BRICS as an Alternative Rule Maker in Global Governance
The West led by the US has been the main global rule-maker for decades. However the Rest have not been satisfied with global rules made by the West. To think about developing an alternative world order we need to understand the shortcomings of current world order.
The West, led by the US, has been the main global rule-maker for decades. However, the Rest have not been satisfied with global rules made by the West. To think about developing an alternative world order, we need to understand the shortcomings of current world order. The main problems with present international order is not with its values or institutions but with how they are practiced and managed. What the US calls rules-based international order, in practice, has mostly been an order base on the US rules and interests, not based on UN and global rules.
From an strategic point of view, the US+ (by plus I mean the West in general and G7 in particular) have divided Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. After the cold war, the US and its partners tried to engage Russia economically and in energy field to stabilize global energy markets, however they excluded Moscow from European security mechanisms. Russian exclusion and undermining its’ security led to Ukraine conflict. In the Middle East, they excluded Iran for more than four decades from any mechanism and targeted Tehran by economic, political and, indirectly, military means. The US allies in the Middle East also tried to impose their security costs on the US by engaging Washington in regional and domestic conflicts, consequently, destabilized the whole region.
In East Asia, they are doing the same with China. The US benefits from Chinese market and engage with China economically, however, to benefit from Chinese rising power militarily, they need competition with Beijing. That’s why when it comes to security, China is defined as a “threat”. Emphasizing on “Chin threat”, helps the US to limit Beijing economic power and influence and export more weapons to Asian countries neighboring China. There are others who benefit from this approach, too.
Constructing Russia, Iran and China as threats help the US to win the war on budget at home, control allies abroad, and undermine rivals in strategic regions. By fabricating “enemies and rivals”, it’s much easier to pass more than 800-billion-dollar military budgets at home every year and convincing the people that “we are defending the country” against “enemies” (that in fact do not exist).
By outlining “enemies” in regional or global contexts, the US tries to control and influences its allies and partners. Without such an approach, the US allies in Europe, Middle East and East Asia will be much more interested in following strategic autonomy and independent foreign policies. Manipulating allies and partners helps the US to undermine rivals (Russia, Iran and China). And, by concentrating on “threats”, the US rivals will not be able to utilize opportunities and realize their economic, and strategic potentials.
Geographically, the US has been far from regional and global wars and conflicts. For the US establishment, war is a business by other means. More than 2.5 million people work for Military Industrial Complexes in different states in the united states and approximately the same number of people work in military business in the US allies and partners. For that reason, supporting the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and other regions are part of domestic politics and war business. Those who benefit from conflicts and instabilities are not interested in ending them and the business prolonged the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Korean Peninsula, will continue to do so in current and future military conflicts …. The US has been engaged in wars around the world more than any other country because the costs are paid by others. Consequently, North America benefits from peace and prosperity and many parts of the world have been suffering from regional and domestic conflicts.
Politically, double standard is the most important shortcoming. The Unites States preach about rules-based international order, however when we look at the US and its allies’ behavior in Ukraine and the greater Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Palestine etc.), we see that they do not practice what they preach. Violation of human rights, international and humanitarian laws, occupation, invasion, developing nuclear weapons, and even committing genocide are allowed if it is done by the US and/or its allies and partners.
Reliance on destructive power and burden-sharing is another shortcoming of current international order. During the past three decades, the US has not tried enough to engage others (sometimes even her allies) in making important decisions on wars and conflicts. The US makes small coalitions and lunches war by using its destructive power first and then Washington tries to organize an international conference for “peace-building” and “burden-sharing”; and whenever others are not ready to cooperate, and/or the conflicts are too costly, the US leaves the conflicts for others to suffer. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya… were some examples that we witnessed in our lifetime.
The last but not least is Weaponization of finance and business as a new tool in the US Rules-based order that has made many countries, even western companies, dissatisfied. Since direct conflicts have become too expensive and the Western societies are not interested to pay, the US and its allies turn more and more to economic and financial sanctions to impose their positions on “others”. Sanctions have been actually a weapon of mass destruction that have been used against many nations and the most vulnerable parts of societies have suffered more from them.
These are some of the shortcomings of current world order – in fact disorder- that has made many countries, companies and societies dissatisfied and interested in looking for alternatives at regional and global levels.
The alternative order needs to be globally acceptable and respectable. Such an order should be based more on the UN and global values and interests, including nonintervention, respect for international and humanitarian law and human rights; multi-polarity; indivisible security; peaceful development; peaceful coexistence; opposition to unilateral coercive measures; cultural diversity, etc. These values, supported by BRICS member states, are more global and inclusive. However, having common values are not enough. Words should have weight.
Are BRICS member states strong enough to push forward an alternative order based on the UN and global values? Yes.
Militarily, almost all BRICS member states are able to defend themselves. There are three nuclear powers among each grouping (the US, UK and France in G7 and Russia, China and India in BRICS). Though G7 members may have access to more advanced technologies, however these technologies have not helped them to win most of the important wars since Vietnam war. The US failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel, with all advanced weapons provided by the US, have not been able to win a war against a small group in Palestine; and providing advanced technologies for Ukraine by NATO has not helped the county to have important achievements in military field.
Economically, BRICS+ GDP has surpassed G7. In 2023, BRICS share of global GDP was 32% while G7, 29% based on PPP. Based on IMF statistics, in 2024 emerging markets and developing economies (mostly look for reform in global Governance) share of global GDP will be 59% while the share of developed economies will be 40%. BRICS in total have bigger markets, more natural resource and mostly enjoy younger educated populations and greater economic growth rate than advanced developed countries.
Geographically, BRICS+ is more global and more inclusive than G7. Except Japan, the rest of the G7 members are western countries while BRICS include from China in far East to Brazil in South America and from Russia in the North to South Africa and recently, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the center joined the group. BRICS+ has the capacity to create a global network that is very important to makes global rules. However, to play as an alternative rule maker at global governance, there are some shortcomings that BRICS+ need to find a solution for. Some of them include:
Financial mechanisms; Effectiveness of the US/EU sanctions are, I think, mostly because of effectiveness of existing financial institutions that force companies and countries to comply and sometimes over-comply with them. BRICS need to develop its own financial and legal mechanism to be able to defend member states, national companies and other companies that work in/with BRICS member states against the US/EU extraterritorial laws and regulations.
Synergy; The level of cooperation and coordination among BRICS member states in comparison with G7 are not enough yet. As far as BRICS member states follow the US/EU unilateral/multilateral coercive measures against other countries, willingly or not, they strengthen the current US dominated international order and the Rest will not regard it as an alternative.
Connectivity; Connectivity is the third important component of an alternative competitive global governance system. Corridors play a key role in this regard; especially developing corridors in the regions that the US has less control on them like Silk road and North South Corridor connecting India, Arab and African countries to Central Asia, Caucasus and Russia through Iran.
Comprehensive/indivisible security; Security cannot be limited to military and intelligence. Economic, social and cyber security are also very important; BRICS needs to concentrate and invest more on economic and social development in West Asia, Central Asia, Africa and South America. By connecting different developing regions around the world, BRICS can really present an alternative rule maker in global governance based on the UN rules.
Nabi Sonboli, IPIS Senior Expert
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)