BRICS and The Mission Of Reconfiguring The World

An Alternative World Order?

By General Leonid Ivashov
9:59 BeiJing Time,Friday, June 17, 2011
Courtesy Of "The 4th Media"

While the U.S. empire is teetering on financial collapse, General Leonid Ivashov turns his attention to the BRICS and brings into focus their potential for ushering in an alternative world order beyond the range of the dollar dictatorship and, ultimately, the predominance of so-called western values.

*************************************

More than ever over the past decade, geopolitics watchers whose approach to international developments is - in line with the projections made by founders of the school of thought N.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, and A.J. Toynbee - premised in the assumption that distinct civilizations will overshadow countries and ethnic groups as the actual players in global politics can say that reality is generating ample evidence to confirm the concept.

The BRICS summit which convened in China’s Sanya [1] must be credited with being more than a forum of one of the countless political groups popping up across the world as countries combine their efforts in advancing common interests. BRICS – the alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – deserves to be viewed from a wider perspective, considering that every one of the member countries represents a civilizational type which is both particular and highly important on the global scale. As a result, the agreements sealed in Sanya represent a serious bid to reconfigure today’s world, and the Western financial elites which seek primacy based on the US dollar and military might are confronted with a major challenge [2]

It is an open secret that the US largely owes its own prosperity as well as the ability to support countries eager to stay in Washington’s orbit to the privilege of flooding the world with dollars which, like counterfeit money, totally lack material backing. Since the collapse of the USSR, the countries which defied dollar dominance invariably came under heavy pressure and in a number of cases – under devastating attacks. S. Hussein who banned dollar circulation in all spheres of Iraq’s economy including oil trade was displaced and executed and his country was left in ruins. M. Gadhafi started switching Libya’s oil and gas business to gold-backed Arab currencies and air raids against the country followed almost immediately… Tehran had to put its plan to stay dollar-free on hold to avoid falling victim to aggression.

Still, even enjoying unlimited US support, the financial empires built by Rothschilds and Rockefellers are powerless against the five largest civilizations represented by countries accounting for nearly half of the world’s population, especially given the fact that three of them are nuclear-armed and two are already knocking on the nuclear club’s doors. BRICS is clearly immune to forceful pressure, its member countries do not appear vulnerable to color revolutions, and the strategy of provoking and exporting financial crises may easily backfire.

In contrast to the US and the EU, BRICS countries altogether own natural resources sufficient not only to keep their economies afloat in the settings of contracting availability of hydrocarbon fuels, food, potable water, and electric power but also to sustain vigorous economic growth. The shift to national currencies in the financial transactions between the BRICS countries should guarantee an unprecedented level of their independence from the US and from the West in general, but even that is only the tip of the iceberg. A grand geopolitical project is beginning to materialize, and the statement on Libya issued by the BRICS summit reflects the alliances growing determination to respond with convincing political measures if the West’s expansion over the east continues. Besides, Chinese leader Hu Jintao directed biting criticism at Washington over human rights abuses, and the message is sure to resonate considering that at the moment the US is home to over 13 million Chinese whose loyalty to Beijing shows no signs of fading away.

Logically, the steps BRICS will likely be taking in the foreseeable future will include the following:

 Tighter coordination in international politics, economy, and environment protection in the ranks of the alliance;

 Initiatives aimed at drawing into BRICS the countries sharing civilizational foundations with the alliance’s current members;

 The linking of the Muslim world to BRICS and the integration into it of such key Muslim countries as Iran, Syria, Malaysia, and Turkey;

 Synchronization of international politics decision-making within BRICS;

 Efforts to induce an overhaul of global organizations, for example, to reorganize the UN Security Council so as to ensure that the world’s civilizations are represented in it on a permanent basis;

 The establishment of a BRICS common market and economic coordination zone;

 The creation of a BRICS shared security framework.

Two processes are exerting definitive influences over the current global geopolitical dynamics. On the one hand, attempts are made to establish – regardless of the imminent human costs – a unipolar world order propped up by financial and military might. Crises, armed conflicts, and various calamities are provoked with the purpose, as they are supposed to justify instituting a world government, control over which the main financial empires will easily seize. On the other hand, the contours of an alternative world order offering greater fairness, rooted in different philosophies of individual existence, and based on its own economic and social order are increasingly visible. Since individual countries and national governments are defenseless at the face of the global financial centers, civilizations have to take over the leading role in the struggle for the survival of mankind, and the advent of BRICS, along with its potential partner – the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, reflects one of the first initiatives of the kind. Interestingly, due to profound geopolitical reasons the civilizations now moving to the front stage are oriental and carry essentially non-Western values, moral norms, and forms of social organization.

The alternative world order should assign greater importance to moral regards in all types of activities and prescribe collectivist rather than egoistic approaches to global and regional problems. Moderation in the use of natural resources and the taming of consumer appetites would necessarily be built into the model as well as the diversity of world views that will persist despite the pushy propaganda of the new age-type universal religion sanctioning the unipolar world order.

The implementation of the underlying plans of the Sanya summit is contingent upon the BRICS’ being armed with an adequate strategy and a vision of its unique long-term objectives. The mission of formulating them rests with the science of geopolitics. In China, an organization akin to Russia’s Geopolitics Problems Academy has been given an official status. Similar research centers exist in India, the country which has adopted an original geopolitical doctrine.

From Moscow’s standpoint, the geopolitical rise of BRICS is a process which helps Russia both maintain its status in international politics and preserve its statehood and territorial integrity. We therefore wish BRICS success.

General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies. He is member of the Axis for Peace conference.

EndNotes   

[1] “Sanya Declaration (BRICS Leaders Meeting)”, Voltaire Network, 14 April 2011.

[2] “Statement by the IMF Executive Directors Representing Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa on the Selection Process for Appointing an IMF Managing Director”, Voltaire Network, 24 May 2011.

This article is obtained from Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia) through www.Voltairenet.org

Rebalancing The World

The Brazilian/Turkish Initiative

By Richard Falk
May 30, 2010
Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

It may turn out that May 17, 2010 will be remembered as an important milestone on the road to a real new world order. Remember that the phrase ‘new world order’ came to prominence in 1990 after Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait. It was used by George W. H. Bush, the elder of the two Bush presidents, to signify the possibility after the end of the Cold War to find a consensus within the UN Security Council enabling a unified response to aggressive war. The new world order turned out to be a mobilizing idea invoked for a particular situation. The United States did not want to create expectations that it would always be available to lead a coalition against would be breakers of world peace. The whole undertaking of a ‘new world order’ disappeared from diplomacy right after the First Gulf War of 1991. What one wonders now is whether the Brazilian/Turkish effort to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis with the West is not expressive of a new world, this time a ‘real new world order.’

May 17th was the day that the Brazilian/Turkish initiative bore fruit in Tehran, with Iran agreeing to a ten-point arrangement designed to defuse the mounting confrontation with the United States and Israel with regard to its enrichment facilities. The essence of the deal was that Iran would ship 1200 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey for deposit, and receive in return 120 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% for use in an Iranian nuclear reactor devoted to medical research. The agreement reaffirmed support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as acknowledged Iran’s right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which meant the entire fuel cycle, including the enrichment phase.

The bargain negotiated in Tehran closely resembled an arrangement reached some months earlier in which Iran had agreed to turn over a similar amount of low enriched uranium to France and Russia in exchange for their promise of providing fuel rods that could be used in the same medical research reactor. That earlier deal floundered as Iran raised political objections, and then withdrew. The United States had welcomed this earlier arrangement as a desirable confidence-building step toward resolving the underlying conflict, but it wasted no time repudiating the May 17th agreement, which seemed so similar.

Why the discrepancy in the American response? It is true that in recent months Iran has increased its LEU production, making 1200 kg of its existing stockpile amount to 50% of its total rather than the 80% that would have been transferred in the earlier arrangement. Also, there were some unspecified features in the May 17th plan, including how the enriched uranium would be provided to Iran, and whether there would be a system of verification as to its use. In this regard, it would have seemed appropriate if genuinely troubled by this for Washington to request Iran to transfer a larger quantity of LEU and to spell out the details, but this is not what happened.

Instead of welcoming this notable effort to reduce regional tensions, the Brazilian/Turkish initiative was immediately branded as an amateurish irrelevance by the American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. She insisted that the concerns about Iranian nuclear enrichment be left exclusively in the hands of the ‘major powers,’ and immediately rallied China and Russia (in addition to France and the United Kingdom) to support a fourth round of punitive sanctions that were to be presented to the UN Security Council in the near future. It now appears that the five permanent members of the Security Council will support this intensification of sanctions that is expected to call for an arms embargo on heavy weapons, travel restrictions on Iranian officials, a boycott of banks and companies listed as linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and authority to search ships to and from Iran suspected of carrying prohibited items. Such a resolution if implemented would certainly increase tensions in the Middle East without any discouragement of the Iranian nuclear program. Indeed a new round of sanctions would almost certainly increase Iran’s incentives to exercise its full rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and complete its development of the complete fuel cycle as has been previously done by several other parties to the treaty, including Japan, Germany, and The Netherlands.

Given the generally constructive character of the agreement reached in Tehran, the uncompromisingly hostile reaction in Washington can only be understood in one of two ways, neither of which is reassuring. If the U.S. Government, with or without Israeli prodding, had already resolved to impose sanctions, then any development that seems to cast doubt on such a coercive approach would be regarded as unwelcome. The evidence strongly suggests that the United States was determined to go forward with additional sanctions. This made the Brazil/Turkey initiative seem like a deliberate obstruction that was essentially resented as it has been reported that American leaders tried in talk Brasilia and Ankara out of making any independent steps to resolve the crisis.

Perhaps, the more weighty explanation of the hostile response has to do with the changing cast of players in the geopolitical power game. If this reasoning is correct, then the United States angry response was intended to deliver a reprimand to Brazil and Turkey, warning them to leave questions pertaining to nuclear weapons in the hands of what Hilary Clinton called ‘the major powers.’ In effect, the non-Western world should have no say in shaping global security policy, and any attempt to do so would be rebuffed in the strongest possible terms.

Yet the world of 2010 is very different from what it was in the late 20th century. Globalization, the decline of American power, and the rise of non-Western states have changed the landscape. This process has recently accelerated as a result of the world economic crisis, and the difficulties in the Euro zone. As the famous Bob Dylan 1960’s song goes, “The times, they are a-changing.” Recall that it was not long ago that the G-8 was scrapped in favor of the more inclusive G-20. Recently, as well, much attention has been given to the rise of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries. What seems most at stake in this attempt to supersede and nullify the Iran deal is banishing the Brazilian and Turkish intruders from the geopolitical playing field. For the West to claim that the Security Council remains representative of the arrangement of power in 2010 is ludicrous. The identity of the five permanent members has not been altered since 1945, which is a misguided effort to overlook the fundamental shifts in world power that have taken place in recent decades. Both Brazil and Turkey were elected to be non-permanent two year members of the Security Council, which both governments interpret as conferring a special responsibility to work for peace and justice in the world. AS the May 17th agreement shows, these governments possess the political will to make a difference in world politics.

Further, this is not just a childish ploy to grab a few headlines and tweak the old guard. The confrontation with Iran is exceedingly dangerous, agitated by Israel’s periodic threats of launching a military attack and reports of pushing the United States in an escalating direction. Such a strategy of tension could easily produce a devastating regional war, disrupting the world economy, and causing widespread human suffering. Both Brazil and Turkey have strong national interests in working for regional peace and security, and one way to do this is to calm the diplomatic waters with regard to Iran’s contested nuclear program. The fact that Iran seems prepared to go ahead with the agreement, at least if the UN refrains from further sanctions, strongly favors giving the deal a chance to succeed, or at worst, working to make it more reassuring to those countries that suspect Iran of secretly planning to become a nuclear weapons state.

The concern about Iran seems genuine in many quarters, given the inflammatory language sometimes used by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and considering the repressive internal practices in Iran. At the same time, even in this regard the United States leadership has rather dirty hands. While insisting that Iran cannot be allowed to do what several other non-nuclear states have already done in conformity with Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States has acknowledged that it has been engaged in a variety of military activities under Pentagon auspices within Iranian territory. (For confirmation see Mark Mazzeti, “U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast,” NY Times, May 24, 2010). Also, it is impossible to overlook the dispiriting silence that has long insulated Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal from scrutiny and censure, as well as the closely related refusal of the Western powers to back proposals put forward by Egypt and others for a nuclear free Middle East.

Back in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, made headlines by contrasting ‘Old Europe’ (especially France and Germany) that he denigrated as decadent because it opposed the invasion of Iraq, and ‘New Europe’ that was the flourishing wave of the future in Eastern Europe that favored American policy. Now it is Old Europe that is again partnering with the United States, and so restored to the good graces of Washington. In this sense, Brazil and Turkey are being treated as trespassers who refuse to absent themselves from any further engagement in Middle East diplomacy.

Perhaps, we are witnessing the passing of an era in world politics, which has not yet been acknowledged. It is two decades since Charles Krauthammer, writing in Foreign Affairs, declared that “The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies.” The abrupt rejection of the Brazil/Turkey initiative can probably best understood as a nostalgic clinging to the ‘unipolar moment’ long after its reality has passed into history.

Turkey has already demonstrated the enormous gains for itself and the region arising from the pursuit of an independent and activist foreign policy based on resolving conflicts and reducing tensions to the extent possible, with benefits for peace, stability, and prosperity. Not all of its initiatives have met with success. It tried to encourage the world to treat Hamas as a political actor after it fairly won elections in Gaza back in January 2006, but was rebuffed by Washington and Tel Aviv. Similarly, it brought to bear its mediating skill in trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria, only to have the process break down after a series of promising negotiating rounds. Maybe also the Brazil/Turkey initiative will be effectively beaten down, but that would not mean it was not worth trying, or that such governments should not keep trying to supplant war and militarism with diplomacy and cooperative international relations. Outside of Western diplomatic circles it is already widely appreciated that the May 17th agreement reveals the exciting reality of a new geopolitical landscape in which the countries of the global South are now beginning to act as subjects, and no longer content to be mere objects in scenarios devised in the North. At some point this reality might well be christened as the ‘real new world order’!

Richard Falk , Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and author of “Crimes of War: Iraq” and “The Costs of War: International Law, the UN, and World Order after Iraq” Also, current UN Rapporteur for Palestine.