“We know that Africa is neither French, nor British, nor American, nor Russian, that it is African. We know the objects of the West. Yesterday they divided us on the level of a tribe, clan and village…They want to create antagonistic blocs, satellites…”

 

~ Patrice Lumumba in a speech at the opening of the All-African Conference in Leopoldville, DR Congo, August 25,1960.

In that same speech, Lumumba, who would be assassinated less than five months later in a Belgian plot (backed by the US and the UK), would also say, “African unity and solidarity are no longer dreams. They must be expressed in decisions.” 

Lumumba’s body, following his arrest and execution, would be buried in a shallow grave, only to be later exhumed and melted down with acid. The remaining bones would be ground to a fine powder and scattered. All that was left of his remains was a gold tooth, which the Belgians kept to themselves and was only recently given to his children by Belgian authorities last year.

This article clearly doesn’t discuss Lumumba, or Africa for that matter, that much can be ascertained from the title, but it does, however, implicitly tackle the effect of unity and solidarity on challenging a global hegemonic system.

One main question that comes to mind regarding the change in the international scene that we’ve witnessed over the past two years has been that of multipolarity and the new world order, along with the West’s ability to deal with the issue.

Countless articles have been written so far on the subject, but one aspect that hasn’t been discussed as much is that of the interests of BRICS in the organization and the interests held by countries wishing to join it.

Laying the foundation

BRICS did not become an option overnight. It was founded fairly recently in 2009 as BRIC, later including South Africa in 2010, thus becoming BRICS, it allowed for economic cooperation between its members who had witnessed fairly high levels of growth in the late 90s and early 2000s and were poised to collectively dominate the global economy by 2050.

The countries would agree to pool together their resources, amassing $100 billion, in order to found the New Development Bank, which they would grant to each other during times of need. 

Naturally, all of these countries cooperate with global organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank, but to quote former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank can be said to represent ‘global’ interests, and their constituency may be construed as the world. In reality, however, they are heavily American dominated and their origins are traceable to American initiative, particularly the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944.”

It was only natural that these countries would come together to provide an alternative web for themselves instead of the one in the middle of which the US positioned itself as an indispensable cog.

On their own, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa also have a shared interest in enhancing their geopolitical profile. They all share the want for a stronger political presence in the world and cannot do so under a US-dominated system, but a loose congregation of countries that have a shared goal of fostering prosperity and mutual investments in each other’s economies would not only increase their profile, but also provide them with the economic heft they require in order to advance their positions. 

The icing on the cake was that the deal came without any of the IMF strings they had grown accustomed to (political reforms a la liberal democracy, crippling economic demands) and with little economic and political costs. BRICS members, unlike the US and the G7, do not demand political compliance or for other countries to model themselves in their image. As far as they’re concerned, cooperation is paramount.

The impact of the war in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine, precisely the West’s sanctions on Russia, provided great impetus to the Global South’s consideration of other avenues for economic cooperation. 

Between the New Development Bank, which provides loans through infrastructure projects, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, which provides protection for members when their currency is facing financial pressures, the BRICS payment system, which is poised to replace the US-dominated SWIFT, and the BRICS common currency to replace the dollar, dozens of countries found great appeal in joining the organization amid the West’s “ride or die” approach against Russia.

Related News

Putin to visit Iran soon amid growing Tehran-Moscow strategic ties

Russia-Iran ties should be of great concern to 'Israel', West: INSS

This was only natural, as all countries saw clearly that they could be under US pressure at any given moment and could instantly be blocked from any and all SWIFT-dependent financial transactions. Iran’s experience was there for all to see, and here was Russia being embargoed. The difference in this case, in particular, was that the world was not dependent on trade with Iran, but it was dependent on Russia, both in commodities and in energy. 

The reasoning is quite clear-cut here, regardless of where you stand on the war in Ukraine: If the US can exert so much pressure to embargo Russia, then it could do the same to us.

If anything's been clear over the past decades, it's that contrary to the US, China does not view politics as a zero-sum game, making its approach with its partners markedly different.

Should BRICS accept them?

The push to provide an alternative for countries from US dominance, particularly countries of the Global South, would remain quite lacking if the Global South is excluded from it.

One of the BRICS’ main goals is to de-dollarize global trade, and it is doing so at the moment by lending in local currencies. An alternative system that would knock the dollar off its throne would need more members for it to succeed, and countries from the Global South would need to be part of the BRICS and its organizations to reap their full benefit while shielding themselves from the impact of any possible sanctions or pressure imposed upon them by the West.

This is a mutually beneficial relationship for both sides, particularly when taking into account the opportunities for investment this would open up, not to mention allowing for them all to remain sheltered from any fluctuations in the US dollar, as evident in the 2008 financial crisis.

As of January 1, 2024, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE will become official new members of BRICS, and 16 new countries have applied to join. Argentina, which is racked with inflation, is looking for heavy foreign investment to calm local markets. The KSA and UAE are global oil producers whose infrastructure heavily depends on the West and are in need of diversifying their portfolio and investment in non-energy sectors. Iran is looking for export markets and investment in its infrastructure. Ethiopia is still recovering from its Civil War, while the Egyptian economy is still in crisis but offers much opportunity for investors.

Naturally, the process of expansion will not be without its drawbacks.

As the organization grows, so will its decision-making process be faced with additional issues, particularly when interests collide in an increasingly unstable world environment.

One test that BRICS members will come to face over the coming years will be that of solidarity. BRICS, and those willing to join it, will have to express 'in decision' their will to remain together, and these limits will be surely tested. For now, the US is attempting to create counter-blocs in Africa, Central Asia, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America, all in order for them to act as counterweights to the BRICS.

It goes without saying that it will attempt to sow discord among BRICS members, particularly by appealing to their heavyweights, like India.

Not a panacea

Having said this, it’s important to keep in mind that BRICS isn’t an end-all solution for the new world order. It’s not meant or designed to be an alternative to the UN and other post-WW2 global institutions. It’s not meant to be the flag-bearer of multipolarity.

BRICS is one of the many tools that will need to be used in order to pull the rug from under the US, or at the very least render its weapons less effective. 

However, BRICS and the alternative it offers may provoke a change in US-led institutions by challenging them. Brazilian President Lula da Silva said it best in his speech during the BRICS summit a few days ago, "The war in Ukraine highlights the limitations of the Security Council. Many other conflicts and crises do not receive due attention, even though they cause vast suffering for their populations. Haitians, Yemenis, Syrians, Libyans, Sudanese, and Palestinians all deserve to live in peace."

"The BRICS has established itself as a forum for discussing the main issues affecting world peace and security," he continued. "We cannot shy away from addressing the main current conflict in Ukraine and its global effects. Brazil has a historic position of defending sovereignty, territorial integrity, and all the purposes of the principles of the United Nations."

Since the war in Ukraine began, complimented with a sanctions war on Russia, it is noteworthy that the BRICS countries have managed to act as a political entity (though somewhat loose in its connections) and succeeded in unifying their stances vs-à-vis the war, despite the enormous amount of US pressure they faced. The future looks promising indeed.