БРИКС+: светлые или темные перспективы блока стран на пути к реальной или
иллюзорной многополярности
When last August, in the XV BRICS summit (22-24.8.2023), it was announced that the five constituent members of the Block (China, India, Russia, and Brazil, as initial members in 2006, with the addition of South Africa in 2010) agreed to admit another six (6) countries, namely Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE (herewith mentioned in alphabetic order; Argentina did not make use of the offer, following the recent presidential elections), the member states ushered the world community in a new era. The groundbreaking decision will be effect January 1st 2024. The development -in and by itself- is neither good nor bad; the outcome will depend on the choices that will be made and the changes that will be implemented with respect to the nature, the status, the function, the targets, and the international role of the Block itself. In fact, right now, all options are open.
Содержание
I - Что такое
БРИКС и чем он не является
II - Сильные
стороны БРИКС
III -
Слабые стороны БРИКС
IV - Расширение
БРИКС
V - Что дальше
для БРИКС?
VI -
Экономические интересы могут быть основой только слабо ассоциированных
государств (или Лиги), а не союза государств
VII -
Многосторонние организации государств никогда не могут быть созданы как
противоположный полюс мировой державы
VIII -
Многополярность: реальность или заблуждение?
IX -
Многополярность завтра: реальность только через изоляцию однополярного мирового
центра
Contents
I - What BRICS is and
what it is not
II - Strong points of
BRICS
III - Weak points of
BRICS
IV - The Expansion of
BRICS
V - What next for the
BRICS?
VI - Economic interests
can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union
of states
VII - Multilateral
organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world
power
VIII - Multipolarity: a
reality or a delusion?
IX - Multipolarity
tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center
What is better or more
suitable? Is it wise to enlarge BRICS or to deepen the integration of this
block of 11 countries? The challenges are enormous and the repercussions will
be cataclysmic for the entire world. This topic has indeed been controversial
for some time; Russia, India and Brazil were not enthusiastic about China's
incessant suggestions for the "influx of fresh blood". In fact, the
decision to invite six emerging market group countries was a compromise;
several other states had expressed their wish to join, but after numerous
deliberations, for various reasons they were not accepted now.
Before new members
arrive, the existing partners should define what they truly want BRICS or
BRICS+ to be; this issue is still perplex, diverse and vague. In this regard, it
is crucial to always recall that the original concept of BRIC (for only four countries)
is credited to an Englishman, namely Jim O'Neill (Baron O'Neill of Gatley), who
was at the time the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management; the idea was
first expressed within very different context -quite noticeably- in November
2001.
However, the governments
concerned took some time to explore and evaluate the thought before adapting it
to their interests and perspectives; the first high-level meetings started in
2006, and the first formal summit (4 members) was held in Yekaterinburg in July
2009. Everyone today effortlessly understands that the world was very different
at the time; meanwhile, the achievements of the 5-country block, although
significant for the beneficiaries, were modest at the international level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_O%27Neill,_Baron_O%27Neill_of_Gatley
https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/archive/building-better.html
Consequently, before
considering BRICS as the perfect counterbalance to the West (as President Putin
stated openly lasst year), it is essential for anyone to accurately understand
what BRICS is, what it is not, what it can be, and what it cannot.
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-08-23/brics-explores-expanding-its-membership-to-counterbalance-the-west.html
I -
What BRICS is and what it is not
BRICS is not an
'organization' like the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which is a
Eurasian political, economic, international security and defense organization,
and the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), which is an economic union of several
post-Soviet states located in Eurasia. To be constructive and effective in his
approach to this topic, an astute observer should dissociate three totally
distinct issues:
a- the hitherto
achievements of the 5-country block;
b- what BRICS is
nowadays; and
c- what BRICS can
become in the future.
In this regard, what Muhammad
Kamal wrote in the Egyptian daily Al Masry al Yom (« نحو عضوية «البريكس; Towards BRICS Membership) is totally inconsistent; worse, his
pessimism for Egypt's adhesion to the 5-country block only reflects the wishes
of the idiotic and corrupt stooges of Western embassies in Cairo. This type of
thought may be disastrous for Egypt. If BRICS did not achieve 'much' in the
past, this fact hinges on eventually misplaced worldviews and pointless considerations
that the member states may have had. All the same, with a new approach, with an
accurate perception of what an expanded BRICS can or cannot become, and with a
strong commitment to the interests of these countries' populations, one can certainly
mark a spectacular success. https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/2875518
Definitely, BRICS is
not an organization; it is not an economic bloc, in spite of the numerous
projects launched and materialized, such as the New Development Bank (launched
in 2014-2015), the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), the BRIC Cable (the
construction of which has not yet started), joint publications, and various
initiatives. Under discussion are issues of paramount importance, namely a
potential BRICS payment system and an eventual common currency. It becomes
therefore evident that there are slow steps toward a comprehensive partnership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable
https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/BRICS%20Joint%20Statistical%20Publication-2022.pdf
The latest initiative
is VII BRICS International School, which will be held by the Russian National
Committee on BRICS Research on November 13-18, 2023 in Moscow. About: http://infobrics.org/post/39507
Precisely because BRICS
is not an organization, they don't have a proper portal, as it happens in the
case of existing international bodies like the SCO, the Turkic Union or the
African Union. Instead, they have a rudimentary site with basic info, and every
annual meeting comes up with a separate, new site. Examples:
http://infobrics.org/
http://infobrics.org/post/39107/
http://infobrics.org/news/summits/
http://infobrics.org/news/brics-plus/
https://brics2023.gov.za/
The rest is up to
private initiatives, think tanks, research centers, online magazines, and the
world's mass media. Examples:
https://kidsnews.top/brics-summit-2022/
https://brics-plus-analytics.org/what-is-bricks-plus/
https://www.bricsmagazine.com/en/articles/what-makes-brics-strong
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/06/21/4-charts-on-how-russians-see-their-countrys-place-in-the-world/
https://intellinews.com/comment-so-what-did-happen-to-that-claimed-turkish-aspiration-to-join-brics-289788/
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-future-global-economy-by-gdp-in-2050/
https://www.reuters.com/world/brics-poised-invite-new-members-join-bloc-sources-2023-08-24/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/prime-minister-narendra-modi-on-wednesday-said-india-supports-expansion-of-brics-to-include-new-nations-/articleshow/102982077.cms?from=mdr
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/BRICS
As group of countries,
BRICS is a heteroclite array of states with certain common interests, but also
with very divergent economies, structures and legislations, and partly different
socioeconomic visions; until now, no common long-term perspective has been
envisaged – let alone agreed upon. This means that the governments of the
member states have to seriously consider and scrupulously study how they will
manage to set up a common economic space and how to first offer themselves the
necessary tools in order to advance in that direction.
Many charts, tables,
drawings and tables have been produced in order to highlight to all what BRICS
really is; but this approach comprises also a drawback that can cause confusion
and misjudgment. This is due to the fact that each visual representation
highlights only one aspect of the reality; however one gets a complete idea of
the reality, only if one goes through illustrations of all the existing aspects
of the reality. One missing diagram about the BRICS is enough to obscure our
understanding and confuse our perception.
II
- Strong points of BRICS
As of end 2023, over
3.3 billion people lived in the BRICS countries, making more than 40% of the
world population; BRICS states stretch over 30% of the world's land surface and
account for 26% of the global economy. The 5-country block represents 18% of
trade in goods and 25% of foreign investment. At this point, we already face
some challenges in our effort to quantify the reality. Verifiable facts like
the area and the population of a country are undeniable points of reference;
the area of a country is measured in kilometers square, whereas the population
is estimated in millions or thousands of people. However, when it comes to the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country, there are two diametrically opposed
methods of calculation; the end results may be very divergent.
GDP estimates published
by financial and statistical institutions are calculated at market or
government official exchange rates. But what is called 'Nominal GDP' is stated
without taking into consideration the existing differences in the cost of
living among the countries. This means that the data presented can vary
enormously from one year to another due to fluctuations in the currency
exchange rates; but this may be temporary and therefore irrelevant.
That is why GDP (PPP)
forecast estimates are to be considered as a better reflection of the economic
realities, and of the comparison between two countries; to sort this data and
publish their databases, financial and statistical institutions calculate using
both, market and government official exchange rates. PPP (Purchasing Power
Parity) is a method of measuring that takes into consideration the relative
cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country.
The ensuing difference
can be colossal: China's nominal GDP for the year 2023 is 19.37 trillion US$,
but the PPP-based GDP of China for the same year is 33 trillion US$; on the
contrary, on either case, US GDP amounts to 26.85 trillion US$. As it can be
surmised, PPP-based GDP is preferable for comparison; all the same, the size of
an economy being also a matter of political propaganda, many Anglo-Saxon
institutions deliberately show a predilection for Nominal GDP in order to
occasionally show that Russia is not among the top ten economies of the world.
https://www.france24.com/en/business/20230822-size-population-gdp-the-brics-nations-in-numbers
http://brics2022.mfa.gov.cn/eng/tpzx/202206/t20220627_10710527.html
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/April/weo-report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/254281/gdp-of-the-bric-countries/
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purchasing-power-parity/country-comparison/
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/БРИКС
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/金砖国家
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/ब्रिक्स
III
- Weak points of BRICS
Be that as it may, the
aforementioned impressive figures about the BRICS are not attested on other
occasions; for instance, the total voting quota of the 5-country block in the
IMF is only 14.7%, although in 2021 they accounted for about a third of world
GDP, a fifth of world trade, about a quarter of direct investment, and their foreign
exchange reserves reached 35% of the world's total. This point was highlighted
by President Putin in his address to President Xi Jinping on 22nd June 2022.
Приветствие участникам
Делового форума БРИКС (Greetings to the participants of the BRICS Business
Forum)
http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/speeches/68689
On another note, in the
US$ 109 trillion world stock market, BRICS represent only a small segment of
the world market capitalization (around 20%), whereas the US, which is home to
39 of the 100 largest companies in the world, has more than 40% of the market
and the European Union amounts to ca. 11%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_stock_market_capitalization
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/stock_market_capitalization_dollars/
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-109-trillion-global-stock-market-in-one-chart/
IV
- The Expansion of BRICS
On the basis of the
above mentioned data, one can understand that the recently admitted six (6)
countries do not constitute a major expansion. When it comes to total area (in
kilometers square), the six states {Argentina (2.780.400 km2), Saudi Arabia (2.149.690
km2), Iran (1.648.195 km2), Ethiopia (1.104.300 km2), Egypt (1.002.450 km2) and
UAE (83.600 km2)} amount to ca. 20% (8768635 km2) of the land surface of the
BRICS countries (ca. 40 million km2).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
Similarly, with respect
to population, the six newly accepted states {Ethiopia (107.334.000), Egypt
(105.388.000), Iran (85.298.600), Argentina (46.654.581), Saudi Arabia (32.175.224)
and UAE (9.282.410)} have a total population of 386.132.815 people, which is
around 10% of the current population of BRICS. However, the 11-country block
will be home to almost half the population of the world (46%); this marks a
significant threshold indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population
Similar conclusions we
draw concerning the economic indicators of the six newly admitted states and
notably their PPP-based GDP; combined the GDP of the six countries {Saudi
Arabia (2.300.967 US$ million), Egypt (1.803.584 US$ million), Iran (1.691.819
US$ million), Argentina (1.274.807 US$ million), UAE (890.171 US$ million),
Ethiopia (393.847 US$ million)} is around 8.350.000 US$ million; in other
words, the six states produce only one seventh (1/7) of the total GDP of the
current BRICS member states (56 US$ trillion).
This aspect was duly discerned
also by those who are accustomed to rather take into account the nominal GDP;
that's why they underscored the fact that "Saudi Arabia is the only trillion-dollar
economy being added to the BRICS".
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-brics-expansion-in-4-charts/
Combined the nominal
GDP of the six new member states {Saudi Arabia (1.061.902 US$ million), Argentina
(641.102 US$ million), UAE (498.978 US$ million), Egypt (378.110 US$ million), Iran
(367.970 US$ million), Ethiopia (156.083 US$ million)} amounts to 3.1 US$
trillion; this is about one ninth (1/9) of the nominal GDP of the current BRICS
member states (27.7 US$ trillion).
If we stop at this
point and we do not further explore the manifold aspects of BRICS expansion, we
will be left with the idea that, due to necessary compromises, the first major
phase of BRICS expansion did not include several other countries, which also
expressed the interest to join, notably Algeria, Belarus, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan,
Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. But this will prevent us from observing a very
interesting and crucial aspect of the development. As a matter of fact, this
was not particularly highlighted by anyone in the world's mainstream mass
media. There is indeed one economic sector in which the present stage of BRICS expansion
made a significant breakthrough; this is the energy sector, and more
particularly, the Oil production.
As a matter of fact, the
addition of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE will more than double BRICS' share
of global oil production. With six out of the nine top oil producers being
BRICS+ member states (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, UAE), the
11-country block represents 43% of the world oil production.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-brics-expansion-in-4-charts/
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/oil-producing-countries/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-worlds-biggest-oil-producers-in-2022/
This means that, in
spite of the compromises made, BRICS made a big step ahead in preparing their
forthcoming transformation from an ill-defined block of countries to a
well-defined organization that will change the post-WW II world drastically and
irrevocably. As I already said, the concept that they will have to adopt for
their alliance is that of the common economic space.
V -
What next for the BRICS?
Dangling between long
term strategy and everyday opportunities, the governments of the 5- or
11-country block can really make of their partnership whatever they want. They
can turn it to the tool par excellence for the transformation of the present
world; indeed, they can make of the BRICS+ the cornerstone in the foundation of
a human world order of unity, equity, justice, lawfulness, concord, and worldwide
cordiality. Reversely, they can neglect their imagination, fail to create a
vision, ignore their intellect, and thus waste their time.
In this regard, it is
clear that BRICS+ will be the reflection of the shared vision that the member
states, the respective governments, and -above all- the civil societies will initiate.
It is therefore essential to avoid extreme optimism or pessimism and to make an
effort not to mix a long term perspective with any type of unnecessary
political propaganda. The difference can be understood in the following
examples:
Speaking about Russia’s
vision of the BRICS+ format as early as February 2018, Sergey Ryabkov, a
noteworthy statesman and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister since 2008, stated: «we suggest that our partners
consider BRICS+ as a platform for developing what could be termed an
'integration of integrations'».
https://brics-plus-analytics.org/what-is-bricks-plus/
This sounds as sheer
advocacy of the 'single economic space' concept, which leads to economic union.
Quite contrarily, Sergei Lavrov (Center for World Politics and Strategic
Analysis) and Kirill Babaev (Director of the Institute of China and Modern Asia),
both of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in their article «И вширь, и вглубь - Пути укрепления институциональной основы БРИКС» (Both in breadth and in depth -
Ways to strengthen the institutional framework of BRICS / Бабаев К.В., Лавров С.В. И вширь, и вглубь // Россия в глобальной политике. 2023. Т. 21. № 5. С. 69–81; https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/vglub-i-vshir-brics/)
present a far more realistic approach, opting for the 'common economic space'
concept.
There are important
differences between the two concepts, and it is essential to make this point
clear, because the 'single economic space' concept simply cannot work in the
case of BRICS, and even more so that of BRICS+. This is exactly what the
authors of the aforementioned article do; the question is whether this is
enough.
VI
- Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of
states
At this point, taking
into consideration the international situation as it is evidently downgrading
over the past few years, the governments of the BRICS+ member states must truly
become consciously serious in their judgment, drastically bold in their action,
and greatly resourceful in their vision before they are soon met with an
aggravated deterioration of the world order in which their efforts will unfortunately
be irrevocably meaningless.
Although BRICS+
governments are correct in their analyses and conclusions as regards the major
structural problems of the world economy, they all apparently fail to
understand where the world community is led to; this is due to the prevailing,
very confusing, and definitely perplex situation. But the present condition of
the world affairs makes of the aforementioned economic problems only a tiny sector
of the very grave troubles that currently exist and impact every human across
the Earth.
Consequently, in spite
of the fact that the world economy is in major trouble, all its aspects cannot
be tackled independently of the other, grave and thorny, issues of
intellectual, academic, educational, scientific, cultural, and
socio-governmental order that we are currently facing. As a matter of fact, erroneous
intellectual concepts, delusional interpretations of the reality, intentional
distortions of World History, ideological aberrations, and overwhelming
oppression of indigenous cultures are at the origin of developments that brought
the world economy to the brink of collapse. Scientific absurdities, military
interventions, and corrupt governmental practices contributed to the overall
deterioration, and have therefore to be also taken into consideration.
As far as BRICS+ member
states are concerned, there is one word that terminally encapsulates the
aforementioned reality in its totality: Western colonialism. What matters in
this regard is that this term is not to be identified with only its military,
political and economic dimensions.
Colonialism is basically
a criminal and anti-human development the most crucial dimension of which is
cultural; culture determines the psychology of people, nations, ruling classes
and governments, and this -in turn- impacts the local economy.
In addition to the
aforementioned points, there is a critical factor which must also be taken into
account: only a union of loosely associated states can ever be successfully
established on the basis of economic interests. This is a fundamental condition
to retain. As situation, it is due to the fact that states do not exist in
themselves, but constitute the receptacle of human activity related to the
administration and the governance of the society.
Consequently, a number
of states can form an effective organization that will impact worldwide
developments only on the basis of major decisions taken by conscious peoples and
statesmen genuinely representing their societies, which are known for their historically
diverse values, distinct moral principles, varied cultural heritage, but shared
goals and common vision. But this is much broader than an economic union.
The perfect example of
failure is in this regard offered by the European Union. The debilitated union
of states started before 72 years with the establishment of the European Coal
and Steel Community (ECSC; 1952), which was designed to integrate the coal and
steel industries in Western Europe (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Luxembourg). Evaluated for that purpose, ECSC was good, but it
could never progress in the direction of transformation from an economic
community to one nation-state.
Different peoples do
not integrate into one nation-state without a unifying force; this can
certainly be a faith, a cult, a worldview or even an ideology, but never economic
interests. That is why BRICS+ member states, although they are forced to define
how to set up a 'common economic space', have to broaden the box and try to see
things as widely as they can.
VII
- Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite
pole of a world power
In spite of the urgency
of their economic demands for new standards and rules or a new world order (as
many people say), BRICS+ member states have got to approach the world affairs
in a different, far broader, and definitely comprehensive manner. This
imperative is due to both, their incomparably enormous size and the undeniable fact
that they altogether constitute a worldwide organization with major, not only
economic, interests that they have in common. Actually, the troubles that all these
countries face at the level of the international trade and world economy are
due to
a- political
developments that took place over the last70-80 years,
b- two successive World
Wars,
c- numerous earlier
conflicts,
d- extreme ideological
aberrations,
e- preposterous
intellectual assumptions,
f- outrageous
educational-academic forgeries, and
g- a 5-century long,
nefarious and calamitous, colonial legacy.
In this case, BRICS+
member states cannot possibly imagine that they are able to rectify a so deeply
rooted injustice and inhumanity that prevail worldwide by merely sidestepping
the US dollar via
- local currency
trading,
- Mbridge (a multi-central
bank digital currency platform, which is shared among participating central
banks and commercial banks, as it is built on distributed ledger technology in
order to enable instant cross-border payments and settlement) or
- other alternative
payment routes and methods of de-dollarization.
In fact, their true problem
is what is accurately called 'the Collective West' in its entirety. The US
dollar replaced indeed the British pound as the world’s reserve currency (in
1944 following the Bretton Woods Agreement); it ceased unilaterally to be
convertible to gold (in 1971, due to the so-called Nixon shock); and it became
the sole currency in which Saudi Arabia is paid for Oil (in 1974, as per the
terms of the Saudi Arabia and US Agreement on Cooperation, signed June 8, that made
the petrodollar possible, which also known as 'the petrocurrency effect' and 'the
petrodollar recycling').
However, all these
developments consist, truly speaking, in Microhistory, if viewed within a wider
context. In fact, they constitute only in the latest episodes of the colonial
conquest, contamination and putrefaction, which have progressively enveloped
the world. That is why BRICS+ member states must see things within a macrohistorical
context and shape their decision making processes accordingly.
Precisely because the
aspects of the world troubles are so many, BRICS+ member states have to realize
that the country, which capitalized on its monetary privilege, namely the
petrodollar, did so while also defending all the other aspects of the 5-century
long Western predominance, which proved to be catastrophic for the entire
world, except for the West European colonial powers and their annexes.
As a matter of fact,
the historically true definition of the USA is not "the country with the
US dollar as national currency", but "the heir of 5-century long,
colonial legacy". This is what the US stands for – not just a currency.
Indeed, the US dollar
is not only the default world currency, but at the same time, the strongest
currency of the Western world. All the same, people often tend to forget that
the American currency was first one of the strongest in the Western world, then
its strongest, and only 'recently' the world's medium of exchange. It is
therefore undeniable that, also at the financial and economic level, it
represents the 'Collective West'.
Due to the successive historical
developments, which led the entire Mankind to the present occurrence and on
which the US predominance has persistently based its delusional legitimacy, it would
be foolish to believe that the US will ever accept the reduction of the systemically
omnipotent Western world into merely two or three poles (EU, US, and
-eventually- Japan) of a delusional multipolar system composed by them and by
the rising, major BRICS+ forces. Nuclear wars of any form are far more
plausible to take place than a multipolar world to be potentially formed with
the participation of the EU and the US.
To put it in simple
words, you can never possibly ask someone, who considers himself as
extraordinarily enormous as a 'dinosaur', to condescend to accept few 'cockroaches'
as equal; this metaphor does not constitute the exact representation of the
reality, but it accurately reflects the mentality of the people who currently
run the EU, the US, the UK and their annexes. These forces have by now carried
out a fully obvious colonial agenda across the Earth; even worse, they are evidently
intending to implement the next parts of the agenda, which has already been
proven as inherently unacceptable to the mankind – the majority of the
misfortunate inhabitants of the Collective West included. In other words, the
world situation is far worse than what most of the foolish or fooled leaders of
the BRICS+ member states have imagined.
VIII
- Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?
Discussing about the
chances for the emergence of a multipolar world system does not hinge only on a
qualitative examination of intentions and a quest for world peace and security;
it is not sufficient to only scrutinize the purposes of the decayed and ailing
but raucous and rancorous elites of US, Germany, France, England and Italy from
one side and assess the aspirations of the ruling classes of China, India,
Russia, Brazil and a nebula of several heavily populated countries, namely
Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Ethiopia, Egypt, Congo,
Vietnam, Turkey, Iran, Thailand, Tanzania and South Africa.
Despite the undeniable
importance of all the aforementioned parameters, there is another factor that
determines even more conclusively the outcome of the present cleavage. This
pertains to the process of historical developments that brought about
the present state of international affairs. There are only specific
procedures that allow a multipolar world community to be formed; it cannot rise
anytime anywhere.
The past eighty (80)
years have been characterized by a unipolar system of world governance; this
was not the first time in World History in which a very large part of the Earth
was under the control of one state (the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Achaemenid Iran, the
Abbasid Caliphate, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, the Chagatai Empire of
Timur/Tamerlane, etc.) without any other state being able to challenge it.
Several political
commentators often dare to portray the present period as the first time in
which one country 'controlled' almost the totality of the surface of the Earth,
but this is definitely a maximalist approach. In fact, as description, it is
wrong. As conclusion, it has only a nominal value; this is so because the
'control' was asserted only via various layers of proxies, who were,
practically speaking, unable to always govern all the territory that they
claimed to possess.
It is essential not to
confuse the present conjecture with the days that antedated WW II or WW I; many
irrelevant historians and inconsistent intellectuals are pleased to draw
parallels between 1914 and 2024 or between 1939 and 2024, but they are very
wrong, confusing, and dangerously deceitful.
Parallels as regards
the ensuing consequences or outcome cannot be drawn between a past circumstance
and the present occurrence; this is so because people know what came next,
after the past circumstance that they take as one pole of the parallel, but only
assume that the other pole (namely the present occurrence) will have the same
exit (namely a war).
Parallels can be drawn
between a past circumstance and the present occurrence only with respect to the
anteriority of both moments that are taken as parallels. In this case, we know
very well that no unipolar system of world governance existed either in the
period 1870-1914 or during the interval between the two world wars.
Prior to WW II, the
world community revolved around six major poles, i.e. England (as the British
Empire), USSR, USA, France, Japan and Germany; the six powers gradually formed
two heteroclite groups of allies of which one prevailed in 1945.
Prior to WW I, the
world community revolved around nine major poles, i.e. England (as the British
Empire), the Russian Empire, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the
Ottoman Empire, USA, and Japan.
It is very critical at
this point to comprehensively comprehend that those major poles or constituents
of the world community did not seek to establish a multipolar system of world
governance either in 1914 or in 1939; it is actually necessary to take into
consideration the fact that the concept of 'world community' had not yet been
formed or formulated as a substitute to the criminal colonial activities of
England and France, which attempted to divide Africa, Western and South Asia,
and Oceania among themselves.
Even worse for the
silly raiders of the lost multipolarity, it is even more crucial to take into
account that, if a proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of
world governance was made back in 1914, the colonial powers England and France
would be the first to reject it. Actually, the criminal gangsters, who always
ruled Paris and London and later hijacked Washington D.C., deliberately triggered
WW I, by duly utilizing their paranoid Serbian lackeys.
Why England and France
back in 1914 would vehemently oppose any proposal for the establishment of a
multipolar system of world governance is easy to assess; this development would
block their effort to terminally dismantle Austria Hungary and the Ottoman
Empire, while also effectively carrying out cruel operations of regime change
in the German and the Russian Empires.
Furthermore, we have to
also reckon with the fact that, if someone advanced a proposal as regards the
establishment of a multipolar system of world governance back in 1939, he would
surely be resolutely reprimanded by the criminal colonial rascals of London and
Paris. England and France declared war on Germany, because they did not want to
establish a multipolar world community including the USSR, Japan, Germany, and
Berlin's ally Italy. As we all know, regime change operations took place in the
latter three states in 1945, and 40-45 years later in the (until then greatly
marginalized, continually defamed, and shamelessly vilified) USSR.
So, to conclude the
present assessment, we have to perceive the establishment of the so-called
'world community' and the inception of the 'international law' as mere tricks, intentional
schemes, and colonial contrivance deceitfully presented but successfully
elaborated by England, France and their successor, namely the US. In fact, on
multiple occasions over the past 80 years, it was fully proven that there is no
world community, but a perilous jungle inhabited by ferocious monsters, which
are more incensed and more devilish than any wild animal, those of the Mesozoic
included.
The sole reality is
this: what the mankind attested for 300 years -from the Carnatic Wars
(1740-1763; Anglo-French wars in India) to the end of WW II- was only the rise
of the Western colonial powers to world predominance. The world impressively shifted
from a multipolar system of world belligerency (with 11 poles, namely Spain,
Portugal, England, France, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman
Empire, Safavid-Afshar Iran, Mughal India, and Qing China) to a unipolar system
of world governance, which can be conclusively described as the Western
barbarism and colonial tyranny over mankind.
The above makes clear
to all that the termination of a unipolar system of world governance can never
happen through negotiations with the central pole of the system; in a Jurassic
environment, only idiots would believe in and count on such 'negotiations'.
IX
- Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar
world center
It would be anything
between foolish and paranoid to imagine that the forces, which controlled the
Western states and elites over the past five centuries, will be ready to yield
power to those whom they have been considering, for at least 350-400 years, as targets
for conquest and world dominance.
BRICS+ member states
stand therefore in front of a dilemma: either reject the Western unipolar
dominance or capitulate. Since the latter is a non-option, it would be useful
to explore the possible ways to reject the barbarian, catastrophic and heinous Western
rule. However, before pondering on how the 5-century long colonial impact can
be overthrown by the countries that represent ca. 90% of the world population,
it would be essential for all of them, and more particularly, for the BRICS+
governments, to specify the sectors in which the rejection of the colonial rule
(or unipolar system of world governance) must take place.
Because it will be
partly functional and basically ineffective, if the BRICS+ member states
challenge the Collective West only at the monetary, financial and economic
levels, it is imperative for the respective governments to come to an agreement
about launching BRICS+ commissions specializing in almost all the sectors for
which there are presently fully-fledged UN Specialized Agencies, Programmes and
Funds, Research and Training Institutes, Other Entities and Bodies, as well as
Related Organizations. A separate commission in Decolonization and De-Westernization
should be added, involving groups of study and rejection of all aspects of
academic, educational, scientific, intellectual, cultural, moral, behavioral
and socio-governmental colonialism.
Following a 6-month
period of tense consultations, the commissions and the groups of study should
come up with conclusive proposals about the restructuring of all the
international bodies, their priorities, works, methods and processes.
Effectively backed by a comprehensive refutation of the 5-century long Western
colonial order, an overwhelming denunciation of the racist and fallacious Western
version of World History, and an all-encompassing condemnation of the
preposterous and biased function of the UN for 80 years, BRICS+ member
states and all their allies should irrevocably withdraw from all the UN
organizations, unequivocally deny any legitimacy to the fake
international body, and immediately launch the All Peoples Assembly, as the
sole legitimate international body. This will convene initially for an
indefinite period of time and institute the fair, just, unquestionably multilateral,
and solid international milieu to which all the people worldwide have long
aspired. A new Internet will have to be rapidly launched for all the member
states totally independently from the US-based legacy system.
This will be tantamount
to complete transformation of the BRICS+ into the new international body, which
has been badly missing to almost all the people across the Earth. All the
employees of the new international body and its specialized agencies,
institutes and related organization will have to be proportionally hired on the
basis of ethnic origin, language and religion/belief. It will therefore be
impossible for a group that constitutes approximately 0.2% of the 8 billion
world population to literally invade key positions, promote sectarianism, and
thus become the well-justified reason of its own rejection by all the
rest.
Subsequently, BRICS+
member states and all their allies will be accepted as members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (CSO), which will turn out to be the de facto guarantee
of worldwide peace and security. International relations with the NATO member
states, their allies and satellites will be totally severed at all levels,
commercial, educational, recreational, academic, intellectual, scientific, technological,
economic, social, governmental and military.
This abrupt separation
will evidently produce a tremendous international economic shock; but the
BRICS+-led countries will be able to face the challenge, recover in relatively
short time, and adapt in a far better environment totally void of the Western
colonial barbarism, horrific criminality, heinous inhumanity, and evil
delusions.
The Collective
West must die and it will die;
powerfully quarantined, asphyxiated within its borders, economically collapsed,
socially imploded, and irreversibly poisoned by the evil delusions, sick
literature, inhuman governance, rotten thoughts, insidious ideas, demented
ideologies, corrupt arts, suicidal philosophies, absurd disbelief, and utter
nonsense that their supposed spiritual, religious, intellectual and social
leaders produced, the Western world will totally perish in the most deserved
hecatomb, which will be the price they will pay for the unipolar system of
world governance that they imposed and for the plans of human annihilation that
they developed.
Quite unfortunately for
the BRICS+ member states and their allies, there is no alternative; by totally
isolating the unipolar world center (namely Canada, USA, UK, EU, Australia and
New Zealand), which is what is called the 'Collective West', they will be in a
position to effectively install a genuinely representative, peaceful, secure,
sustainable multipolar system of world governance, which will extend covering
the quasi-totality (ca. 90%) of the world population.
The only other
possible transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world is nuclear; if the eventually foolish and fooled
leaders of the BRICS+ member states do not truly know or do not duly expect
this, it will certainly be too bad for them. If they do not act immediately
according to the aforementioned description, they will inevitably offer their
worst enemies the privilege of a surprise attack. This is so because the
Collective West is very close to the point of no return; they reached the stage
of irreparable social disintegration. Consequently, their own chance of
survival is to trigger further wars abroad. This is actually what these
barbarians have always done after 1492; but this time, it will surely be
nuclear.
All those, who 'calmly'
wait for the US presidential elections to take place and -even worse- anticipate
the victory of Donald Trump, will be proven as the best, although unpaid,
agents of the Collective West among the leadership of the BRICS+ member states.
And the establishment
of a country, which is hit by a nuclear attack of any type, will have either to
cause tremendous nuclear devastation -which involves also terrible collateral
damages- or to leave in History the memory of a protracted but failed tenure. It
will be a shame and an example to avoid.
---------------------------------------------
Download the article in PDF:
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2024/08/28/brics-bright-or-dark-perspectives-of-a-block-of-countries-in-the-path-to-real-or-delusional-multipolarity/
https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_13461%2Fall
https://www.academia.edu/123338902/BRICS_Bright_or_Dark_Perspectives_of_a_Block_of_Countries_in_the_Path_to_Real_or_Delusional_Multipolarity
https://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/pWCifbU8ku?
https://www.patreon.com/posts/brics-bright-or-110991870
.jpg)