The recent BRICS summit highlighted a significant shift away from Western dominance, advocating for multipolarity and international fairness in global governance.
In geopolitics, the interplay between symbolism and substance is often crucial, as evidenced by the recent BRICS summit in Brazil. While much of the Western media downplayed the event as merely another conference among emerging economies, the joint declaration issued by the BRICS bloc suggests a more profound global change: the gradual erosion of Western hegemony and the emergence of a multipolar world order.
The BRICS declaration emphasized that multipolarity is now a geopolitical reality rather than a mere aspiration. For decades, the global system has been shaped by the neoliberal values of the “Washington Consensus,” often acting as a veneer for neocolonial pursuits. However, this consensus is now fraying, with the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and their new partners, including Indonesia, rising as key players in this transformation.
One notable aspect of the BRICS declaration was its firm support for Palestinian statehood, advocating for the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital. The bloc called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the release of hostages, and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. This stance challenges Western double standards regarding conflict resolution and international law.
The difference is stark. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western nations quickly expressed outrage, imposed sanctions, and provided military aid. In contrast, the response to Israel’s actions in Gaza, which have resulted in mass civilian casualties, is often subdued or non-existent. BRICS has highlighted this inconsistency, calling for universal adherence to international law and respect for human dignity, transcending political alliances.
The call for Palestinian self-determination echoes the spirit of the 1955 Bandung Conference, where post-colonial nations asserted their right to forge their own paths free from imperial control. In reviving this sentiment, BRICS is not creating a new path but reawakening an essential dialogue that the world needs to revisit.
Another significant point from the summit was BRICS’s condemnation of U.S. protectionism and unilateral economic measures that circumvent the United Nations and destabilize global markets. By criticizing tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and “green protectionism,” the bloc draws attention to the selective application of rules that have historically advantaged developed nations.
The West has historically advocated for free trade, yet has practiced protectionism when it suited its interests. The United States, once a leading proponent of open markets, has in recent years used tariffs as a geopolitical tool, from the trade war with China initiated during the Trump administration to the Biden administration’s restrictive policies designed under the guise of national security and environmental protection.
The call from BRICS for WTO reform, including the restoration of its dispute settlement mechanisms, underscores a shared frustration among developing nations that the current system often benefits the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. This sentiment extends beyond economic grievances, representing a rallying cry for equitable trade practices.
BRICS also addressed the issue of state sovereignty, by demanding that Israel withdraw from occupied Syrian territories and condemning terrorist activities in the region. This highlights a broader theme of defending state sovereignty, in contrast to the trail of instability left by Western interventions from Iraq to Libya, often justified under democratization or humanitarian concerns. BRICS intends to offer an alternative narrative that prioritizes sovereignty and dialogue over military interference.
The recent easing of unilateral sanctions on Syria, welcomed by BRICS, reflects a growing acknowledgment that such punitive measures often harm civilian populations more than the targeted regimes. This perspective aligns with recognizing the failures of past Western interventions and the need for more balanced approaches.
The summit addressed the ongoing conflict in Ukraine by condemning Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure. While this view may be controversial from a Western perspective, it represents the bloc’s commitment to opposing violence against non-combatants, irrespective of the perpetrators involved. Whereas the West tends to focus solely on Russian aggression, BRICS seeks a more comprehensive outlook, advocating for consistency in applying international law.
From a geopolitical standpoint, the BRICS expansion to include nations like Indonesia, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, and others marks a pivotal shift in global power dynamics. This expansion is not an anti-Western stance but a strategic move by countries aiming to broaden their options in an increasingly polarized international environment. Smaller nations, especially in Southeast Asia, are engaging more with BRICS to diversify their economic and diplomatic relationships, a concept Fareed Zakaria once termed “nonalignment 2.0.”
The economic initiatives by BRICS, such as the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, provide viable alternatives to the IMF and the World Bank. These institutions, while ostensibly neutral, have historically aligned with Western geopolitical interests. By offering financial and infrastructural support without the typical political conditions, BRICS is assisting Global South countries in reclaiming control over their development paths.
While BRICS is gaining influence, it does face internal challenges. Disputes such as those in the South China Sea, a history of tension between India and China, and the varied political systems of its member states pose potential hurdles to unity. Nonetheless, the bloc’s capacity to prioritize shared objectives over differences should not be underestimated.
Ultimately, the recent BRICS summit represents more than a mere economic gathering; it symbolizes a shift in global agency from a few dominant powers to a collective of nations asserting their sovereignty. The time when the world order was dictated exclusively by Western capitals is concluding. The BRICS declaration—addressing Palestine, global trade, and sovereignty—signifies the arrival of an era fraught with choices, where power is more evenly distributed across the globe.
According to South Asia Monitor, this evolving landscape presents both opportunities and challenges for the BRICS countries and their international counterparts.
Source: Original article