Woods system and the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Pursuing commonalities rather than highlighting differences by prematurely proclaiming Cold War 2.0 should be the drift of states proclaiming to be flagbearers of democracy and human rights.
After all, the areas of convergence amongst the BRICS member states as well as the states of the global south aren’t different from the European notions establishing the Peace of Westphalia. In fact, Southern states are proving to be more Westphalian than their European counterparts by enshrining the notion of sovereignty and territoriality in, for instance, the Kazan Declaration.
Support for Palestine’s full membership in the UN along with the “unwavering commitment” towards a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders was clearly mentioned. Notably, the Declaration boldly “condemn[ed]” the “illegal foreign military presence” within Syrian territory, referring to the unlawful US military base at Al-Tanf and American control of Syrian oil fields, and called for preservation of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Lebanon.
In an increasingly fractured world with multiple, divergent power centers, the recently concluded border de-escalation by India and China should serve as an inspiration for influential states to pursue an agenda of mutual respect and cooperation.
The BRICS grouping took an important, pioneering step in endorsing PAROS or prevention of an arms race in outer space. As Indian Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly proclaimed, today’s era is not an era of war. At a time when technology and AI are challenging the boundaries of human consciousness and imagination, it rests upon the world’s leaders, old and new, to prove better than to succumb to past mistakes and instead forge a precedence rooted in peace for future generations to follow.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
