Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

While it is prudent to be cautious, it may also be wise to explore cooperation in those areas where there are shared interests rather than assume that the BRICS and the West are strategic rivals on all fronts. This analysis was first published in the Global Observatory, 30 August 2023. When Jim O’Neill coined the BRIC acronym in 2001, the point he was trying to convey was that the global economic system needed to incorporate the world’s largest emerging economies. His advice fell on deaf ears and in 2009, Brazil, China, India and Russia decided to take matters into their own hands and formed the BRIC grouping. South Africa joined the group in 2010 to form the BRICS. This July, the group held its 15th summit in South Africa, where they decided to add six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. More are likely to join in the future, including countries like Indonesia and Nigeria.  What these countries have in common is a frustration, if not a grievance, about being side-lined to the periphery of the world economy. Together, the BRICS represent approximately 40% of the world’s population. The combined size of their economies are approaching approximately 30% of the world’s GDP, which puts them roughly on par with combined size of the economies of the G7 countries, depending on whether size is measured in GDP or PPP.  More importantly, in the next few decades, the combined size of the BRICS economies will surpass that of the G7. Despite this growing parity, all the members of the BRICS, with the exception of Russia, self-identifies as being part of the Global South, i.e., they feel excluded from a global system dominated by the Global North. Their stated aim is to work towards a future system of global governance where they will have equal political and economic say in global institutions, and where no one state will dominate others. In pursuit of this aim, BRICS countries have established their own development bank, set up their own contingency reserve arrangement, are developing their own payment system, and have started to trade with each other in their own currencies.  The BRICS want to free their economies from the dollar-based international financial system. They feel exposed to United States interest rates that can have a negative effect on their economies, for no domestic reasons. The dollar-based financial system also provides the US with significant advantages in the global economy, which the BRICS see as unfair. They also feel a dollar-based financial system gives the US hegemonic influence in global affairs, through for example, exerting US jurisdiction on all dollar-based trade or investments that flow through US banks or financial institutions.  While the BRICS countries have these clear shared macro-economic interests, many of the members also have competing interests in other domains. China and India are geopolitical rivals in South Asia. Egypt and Ethiopia are at loggerheads over the Nile. Brazil, India, South Africa and the newly-added Argentina are democracies, while other countries in the group are governed by a diverse set of autocratic regimes, which could set up an irreconcilable clash of values on some issues. Many of the members of the BRICS also have close ties to the United States and Europe, including Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, in a televised statement to the nation on the eve of hosting the BRICS summit in South Africa, explained that South Africa remains non-aligned, and he announced that in 2023 the country will also host a major United States-Africa trade meeting and an EU-South Africa summit. South Africa will also host the G20 in 2025, the first in Africa. For many countries, membership of the BRICS does thus not necessarily imply aligning themselves with one global alliance versus another, but rather cooperation in a group around a series of shared interests.  Where does this place the BRICS on the Russian war in Ukraine? The BRICS summit in Johannesburg steered clear of taking a position on the war, other than welcoming mediation aimed at resolving it through dialogue and diplomacy. Some BRICS members like Iran are clearly supporting Russia, while most others have stopped short of either supporting or condemning Russia. For many such as Egypt, the war has adversely affected their economy. Two of the BRICS members, Egypt and South Africa, are part of an African initiative to seek a mediated end to the conflict, which is perhaps the first African initiative to mediate an international conflict. Overall, however, the BRICS have their eyes on the medium- to long-term transformation of the global macro-economic and financial system, and countries like China are probably frustrated that the Russian war in Ukraine has drawn attention away from this larger objective.  Are the BRICS and the West headed for a new cold war? The shift in the center of gravity of the global economy to the East is an unstoppable fact driven by demographics and economic factors like the cost of production. At the same time, Europe and the United States will remain major economic players. In tandem with these changes in the global economy, it is clear that the global political order will become more multipolar, with China, Europe, India, and the United States representing some of the major centers of influence.  In an August 27 article, Jim O’Neil argues that the influence of the BRICS will be determined by their effectiveness, not their size. An expanding BRICS will most likely succeed in helping its members to break free from a dollar-based international financial system, but that will take several decades of incremental change before it reaches a tipping point. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the degree to which your economy is tied to the United States. Many of the BRICS countries, including China, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa all have economies whose prosperity are closely tied to the Unites States. They will thus have an interest in a slow, stable freeing up of the international financial system, and this should give everyone that is prudent time to adapt.  The same logic also applies to changes in global governance architecture. Apart from Russia, all the other BRICS countries have an interest in making sure that changes in the global order are managed at a slow steady pace that does not generate instability. All the BRICS countries, apart from Russia, are also strong supporters of multilateralism, with the United Nations at its center. Many Western countries and BRICS members may thus have more shared interests than the doomsday headlines suggest. While it is prudent to be cautious, it may also be wise to explore cooperation in those areas where there are shared interests rather than assume that the BRICS and the West are strategic rivals on all fronts.

The changing global order has created an enabling environment for the recent spike of takeovers in Africa’s ‘coup belt’ – with Russia and newly assertive middle powers offering themselves as partners to putschists  Coups d’états have returned to Africa. In the 1990s and 2000s, the number of forced takeovers of power on the continent fell; but the figure began to creep back up around 15 years ago. This deterioration has come to particular prominence with the emergence of a ‘coup belt’ spanning from Sudan to Niger (and mostly recently Gabon), where eight coups have taken place in the last three years.   The drivers behind coups range from state fragility to weak economic development. But such factors were also a constant in the decades immediately after the end of the cold war – when Africa experienced fewer coups.  The overlooked factor is the weakening of global order and the coup-enabling international environment it has created. Policymakers should consider, in particular, the role that activist ‘middle powers’ and Russia are now playing in taking advantage of an increasingly lawless international setting. US retrenchment, selective AU enforcement As the United States retrenches to pursue its strategic competition with China, its capacity to invest seriously in both strategic imperatives and values-led foreign policy objectives is coming under strain. With the essential taking precedence over the good, upholding democracy in Africa has slipped down the list of America’s strategic priorities.  Africa’s own system for deterring takeovers has also weakened considerably. The African Union’s  enforcement of its coup-prohibiting rules grew increasingly inconsistent during the same period, during which time it began to enforce only selectively, due to the whims of powerful AU member states. This started with the coup in Mauritania in 2008, and was followed by President Sisi’s post-coup election in Egypt, and more recently by coups in Chad and Sudan. The interregnum and the rise of the middle powers To paraphrase Gramsci, the international rules-based order has not yet died so the new order cannot be born. The world thus finds itself in an interregnum in which the rules-based order is fraying but where the next iteration of global order is yet to emerge.  Aware that the world around them is changing, African leaders worry that a new version of cold war is developing, and that they are at risk of being forced to choose a side – America or China. But a cold war-style scenario is not a given, which means African leaders may be preparing for the wrong thing. This risks obscuring a major challenge created by the interregnum: the rise of assertive middle powers.    With global order in flux, middle powers seek to maximise their sovereignty and expand their influence. For middle powers in the Gulf, to Egypt and Turkey, those twin ambitions translate into treating the Horn of Africa as their near abroad. Russia surges into the coup belt sharing the same middle power motivations, but it differs on one count: desire to undermine the West. The opportunity generated by coups determines where Russia chooses to engage. But pursuing its rivalry with the West provides a second motive for Russia’s focus on the western half of the coup belt: it works to push back the strongest European influence, namely France’s presence in francophone Sahel states.  Naturally, Russia’s and middle powers’ engagement in Africa pre-dates the interregnum, but the opportunity presented by the evolving global order supercharges their interventions. Russia and middle powers exploit US retrenchment and eroding AU norms by offering themselves as partners to putschists. Seeing the opportunity to gain influence in power-grabs, they move in and back their preferred horse. These include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey throughout the Horn of Africa, where Turkey is more focused on Somalia; the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are more focused on Sudan. In the Sahel, Turkey is tentatively exploring economic and security cooperation in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali. Russia plays a role across the Horn of Africa and Sahel sections of the coup belt; its deepest footprint is in Mali and Burkina Faso. All active middle powers are eyeing the prize of Libya as part of the strategic rationale for getting involved in its bordering countries.  With increasing numbers of autocratic political entrepreneurs in the coup belt bidding for power, the opportunities for engagement multiply. Middle powers – and Russia, to a lesser degree – place serious political and financial capital behind their engagement as well as no-questions-asked security support. This creates outsize impact compared to the mid-level Western official engagement and more conditional provision of financial and security support. Even though they wield greater firepower, the abilities of middle powers’ diplomatic and security institutions have yet to catch up with the demands placed on them by their political masters’ robust will to act. The impact can be of the bull in the china shop variety.  Russia and middle powers create an enabling environment for Africa’s autocrats by making their international and African-regional isolation impossible. The previous, unipolar period allowed the US, with European flanking, all behind an African lead (generally the AU), to deploy carrots and sticks while corralling other external powers. But middle powers’ assertive go-it-alone policies hamper the formation of a critical mass of international support to disincentivise rule-breaking.  How to navigate this new landscape African leaders grasp that changing global order is creating greater interest in Africa. They encourage new partners as a welcome means of diversification beyond the former confined choice of the US, old colonial powers such as France and Britain, or China. But the impact of Russian and middle power engagement in the coup belt demonstrates the pitfalls of such diversification. Rather than creating an additionality of options for Africa’s benefit, Russian and middle power engagement strengthens African autocrats and feeds state destabilisation.  There will be no return to the unipolar US-led order; no American linchpin to hold together the rules-based order against coups in Africa. Even if the US were to reallocate political capital to this end, the interregnum phase has already created shifts in global order of a magnitude that makes assertive middle powers and Russia near impossible to contain.  Nor can muscular engagement by France in its former colonies – the Sahel swathe of the coup belt – fill the US leadership gap. As much as France struggles to retain its primus inter pares role among European powers in the Sahel, the fever-pitch of anti-French sentiment in its former Sahel colonies constrains its efficacy.  When encouraging all-comers to support development in their countries, African leaders may have lingered too little on the drawbacks of Russia’s and middle powers’ engagement. If their fear was of Africa’s instrumentalisation by China and the US, then Russia and middle powers are not creating greater African agency. As it stands, they simply add to the number of actors instrumentalising Africa. That is the true wake-up call sounded by the Niger coup.

The apparent assassination of Yevgeny Prigozhin in the crash of his private jet between Moscow and St. Petersburg represents an inflection point in Russian-African relations. Prigozhin, as leader of the notorious Wagner Group, had been the point man for Russia in Africa since Wagner first began operations on the continent in 2017. More than a single entity, the Wagner Group is an amalgamation of shell companies deploying paramilitary forces, disinformation and political interference in Ukraine, Syria and Africa. Its leaders have been sanctioned by 30 countries for the group’s destabilising activities.  Prigozhin was believed to be living on borrowed time after he led a short-lived insurrection – part of a power struggle with the Russian military leadership – in June. While he quickly backed down, the action embarrassed Russian president Vladimir Putin and triggered chatter that Putin’s perceived weakness would embolden other challengers to his authority. Prigozhin advanced Russian influence in Africa by propping up politically isolated and unpopular authoritarian leaders. As a result of Wagner’s support, these leaders were beholden to Russian interests. Wagner’s backing took a variety of irregular forms, like paramilitary forces, disinformation campaigns, election interference, intimidation of political opponents, and arms for resources deals. Prigozhin referred to this interlocking set of influence operations as “The Orchestra”, which he conducted. Wagner deployed forces to Libya, the entral African Republic, Mali and Sudan. It has also been interfering in domestic politics and information narratives in some two dozen African countries. I research the role of governance in advancing security and development as well as the influence of external actors in Africa, including Russia. Democratic transitions and institutions of democratic accountability are among my interests. The breadth of Russian political interference in Africa points to Russia’s strategic objectives for the continent. It aims to secure a foothold in North Africa and the Red Sea, undermine western influence, normalise authoritarianism and displace the UN-based international system. None of these objectives are about making Africa more prosperous or stable. Rather, the continent is primarily a theatre to advance Russia’s geostrategic interests. Attempting to maintain the lucrative and influential operations of the Wagner Group in Africa after Prigozhin’s death will make it hard for Russia to deny that it uses irregular and illegal actions to extend its influence. Maintaining Wagner without Prigozhin The Wagner model has seen Russian influence expand rapidly in Africa. That’s despite Russia investing very little on the continent. Most of Wagner’s costs have been covered through cash and mineral concessions provided by host regimes. By some accounts revenues from mining operations in the Central African Republic and Sudan generate billions. It is no surprise that Russia would want to keep the Wagner enterprise going. Tellingly, on the day of Prigozhin’s plane crash, deputy defence minister Yunus-Bek Yevkurov was in Libya to reassure warlord Khalifa Haftar of Russia’s ongoing support. Yevkurov later visited the military juntas in Mali and Burkina Faso to deliver the same message. The question will be whether the Russian military has the capacity. Russia needs soldiers in Ukraine. So, it may not have experienced fighters to spare in Africa. It is also an open question whether Wagner troops will agree to sign contracts with the Russian defence ministry, given the way their leader was dispatched. The Russian government would also need to recreate the multidimensional dealings that made Wagner’s operations effective in shoring up client regimes. For years, Russia has promoted hybrid warfare – the fusion of conventional and subversive tools. Synchronising this across multiple African contexts will require greater dexterity than the Russian security bureaucracy is likely capable of, however. Finally, Russia has benefited from the plausible deniability that Wagner has provided while doing Putin’s bidding. In every context in which Wagner forces have been deployed, they have been credibly accused of human rights abuses including rape, torture and extrajudicial killings. In Mali, Wagner is linked to more than 320 incidents of human rights abuses and hundreds of civilian deaths. Wagner has also been accused of driving away local communities where it has secured mining concessions, effectively annexing African territory. By directly taking over the mantle of Wagner operations in Africa, the Russian government can no longer claim ignorance or impotence to do anything about these unlawful and destabilising actions. Russia has largely escaped serious reputational costs for Wagner’s thuggish activities in Africa. But this will change when it owns the repressive tactics Wagner has deployed. Reassessments in Africa What of Wagner’s African clients? Leaders of these regimes have come to power through extraconstitutional means. They restrict opposition voices and media. They are isolated internationally. Simply put, they cannot survive without Moscow’s support. So, we should not expect a change in receptivity from the military juntas in Mali, Sudan, Burkina Faso, the co-opted leadership in the Central African Republic, or the Libyan warlord, Haftar. What will be telling is the reaction from other governments on the continent. Some will continue to see value in flirting with Russia as a way of hedging against international criticism. Russia’s reach in Africa may be exceeding its grasp, however. There is a growing awakening on the continent of how little Russia actually brings to Africa in terms of investment, trade, jobs creation or security. Its deployment of mercenaries, disinformation, political interference and arms for resources deals mean it actually amplifies instability on the continent. The symbolism of this was vividly brought home in the days before the Russia-Africa Summit at the end of July. Russia pulled out of the Black Sea grain deal that had enabled 33 million tonnes of grain to get from Ukraine to Africa and other parts of the world. The deal had eased supply chain restrictions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Not only did Russia scuttle the deal: it bombed the Ukrainian ports that were exporting the grain, wasting 180,000 tonnes in the process. The contempt Putin showed for African interests by this action was hard to ignore. This disregard, coupled with recognition that Russia offers relatively little to Africa, contributed to only 17 African heads of state attending the St. Petersburg summit. By comparison 43 African heads of state attended the Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi in 2019. The way that Prigozhin was eliminated must also give African leaders pause. Putin speaks often of his desire to create a new international order. Russia’s lawlessness at home and abroad is bringing into sharp focus what his world order would look like. And that’s not a vision many African leaders share.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The Wagner Group has maintained an active and controversial presence in Africa since 2017, where it has contributed to regional instability, countered Western influence, and exacerbated human rights abuses. Despite the death of its figurehead in 2023, the emergence of the Africa Corps indicates that Russia’s covert geopolitical strategies in the region will persist. The Wagner Group has gained significant attention since its involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a paramilitary organisation with deep ties to the Russian government, Wagner’s operations blur the lines between state and non-state actions. This ambiguity challenges traditional frameworks of accountability and international law, complicating efforts to address its activities on the global stage. Ukraine is not the group’s only violent contribution to the destabilization of peaceful nations. Wagner has maintained an active presence across Africa since 2017, where it has been accused of numerous human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and targeting civilians. The bulk of these activities have unfolded in the Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali. The Wagner Group’s international impact is multifaceted, affecting strategic, economic, and humanitarian outcomes. Functioning as a tool for Russian geopolitical ambitions, the group has contributed to regional instability in Sub-Saharan Africa, countered Western influence by infiltrating anti-Western and anti-colonial movements and sentiments online, and raised significant concerns regarding human rights and international law. In many of its areas of operations, Wagner’s presence has served as a catalyst for conflict escalation, and regional instability. In CAR and Mali, for instance, the group’s presence has been linked to increased violence and human rights abuses and undermining international and regional efforts towards peace and stability. The death of Yevgeny Prigozhin, known as “Putin’s Chef,” on 23 August 2023, came two months after his march on Moscow, sparked by dissatisfaction with the Russian Ministry of Defence’s actions in Ukraine. It is likely that many of the governments and regimes in Africa that “benefitted” from Wagner’s services were deeply concerned about Prigozhin’s death. At the same time, many may have been relieved, hoping that his death might change the brutal and terror-driven campaign of violence that had plagued the Sahel region at the group’s hands. Additionally, Wagner has provided Russia with a platform to pursue state interests through covert operations. Until the invasion of Ukraine, this allowed Putin to maintain plausible deniability regarding association with Wagner and its controversial activities. In addition to military engagements, Prigozhin orchestrated extensive propaganda and disinformation campaigns across Africa. These operations bolstered Russia’s influence in countries that Wagner operated in, while obscuring the ability for international bodies and states to accurately assess and address the allegations of human rights abuses that came alongside Wagner’s deployments. In CAR, the Wagner Group was deployed in 2018 to provide protection for mines, support the government, and offer personal protection for President Faustin-Archange Touadéra. However, Wagner’s role in CAR far exceeded resource and government protection. The group actively engaged in military operations alongside members of the armed forces, leading to numerous accusations of serious human rights violations, including summary executions and sexual and gender-based violence. Despite these allegations, the group continued to receive support from the CAR government. The media outlet, Corbeau News, reported that President Touadéra had authorised Wagner’s sexual violence. This was evidenced in one of Wagner’s most extreme acts in CAR, which occurred in April 2022 when members of the group entered a military hospital in Bangui and sexually assaulted women and new mothers in the maternity ward. One source within the military administration of CAR stated that it was the third time members from the group had entered the maternity ward and assaulted women. In 2021, reports surfaced that Wagner would deploy to Mali to combat a rebel insurgency. This announcement sparked outrage from France, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, who warned Mali against partnering with the group. Similar to its operations in CAR, Wagner’s presence in Mali has been marked by violence and instability. In April 2022, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing the massacre of 300 civilians during a joint military operation involving Malian armed forces and the Wagner Group from 27 March to 31. A key feature of Wagner’s presence has been countering Western influence in strategic regions. The provision of military support to governments and groups engaged in activities against Western-supported entities has been notably destructive. This dynamic was evident in Mali, where in 2022, an extensive disinformation campaign on social media, linked to Wagner, exploited anti-France and anti-imperialist sentiments to undermine the French presence. The campaign, along with “multiple obstructions” from Mali’s military junta led to France announcing the withdrawal of its military forces from Operation Barkhane in Mali in February 2022. Following the announcement, Malians celebrated in the capital, Bamako, and held signs stating, “Thanks Wagner” and “France is a terrorist nation.” Wagner-linked actors then continued their disinformation efforts, attempting to shift blame onto France following the discovery of a mass grave near a military base that French forces had recently vacated. Satellite imagery released by France later revealed Wagner Group mercenaries arranging the bodies in the mass grave. The bodies were believed to have come from a joint-military operation between the Malian armed forces and the Wagner Group in the same area in the days prior. In Africa, Wagner’s operations have been closely linked to the control and exploitation of natural resources. In countries such as CAR and Sudan, Wagner has secured access to valuable resources such as gold and diamonds. Recently, investigative efforts by groups like All Eyes on Wagner have revealed that the group has circumvented sanctions by exporting timber from CAR through Cameroon, in addition to operating an extensive blood diamond trading network. The Wagner Group’s involvement in these countries highlights the group’s role in bolstering autocratic regimes in exchange for strategic and economic benefits. Prigozhin’s march on Moscow in June 2023 had already fuelled significant speculation about the group’s future. Nonetheless, the group’s strategic plan to support autocratic governments, orchestrate foreign interference, and expand influence remains both politically and economically appealing to Moscow. The potential dissolution of the Wagner Group would pose a significant challenge and require the rebuilding of established relationships in countries where it has operated. The emergence of the Africa Corps, a new organisation seemingly poised to assume many of Wagner’s operations, emphasises the strategic and economic value these activities provide for Russia. With the announcement in January 2024 that 100 Russian soldiers from the Africa Corps would deploy to Burkina Faso, it is clear that the Wagner model is one that will continue.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском A review of the African strategy of major powers considering the continent's growing global importance in economic, demographic, and even political terms. A few days ago, the United Nations General Assembly approved the so-called “Pact for the Future”, an action that the organization's Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, described as "a historic moment" because it will allow "a step forward towards a more effective and sustainable networked multilateralism”. In the corridors of the United Nations, intensive work has been carried out for more than nine months to find the greatest possible consensus, and although the document (a 42-page agreement outlining 56 actions in areas ranging from nuclear, climate, and digital issues to human rights) was not put to a vote in the Assembly, it is known to have the support of most nations in the world, with the exception of Russia and some countries like Belarus, Iran, North Korea, and Eritrea. In Africa, 54 countries rejected Russian amendments aimed at halting the dialogue around this document, something perhaps facilitated by the possibility that a second permanent seat for Africa in the United Nations Security Council could soon be consolidated. The United Nations, and therefore multilateralism, are going through a difficult time: Ukraine, Gaza, or Lebanon bear witness to this. The right to veto in the Security Council turns any serious initiative to stop conflicts around the world into a joke. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called for the reform of the organization to ensure that it becomes truly functional and democratic, in addition to demanding a well-deserved central role for the continent in conflict resolution and modern geopolitics. So, calls for multilateralism are heard everywhere, which basic definition, to put it simply, is when more than three countries agree to move together towards a specific goal, in a context where the world's geopolitics continues to function, breathe, and evolve like any living organism. This is also true in Africa.  China In early September, more than fifty African leaders (a record number) traveled to meet with President Xi Jinping at a new Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), the major China-Africa gathering that began in the year 2000. As in each of the previous editions, President Xi announced a significant financial aid package, also outlining the main areas of future cooperation: $51 billion in loans, investments, and assistance for Africa over the next three years. Although this amount surpasses the $40 billion committed in 2021, it remains lower than the $60 billion promised in 2015 and 2018. The Africans also attended the meeting with a message: the trade balance needs to be adjusted. In 2023, Chinese exports to Africa reached $170 billion, while imports from the continent amounted to $100 billion, a significant difference that leaders like South African President Ramaphosa did not hide upon his arrival in Beijing. While China sends manufactured products, agricultural and industrial machinery, as well as vehicles, its imports from Africa are mainly concentrated in raw materials (oil, gas, metals, and minerals). China continues to be involved in initiatives such as the “Belt and Road Initiative”, the modernized Silk Road, and the construction of major infrastructure projects. Russia Russia's presence in Africa is not new. They were already in places like Angola during the Cold War and supported the struggles for independence in the 1960s, but perhaps now their actions on the continent are receiving more attention. With almost the entire world questioning its invasion of Ukraine, Russians find in Africa, especially in the Sahel countries, a point from which to secure mineral and economic resources and, at the same time, create tension and concern for the Europeans. Their support for military junta coups in countries like Mali, Niger, or Burkina Faso, or their influence in regimes like that of the Central African Republic, with a business model that exchanges security for mineral resources, for example, has shaken up the African geopolitical map. Their promises of cooperation in satellite or nuclear technology, still up in the air, captivate governments that have distanced themselves from the West and have chosen them as partners in recent years. The European Union In Europe, in my opinion, we continue struggling to understand how to approach our relationship and alignment with our African friends and neighbors. Individually, each country is making its efforts: Italy with the Mattei Plan, France repositioning itself after withdrawing from the Sahel countries, Denmark with a strong commitment, and now Spain, working on a new strategy of its own that we will learn about very soon. The migration factor and the colonial legacy continue to be issues that influence the relationship with African governments and even with civil societies. In geopolitical terms, Europe has given a name to its aspirations of influence: the Global Gateway. The undertaking is so vast and its objectives so ambitious that it deserves one, or even several, separate articles. Not only do I promise this, but I also share that, from Casa África, we will soon bring its representatives to the Canary Islands to explain what the Global Gateway entails, what funds it has, and how we, from the Archipelago, can act as a bridge with them. United States The U.S. elections are approaching, but before leaving office, Joe Biden will visit Africa (specifically Angola) for the first time in his term. This is a clear gesture towards the continent, which at least partially makes up for the fact that the previous president, Donald Trump, not only never visited it even once, but also left behind that infamous phrase caught by an open microphone in which he referred to African countries as “shitholes”. Faced with the overwhelming Chinese presence and the concerning Russian influence in the Sahel, many voices in the United States have called for a genuine diplomatic and economic effort on the continent. The choice of Angola is not trivial: the Americans are heavily invested in a strategic project crucial for the geopolitics of energy, the Lobito Corridor, a railway line that will connect the Angolan port of Lobito (on the Atlantic) with the city of Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The goal: the transit of strategic minerals for the North American and European markets, which is key to reducing dependence on China for the so-called critical minerals (lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese, or rare earth elements). Türkiye For a few years now, Türkiye has had a very clear objective of increasing its presence and influence in Africa. In the last two decades, Türkiye has nearly quadrupled the number of its embassies in Africa: from 12 in 2002 to 44 in 2022. Its flag carrier, Turkish Airlines, connects Istanbul with 62 African destinations. At the same time, it has achieved diplomatic reciprocity: 38 African countries have established embassies in Ankara. All of this is reflected in trade volumes, which increased from $5.4 billion in 2003 to over $41 billion in 2022 (although they dropped slightly to $37 billion in 2023). For example, in 2011, President Erdogan was the first international leader to dare to set foot in Somalia in 20 years. Now, Türkiye has a military base in Mogadishu and oil and gas exploitation agreements. It is also the fourth-largest arms supplier to sub-Saharan Africa: helicopters and, above all, the famous Bayraktar drones have been sold to many African countries. And, finally, the Turks are also making significant strides in infrastructure construction (more than 1,800 projects in the last 20 years, including the modernization of Tanzania's railways, for example). A noteworthy effort, but obviously still far behind the Chinese and Russians. Published in Kiosco Insular, eldiario.es, and Canarias7 on September 27 and 28, 2024.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Ushering in a multipolar order requires a streamlined and coherent political agenda – not unfocused expansion.  The 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, concluded last week with the usual grand declaration of the group’s commitments, concerns and aspirations.  Many media headlines, particularly in Western countries, focused on how the summit and BRICS generally, symbolised Moscow’s ability to circumvent the fallout of sanctions by turning to the global south. In this way, BRICS is indirectly viewed as a threat to Western efforts to isolate Russia, weaken its power projection capabilities, and end its invasion of Ukraine.  Western governments and analysts often struggle to frame BRICS’s evolution beyond a binary, zero-sum narrative in which the group is a key geopolitical challenge to the Western-dominated international order. This interpretation places the forces of democracy and liberal political values in one camp and authoritarian governments in another, with certain developing countries caught in the middle, trying to play one side off the other for their own benefit.  There is some merit to these kinds of headlines. Russia and China are primarily major status-quo powers. Both have been permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members since its establishment. Moscow was the ‘other pole’ in the international order for most of the 20th century, a position Beijing is working towards. And the foreign policy goals of both place them in confrontation with the United States and its Western allies.  BRICS may be on a path towards unnecessary substantive bloat, and away from its core business.  So, are these two countries in a position to champion the global south’s cause, and why haven’t more representative bodies like the Non-Aligned Movement played a more prominent role?  The preoccupation with Russia and China detracts from BRICS’s broader, underlying geopolitical project – the need for global south countries to reform and shape the international order’s future direction on their own terms.  These include greater representation and agency in global policy- and decision-making bodies and facilitating greater freedom to trade, invest and borrow money outside the Western-dominated financial system. They also include a more just and equitable global power balance that reflects modern realities.  In pursuing these aims, BRICS countries have made steady progress on developing a shared strategic agenda for increased cooperation across various policy domains.  The Kazan summit’s 32-page outcomes declaration covers almost everything from reforming the UNSC and Bretton Woods institutions to climate change, biodiversity and conservation. It also covers challenges from global crises, conflicts and terrorism and a suite of economic development, health, education, science and cultural exchange-related issues.  A group of democracies, autocracies and theocracies speaking with one voice on human rights and democracy is absurd.  The group’s ballooning cooperation agenda may indicate progress. But it could also signify the limits of its diverse members’ ability to agree on ‘hard’ political and security matters central to the core business of reforming the international order.  The expansion of BRICS’ substantive agenda and its membership dilutes its primary purpose and reinforces the binary, zero-sum Western narrative its members constantly try to shed.  Tangible, albeit gradual, progress on establishing intra-BRICS institutions and processes such as the Interbank Cooperation Mechanism, the cross-border payment system and its independent reinsurance capacity suggest that BRICS’ clout and credibility are growing.  These initiatives could enable members to pursue their international economic objectives without the constraints and transactional costs associated with traditional financial bodies like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Ideally, this would improve their relative positions of global power and influence, and help deliver a more multipolar international order.  In contrast, deepening cooperation on big cat conservation, while important, doesn’t serve that purpose. Nor does facilitating youth exchanges on sports and healthy lifestyles or championing a BRICS alliance for folk dance. Including these kinds of initiatives in BRICS’ growing agenda detracts from its core objectives.  A streamlined agenda would divert attention from the contradictions and geopolitical manoeuvring of BRICS’ members.  More worryingly, this suggests that BRICS’ diverse constellation of member states is pursuing the path of least resistance – expanding their cooperation in every direction, hoping something eventually sticks.  Instead of doubling down on hard strategic questions about a shared conception of multipolarity, and the steps necessary to reform global governance and security institutions, BRICS seems to be heading for greater expansion and formalisation. And with that come the risks, challenges and institutional dependencies that have led to the stagnation and ineffectiveness plaguing more established international organisations in recent years.  Perhaps the group’s core members recognise that they have very different ideas of what constitutes multipolarity. Russia (and China to an extent) envisage much more than global institutional reforms, focusing instead on reimagining international norms and core principles.  These differences are also reflected in BRICS’ expanding membership. It seems Russian and Chinese enthusiasm has been curbed by other founding members, who prefer a ‘partner country’ model for future growth. This contrasts with the full membership offers to Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE in 2023. (Argentina’s new political administration declined, and the Saudis have remained non-committal.)    Most worrying, however, is BRICS’ preoccupation with promoting democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is no doubt that these terms are increasingly politicised and rife with double standards – among developing nations with mixed political systems and traditionally liberal, Western democracies. However, for BRICS to meaningfully champion normative values, its members must at least attempt to commit to common political governance systems in their own countries.  Having a group of partner nations composed of progressive constitutional democracies and closed repressive autocracies and theocracies attempting to speak with one voice on promoting human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms is absurd. It reeks of empty political rhetoric at best, and Orwellian double-speak at worst.  This again dilutes BRICS’ key messages, undermines its important core business, and detracts from the significant progress being made towards a common strategic agenda.  BRICS primary goal moving forward should be to trim the fat.  A streamlined annual working agenda would divert attention away from its individual member states' contradictions and geopolitical manoeuvring. With a focus on addressing the international system’s failures, institutional reform and greater representation for global south countries in policy- and decision-making bodies could be prioritised.  This seems unlikely though, if this year’s summit is anything to go by. By following the path of least resistance, BRICS may be setting itself on a course towards increasing and unnecessary substantive bloat, and away from its core business.  Only time will tell if certain members are willing to be more assertive and correct course before they are too far down a path impossible to pivot away from. 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The world economy is underperforming as a result of tight monetary policies, weaker global trade, a slowing Chinese economy and uncertainty around the US election. An escalation of conflict in the Middle East could increase uncertainties, harming inflation reduction efforts and hurting growth. It has been over a year since the Hamas-led attack on Israel. Israel’s response in Gaza has resulted in widespread destruction and significant loss of life. The conflict has since expanded beyond Gaza, involving the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian strikes targeting Israel. In addition to the awful humanitarian cost of the conflicts, the war and the possibility of its further expansion pose significant repercussions for the global economy. This article discusses three potential ways in which the current conflict and a wider conflict in the Middle East could affect the global economy. Increased geopolitical uncertainties First and foremost, an escalation of the Middle East conflict could lead to greater geopolitical uncertainties. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the geopolitical risk (GPR) and geopolitical acts (GPRA) indices (Caldara and Iacoviello, 2022) – these are text-based measures of heightened uncertainties due to adverse geopolitical events such as wars, terrorism and international tensions. (See this article for more discussion about these measures.) Following the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023, both the overall GPR index and its ‘war and terror acts’ component spiked strongly, to a level higher than that seen during the ISIS attack in Paris in November 2015. Both indices eased significantly in the months following October 2023 despite the continuation of the conflict. But they jumped again following Israel’s attack on southern Lebanon in September 2024. As of mid-October 2024, the GPR and GPRA remain, respectively, 21% and 35% higher than their historical averages.   What might be the consequences of such elevated levels of risk? Research tells us that higher geopolitical risk raises oil prices (Mignon and Saadaoui, 2024). It also reduces global investment and increases inflation (Caldara et al, 2022). Greater geopolitical risk has a significantly negative impact on business and consumer confidence in several advanced economies (de Wet, 2023). This is because consumers typically cut non-essential spending and businesses postpone investment decisions during turbulent times. This reduces firm-level investment, particularly for businesses with higher initial investment costs and greater market power (Wang et al, 2023). Higher geopolitical risks also reduce global trade and financial flows, causing greater volatility in capital flows in emerging markets (Kaya and Erden, 2023). Oil production cuts and higher energy prices The second way in which the Middle East conflict could affect the global economy is its impact on energy prices, both directly through production cuts and indirectly through greater uncertainties. In response to Israel’s actions against its neighbours, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could reduce oil production to penalise countries supporting Israel. A similar action in the 1970s led to a significant jump in oil prices, which contributed to years of stagflation, with higher global inflation and recessions in major economies. Before Israel's attack on Lebanon at the end of September, oil prices had been declining due to falling demand, particularly from China. On the supply side, oil production had increased in Canada and the United States, countering the production cuts by OPEC, and Saudi Arabia was expected to increase oil production from December. But the situation quickly reversed following Israel’s attack on Lebanon. Oil prices jumped by nearly $10 per barrel within a week, before easing by around $5 per barrel. While the immediate oil price impact of Israel’s attack has mostly faded, the potential for higher oil (and other energy) prices still poses a risk to global inflation and economic activity (Liadze et al, 2022). To provide further context for the potential scale of this impact, we can show what would happen if oil and gas prices were to remain $10 higher for two years than the baseline levels projected in the Summer Global Economic Outlook from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), using NIESR’s Global Macroeconometric Model (NiGEM). The results demonstrate that the $10 rise in oil and gas prices increases inflation by around 0.7 percentage points in major economies in the first year (see Figure 2). The impact is higher in China, where the economy relies relatively more on oil imports for its strong manufacturing industries. The inflationary pressures persist for two years despite central banks’ efforts to curb inflation by increasing interest rates.   The effect of higher oil and gas prices on real GDP is shown in Figure 3. In the scenario described above, GDP would fall by 0.1-0.2% in major economies immediately. Partly due to higher interest rates, real GDP would continue to weaken for three years following the shock. After this, economic activity would start to return to base levels as oil and gas prices revert to their levels in the baseline forecast.   Increased shipping costs and supply chain disruptions A wider conflict in the Middle East could also affect the economy through higher shipping costs and supply chain disruptions. Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea in late 2023 showed that such disruptions can have a huge impact on global trade through shipping, which comprises 80% of world trade volume. Following the rocket attacks by the Houthi rebels, some commercial shipping re-routed from the Red Sea to the Cape of Good Hope, leading to significant delays in travel times and increased freight costs. As a result, the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index – a measure of sea freight rates – rose by around 260% in the second quarter of 2024 with additional disruptions to supply chains. Our analysis shows that an increase of 10 percentage points in shipping cost inflation can lead to import prices rising by up to around 1% and consumer inflation increasing by around 0.5% in OECD countries. As Figure 4 shows, the impact of shipping costs on inflation shows its full effects over six quarters. This means that inflationary concerns could be with us for the next year and a half as a result of higher shipping costs that may emerge from any possible escalation of the Middle East conflict.   Wider economic implications and policy responses While rising geopolitical risk and increased oil and shipping costs can each individually exert upward pressure on inflation and may slow down economic activity in the global economy, the combined impacts are likely to be greater. Countries with stronger trade and financial ties to the Middle East and those that rely heavily on oil imports as an input for domestic production would be most affected. On the monetary policy front, central banks may have to take a more hawkish stance in response to rising inflationary pressures from the Middle East conflict. This could lead to higher interest rates, which would further dampen economic activity, particularly in an environment where there are already recessionary concerns in some major economies. Beyond its immediate economic implications, an escalation of the Middle East conflict could trigger large-scale displacement of people, which would increase economic and social pressures on neighbouring countries. Many countries may also have to increase their military spending in response to growing regional tensions. Given that public debt levels are already elevated in many countries due to successive shocks to the global economy over the past decade, any additional defence spending could come at the expense of public infrastructure investments that would otherwise boost productivity growth. Overall, the global economy is already underperforming as a result of the lagged effects of tight monetary policies, weaker global trade, a slowing Chinese economy and uncertainties surrounding the upcoming US election and possible changes to US trade policy. A potential escalation of conflict in the Middle East could exacerbate the situation by increasing uncertainties, harming efforts to bring down inflation and reducing global GDP growth. Over the medium and long term, it could further damage the global economy, with the possibility of refugee crises as well as increased defence spending, making the effects more complex and longer lasting. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском In Rio de Janeiro, world leaders are gathering for a historic summit. The G20, the symbol of global governance, is at a crossroads. The planet is waiting. The climate, economic and geopolitical challenges are urgent.Since yesterday, at the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, under the strategic engagement of Russia, Foreign MinisterSergey Lavrov, guided by the instructions of President Vladimir Putin, has been playing a key role in discussions on combating inequality, hunger and poverty, as well as reforming global institutions. Together with the BRICS Alliance, innovative initiatives are being put forward to strengthen economic cooperation and global stability, including sustainable development projects and strategic trade agreements. This Summit is proving to be a crucial platform for addressing pressing global challenges such as security and climate change, while potentially influencing global governance and international relations in the years to come.Geopolitical context of the summit, the madness of the Biden administrationAs the G20 group meets in Rio de Janeiro to reconcile the positions of the balance of power in the global chessboard, the recent antithetical decisions of the United States, held on the very eve of the summit and supported by France and Great Britain, are once again dispersing the positions to be reconciled. The Western minority, accustomed to living off the labor of the planetary majority, is lamentably trying to redefine the dynamics of the international community in its favor, by authorizing deep strikes on Russian territory. This approach, adopted by the Biden administration, reflects both madness and a vision of resistance in the face of the potential defeat of Ukraine and NATO allies against Russia, while seeking a reaction that could exacerbate global tensions. This audacious geopolitical calculation, perceived as a last-ditch attempt to consolidate Ukrainian positions before a potential change in American leadership, marks a turning point towards a dangerous escalation of hostilities. It can also be compared to a very big step taken towards the start of the Third World War.The 2024 G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro is therefore taking place in a complex geopolitical context, marked by key global issues. International conflicts, exacerbated in the Middle East, Ukraine, Sudan, and tensions over the role of the United States, France, Great Britain and the collective West are at the heart of discussions on global security. While António Guterres (UN Secretary-General) urges the G20 to adopt actions aligned with the UN Charter – although Western ambitions of domination are being challenged by the rise of the BRICS Alliance – the Western minority continues to pour oil on the embers precisely to satisfy its ambitions of eternal domination.The climate crisis, meanwhile, is forcing more ambitious policies, as the G20, responsible for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, must revise its commitment to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Also, growing economic inequality and the need for reforms to a perceived unfair international financial system underscore the urgency of changing the global financial architecture. Despite the political challenges, the summit embodies a push towards stronger multipolarism, with key players such as Sergei Lavrov, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, etc., advocating for international cooperation. The political transition in the United States, with the imminent departure of Joe Biden and the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House, adds uncertainty, potentially impacting global cooperation and sustainability efforts. This nineteenth summit of the Group of Twenty powers (G20) is crucial to encouraging collective action in the face of complex challenges related to security, climate, the economy and international cooperation.Russia’s engagement in the world chessboardRussia’s participation in this Rio de Janeiro Summit is of major strategic importance. Led by Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and mandated by the President of the Russian Federation, the Russian delegation demonstrates the country’s strong commitment to global discussions. Russia aims to take a leading position in addressing global challenges such as combating inequality, hunger and poverty, and reforming international institutions. Mr. Sergey Lavrov’s interventions at the plenary sessions are essential, while his bilateral talks with other world leaders could lead to decisive agreements, strengthening international relations. Capitalizing on its long history of global engagement, Russia is ideally placed to influence these crucial debates for the future of the planet.Positive initiatives of the BRICS Alliance in global dynamicsThe BRICS, originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – and expanded over time to BRICS+ – represent an undeniable emerging force in global economic cooperation, as demonstrated by their landmark initiatives at the Rio Summit yesterday. By establishing the New Development Bank, these nations are demonstrating their commitment to financing joint infrastructure projects, strengthening their synergy and displaying a clear desire for de-dollarization. The significant progress made in social security also demonstrates their determination to improve social protection on a large scale. Looking ahead, the BRICS countries are committed to driving reform of international financial institutions, placing their economic weight at the heart of global decisions, while working towards sustainable development and the fight against climate change. Speeches by representatives such as Mr. Sergei Lavrov at the summit captured attention, underscoring the BRICS’ determination to impact global governance and promote a more equitable and sustainable economic future.The impact of the summit on global governanceAs mentioned above, the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, represents a crucial opportunity to transform global governance and have a lasting impact on the future of the planet and international relations. Since yesterday, this strategic meeting has been addressing major issues such as the reform of international institutions, requested in particular by the member countries of the BRICS Alliance, the proactive fight against climate change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and international security requiring enhanced cooperation in the face of current geopolitical tensions. Through decisive decisions, the summit could establish a new multipolar world order and decide on the choice between cooperation and global confrontation. The challenge lies in reconciling national and global interests, strengthening trust between international partners, and finding innovative solutions to address the complex challenges of our era. The G20 Summit in Rio thus offers a unique platform for leaders to demonstrate their leadership and vision, thereby shaping a multipolar and sustainable future for future generations.It can be said that the 2024 edition of the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro marks a turning point where world leaders are called upon to choose: cooperation or confrontation, progress or stagnation. The future of the planet is now in their hands. Today’s decisions, contained in the Summit Declaration, will shape the world of tomorrow. History will judge.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The outcome of the G20 leaders' summit held in Rio de Janeiro undoubtedly marks a series of victories for Brazilian foreign policy and also for the international community if we understand what is considered a success in terms of global governance. Firstly, the G20 summit declaration is a major achievement for Brazilian diplomacy, as it brings together twenty countries around agendas that not all of them support (such as human rights). Reaching this consensus required a year of intense negotiations to reach the final result. Brazil obtained support on the main themes it proposed: hunger and poverty, always off the radar of rich countries; sustainability; the bioeconomy , reaching the first multilateral treaty on the subject. Another consensus was the taxation of the super-rich , an issue that touches on the issues of inequality between countries and tax havens. Reaching the support of the G20 members around these proposals represented the reconstruction of the objectives of Brazilian foreign policy, which had been mocked during the Bolsonaro government, and crowned Brazil's return as a relevant country in the international community after years of self-inflicted isolation. Two other points that went unnoticed by some analyses is that the G20 summit allowed dialogue with Venezuela to return to normal, avoiding enormous damage to the Brazilian government and preserving good relations with the tumultuous neighboring country. And what can we say about the turbulent presence of the newest representative of the Latin American extreme right, Argentine President Javier Milei, who until the last moment tried to undo the consensus reached and was skillfully circumvented by Brazilian diplomacy? Returning to the proposals made by the presidency and supported by the other members of the group, are they “more of the same”, “undefined”, that do not change at the international level, as some analysts and part of the press said yesterday? Understanding the nature of international forums such as the G20 may answer this question. Outlined in 1999 and formalized in 2008, the G20 was created to bring together finance ministers and central bank governors from the twenty largest economies on the planet to discuss the financial crises of those periods. The crises of the 1990s, in particular, brought a new factor: it was the first time that economic problems in developing countries affected the central economies. It was therefore necessary to expand the discussions beyond the restricted Group of Seven (G7), a group of rich countries created in 1975, and to bring emerging economies to the negotiating table. Over the years, the G20 began to discuss other topics besides finance, and today sustainability is at the center of the work. The G20 emerged as an informal group with a flexible structure, dependent on a rotating presidency among its members to organize summits and working groups. In addition, it does not have a constitutive treaty and does not have the capacity to impose standards. When reading this brief description, most people wonder why a forum of this kind should exist if it “serves no purpose.” But informality and flexibility are a demand of the member countries that voluntarily chose to participate. These are the characteristics that allow ministers and other representatives of countries with divergent interests, such as the United States and Russia, to discuss issues that affect humanity, such as the eradication of hunger or climate change, for almost a year. The concrete actions that we so desperately need will depend on the efforts of each country and the corresponding pressure from their civil societies. The commitments exist, and now it is necessary to demand their implementation. Imagining a world without any kind of coordination is difficult because we have lived under the weak governance of the United Nations (UN) since the end of the Second World War, which, by the way, will be 80 years old in 2025. The memories of an international system under constant threat of global wars and in which common problems were not even discussed are a pale memory and, perhaps for this reason, so many people disdain the advances of international forums such as the G20. There are political forces today that oppose these alliances and the minimum level of global governance that we have managed to achieve, as Milei’s criticisms in his speech at the leaders’ meeting made clear. In line with the thinking of other far-right politicians, the Argentine president called global governance a “corset” that suffocates countries that think differently. It is contradictory that international regimes are criticized for restricting the freedom of States while at the same time being accused of being weak and ineffective, which demonstrates empty criticisms that serve only to encourage their supporters against imaginary enemies. Leaders like Donald Trump and Miley defend the “every man for himself” rule in international relations. This idea is gaining more and more followers among the people, a situation that makes declarations like the one by the G20, which defends basic principles of human rights and sustainability, an important manifesto for those who still defend an international order based on rules and cooperation. The Brazilian presidency has achieved important achievements for our foreign policy and also for the international order that it seeks to preserve.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском If there is a central theme to this year, it is the world getting accustomed to the lack of predetermined scenarios. Discussions focusing on the international order are fading; the former order no longer functions, and there is no knowledge of what the new one, if it ever materializes, will look like. When the authors of an annual Valdai report suggested1 several years ago that order, as we know it, was unlikely to ever emerge, their hypothesis drew restrained comments at best. How can we do without order?  However, the habit of living in a structured international system was formed recently by historical standards. Unregulated international relations have marked political history. These relations took shape in the process of interaction between the countries and quickly changed. What we now habitually call a multipolar or a polycentric world is reminiscent, in its form, of a return to an environment last seen before the Great War that broke out in the early 20th century. However, such parallels are misleading because international relations today are structured in a whole different manner.  First, despite stark differences, the world remains an integral and interconnected place. Conflicts do not sever ties but warp them, quite badly at times.  Second, compared to the turn of the 19th and the 20th centuries, or even 1945 when the most robust so far known global order was established, the number of significant players influencing international processes has increased by order of magnitude. That includes more than just major countries.  Previous approaches to establishing the global balance through peaceful or military means are no longer effective, and the countries have yet to see innovative tools make their way to their arsenals. We will be compelled to make do with what we have and accommodate this toolset to deal with the changed circumstances. This will require everyone to re-interpret the ongoing developments and to forgo the stereotypes that defined our perspectives in the previous era. In last year’s report,2 we suggested that the impossibility of structuring international relations around a hierarchy-based approach would be a hallmark of the coming era. The ensuing events showed that things have indeed taken this course.   Avert an all-out cold war.  In 1945, when the international order that we view to this day as exemplary was emerging, writer and essayist George Orwell made a disappointing conclusion in his essay You and the Atomic Bomb3 to the effect that the formidable military capabilities of the countries with massive nuclear arsenals made perpetual cold war unavoidable. This goes beyond confrontation between them and includes − an even more consequential factor − their confrontation with other countries that do not possess weapons of mass destruction. In the hierarchy of international priorities, the relations between the great nuclear powers will always top other kinds of relations, and their conflict will prevent a system of cooperation, global or regional, from ever being created and will only allow creating a system of competition instead. All initiatives put forth by these powers bear the imprint of their relations with those who match them in destructive capabilities. Thus, international politics appeared to him doomed to a perpetual state of not a war, but “peace that is no peace.”  So far, the fate of global stability has indeed been falling prey to differences among the most powerful countries, such as the United States, Russia, and China. But does this provide enough ground to believe we should “bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?”4 Especially so since, even amidst intense confrontation, the world is not splitting into rivalling blocs as it did in the past century. The bloc system experience, like that of the Western community, is not replicated despite its perceived success. This suggests that binding alliances marked by ideology and stern discipline are an exception than the rule. There is no indication that other countries are seeking to form alliances like the West in terms of like-mindedness.  New rules emerge from shifts in the balance of power and, if we take the modern-day world, the fact that small groups of countries are no longer able to tell the rest of the international community what to do. The drive for independence relying on mutual respect that we see in most countries around the world has become the structural foundation underlying an emerging regional and international order. Today’s situation is ironic. On the one hand, a profound shift is unfolding on the international stage. It is greater in size and depth than the previous one that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. On the other hand, these changes are not revolutionary by nature. They are not leading to collapse and evanescence, but rather to transformation of the erstwhile rules and norms. Truth be told, no one is really interested in seeing a radical scenario play out. The current and anticipated international escalation looks less like a premeditated strategy and more like an outcome of hare-brained actions or a lack of alternative ideas. The key point is that there is no going back, and what lies ahead will look nothing like recapitulation of the past.  There is a demand for stabilizing mechanisms that would not only expand existing capabilities of the countries, but also function as safeguards against the woefully tragic scenarios, such as those playing out around Ukraine and in the Middle East. The search for such mechanisms will be most widespread in Eurasia, which is the world’s largest continent in terms of its territory and population. This is where the most favorable prerequisites for that have developed. Eurasia’s connection to the rest of the world is so deep that Eurasian processes will have a decisive impact on the other parts of the planet and on approaches to addressing crucial security and sustainability issues, such as food, energy, and the environment. Development of each means security for everyone From the particular to the general  Building a Eurasian system of security cooperation, both as an ideal and a practical project, runs into numerous obstacles. Yet it is possible within this vast expanse, if the goals of each nation’s development can be prioritized over the factors that drive conflict and competition. In Greater Eurasia, conflicts impact only peripheral areas and do not go deep inside the territory, which means that preserving stability through leveraging new forms of security coordination appears quite achievable.  Global events of the past three years clearly show that individual countries’ push to pursue diverse paths of development and to avoid confinement within specific blocs is stronger than the inertia of division along ideological or even strategic lines. Even at the peak of the ideological and military rivalry in the latter half of the 20th century, many “third world” countries chose not to align with either side of the binary universe, even though the two opposing blocs formed the core of international politics. This reluctance has become even more natural now that rivalries have lost their structured character, and the ideology-driven attempts to divide the world into democracies and autocracies are artificial to the point where they fail to hold up to the international real-world test.  With varying degrees of confidence and assertiveness, most countries are upholding their right to their unique place in global affairs, aiming to determine their own paths to achieve their development and security goals. Modern history provides examples of cooperative initiatives aimed at shared prosperity, of which ASEAN is the best known one. Such cooperation is grounded in ruling out diktat in political matters and expanding practical interactions to address each country’s unique needs. These principles offer a starting point for reflections on what regional security might look like in the modern world. Collectively, regional security systems form a foundation of universal security.  Eurasia’s security is inseparable from global security, which makes it particularly special.  First, the security of Russia and China directly depends on their respective relations with the United States. This is a crucial element of international politics that defines its content. Accordingly, the strategic ambitions of the United States have a direct impact on Eurasian security. Furthermore, the western edge of Eurasia − Europe − remains part of the collective West and pursues its group interests.  Europe’s future is a crucial factor which will affect international politics in the decades to come. Even though the era of Europe as the global center is ending, it remains an attractive partner for achieving development goals in other regions due to its economic power and technological capacities. The 2022−2024 events reinforced transatlantic ties and diminished Europe’s agency in international affairs, as the latter continued to follow unwaveringly in the wake of US politics. However, given the pace and scale of global changes, this situation may not last forever. The key Eurasian powers are operating on the premise that the positioning of Europe can shift in the coming years in the wake of the international system transformations, potentially drawing some European countries into embracing broader Eurasian projects. Second, the security of a group of Eurasian countries also makes up part of the collective security. Many of these countries find key financial, technological, and cultural resources for their development outside of Eurasia. They also play important roles in international politics and have influence on numerous developments around the world. Their global importance and involvement in the highest level “great game” ensure that they have a stake in maintaining peace in Eurasia. This helps explain the relative stability within Eurasia’s borders and supports the efforts to establish common security platforms in Eurasia. Notably, not a single major military conflict involving Eurasian countries has ever broken out after WWII (the western edge is an exception due to the European “zero-sum game” approach that has dominated that part of the world for centuries).  The historical paths and itineraries across Eurasia and around it, which predate the Age of Discovery and European colonization, are being revitalized as the global political and economic system continues to diversify. Ironically, the punitive economic measures imposed by the United States and its allies on Russia help develop alternative global trade networks, promote economic flexibility and the search for alternative solutions.  Third, Eurasia objectively covers a sizable portion of habitable land and is home to multiple civilizations and dozens of countries that accommodate 70 percent of the world’s population. It is no coincidence that this region intrigued classical geopolitical theorists who saw Eurasia’s Heartland as the center of global processes.  Eurasian security is inseparable from global security, and its specific principles, mechanisms for country-to-country cooperation, and institutional forms can hardly be defined specifically for just one region. Eurasia is complex in terms of country-to-country relations, but holds vast potential, given its quest for a sustainable interrelations system and absence of obsolete institutions. It has the potential to develop alternatives to the principles and institutional forms of European security,5 which cannot be universal due to Europe’s unique cultural and historical background. The Helsinki framework, which created the Conference and then the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was Europe’s most significant achievement in establishing security for all. However, the OSCE was unable to adapt to the new balance of power following the 1946–1990 Cold War, which spawned ongoing major military and political crisis in Europe.  From the general to the particular  Eurasia is a region that may give birth to a new concept of international security. This potential is supported by, on the one hand, its inseparability from global security and development issues and, on the other hand, by the countries’ interest in a stable environment that is free from existential threats. Eurasia’s position in the global economy does not require nations to unite solely to reap the benefits of unification, as is the case with the Western countries. However, the creation of well-defined geopolitical and civilizational barriers is unlikely in Eurasia. The continent’s vastly different experiences in new international trends may eventually provide a foundation for global transformation.  Factors that underlie Eurasian security are the following:  Recognition of the continent’s spatial integrity and the impossibility of drawing dividing lines there.  Acknowledgment of shared interests and collective leadership.  Political equality of all countries of the region, regardless of their size or potential. There are no revolutionary or revisionist countries in Eurasia that feel compelled to export their political systems (exporting socio-political models as the Soviet Union or the United States did) to survive. Radical ideas come not from the countries, but from transborder extremist groups. Containing and eliminating them is a common objective.  The Eurasian regional security system aims to address issues separately from global security concerns which are, according to Orwell, dominated by relations between major nuclear powers, and to enhance the region’s resilience to external challenges, which implies resilience of each country. Defence against external threats and preventing internal conflict from getting worse are achieved through multilateral cooperation rather than rigid bloc discipline. A practical objective at hand is to identify external threats that will not force Eurasian countries into picking sides in an Orwellian Cold War with the involvement of nuclear powers.  A shared understanding that independent countries form the basis of order helps articulate the core principle of mutual renunciation of any moves that may violate the region’s integrity and equality of the countries in that region. The core value lies in unconditional respect for each other’s socio-political systems and firm rejection of the efforts to change them. This approach may seem self-evident and is in stark contrast with the practices used in the 1990s–2010s when forceful transformation of sovereign countries with active external involvement up to military intervention was cast as a standard approach by Western political leaders.  Sovereign equality enables justice, a concept that, while subjective, is central to international politics. Future international order will center on ensuring just relations, even if past institutions, which were designed to smooth power imbalances, get dismantled. The more the future rules can guarantee fairness, the more effective they will be at preventing armed conflicts. The collective goal is to uphold justice regarding the core interests and values of all Eurasian nations. Not like in Europe  It is unrealistic to expect that the next stage will somehow replicate the circumstances which were typical of Europe in the past centuries or decades. Speaking of future regional security, it is essential to break free from traditional patterns of perception and all-too-familiar solutions. Unlike Europe where the interests of Russia and the West overlap, Eurasia lacks a common fundamental challenge that could be resolved by establishing a Helsinki-like model of collective regional security. In this case, there will be no opposing great powers or blocs, whose balance will prioritize interests. In Eurasia, there are no second-grade countries or second-grade interests, because even the largest countries are incapable of imposing their own rules on any other country.  As we have seen, the balance of power underlying the European system cannot be considered a solution simply because major Eurasian countries do not compete in issues that are critical to their survival. In other words, the balance of power and influence between Russia, China, and India − even if tensions arise occasionally − does not affect their chances of survival or their chances to achieve their development goals. The differences implicating major Eurasian powers do exist, but they manifest on a global level of international politics. They are not of paramount importance in Eurasia, which is critically important when it comes to cooperation. Power and its emotions  Even though Eurasia’s make-up is unique, and it is an integral part of the international system, it is not detached from the international context and historical patterns. After a period of high regulation and reliance on institutions (this order of things was established in 1945), international relations have reverted to the “original settings.” Power remains a key category, and the use (or the threat of use) of power is back in demand. Moreover, the emotions and personal qualities of leaders, combined with national strategic cultures, now shape interactions among major powers even more than the established order, norms, and rules that date back to the era of the bipolar face-off, which persisted throughout the transitional period.  Fear and anger are two emotions that matter in international affairs. In addition to existing circumstances, they are identified in each case by a nation’s historical experience. Fear, ranging from apprehension to anxiety and dread, is one primary driver behind the countries’ behaviour.6 Anger, spanning from irritation and resentment to rage, also drives international relations and manifests itself in acts of retribution and violence that include terrorism. Fear and anger often drive not only political leaders, but entire societies as well. These emotions impact the way security is arranged and understood.  Occasionally, countries are observing the evolution of international processes from a position of force and the position of force-derived emotions, such as tranquility and firmness. The sense of power is a vital driving force in relations among leading military powers. The basic emotions such as fear and anger, as well as tranquility rooted in the sense of one’s own superior strength once again, as in previous historical eras, determine the choice between two key strategies: annihilation and positional strategy.7  The annihilation strategy invariably relies on significant superiority in assets and military force, initiative-taking moves, and swift overpowering of an opponent. By contrast, the positional strategy concedes the initiative and allows the advancing party to act. It relies on the importance of concentrating and gradually building the resources up. Anyone employing this strategy avoids decisive battles for as long as they can and engages only when they believe they cannot lose. Typically, time favors those who employ positional strategy.  Traditionally, most Eurasian countries prioritize the positional strategy. Classical Eurasian military thought is captured, for example, in the Chinese treatise The Art of War, which outlines the principles of positional strategy: “Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans, the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces, the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the fi eld.”8 In Russia, patience and willingness to endure lengthy confrontations have always been part of the military and political tradition, which manifested itself, for example, in the tactic of medieval Moscow princes or the generals of the 1812 Patriotic War.  These speculations are related to the ongoing international developments. Amid profound shifts in the balance of power, the United States, striving to maintain its hegemony, increasingly chooses offensive and provocative policies. This policy is not rooted in quiet confidence in its own strength but stems from anger and frustration at being challenged by its antagonists and resentment aimed at the internal opposition that underestimates the scale of this challenge. In addition to anger, there is fear and anxiety that the unfolding trends could lead to a scenario that is unfamiliar and unsettling for the United States where the balance of power will shift towards East.  The clash of emotions is a hallmark of the post-institutional world. 9 A different conference  Eurasia lacks conditions where any power can become dominant. This does not mean, however, that rivalry is out of the question here. Each power pursues its own interests, and balances of power will form over time and with difficulty. However, Eurasia’s advantage lies in the fact that − with few exceptions − there are no long-standing or deeply rooted conflicts between the countries overfilled with fear or anger. Major Eurasian powers do not have an objective need to be at feud with each other to achieve their vital goals. Vast and rich expanses of land can accommodate diverse cultures, civilizations, and foreign policy priorities. This is why Eurasia can reach a balance relying on a patient positional strategy rooted in quiet confidence, firmness, and mutual interest.  The Eurasian collective security system cannot rely on the principles of a military alliance with clear-cut obligations. Bloc discipline or a rigid institutional structure are ruled out as well. As mentioned above, the model established in Europe in the 1970s as part of the pan-European process cannot be used, either. However, the concept of a “conference on security and cooperation,” which emerged back in the day, fits the Eurasian space well as a mechanism for ongoing multilateral consultations involving interaction on all issues. The key difference from Europe is that the CSCE/ OSCE was originally created to defi ne spheres of influence in Europe and later morphed into a tool to maintain Atlantic monopoly. Neither is a viable option in Eurasia. An equal distribution of responsibility for stability and security among Eurasian powers is based on forgoing any nation’s dominance.  The principles of polycentricity, first outlined in the 1997 Russia China Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order,10 include non-interference in domestic affairs, respect for mutual interests, equality, and a commitment to a collective approach to addressing security issues, such as demilitarization of shared borders or provision of security guarantees to small and medium-sized buffer countries located between major powers. These principles are now taking on a multilateral dimension. The Eurasian security cannot rely on a closed architecture. It is embodied not in a single international organization, but rather in a network of bilateral and multilateral agreements and diverse associations that collectively cover all (not just military and political) aspects of collective security. Downsizing the presence of external forces, which leverage fears and anger of small and medium-sized countries to stir up tensions in Eurasia, and mitigating chances for their intervention is an important goal. The security system will focus on resolving all major conflicts with the involvement of regional actors.  The mutual nuclear deterrence between major powers makes achieving absolute political goals an unviable proposition. Now is the time for relative victories; achieving an absolute victory is out of the question. All major conflicts that we observe in Eurasia, such as between Russia and the West, the United States and China, India and Pakistan, and Iran and Israel, to name a few, are rooted in positional confrontations, where a strategy of annihilation is fraught with high risks and is largely unproductive. The architecture of Eurasian security in its military and political and force-based aspect will rely precisely on the sense of quiet confidence in one’s strength and the general drift of international relations. Security and advantages  Modern-day international security is a complex construct that transcends the military and political framework. Just like competition embraces all spheres of activity, including culture and the economy, so too does security with its compound nature. Common sense suggests that economic cooperation creates a foundation for confrontation-free political relations. However, things tend to be more complicated in the real world.  The Russia-EU economic relations were remarkably strong. Even in 2022, trade amounted to $258.6 billion.11 The EU was Russia’s key trading partner and the primary market for its energy. Deeper integration, such as allowing Russian companies to own EU pipeline asset shares, or shares in individual companies, such as Opel, was held back for political reasons long before Ukraine crisis broke out in 2014.12 High trade volumes did nothing to prevent degradation, and the political dialogue collapsed. Russia-Ukraine relations were likewise marked by elevated levels of mutual dependency even after 2014. In 2021, trade amounted to $12.2 billion, which did not alleviate, but rather exacerbated political differences. A peaceful matter about exclusivity of economic relations with Europe dating back to the early 2010s led to an onset of a deep crisis that ended in an armed conflict. The highest level of economic interdependence between China and the United States (with trade hitting $690 billion in 2023)13 goes hand in hand with an escalation of political competition and Washington’s attempts to throw a wrench in China’s technological growth, including by way of imposing restrictive measures.14 Conversely, complex political relations between China and India are unfolding amid trade numbers in excess of $100 billion.15  Examples of the non-linear relationship between the economy and international politics, particularly in matters of security, abound. Economic benefits may create enabling conditions for political cooperation but cannot shield countries against confrontation when it comes to fundamental security issues. Politicization and ways to fight it.  The modern-day world economy is highly globalized in terms of finance and trade. Globalization has significantly brought down costs, streamlined supply chains, and integrated multiple economies into technological and value-added chains, thus promoting their growth and modernization. The US dollar has become a convenient tool for making international payments and creating reserves, while technological platforms have brought countries together into a single economic organism. However, the “vital organs” of the global networks in the form of financial, technological, and communication hubs have remained under the jurisdiction of Western, primarily US, state bodies. The United States is losing credibility, because it takes advantage of economic interdependency networks for political gains, yet there are no full-fledged alternative solutions in sight.16 With the US dollar dominating the international scene, disconnecting individual companies or individuals from payments in dollars can result in heavy economic damage. According to SWIFT, the US dollar accounts for 48.03 percent of transactions handled by this international payments network, while the share of euro has plummeted to 23.2 percent.17 Blocking financial sanctions feature prominently in the US toolset, and are widely used by the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries as well. Russia has become a primary target for such measures, although individuals from Iran, North Korea, China, and even US allies and partners like Türkiye or the UAE are also on the receiving end of these sanctions, albeit to a lesser extent. Trade and technological ties have become hot-button political issues as well. Sanctions on Russia include sweeping bans on exports and imports. US legislation imposes export control compliance on countries that use US-made technologies, manufacturing equipment, and software. Import restrictions cover Russian petroleum, refined products, gold, diamonds, steel, and other products. Export controls regarding China, especially in electronics and telecommunications, are tightening. Chinese electronic services are banned in the United States and some companies face contract restrictions in Western countries. Iran is under a total exports and imports ban, with even stricter bans imposed on North Korea. Even EU companies are forced to comply with the US export controls to avoid secondary sanctions.  Transport and digital infrastructure are affected as well. Tools include setting price thresholds for transporting Russian oil, sanctions for sizable transactions with Iran’s oil sector, and restrictions on the use of maritime space and airspace, ports, airports, gateways, and other infrastructure facilities. Sanctioned individuals are cut off from access to what are now customary services, such as email, audio, and video file aggregators, not to mention more applied online solutions in the sphere of engineering and other technical areas.  The targeted countries do provide a response. Russia and China have incorporated instruments to block financial sanctions into their legislation. Russia has imposed a ban on exports of manufacturing equipment and has implemented extraordinary measures against economic agents from unfriendly countries. China is implementing a “dual circulation” system in strategic economic areas and investing in developing its own technology. Iran and even more so North Korea have long lived under partial or near-total autarky. The US allies are pondering diversification of financial assets. Back to market  The above developments have become quite widespread and continue to expand. They transfer the cutthroat zero-sum-game-like military and political competition to the economy. It cancels market principles that are based on mutual advantages. With the economic ties and interdependence networks weaponized, severing such ties or at least diversifying them appears a sensible response. Even if such steps are deficient from a market perspective, they are inevitable as a means of mitigating security risks.  Diversifying financial settlements implies using currencies other than the US dollar. National currencies partially address this issue. Using the renminbi in trade with China is a rational choice given the availability of a vast Chinese market. However, difficulties with investing rupees arise when it comes to Russia-India trade. Even more challenges arise from trade with less developed or more specialized economic systems. Strategically, a more universal mechanism is needed that could be used by several major economies, a BRICS mechanism.  The quest for ways to diversify payments is ongoing but expecting to see a “BRICS currency” emerge any time soon is premature for technical reasons, among other considerations. A better path is not to introduce an alternative reserve “anti-dollar,” but to create diverse bilateral or multilateral settlement arrangements that can bypass the US financial service monopoly. Russia is at the forefront of these efforts given its economy size and the number of sanctions imposed on it.  The same applies to creating innovative technological chains and domestic production capacities, as well as looking for alternative suppliers of manufactured goods and technologies. More recently, we had the chance to witness critical vulnerabilities when it comes to using products that include Western-made components. The domestically made substitutes can be less effective and more expensive but are unparalleled in terms of security. Amid bans and restrictions, such alternatives provide a solution, as does searching for replacements in other markets. Today, we see new chains pop up in places where they could hardly be expected to exist just a few years ago, especially when it comes to Russia-China relations. The US stick policy has defeated its purpose when economic agents around the globe became more ingenious and improved their economic flexibility. The infrastructure constraints have spurred the emergence or scaling of various phenomena, including “shadow” tanker fleets, alternative insurance systems, exchanges, communication, and online communication services.  Large transport projects in Eurasia are back on the agenda. Progress can be clearly seen in the North-South corridor. Moving such initiatives forward and creating a single system across the Eurasian region is a challenge, since Eurasian countries vary among themselves and maintain different relations with the United States and the Western countries. Significant economic disparities are also a factor to be reckoned with. More likely, such a system might incorporate a multitude of decentralized bilateral and multilateral formats and include financial tools for transactions between individual countries, as well as settlement systems for international associations such as BRICS, technological projects in niche areas, and targeted infrastructure solutions. However, the number of such innovations will inevitably give rise to qualitative changes.  The Eurasian economy will inevitably move away from the nets of West-centric interdependence which are being used as weapons. There is no need to forget them, but there is a need for backup tools as safeguards against arbitrary politicization. Eurasian economic security can be a flexible and decentralized set of mechanisms to reduce “dependence on interdependence.” While this may seem strange now, Eurasia could indeed become a flagship in global processes for returning to a much more market-based system of economic ties. Trust without coercion  Peaceful and productive relations between countries, whether bilateral or multilateral, can only be built on trust, which holds equally true for the prospects of development and matters of security.  What underlies trust in international relations? The Western answer to this question emphasizes cultural and ideological homogeneity, with the North Atlantic Alliance as a product of this approach. Modern Western countries display a strict bloc (self-)discipline about key international issues, which can be seen in their voting as one at the UN General Assembly and the G20, as well as their unified policies. Those who break the ranks, if any, are quickly put back in their place. On the face of it, this approach presents a competitive advantage in a multipolar world, which is further proof of internal strength. However, it lacks flexibility and is marked by ideology-driven dogmatism, which is an irritant for the non-Western world.  The World Majority countries18 (a term used in Russia to refer to non-Western Global South and Global East countries) do not have to follow bloc discipline. In the face of acute geopolitical conflicts that seek to split the modern world, this can be perceived as weakness, which fact is occasionally exploited by our Western counterparts, for example, on the G20 platform. However, this phenomenon should be approached differently: as a striving of various countries to achieve ultimate flexibility, which will allow them not to limit their options and to attract every development resource within their reach.  An important question arises in this regard, though: how can relationships be built within a diversified community torn by numerous contradictions? The tradition of independent cooperation among non-Western countries spans decades, and is rooted in the 1955 Bandung Conference, where the countries then categorized as part of the Third World or the Non-Aligned Movement proclaimed shared goals and objectives. The declaration affirmed a commitment to the common cause of resisting Western colonialism and imperialism, recognized the equality of all participants regardless of differences between them, and promoted shared interests in the name of development. Later, ASEAN adopted a similar set of principles, which has now made its way to BRICS and the SCO platforms.  Similar processes are observed in Africa as well. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) was based on shared values and objectives facing African countries, such as opposing colonialism and neo-colonialism. Statements by the OAU founding figures come to mind. Julius Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania, had the following to say: “Only with unity can we be sure that Africa really governs Africa.”19 In his opening remarks at the 1963 summit in Addis Ababa, where the OAU was founded, Emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie I also emphasized the importance of unity and setting aside individual differences to achieve solidarity: “Unity is the accepted goal. We argue about means we discuss alternative paths to the same objectives; we engage in debates about techniques and tactics. But when semantics are stripped away, there is little argument among us. We are determined to create a union of Africans.”20 This keynote address also highlighted the direct link between Africa and Asia: “We stand united with our Asian friends and brothers. Africa shares with Asia a common background of colonialism, of exploitation, of discrimination, of oppression. At Bandung, African and Asian states dedicated themselves to the liberation of their two continents from foreign domination and affirmed the right of all nations to develop in their own way, free of any external interference. The Bandung Declaration and the principles enunciated at that Conference remain today valid for us all.”21.     Much has changed since the Bandung and Addis Ababa conferences, and the world has changed out of recognition as well. Yet, the principles and goals declared there have not only remained relevant, but are now getting a second wind, especially because they imply mutual trust. As we sum up the experiences of Asian and African countries, we can pinpoint several principles that have been tested and approved by political practices in the non-Western world.  First: Recognizing a common goal, which unites different countries, and advancing towards it is an undeniable priority of their policies.  Second: Recognizing that differences should not hold back progress towards common goals.  Third: Acknowledging the fact that differences will not vanish. Each country has its unique specifics and a path to follow. Trust implies tolerance for differences and trade-offs to make sure differences do not lead to conflict.  Fourth: Flexible institutional and procedural mechanisms. The combination of trust and acknowledgment of differences takes rigid institutional frameworks and restrictions off the list of priorities. Coexistence and intertwining of different structures with various formats of membership and commitments thus becomes the practical outcome. Fifth: Gradual internal consolidation fostering the necessary conditions.  Sixth: Strengthening trust-based solidarity among the World Majority countries.  Seventh: Commitment to seeking local solutions to regional problems and addressing global issues as a sum of regional approaches to ensure that individual countries’ right to development is not hostage to new global constraints.  This path is longer and more complex than conventional bloc discipline, but, in an increasingly diverse world, it may be the only viable path, as fewer countries out there are willing to align in a single column. Is agreeing on the world order principles possible?  The post-World War II era brought forth new, never used approaches to structuring the international political and economic system. The achievements of the then created institutions are undeniable, yet no product is everlasting. The ongoing profound transformation of the global landscape calls for an effort to deeply rethink the accumulated experience rather than discard it. The events of the second quarter of the 21st century will not draw a line under the previous world structure but will pave the way to enhance and to adapt it to new realities. After all, the ideals that guided the architects of the post-war world remain in force and align with the global trends.  An open world space that ensures the rights to peaceful development, prosperity, and self-realization for all nations and countries is a shared goal in today’s world. In fact, we are now much closer to this goal than we were eighty years ago when the post-war order was being discussed. Back then, much of the world was still under colonial rule, and major powers were entrenched in systemic ideological confrontation. Today, neither of these conditions exists, though remnants of the past are still there. Addressing these remnants should be part of the efforts to create a renewed world architecture.  The emergence of new global organizations is highly unlikely. However, at the level of large regions, unilateral efforts will be insufficient, and the push for more stable forms of cooperation is likely to prevail. Currently, new constructs of that kind − the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Organization of Turkic States, and the Belt and Road Initiative − are being tested in Eurasia. All these initiatives, as well as any existing or future ones, are experimental in nature. Time will tell how effective and functional they really are. In the future, universal regional platforms might be able to encompass different cooperation institutions in specific areas whose objectives will not conflict with one another.  In the middle of the 20th century, the world was built from the top down, from the peak of the hierarchical pyramid down to its base. The new system will not be that consistent, but it will be far more democratic. It is being built from the bottom up and relies on self-organization and cooperation between countries within individual regions, where they must jointly address pressing, practical issues. If humanity avoids making the mistakes that will set it back as was the case in the past, then practical interaction at the regional level will give rise to a new system that will capture the planet’s complexity and diversity and be able to transform these qualities from obstacles on the way to development into a foundation for growth. References 1: Oleg Barabanov, Timofei Bordachev, Yaroslav Lissovolik, Fyodor Lukyanov, Andrey Sushentsov, Ivan Timofeev. Living in a Crumbling World. Valdai Club Annual Report. October 15, 2018. URL: https://valdaiclub. com/a/reports/living-in-a-crumbling-world/  2: Oleg Barabanov, Timofei Bordachev, Yaroslav Lissovolik, Fyodor Lukyanov, Andrey Sushentsov, Ivan Timofeev. Maturity Certificate, or the Order That Never Was. Valdai Club Annual Report. October 2, 2023. URL: https://valdaiclub.com/a/reports/maturity-certifi cate-or-the-order-that-never-was/ 3: Orwell G. You and the Atomic Bomb // Tribune, October 19, 1945.  4: William Shakespeare, Hamlet. 5: For four hundred years, the latter has served as a global security system: the Westphalian rules of the game, the balance of power, and Metternich’s rule, which holds that international security is achieved when one country considers the security concerns of another country as its own. 6: Pace M., Bilgic A. Studying Emotions in Security and Diplomacy: Where We Are Now and Challenges Ahead // Political Psychology. 2019. Vol. 40. No. 6. Pp. 1407–1417. Lebow R.N. Fear, Interest and Honour: Outlines of a Theory of International Relations // International Affairs. 2006. Vol. 82. No. 3. Pp. 431–448. 7: Стратегия в трудах военных классиков. Edited and commented by A. Svechin. Moscow, 1924; Carr A., Walsh B. The Fabian Strategy: How to Trade Space for Time // Comparative Strategy. 2022. Vol. 41. No. 1. Pp. 78–96.  8: From the treatise The Art of War commonly attributed to the legendary military commander and strategist Sun Tzu (6th-5th century BC).  9: Dominique Moisi. The Clash of Emotions. January 31, 2007. URL: https://www.ifri.org/en/external-articles/ clash-emotions 10: Russia-China Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1902155?ysclid=m27d9a94wj720511004 11: Товарооборот между Россией и ЕС оказался максимальным за восемь лет. March 7, 2023. URL: https://www. rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/6406ceed9a7947b3912b3c98?ysclid=m0l0zgm3hl844648897  12: Беликов Д., Егикян С. Magna и Сбербанк прокатили мимо Opel. November 5, 2009. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1268884?ysclid=m0l145995v673478546 13: Козлов А. Объем торговли США и Китая обновил исторический рекорд. February 10, 2023. URL: https:// www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2023/02/10/962429-obem-torgovli-ssha-i-kitaya-obnovil-rekord  14: Тимофеев И.Н. Политика санкций США против Китая: сравнительный анализ //Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2023.Т.67, №11. p. 70–79.  15: СМИ: Китай стал главным торговым партнером Индии в 2023–2024 финансовом году May 13, 2024. URL: https://tass.ru/ekonomika/20778213  16: See more about the phenomenon of weaponising interdependence in: Farrell H. and Newman A. Weaponized Interdependence. What Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion // International Security. 2019. Vol. 44, No 1. P. 42–79. 17: Доля доллара в расчетах через систему SWIFT достигла рекордного уровня в 48%. September 28, 2023.URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6239234?ysclid=m0l1mzg1fu656162416 18: The World Majority and Its Interests. Valdai Club report, ed. by Timofei Bordachev. October 10, 24, URL: https://valdaiclub.com/a/reports/the-world-majority-and-its-interests/   19: Quotable Quotes of Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere / collected from speeches and writings by Christopher C. Liundi. Dar es Salaam: Mkukina Nyota Publishers. 2022. P. 68. 20: Important Utterances of H.I.M. Emperor Haile Selassie I. 1963-1972. Addis Ababa: The Imperial Ethiopian Ministry of Information. 1972. P. 352.  21: Ibid. P. 361–362.