BRICS Summit Disappointment and the Rise of
Anti-Westernism
Apologies for
the rambling nature of this post. I think that as many facts as possible need
to be considered in political analysis and here I am throwing things in rather
randomly at times mixed with my own thoughts.
The recent
BRICS summit ended with some surprising results. BRICS, originally created to allow
major emerging economies to band together in economic cooperation, has through
the years revealed other less benign goals. While Brazil, South Africa, and
India, all American allies, can be seen as adhering to the original goal,
Russia and China used the latest summit to rail against the “West” and argue
for a multipolar world order that gives an alternative to so-called Western
values and traditions. These values and traditions include basic public goods
such as basic human rights, democratic values, anti-corruption, personal
freedom, and government accountability.
Commentators
on some news segments I saw expected two countries, in particular, to be invited
to join, both American allies. These were Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Only Saudi
Arabia was invited. The hope was that the bloc would gain more American allies
to counter the Russia and China influences. That was not to be the case. The
big shocker in my opinion was the invitation to Iran to join. This adds to the
anti-Western bent of the bloc. Argentina was a surprise as well and if they end
up with a right-wing government, which is possible as polling suggests, then
their acceptance of the invitation is not assured. Saudi Arabia may even
decline acceptance, but I think that is doubtful. Egypt, the UAE, and Ethiopia
were surprising as well. Those countries are more neutral than pro-Western or
anti-Western, but they are all friendly toward Russia. It should perhaps be
pointed out that the countries within BRICs are not entirely friendly. India
and China have ongoing spats. Invitees UEA, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have
ongoing spats with invitee Iran. If BRICS is simply a grouping of emerging
economies as it was in the beginning, then that offers little in the way of
unity. If it becomes an alliance rooted in anti-Westernism, as the new proposed
expansion seems to suggest, then that too is not likely to lead to a real
unity. It was reported that Indonesia decided
to rescind their invitation, that Saudi Arabia is not a guarantee to join and
that if Argentina elects a right-wing candidate, they may not join. Thus, it is
possible that the BRICs expansion won’t go as planned. Apparently, 40 countries
applied to join, including Türkiye.
After the
invasion of Ukraine, Russia is desperately looking for friendly countries. All
of the other BRICS countries have been far too neutral in the conflict, failing
to condemn Russia. Virtually all of the invited members are in that “neutral”
bloc. It is a disappointment. The big disappointment is Iran. I mean, who’s
next, Syria, Afghanistan, or worse yet North Korea? Syria is among the 40 countries
that have applied which also includes Cuba and Venezuela. All three are under U.S.
sanctions. According to Sasan Karimi, a political analyst in Tehran, Iran was
effectively rewarded for making powerful friends with Russia and China with the
invite. They were rewarded for providing drones to Russia and for evading sanctions
to sell cheap oil to China. Trump’s 2018 decision to get out of the Iran
nuclear deal, while understandable due to Iran’s lack of sincerity, also had
the effect of bringing Iran closer to China and Russia. Either way though, I
think the Iranian regime would have continued to be one of the moat oppressive
regimes in the world.
If we look at
human rights Iran, China, and Russia are among the worst countries. Egypt,
Ethiopia, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia also have concerning human rights records.
India and South Africa also have some concerns. If we look at perpetration of
state-sponsored hacking and criminal hacking around the world we have China,
Russia, India, Iran, and North Korea at the top of the list. If we look at
corruption, the BRICS countries and their new invitees are again at or near the
top of the list. China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE do not have
representational governments. They are the furthest from democratic values. They
jail and kill dissidents, journalists, and opposition leaders. Any elections
are manipulated and fake. Egypt has long jailed journalists, stifled opposition,
and generated large numbers of political prisoners. The U.S. is considering
lowering aid to Egypt based on these human rights repressions.
BRICS has
three pillars of cooperation: economic, political, and security. The inclusion
of Iran is a validation of Iran’s actions and a slap in the face to the free
world. Of course, Iran and Russia already have deep security ties, as do India
and Russia, though India also has U.S. security ties. China recently brokered a
return of diplomatic ties between proxy enemies Saudi Arabia and Iran. In terms
of regional issues, that may not be so bad, as regional powers need to
communicate and tension should be lowered if possible. The Saudi’s have done
some good work with prisoner swaps in Ukraine and with hosting the Ukraine
peace conference with China’s surprise attendance.
With sanctions,
the West, particularly the U.S. and the E.U., have sought to use economics as
leverage against countries that violate international norms in ways that cause
unacceptable outcomes such as invasions, criminality, militarism in support of authoritarianism,
curbing of human rights and press freedom, and other undesirable activities. We
need to keep up that pressure and not give in to tyrannical acts.
Of course,
there are quite a few different groups of countries that regularly meet around
the world such as the UN, G7, G20, the Quad, and regional groups like ASEAN in
South Asia (which is an alternative to China), ECOWAC in West Africa, and the many
other regional trade, political, and security blocs. Thus, BRICS is not so
unusual or worthy of our attention, except in that it keeps countries semi-allied
to a rogue Russian state, and a Russia-China alliance that spurns Western
values, and now Iranian influence is a part of the picture. Some people call it
an outright anti-Western alliance, despite the fact that India, South Africa,
and Brazil are functional democracies and American allies. Hugo Dixon writes in
a Reuters headline that the G7 is the least bad group for a troubled world. He
also suggests that it add South Korea and Australia, which would strengthen the
Asian contingent.
Michelle
Martin recently interviewed Naoise Mac Sweeney about her new book: The West:
A New History in Fourteen Lives, where she examines the development of the
idea of the West, or Western Civilization, through the lives of fourteen people
from Herodotus to the present. She also examines the ever-changing identity of
the West, from perspectives within the West and beyond the West, and some of
the values that have come to be associated with the West - rule of law, democratic
values, human rights, freedom of speech and the press, etc. Meanwhile villains
like Putin emphasize the West as imperialists, especially to Africans, all
while being the bloodiest imperialist on the planet.
Putin’s colleague
Dmitry Medvedev refers to Elon Musk as “the one with the balls” in “gender-neutral
America” for refusing to activate Starlink over Crimea that prevented
Ukraine from damaging the Black Sea fleet that had been and still is sending
missiles and drones to bomb their cities, often civilian targets. He and other
Russians also praised Musk’s arrogant peace plan in 2022 that called for UN
monitored elections in Crimea. Putin has also praised Musk. Musk was concerned
about provoking the Russian nuclear bear. Medvedev, whose name means bear, has
been quite vocal with his nuclear saber rattling. Russian media figures and
politicians have been spreading rhetoric reminiscent of Kim Jong Un, about nuking
the UK and Europe and invading NATO countries. How can we take such reckless
figures and their country seriously or as a serious member of the international
community. It was nuclear saber rattling by Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. (or
Putin himself - said Musk and later retracted whatever that means) who Musk
consulted about Crimea that spooked him into not activating Starlink. After
Musk’s personal diplomacy the questions become – 1) who is he representing?
Himself? His business? His country? 2)
what gives him the right to make such decisions? The U.S. government should
probably have confronted him about it much sooner and he should have consulted
with the U.S. government rather than the Russian ambassador. Ian Bremmer made note
recently of the new power of tech billionaires like Musk who can be
inadvertently presented with such decisions. He also explored a similar
potential scenario where Musk could be asked to activate Starlink for Taiwan if
it was being invaded by China and noted that China could easily retaliate if he
did by damaging Musk’s vast business interests in China, which they would no
doubt not hesitate to do. Would those business interests influence him to not
help Taiwan? It’s a theoretical question but one that should be considered, and
contingencies developed. Since satellite communications can be vital for modern
military actions, those who own them are already far into the territory of such
questions. To Musk’s credit he did offer massive, needed help to Ukraine at the
beginning of the invasion and he did sell satellites to the U.S. government
later. Of course, he first threatened to pull them away because he was losing
money.
To make
matters worse, leaders like Brazil’s Lula and other BRICS leaders stick up for
Putin and the Kremlin, or at the very least fail to condemn them for their clear
threats, flouting of rules, military adventurism, etc. In a way, it makes me a
bit nostalgic for George W. Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us,”
statement when trying to forge a coalition against terrorism. Most of the
countries friendly toward Russia have economic or security agreements with
them. Such ties are not easy to sever. However, they need not sever those ties,
just weaken them by condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine in particular. A
stronger coalition of condemnation would be helpful. Lula, Musk, and others
have been clear about blaming both sides for Russia’s invasion. Two general contingents
in the West, one on the political right and one on the political left have kept
that view from the beginning. The wacky right, like Margerie Taylor Greene and
her Nato-Nazi comments and other MAGA leaders and politicians in particular are
quite clear about wanting to defund Ukraine and NATO. On the left, it is mostly
the socialist contingent and the so-called realists who have long held the
Kremlin position that NATO expansionism provoked Russia into invading. That is
utter nonsense. This contingent includes the Democratic Socialists of America
and Bernie Sanders, who wrote an op-ed a few weeks before Russia invaded to say
that Putin was justified in his concerns about the Russian sphere of influence,
or Russky Mir, comparing it to the Monroe Doctrine in the Western hemisphere,
which was a very poor comparison in my opinion. The Russky Mir is not some old
and established idea, but a new idea developed by Russian nationalists who
favor expansion of a Russian-Slavic empire to counter the West, basically a
re-establishment of the Soviet empire, the most brutal empire in modern
history.
Russia’s
obsession with its Ukraine invasion and its isolation have led to acceleration
of its criminal activity, especially related to sanctions busting and obtaining
parts for the war effort. It has been reported that “Russia, through an
extensive smuggling network, receives scarce components through third
countries, such as Armenia and Türkiye.” The old adage that prohibition
begets bootlegging applies here. Russia is now in league with Iran, North
Korea, and to a lesser extent Venezuela. Russia, North Korea, and Iran have all
forged cooperative agreements, especially military agreements. Russia’s push to
create a new multipolar order is quite a farce as they join the dregs of
nations. China and the other BRICS members should see this for what it is
rather than inviting Iran to their club. Looks like Teflon Vlad ain’t easy to
bring down either. Unfortunately, Russia has been able to significantly build
up their weapons production. This is disheartening. The obsessive
militarization of the three worst countries in the world in terms of human
rights and criminality should be of concern to every honorable country in the
world. I’m with Boris Johnson, we need to do more to help Ukraine. The whole
war situation is quite unfortunate but Vlad ain’t backing down, he’s doubling
down.
Bloomberg
recently reported that due to increased oil & gas revenues, Russia intends
to increase its military spending significantly, from 3.9% of GDP to 6% of GDP
next year. This is bad news and shows that we need to do more to sanction the
Kremlin and help Ukraine. In retrospect, we should have done more to counter
Russia years ago when they entered the Syrian Civil War and began destroying cities
with destructional warfare, bombing schools and hospitals repeatedly, and using
chemical weapons. Obama and company dropped the ball then. I was disgusted then
with the level of Russian propaganda spreading even in the U.S., often among
the political left, through outlets like RT America. Now Assad is trying to
work his way back into the international community. While Saudi leader MBS is
doing a lot to help with peace talks, normalizing relations with Israel, restoring
diplomacy with adversaries, and promoting some reforms, he and OPEC+ are also
helping to keep oil prices higher than they need to be, although they insist,
they are just balancing the market. Lower oil prices might hurt OPEC a bit, but
they would hurt Putin more, and help others at the pump, me very much included.
Anti-Westernism
Daniel Hannan
wrote an interesting piece for the Telegraph a few weeks ago about anti-Western
sentiment and BRICS. He writes: “It soon became clear that the bloc was seen
by Russia and China as a counterweight to Western international structures,
such as Nato, the IMF and the G7. At that stage, lots of anti-colonial
autocracies expressed an interest in membership.” The group has come up
with development funds, particular for Africa, that do indeed rival the IMF and
World Bank. This is not bad in principle as it helps those poor countries, but they
would be better off being indebted to more noble countries. The West’s
boneheaded overfocus on climate issues has helped to turn poor African
countries toward Russia and China, unfortunately, by withholding financing for
needed fossil fuel projects and the like. Putin spent his BRICS speech talking
about his justification for the brutal Ukraine invasion – get this – to counter
Western colonialism where Western countries are seeking to “preserve their
global hegemony” through “a policy of continued neo-colonialism.”
Hannan cites resentment of Western cultural supremacy as one of Putin’s selling
points. “He {Putin} appeals to authoritarians on the Right and the Left,
portraying bourgeois democracy as soulless, effete and degenerate.” Indeed,
Putin just referred to Trump’s indictments as political persecution, as Trump
has contended, describing U.S. democratic institutions as “rotten.”
Unfortunately, our state of political divisiveness is not helpful. Such
divisiveness weakens our nation or any nation where it is endemic. Nonetheless,
our institutions are strong. Hannan points out that the Nazis and the Soviets, those
demonic regimes of the past (my words), said the same thing about Western
institutions. He notes that Lenin considered imperialism to be the last stage
of a desperate capitalism. Consider the following section from Hannan’s piece:
“The idea that the West became rich through plunder,
rather than through independent courts, free contract, private property and
limited government, was sedulously spread across Asia, Africa, and Latin America
by Soviet propagandists. It found its way into the school textbooks published
by newly independent states – the textbooks that educated many of today’s
leaders in the Global South.”
“At the same time, anti-imperialist writers became
popular in Western universities, preparing the ground for what we now call
identity politics.”
This is one way the political far left helps the
villainous Kremlin – by continuing the propaganda narrative that persists in
anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, communist, and socialist circles. Other niche
factions like the anti-GMO crowd, the anti-vax crowd, some of the extreme
environmentalist/green parties/labor parties crowd, and others, also perpetrate
these narratives. Russian propaganda (i.e., anti-Western propaganda) is endemic
in some form in all countries where there are Russian speakers, in all
communist and socialist countries, and in many Spanish-speaking countries as
well. Hannan asks:
“How many of today’s woke activists are, without
realising it, channelling a 60-year-old tract which was in turn directly
inspired by Lenin?” He asks another question:
“How twisted do you have to be to see Western
civilisation, not simply as flawed (which all civilisations are) but as
inferior to that of Russia?”
He calls the Russian state - “A kleptocracy that
anaesthetises its people with promises of military glory even as it immiserates
and brutalises them.” Looking at Russian militarism one can hardly deny
that there is little value given to human life. While former Soviet states tend
to see Putin and the Kremlin for the scoundrels that they are, in more Western
countries, saturated in years of low-level propaganda, relative peace, and
Russia enjoying and building up their resource exporting coffers, pro-Putin
sentiment is apparently alive and well. As Hannan notes:
“Asked who was responsible for the war, 36 per cent of
Germans blamed the US, 15 per cent Nato and 9 per cent Ukraine; only 29 per
cent blamed Putin or Russia. In France, 46 per cent blamed the Americans, 36
per cent Nato, 19 per cent Ukraine, and 40 per cent Putin.”
“The trouble with performative wokery is that other
countries are listening. Blaming Britain and America for all the world’s ills
might be intended as a way to signal high-status views, but it has consequences.”
“If the Anglosphere is systematically portrayed as
wicked, rather than as the last-ditch defender of the rule of law, personal
freedom and representative government, then some people will be drawn to other
systems. Sure, they’ll miss the ascendancy of Western liberalism when it has
gone; but that will be scant consolation.”
In America too there are multiple pro-Putin sentiments
coming from both extremes of the political spectrum. Some follow the lead of wacky
pundits like Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard. Unfortunately, likely nominee
Trump is in that camp too. Recently, I listened while a former colleague and right-wing
military vet informed me that Putin had every right to invade Ukraine because
of the CIA-funded bioweapons labs in Ukraine, that China too was being
mistreated by the U.S., and that Biden was destroying our economy by sending
money and weapons to Ukraine, despite the fact that it has wide bipartisan
support. He also mentioned Covid being engineered with U.S. knowledge to drop the world population. He even mentioned FEMA camps, Bill Gates’ nefariousness, and
QAnon stuff, and other nonsense conspiracies. It was sad and disheartening just
to listen to such absolute drivel.
The
rogue/pariah countries are easy to pick out. They are the ones who vote with
Russia at the UN or collaborate heavily with Russia: Russia, Syria, Iran, North
Korea, Belarus, Eritrea, Nicaragua, Myanmar, and often China, Cuba, and
Venezuela. Others have refrained from condemning Russia’s Ukraine invasion and
maintained neutrality in the face of obvious war criminality: India, South
Africa, other African countries sympathetic to Russia (Central African Republic,
coup leaders in Mali, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Guinea, and now Niger), maybe Egypt,
maybe Brazil, and even Mexico has not spoken out much against Russia with AMLO
preferring to maintain neutrality. At Mexico’s Independence Day celebrations, a military contingency from friendly 19 countries was invited and present. These
countries included Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, and Brazil. The
Ukrainian ambassador to Mexico was angry at Russia’s military presence. If some
of these neutral countries would put more pressure on Russia it would be
helpful. Even in the EU and NATO, we have Hungary and Türkiye not being very
helpful, although Erdogan has improved after his re-election. The UAE, China,
and especially India continue to profit heavily from buying Russian oil at a
big discount. Greek shipping has also benefitted. Brazil’s Lula wants Putin to
be able to attend next year’s G20 in Brazil, He also wants the U.S. to end the
embargo on Cuba. All these things show that many of these neutral countries do
not share the so-called Western value of accountability. They would rather countries
that break rules be allowed to do so without consequence.
Iran has been
coaching Russia on sanctions evasion. Iran has been advising Venezuela on
reviving their derelict oil industry. Brazil’s Lula is too sympathetic to the
corrupt socialist/communist countries of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Kim
Jong Un has strengthened ties with Russia while he lives lavishly and his
people outside Pyongyang starve (with reports of cannibalism). Nicaragua’s
Ortega jailed opposition leaders and then exiled them. He has expressed strong
support for Russia and has developed new diplomatic ties with North Korea. He has
been accused of perpetrating violence. Venezuela has been accused of systematic
torture of jailed political prisoners. The sheer level of migration from the
country attests that is a failed state and an unsafe state. North Korea and
Iran are selling weapons to Russia and Russia is helping Iran further develop
their military capabilities. Belarus and Iran are increasing military ties.
These alliances and mutual support are making these countries stronger,
unfortunately.
Many of us are
disgusted with Russian attempts to imply that they are a normal responsible
country when it’s quite clear they are not. Their position as a permanent
member of the UN Security Council is basically a joke. UN stands for United
Nations. Russia is not united with any other nations except its few fellow pariah
friends. It’s just another farce, at this point just meant to keep dialogue
open.
Russian
propaganda is, unfortunately, alive and well. The shutdown of freedoms of speech
and the press in Russia, in order to force support for the war, are an
attestation to the dangers and tragedy of authoritarian rule. Russia has
thoroughly returned to being a totalitarian state. When Trump reiterates that
the press is the “enemy of the people” he stupidly conflates bias with
aggression. His rhetoric continues to be shocking, especially for someone who
has a chance to return to power, but it is just rhetoric for now. Russian propaganda
truly is the enemy of the people, or at least of free people. Unfortunately, it
has sway in communist countries, in sympathetic countries, in neutral and non-aligned
countries, in countries with Russian-speaking populations, and in past allies
and collaborators with Russia in less oppressive times. Putin’s friendships
with former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former Italian leader Silvio
Berlusconi led to more proliferation of Russian propaganda in those countries.
This is no longer the case in Germany but in Italy, Kremlin-linked commentators
and guests have appeared on Italian TV, including ideologue Alexander Dugin. This
has led to a population that has more support for Russian positions both from
the right wing and the left wing. Italy still has a thriving socialist party
that is sympathetic to Russia. Lorenzo Tondo writes in The Guardian: “According
to a Pew Research Center survey released in July, Italy is among the countries
in the EU where people have the lowest confidence in Zelenskiy. According to
the European Council on Foreign Relations, Italians were the most sympathetic
to Russia of member states polled, with 27% blaming Ukraine and the US for the
war.”
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy also suggested that
NATO provokes Russia into invading Ukraine. This is utter nonsense, and it is disheartening
that such former politicians are inclined to miss reality.
Spanish and
Arabic speakers are also inundated with Russian propaganda in some places. The
New York Times reported in August 2022 that it was spreading in those
languages.
Westernism Has Different Meanings for Different
Ideological Groups
Of course, the
idea of Western values means different things to different people. While to
some of us, it is focused on human rights, democratic values, the rule of law,
fairness, and freedoms of speech, the press, and of expression, to others it
means something different. An opinion article by Gerard Baker – The New
Moral Order is Already Crumbing – in the Wall Street Journal, refers to a
new moral order that has been perpetrated by “secular elites.” He gives three aspects
of that new moral order that he abhors: 1) permissive migration, 2) over-focus
on climate change mitigation, 3) and cultural dilution. He thinks that Judeo-Christian
values are under assault by this new moral order. I disagree with his opinion. While
I agree there are problems with the first two in terms of degree, the third is rather
absurd. Two of the three have to do with people from other places (them) mixing
with people in the U.S. and Europe (us). While migration is a problem, even a
crisis, we have dealt with it before, and I think we can deal with it now. Why
people migrate depends on who you ask: Progressives like to say it's climate
change. Far-right pundits like to say it's hordes of law-breaking foreigners. It’s
neither. In the U.S. it’s mainly people fleeing failed governments like
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, and others, and people fleeing crime and poverty in
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, and others. In Europe, the situations
are similar – failed governments, poverty, and crime. In the first example, he
says global interest has taken over national interest in terms of primacy –
sounds like America First to me. I think we have both global and national
interests as well as obligations, we need to tend to both, and this is not mutually
exclusive. The second point about climate catastrophism is more plausible to me
but I don’t think it is that big of a problem either – we just need to slow
down the frantic pace and rhetoric a bit. Referring to his third point he
notes: “Third, a wholesale cultural self-cancellation in which the virtues,
values and historic achievements of traditional civilization are rejected and
replaced by a cultural hierarchy that inverts old prejudices and obliges the
class of white, male heterosexuals to acknowledge their history of exploitation
and submit to comprehensive social and economic reparation.” I disagree
with this point. It is anti-woke overreach, reminiscent of the woke/PC
overreach that likely spurred it. While I cringe at some of the more extremist
wokeness I am not afraid of it, nor do I think it really threatens anyone. I
think the anti-wokeness is probably worse in that it seeks to prop up anachronistic
ideas that are probably best left to the past. He calls the third point in his
imagined moral shift - cultural self-annihilation. Now I agree that these
issues can be taken too far (more overreach) such as in the California movement
to give supermassive slavery reparations to African Americans. I am not
against reparations but the numbers there were astonishing. As he notes, Australians
are set to reject the setting up of a constitutional body to redress grievances
of Aborigines and required to be consulted on all matters concerning indigenous
populations. I don’t know enough about it to determine if it is another kind of
overreach. The idea is not bad in principle but could lead to problems. While I
don’t disagree that the issues Baker brings up should be debated and that we
should speak up when overreach does occur, I don’t think it is a threat to his
imagined moral order. I think he is imagining a moral war that is not really
taking place, that the threats he perceives are not really there. I think it
shows that Westernism means different things to different Westerners. He seems to
think it means Judeo-Christian values, nationalism, what he sees as a healthy
amount of xenophobia, and preservation of cultural hierarchies of the past. Those
views of Westernism are as outdated I would say as are the colonialist values
that our adversaries try to re-attribute to us. I think his three issues are
really just matters of degree since most would agree that we need migration to
be available to some and not discouraged in draconian ways, we need to mitigate
climate change but perhaps to a lesser degree at a slower pace, and that we
need to consider the rights, past and present, of all peoples, also at reasonable
levels as well as the rights of marginalized people that have and do suffer
much discrimination.
Unlikely De-dollarization Hopes
Luckily, most
attempts by the anti-Western contingent to dethrone the primacy of the dollar
in global economics are not expected to succeed in the near term. However, no
one knows if it could happen further out in time. Most of the BRICS countries
would embrace it but some like India realize it is not going to happen soon.
Lula’s embrace of de-dollarization hopes just betrays his anti-Western bias. Does
that arise from his embrace of socialism? In any case, de-dollarization hopes
betray anti-Western bias. I think the world needs the leadership of the West
now more than ever and economics and the power of the dollar as the global
currency help to keep us in that leadership role. While BRICS does have a financial
lending institution, a development bank that in a small way offers an
alternative to the IMF and World Bank, especially in Africa, it is not likely to
be comparable any time soon. It is funded over 90% by China. It is also
dependent on the U.S. dollar. However, it does plan to diversify away from the
dollar and to lend between $8 billion and $10 billion this year.
Rebekah
Koffler writes in the New York Post: “Dollarization provides the US with
outsized influence in shaping international financial policies and forces the
global community to adapt to economic decisions made in Washington — and not
the other way around.” Certainly, ceding that influence to China or Russia or
India would not be good for the world. She also notes that some of the new
BRICs countries invited are big oil producers and that oil which is traded in
dollars is the backbone of the dollar. Is it part of a long-term plan to bring down
the dollar? Maybe. Some oil is already being traded in Chinese yuan and Russian
rubles. It is the power of the dollar that allows us to sanction these
authoritarian nations like Iran, and Russia. De-dollarization would also bring
higher interest rates and more inflation to those who rely on the dollar. The
bottom line is that the obvious BRICS goal to reduce the power of the dollar is
also a goal to reduce Western influence in the world and in turn to reduce the
influence of Democratic values and increase the influence of what? Authoritarian
values? Is there such a thing? These authoritarians don’t really have any
specifically shared values if you think about it. It’s really ‘every man for
himself’ or every nation for itself. That is directly anathema to any notion of
‘United Nations.’ What would unite them? A common enemy? Nationalism? Control
of their populace? It’s not the world I wanna live in and you shouldn’t want to
either. I really think India, Brazil, South Africa, and Argentina (probably the
most democratic of the new invitees), as functional democracies should consider
these questions.
The Indian oil
minister also acknowledged that despite some instances of oil payments in yuan,
rubles, and rupees, the dollar will remain the standard for the foreseeable future.
The article about this in Market Insider by Fdemott noted: “And evidence is
still lacking of significant dollar erosion. In fact, the greenback recently
hit an all-time high in its share of global transactions, according to recent
data from the SWIFT payments system. As of July, it accounted for 46% of
international trade. That is good news.
Perhaps one
result of BRICS success is that the IMF and World Bank expect to increase
development funding for emerging economies. I would suggest that they keep
climate stipulations out of that funding as it will just bring those economies
closer to alternatives like BRICS’ development fund.
De-dollarization
would be extremely challenging in practice. China would have to lead, and its
own currency is internally manipulated to high degrees. Brazil’s Lula has been
a champion of de-dollarization for some reason, perhaps because China is Brazil’s
largest export market. In any case, the five BRICS countries have such differing
political and economic systems that integrating them in a currency would be
very challenging. In a sense, countries like China, Russia, and Brazil trying to
circumvent dollarization are similar to countries like Russia, Iran, Syria, and
Venezuela (or China in the case of Uigur labor sanctions) trying to circumvent
sanctions.
“Western” Push-Back and Diplomacy
Fortunately, the
Biden administration has not been blind to anti-Western wooing. The continued
strength of the G7 is encouraging. Westernism is no longer in the West, and
indeed it never was even in the beginning as many of the foundational ideas of
Western civilization attributed to the ancient Greeks came from Asia Minor,
Mesopotamia, and Egypt – basically the Middle East. Now we share democratic
values and strong ties with eastern countries like Japan, South Korea, Cambodia,
the Philippines, and of course English-speaking Australia and New Zealand, and
to a lesser but considerable extent Indonesia, Thailand, India, and others.
Israel and Jordan in the Middle East, and some countries in Africa as well.
Nigeria’s Tinubu, despite significant election irregularities, has emerged as a
strong defender of Democratic values, although it remains to be seen whether he
will continue in that regard. The point is that the so-called West is not the Anglosphere
as some call it but a system of values that spans the globe. Perhaps a new name
is in order. I think the Free World is good, but it is perhaps a bit too
confrontational. Freedom, fairness, tolerance, and accountability are chief
values, so perhaps the Free, Fair, Tolerant, and Accountable World. I
know that’s too long, but perhaps an acronym – FFAT World.
Biden’s
historical Camp David meeting with the leaders of South Korea and Japan was a
great success. Japan was once an enemy of the U.S. and South Korea and Japan
have had many hostilities throughout their histories, but those are way back in
the rear-view mirror now. Last week I watched Christianne Amanpour interview
Rahm Immanuel, former Congressman, Obama’s Chief of Staff, mayor of Chicago
(where he did not do so well), and now ambassador to Japan. He made some
excellent points contrasting Russia and China’s current focuses with those of
the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. He noted that the rationale for Putin’s
invasion of Ukraine was tooted far into the past, in the 17th
century – an attempt to recreate a glorious Russian Empire, rather than the
Soviet Empire of the recent past that encompassed the same invaded areas. He
also noted Xi and CCP’s latest map, also from the 17th century,
showing an expanded Chinese Empire that fully angered all of its neighbors and
escalated even dormant territorial disputes. The point is that Putin and Xi are
looking to recreate some imagined glory of the past while in contrast the U.S.,
South Korea, and Japan are looking to the future and celebrating the strong
bonds of shared values. Meanwhile, Putin is forging bonds with fellow tyrants Kim
Jong Un and the Iranian theocracy. He pointed out that those bonds are not
really based on shared values but bonds of convenience or bonds of desperation
to attempt to hedge against Western influence. Biden’s recent visit to Vietnam
was another diplomatic success. Joint U.S. military exercises with Indonesia
and Australia is another counter to Chinese influence.
German Foreign
Minister Annalena Baerbock has been quite hawkish in helping Ukraine militarily.
I think she has the right attitude – to confront authoritarian aggression. She
also called Xi a dictator, which by definition he is – president for life in a
one-party rule, in a place where human rights are strongly curbed, and the
government is in control by threat. While we must cooperate and collaborate with
China and the CCP on economic and other global issues, we do not have to pretend
that Xi and the CPP are free and fair players on the world stage. It is mainly
these rogue nations of various degrees, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, and the
rest that weaken the U.N., especially the largely dysfunctional Security
Council. Baerbock is a Green Party politician and a climate activist. While I disagree
with her approach to climate I think her approach to Ukraine, Russia, and China
is very good.
Nathalie Tocci
pointed out in an article in the Guardian that: “It came as an unpleasant
surprise to many in Europe and North America that so many countries – many more
than the 30 or so that abstained in UN votes condemning Russia for its invasion
of Ukraine – refused to go along with sanctions on Putin’s Russia. Forty
countries sanction Russia, but two-thirds of the world’s population live in
countries that do not.” Some probably did this for purely financial reasons.
The watered-down statement at the recent G20 summit in India is a reflection of
much of the world holding back from condemnation of Russian aggression. While evidence
of war crimes continues to accumulate there is still not enough backlash.
The power dynamics are changing in the world, with more
power arising from the so-called global south. This is probably a good thing
overall but only if it counters the power of those who aggress, suppress human
rights, or look away when these things happen.
References:
Anti-Westernism is
rampant in Europe and beyond. Love of Putin is its worst abomination. Daniel
Hannan. The Telegraph. August 26, 2023. Anti-Westernism is rampant in Europe and beyond. Love
of Putin is its worst abomination (msn.com)
With BRICS Invite,
Iran Shrugs Off Outcast Status in the West. Farnaz Fassihi. New York Times.
August 26, 2023. With
BRICS Invite, Iran Shrugs Off Outcast Status in the West - The New York Times
(nytimes.com)
BRICS going nowhere,
especially with new members. Peter Zion. Straight Arrow News.
BRICS going nowhere, especially with new members
(msn.com)
A look at the BRICS
expansion -Is it a threat to US dominance or sheer optimism? Florence Muchai. Cryptopolitan.
August 26, 2023. A look at the BRICS expansion -Is it a threat to US
dominance or sheer optimism? (msn.com)
Tinubu deserves
kudos for shunning BRICS – Okechukwu. Emmanuel Uzodinma. Dailey Post Nigeria. August
27. 2023. Tinubu deserves kudos https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/25/world/middleeast/iran-brics.html
for shunning BRICS – Okechukwu (msn.com)
Visualizing the
BRICS Expansion in 4 Charts. By
Marcus Lu, Graphics/Design: Bhabna Banerjee. Visual Capitalist. August 24,
2023. Visualizing the BRICS Expansion in 4 Charts
(visualcapitalist.com)
The New BRICS
Expansion. Ian Bremmer. GZero Media. August 28, 2023.
Key BRICS member
admits the dollar will remain dominant despite oil deals in rupees and yuan.
Filip De Mott. August 28, 2023. MSN,
Market Insider. Key BRICS member admits the dollar will remain
dominant despite oil deals in rupees and yuan (msn.com)
US sees wake-up
call, if not threat, as BRICS bloc expands. AFP. August 28, 2023. US sees wake-up call, if not threat, as BRICS bloc
expands (msn.com)
The Growing Role Of
BRICS On The World Stage. Frank Holmes. Seeking Alpha. August 29, 2023. The Growing Role Of BRICS On The World Stage (msn.com)
The BRICS Want to
Expand. The Case for Skepticism. John Murphy. Barron’s. August 29, 2023. The BRICS Want to Expand. The Case for Skepticism.
(msn.com)
Bigger Brics Won't
Make a Stable Building. Sadanand Dhume. Wall Street Journal. August 31, 2023. Bigger Brics Won't Make a Stable Building (msn.com)
The BRICS Expansion
Isn’t the End of the World Order — or the End of the World. Branko Marcetic.
Jacobin. August 31, 2023. The BRICS Expansion Isn’t the End of the World Order —
or the End of the World (msn.com)
Far right and far
left alike admired Putin. Now we’ve all turned against strongmen. Nick Cohen.
The Guardian. March 5, 2022. Far right and far left alike admired Putin. Now we’ve
all turned against strongmen | Nick Cohen | The Guardian
‘A success for
Kremlin propaganda’: how pro-Putin views permeate Italian media. Lorenzo Tondo.
August 31, 2023. ‘A success for Kremlin propaganda’: how pro-Putin
views permeate Italian media | Italy | The Guardian
Russian propaganda
is spreading in Spanish and Arabic and in places outside the West. Steven Lee
Myers and Sheera Frenkel. New York Times. August 10, 2022. Russian propaganda is spreading in Spanish and Arabic
and in places outside the West. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
The G7 is least bad
group for a troubled world. Hugo Dixon. Reuters. September 3, 2023. The G7 is least bad group for a troubled world |
Reuters
Russia's Pivot Away
From US Dollar Is Not Going According to Plan. Isabel van Brugen. Newsweek. Russia's Pivot Away From US Dollar Is Not Going
According to Plan (msn.com)
Elon Musk says he
denied Ukraine satellite request to avoid complicity in "major act of
war" vs. Russia. CBS News. September 8, 2023. Elon Musk says he denied Ukraine satellite request to
avoid complicity in "major act of war" vs. Russia - CBS News
Elon Musk’s refusal
to have Starlink support Ukraine attack in Crimea raises questions for Pentagon.
Tara Copp. AP. Elon Musk's refusal to have Starlink support Ukraine
attack in Crimea raises questions for Pentagon (msn.com)
What Russia Got by
Scaring Elon Musk. Anne Applebaum. The Atlantic. September 11, 2023. What Russia Got by Scaring Elon Musk (msn.com)
Former French
President: Putin Was Provoked into Attacking Ukraine. Faruk Imamovic. Financial
World. September 15, 2023. Former French President: Putin Was Provoked into
Attacking Ukraine (msn.com)
Elon Musk’s Shadow
Rule: How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaire—and is now
struggling to rein him in. Ronan Farrow. New Yorker Magazine. August 21, 2023.
Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule | The New Yorker
Ukrainian ambassador
to Mexico reproaches president for presence of Russian military at Parade. Kateryna
Tyshchenko. Ukrainska Pravda. September 17, 2023. Ukrainian
ambassador to Mexico reproaches president for presence of Russian military at
Parade (msn.com)
War in Ukraine is
revealing a new global order – and the ‘power south’ is the winner. Nathalie
Tocci. The Guardian. September 20, 2023. War
in Ukraine is revealing a new global order – and the ‘power south’ is the
winner (msn.com)
Blame the BRICS for
the end of the dollar’s global domination. Rebekah Koffler. New York Post.
September 23, 2023. Blame
the BRICS for the end of the dollar’s global domination (msn.com)
The New Moral Order
Is Already Crumbling. Gerard Baker. The Wall Street Journal. September 25, 2023.
The
New Moral Order Is Already Crumbling (msn.com)
