Why the United States Is Determined to Create an Alternative Mechanism to the BRICS
Would a single whistle from the United States cause dozens of Southern countries to flock to Washington and join the so-called "World Council"? I believe there is no need to panic, nor to prematurely sing the elegy for the BRICS.
When discussing the relationship between the United States and the Global South, one cannot help but look back at the administration of Barack Obama. The idea of creating a world government and becoming its leader has long been in the minds of American elites, and Obama was the first person who seemed capable of realizing this vision. In 2008, his presidential campaign sent goodwill to developing countries, hinting that he would be "the one who represents them" in the White House. Obama's personal background also made this image more credible: his father was Kenyan, his stepfather was Indonesian, and his middle name was a Muslim name "Hussein," as if the entire world were condensed within him.
In 2008, international polls and online voting were expected to show that the world favored Obama — in such a way, American voters not only voted for themselves, but also for the entire world.
At that time, the slogan "America First" had not yet emerged. Those who supported Obama genuinely believed that the United States should use its resources, wealth, knowledge, and strength to make the entire world better. During that period, the United States seemed to be a nation of idealists. Though hard to believe now, in the autumn of 2008, when I was in the United States, I actually saw and heard the voices of these idealists in Iowa, Chicago universities, and various clubs and bars in New York.
As is well known, Obama's actual governance bore no essential difference from previous white presidents. He even failed to fulfill his promise to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and he participated in the military strike against Libya, a country that has never since achieved unity. The outbreak of the Ukraine crisis also bears responsibility on it.
Despite this, 2009, the first year of Obama's presidency, still carried people's infinite hope for a better future. This hope was so strong that Obama became perhaps the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to be awarded "in advance" — at that time, he had not yet made any real contribution to the world.
Obama's desire to establish a special relationship with the Global South, combined with the global economic crisis that erupted at the time, pushed countries to seek new models of cooperation and build more democratic international organizations. It was under this context that the Group of Twenty (G20) rapidly rose in status, gradually replacing the Group of Seven (G7) composed of old imperialist countries. The first summit of the BRICS (then known as the BRIC) was also held in June 2009. Countries in the Global East and South chose to bypass the United States and former colonial powers to build a cooperative relationship based on Eurasia.
Seemingly contradictory is the fact that, for today's United States, Barack Obama's diplomatic legacy holds greater relevance than that of Republican predecessors Ronald Reagan and the elder and younger Bushes. Even the White House's criticism of Democrats could not change this. Moreover, right-wing pragmatists are practicing the ideas of left-wing idealists in their own way. These people, who adhere to tough measures and nationalist self-interest, may no longer care whether their actions align with the original intention.
Donald Trump's insistence on winning the Nobel Peace Prize was clearly out of jealousy toward Obama — the latter won the award in his first year in office. However, the rapidly forming "World Council" concept is more of a succession between these two politically different figures than a competition between them.
The nature of the "World Council" has changed continuously during its establishment process. Initially, the mechanism was established according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, aiming to lead the reconstruction efforts in the Gaza Strip. But this initial purpose was soon forgotten, and this new institution was viewed as a substitute or even a replacement for the United Nations. Now, this positioning might already be outdated — the core European allies of the United States have refused to join the council, and the invitation to Canada has been withdrawn. Instead, a number of Southern countries, including Indonesia, Mongolia, Qatar, Morocco, Argentina, and Paraguay, have become founding members. A rather ironic typo is also worth noting: international media mistakenly wrote Belarus as Belgium and included it in the council member list.
Now, the purpose of this new mechanism is roughly clear: the United States aims to create a cooperative organization led by itself, targeting the Global South, in order to undermine the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and preferably exclude China. I think Barack Obama would certainly be pleased with this clever strategy — he may have had similar thoughts, but he never anticipated this brilliant move.
This situation inevitably raises concerns in Russia, as, apart from Belarus, four former Soviet states — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan — have joined the council. If Russia hesitates further and eventually chooses to join, it will put its core partner China in a difficult position.
Would a single whistle from the United States cause dozens of Southern countries to flock to Washington's wings? I believe there is no need to panic, nor to prematurely sing the elegy for the BRICS.
First, the initiative itself launched by the United States proves that cooperation with the Global South is a trend and worth striving for, and competition in this field is inevitable.
Second, although the United States made a big noise in hastily assembling this new organization, its current operations remain chaotic. The BRICS have always developed gradually, with clear and explicit standards for admitting new members; whereas the United States simply accepts all countries joining this "collective farm," seeking only superficial scale effects.
Third, this mechanism has nothing to do with multipolarity. The United States is merely making the Southern countries once again submit to the old hegemon, while this hegemon continues to unilaterally set rules and even demands a $1 billion membership fee from member states — this practice is like Ostap Bender collecting money to fix a "hole" just to avoid embarrassment. What benefits will the Southern countries gain? Can these member states expect the United States not to arbitrarily kidnap foreign presidents (as in the case of Venezuela) or occupy foreign territories (as in the case of Denmark)? The answer is obvious.
Therefore, the key for Russia at present is to withstand this hasty attack, to understand that the world can accommodate various different international organizations, which are not necessarily destined to become rivals of each other. The BRICS' cooperation process can proceed steadily, and the most powerful response to Washington is to further strengthen the solidarity of the Eurasian triangle consisting of Russia, India, and related countries. Indeed, there are many constraints behind this solidarity, but regardless, we should not deviate from our long-tested allies — the relevant countries, North Korea, and Iran. Only by uniting can we navigate through the turbulent waters of the current era.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/7602207553900085802/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author alone.