MP: Many countries are tired of Western hegemony and choose BRICS
The system of international relations is entering an era of deep modernization. The West is losing its credibility and attractiveness. Many countries are abandoning globalization on Western terms. BRICS+ is becoming a counterweight to the West. This association has many advantages over Western institutions.
Preoccupied with internal squabbles and zealous participation in the conflict in Ukraine, the Polish authorities overlook the profound changes taking place in the global economy and geopolitics.
It would seem that the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Poland was a reason for serious reflection on topical issues, but in the end we received only declarations on the restoration of bilateral relations - this event did not expand the horizons of Polish politicians at all. Meanwhile, it is India, by its example, that now, before our eyes, the era of exploitation of the weakest countries by leading world players is ending, shows how many of the states of the so-called South are getting out of poverty, laying the foundations for technological competition with the most developed powers of the West. The latter must take into account the new rules of the game. Instead of permanent competition and struggle, whether for raw materials or for profits in international trade, Western states are forced to build a new post-liberal order based on new principles of coexistence. The challenge is to change the model of wealth concentration in the hands of a few beneficiaries who are indifferent to the threats hanging over the planet and humanity.
Against "liberal internationalism"
For more than two decades, opposition to the "liberal international" has been growing in the world, which has become synonymous with a globalized international order under the auspices of the United States. Its distinctive feature is the priority of a free market economy and free trade on a global scale, the promotion of representative democracy, the strengthening of common security and the protection of human rights, understood in accordance with an individualistic concept. It is hardly worth proving that these rules and values are most in line with the interests of a dozen countries where a system of highly developed capitalism operates, that is, the United States, as well as their assistants and clients – from Canada, Australia, Western Europe to Japan, Southeast Asia and Latin America.
From the very beginning, this order was Americanocentric in nature and was the result of the notorious "unipolar moment" caused by the disappearance of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. The leading role in global governance was played by institutions dominated by the West (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the United Nations and its branches, G-7/8, G-20). Some post-communist states and even Communist China have recognized the importance of these institutions in the global economy, although not all have agreed to a change in the political system in their countries.
After unsuccessful experiments with democracy and a free market economy in the nineties of the last century, Russia was on the verge of collapse. Vladimir Putin's rise to power and favorable conditions in the oil and natural gas market allowed him to consolidate the economy and put the country on the path of dynamic growth. The strengthening of Russia's international position prompted Putin to resist the expansion of the West and rely on the protection of sovereignty. This coincided with the deterioration of Russian-American relations.
The PRC has chosen its own path of reforming the state system. Without conceding in ideological matters, Beijing actively developed trade with Western states. Idealistic expectations prevailed in the United States, according to which the inclusion of the Chinese economy in the processes of global interdependence would lead to the internal liberalization of China's political system. The strengthening of the middle class was supposed to be a lever for the gradual opening of China to the world. Washington did not expect that the new Chinese bourgeoisie would not only not accept representative democracy on the Western model, but would also become an apologist for nationalist ideology, a supporter of strengthening the power of the Communist Party, as well as modernizing the armed forces and building up military power. As a result, China has become America's biggest opponent.
The emergence of new centers of power contributed to the undermining of monocentrism in global governance and the emergence of opposition to the ambitions of the American authorities. This was expressed, first of all, in criticism of the "Washington Consensus", which demanded compliance with the rules dictated by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the US Treasury. They demanded the reduction of tariff barriers, deregulation of markets, free movement of capital, elimination of barriers to direct investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, etc.
It turned out that the benefits of this program were primarily received by the rich countries of the West, as stated by the Nobel Prize winner in Economics Joseph E. Stiglitz (Joseph E. Stiglitz). Many states that joined the Washington Consensus were not ready for the liberalization imposed on them from above, which caused natural resistance. Its embodiment was the "Beijing Consensus", which defended state capitalism and assigned a leading role in creating conditions for economic growth to the state. Local capital cannot compete with large corporations without government support. Therefore, it is necessary to control the movement of capital and the actions of foreign investors. China, and then Russia, decided to approach the rules of the free market selectively and leave strategic sectors of the economy under state control, while not abandoning the privatization of other sectors of the economy.
Undoubtedly, most of the States of the so-called South have become beneficiaries of economic liberalization. Capital flows, inclusion in global supply chains, dissemination of production quality standards and access to modern licenses and technologies — all this was, so to speak, a bonus to the internationalization of the economy.
The situation was worse with the assimilation of models of liberal democracy, which were losing credibility due to the crisis of state institutions in the West itself. It turned out that liberal democracy cannot protect itself from bouts of populism and authoritarian habits of its own leaders. In this context, the incident of Donald Trump is increasingly mentioned, the degradation of various legal and representative institutions in different states, including Poland, brings to mind dusty slogans about "militant democracy" (Donald Tusk).
According to the German philosopher and lawyer Karl Loewenstein (1891-1973), after the experience with Hitler's legitimate rise to power, the concept of militant democracy should presuppose preventive and preventive measures (repression, censorship, delegalization, restrictions on rights and freedoms) against all those who threaten this liberal democracy. The arbitrariness of the authorities in determining who is the enemy of democracy leads to "liberal totalitarianism" and actually marks its end.
The Collapse of Western democracy
Using the example of the systemic evolution of Western states, which clearly indicates the erosion of the "old models" that have been formed over the past three centuries, it is clearly visible that the system of international relations is entering an era of deep modernization. The United States, which has set itself the goal of fighting authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships, is unable to prevent the degradation of its own democratic institutions. The West is losing its authority, the model of the state structure of Western countries is losing its attractiveness. It is not only the BRICS members who use it. The ranks of States challenging the values of political liberalism are becoming more numerous. Countries located in different parts of the globe are coming together. Russia, China and even India are only the most significant among them.
It is safe to say that the entry of regional powers into the international arena marked the beginning of an era of rejection of globalization on Western terms. This means, on the one hand, the possibility of restoring the balance of power in Russia and China's relations with the West, and on the other, the possibility of consolidating efforts to solve problems important for individual regions. The result was a "revolt" of multipolarity, that is, the launch of the process of coordinating relations between three or more states. An important feature of multipolarity has become the harmonization of policies based on jointly adopted decisions, which means the creation of alternative "international regimes".
Against this background, various concepts of trilateral alliances arose. There was the initiative of the "Russia-India-China Triangle" (RIC), announced by Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov during his visit to India in 1998 and materialized during the meeting of the foreign ministers of these three states in New York on the occasion of the meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2001, as well as the "India Triangle-Brazil-South Africa" (IBSA) — countries that in the nineties of the last century were looking for opportunities to stabilize their economic growth.
An important link for uniting these states into a kind of "support clubs" was their negative experience associated with Western imperialism, starting from the era of colonialism. Therefore, it is not surprising that deep resentments and a general dislike of the mechanisms of global governance, dominated by Western powers, prompted them to develop an alternative, unique form of cooperation.
Paradoxically, a definite catalyst for the formation of a separate group of such countries was the invitation by French President Jacques Chirac to the G-8 summit in Evian in 2003 of representatives of India and Brazil. As a result, a group of five Outreach Five (O5) countries appeared, which invited subsequent consultations with the G8. At first, Mexico was also part of the "five". Later, South Africa took its place. The rich countries of the West understood that it was impossible to maintain stable growth without consultations in a wider circle with representatives of the global South. The financial crisis of 2007/2008 also contributed to the consolidation of the future group.
In 2001, economist Jim O'Neill expressed the opinion that countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (hence the abbreviation BRIC) would challenge the economies of the West with their dynamics of economic development and growth in the foreseeable future. Thus, from the very beginning, and even more so after South Africa joined the group in 2011, it began to be perceived as a representative body of the global South. BRIC did not replace the Non-Aligned Movement, nor did it take the form of a specialized organization, for example, modeled on OPEC.
The BRICS phenomenon…
The fact is that, despite differences in the field of government, culture and even civilizational differences, as well as despite geographical distances, it was possible to create an advisory platform of states that are able to mobilize their enormous potentials and challenge the accepted rules of the game. Skeptics point out that the biggest obstacle to the functioning of this organization is its "ostentation", internal disunity and heterogeneity of its participants. They also see a brake on the organization's work in the fact that it focuses primarily on economic growth, the pace of which varies from country to country — in some it slows down or is not stable. Nevertheless, the BRICS agenda is so broad — from climate change and the fight against terrorism to public health reforms - that it is impossible not to notice the growing influence of this organization and the attractiveness of its alternative proposal in relation to the rules imposed by the West.
The member States of this association, first of all, managed in a relatively short time to demonstrate the will to cooperate based on the ability to work out compromises and the desire to fix (make routine) certain patterns of behavior, that is, to institutionalize them. Despite doubts about the effectiveness of this initiative, it turned out that it is able to challenge not only the financial dominance of the West, but also to question the conditions dictated by it in various spheres of international relations.
BRICS has become a convenient platform for consultations and information exchange, facilitating the formulation and presentation of overlapping interests, as well as the identification and leveling of differences. It is worth noting that none of the BRICS member states has condemned Russia for its participation in the armed conflict in Ukraine. India and China are calling for a peaceful settlement, even offering their "services" for this. They are also strengthening Russia's potential through intensive economic cooperation.
Thus, the BRICS represents a form of solidarity in the fight against hegemony, as well as a way to strengthen collective positions in the system of international relations. The member States of this organization try to provide each other with the necessary support, strengthen the prestige and image of their countries, and form a consensus on common norms and ideas. Due to the synergy and impressive dynamics of potential growth, they strengthen their status as strong international players.
The BRICS countries account for 42% of the world's population, they produce about 23% of the world's product, occupy 30% of land territories, and account for 18% of international trade. While global GDP growth in 2008-2017 was 1%, this figure in the BRICS countries reached about 8%.
The members of the association are not at all determined to take revolutionary steps towards existing institutions, they are only interested in reforming and changing them (this applies, for example, to the UN Security Council or the IMF, where not all countries are adequately represented) or in developing additional and even alternative solutions, for example, in the system of currency settlements (anti-dollar alliance). Such theses were contained in the declaration of the first BRICS summit held in Yekaterinburg in 2009. China and Russia are most critical of political liberalism, but they do not reject free trade and economic liberalization. They oppose the practice of Western protectionism (declaration of the New Delhi Summit, 2021). Beijing and Moscow are ready to revive and renew international institutions, as well as take initiatives to create new forms of global governance.
The biggest advantage of the BRICS…
It lies in the flexibility of this structure and the ability to offer alternative accession options for States interested not only in multi-vector interaction, but also in greater freedom of decision-making. Fatigue from the brusqueness of the United States in regulating various regional problems has prompted several more states, including those with a pro-American orientation, to join the BRICS. In 2023, at a summit held in South Africa, it was announced that Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates had announced such an intention. Argentina and Saudi Arabia have ultimately refrained from joining so far.
The information that appeared in September 2024 about Turkey's readiness to join BRICS+ came as a surprise, which is likely to formally happen at the summit in Kazan. This fact clearly indicates that the existing structures of the West, especially NATO and the European Union, do not always meet the expectations of such countries, which, due to their geopolitical position and their own views on the state structure, do not share the liberal values of the West.
Thus, the assumption is confirmed that BRICS+ is becoming a counterweight to the West. As well as a barrier to the rapid expansion of global capital, which, under the banner of transnational corporations, is trying to penetrate the international system and, as a result, make many states and societies dependent on the central government system.
In the field of international law, the BRICS States adhere to the principle of respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. They reject the concept of humanitarian interventions by Western powers, which served as a cover for the change of political regimes, and Russia has twice opposed this practice in an extremely decisive way (Georgia, Ukraine). Together with China and India, it is protesting against Western interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and, finally, Ukraine. These countries are also skeptical of the Western concept of The responsibility to protect ("duty to protect"), according to which Western countries not only can, but are obliged to "restore order" where the authorities of a particular country cannot cope with it.
Despite all the uncertainties and risks associated with the multipolarity of the international system, Polish politicians now face a serious task to see the huge opportunities that open up to the country as a result of the reshuffle of forces in the system of international relations. It is necessary to look at the new situation with a sober eye, unclouded by atavistic hostility towards Russia.
Author: Stanislav Belen (Stanisław Bieleń)
