Although a lot has been said and written on the recent BRICS summit, I thought to include the last two articles as they provide a slightly different perspective than other reports, especially if considered in light of what is discussed in the first article here (hence the order I chose in this post).
yes... i think brics is a long term project with long term goals... one can't expect everything to happen overnight and i think the designers know this too... essentially one system is being replaced with another one and their is no saying it happens, or that it happens smoothly, but the fact is the need for this to happen is so strong, that it is being pursued strongly for all the obvious reasons..
The last cited source lied by omission by not including Venezuela as an invited nation whose partnership was vetoed by Lula. It would be good to view/listen to his video speech to Kazan, which I tried to find. One item I did find provided important background context, https://mronline.org/2024/10/29/why-brazil-opposes-venezuelas-brics-membership/
The Outlaw US Empire while clearly weakened is still strong in its backyard and has kept a choke-hold on South American politics for 150+ years while killing millions of its people directly or via proxies. Perhaps Bolivia will supplant Brazil as the B in BRICS. We'll discover the facts soon enough.
Hello Karl. Nice to see you here. That first article really nailed it IMO. Indeed the US imperialists have a choke hold on Latin America. My early political views were largely informed by this, my Spanish ex-wife being a human rights worker. Via her organization in Toronto I met many victims of US backed fascist elements in places such as El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, including people who'd taken part in armed conflict as well as simple victims, such as the young woman who spent two years in one of Pinochet's prisons simply for trying to organize a union in her workplace. I won't go into details, I'm sure you know the score.
Years later I had direct experience of how leftists, especially Marxists, undermine their own cause by their categorical resistance to any form of foreign investment, regardless of how well managed and beneficial it might be. As an investor in a mining project in Ecuador I came face to face with the problem and even offered a solution to the then government of Rafael Correa, which I was told by my intermediary had actually reached his desk and met with his approval. Unfortunately his coalition had other ideas, and so the project, which would have served as a model for managing foreign investment in resource extraction went nowhere, and the nation has suffered as a result. It's maddening really. Ecuador sits atop one of the richest untapped mineral resources in all of Latin America, and with proper management could have resolved many, if not all of its pressing social issues.
My sympathies have always been with the indigenous and ordinary working people of Latin America, but over the years I've come to despise their political leadership, both Left and Right. There are the rare exceptions of course, but they have a nasty habit of being deposed or assassinated before they can get anything done.
With regard to Lula and Brazil taking over the leadership of BRICS next year, note that Pepe Escobar says this is not good news. First, Brazil vetoed Venezuela from becoming a member (or partner, I forget which) which disappointed all the other BRICS members. Second, Pepe says Brazil is now an "occupied" nation, under the economic control of the United States. Pepe said Putin spent enormous efforts organizing the outcomes of the latest BRICS Summit because he knew that when Brazil took over next year, everything would stagnate.
Yes, I read Pepe Escobar's analysis. That's why I wrote in another comment that these articles put things in a different perspective.
While I have read lots of analyses about Lula's ban of Venezuela's BRICS partnership and articles about the final declaration or Putin's statement, I have found little about Lula's words and here they are. To be honest, I find difficult to disagree with the statements reported here. Sure, I don't like his ban of Venezuela, but we will have to wait and see what the Brazilian leadership of BRICS will (not) accomplish next year.
In the meantime, as eBear said in another comment, Putin's words are also quite a "tall order" and, so far, we have not seen anything concrete developing... yet, but as James said in one of his comments, "BRICS is a long term project with long term goals".
Yes, Pepe emphasized that there is a lot of work to be done before the implementation of their long-term plans, including settling the new partners in, resolving their disagreements, and then arranging for new partners in the future. We’re probably looking at a decade of work. All of which could be derailed by the new Middle East war which is inevitable.
It strikes me as the height of absurdity that a BRICS member would cast a veto over an allegedly stolen election when BRICS member China doesn't even have them, and several other states are being considered for membership that don't either - at least not in a form you could call democratic.
If you want to talk about stolen elections, start with India. And what's the deal with having veto power anyway? I thought that was one of the issues with the UN - that they have this security council with veto powers that includes France and the UK, as if they matter anymore. BRICS is off to a bad start I'd say, if the original members have this power. What's Pakistan supposed to do if they want to join? Would Japan be welcome? That would be a feather in the cap for Russia, but it might not sit too well with China. I could go on like this all day.
There's a real risk here to both Russia and China. What if BRICS ultimately fails? You've put all this energy into building a coalition against US hegemony only to leave these little nations out in the cold when the gloves really come off. Could happen. What does that do for your reputation and people's willingness to work with you?
There's an old Soviet expression - a sardonic comment on their leaders: "He likes to think big thoughts." I have to wonder if Russians aren't using it again, given all the grandiose schemes their government seems to come up with.
That's why Pepe Escobar said the focus for the near future is to deal with the conflict between the new members, and between them and the current members and, presumably, future members.
How that will play out, no one knows. I don't hold too much hope for that, since they're all chimpanzees like all humans. Still, if they manage to put together at least some economic challenge to the West, it will be worth it.
As for the veto, BRICS is supposed to be a "consensus organization". They should operate on a basis like NATO's Article 5: you can call on other members, but they can refuse. But the ones who don't refuse should be allowed to continue, provided they have a majority. That's how the UNSC should work - but only if the UNSC represents the vast majority of the world, which it doesn't now. BRICS OTOH does represent a significant percentage of the world, so it should operate like that. Venezuela should have been allowed in.
In the real world, as I said, chimpanzees gotta chimpanzee.
"Pepe says Brazil is now an "occupied" nation, under the economic control of the United States."
That could be said about almost every country in Latin America, save perhaps Cuba and Venezuela. The notion that Brazil with its dark history is any less corrupt than Venezuela is absurd on its face. This is what I was talking about when I called BRICS a cat juggling act. Even in the near-abroad you have rivalries and occasional open hostility between nations such as Azerbaijan & Armenia, Turkey & Armenia, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan, Pakistan & India... just to mention a few. Bringing all these disparate elements together under one roof seems like an exercise in futility. Even India and Brazil don't really fit in with China and Russia. India and China just had a dust up along their disputed border for example, and now Brazil throws a hissy fit just before a major conference? Childish nonsense. Who are they to call out Venezuela?
At a certain point you have to accept the fact that some cultures are simply defective. There's nothing you can do to help them, and there's nothing they can bring to the table except discord. Herding them all together as a plan to thwart US hegemony is just too ambitious a plan. Better to keep it small and focused, which is why I think Russia, China and Iran are good enough for now.
The idea is to try to use common economic interests, i.e., getting out from under the West's thumb, to forge connections outside and above the geopolitical conflicts in the hopes that it will motivate the parties to consider negotiating the geopolitical conflicts.
As I said above, I don't hold too much hope for that. But there are apparently signs that India and China have repaired relations over the border dispute. Also as I commented above, putting together enough nations to make a "tipping point" might be sufficient.
And there aren't some cultures which are defective: they are ALL defective. Culture by definition is defective, a historical accident, as flawed as the chimpanzees themselves.
"The idea is to try to use common economic interests"
That is the basic challenge, I agree. How to construct a framework for economic cooperation that takes mutual advantage into account. David Ricardo framed one approach with his emphasis on free trade and comparative advantage. The basic problem there is how do you establish an objective measure of value between disparate economic outputs? How many bananas do you have to export to pay for imports of steel or automobiles, for example, and how do you eliminate the financial arbitrage in such exchanges which tends to favour the owners of capital (banks) vs the owners of productive enterprises (Industrialists and their workforce). This is of course what Marx was on about.
Lyndon LaRouche is possibly one the most important economic and social theorists of our time who brought attention to these issues, which is why the Cabal set out to destroy him, and very nearly succeeded. Not sure if his ideas have been taken on board by the BRICS organization, but they do appear to have gained traction in Russia at least.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all cultures are defective. Clearly every culture has some defective elements that may undermine their long-term survival, particularly as material conditions change, the ability to adapt to those changes being one of the tests of a robust culture. By that metric, Russia, China and Iran have survived remarkably well over the centuries, given the material changes and external threats they've had to deal with. Japan is another example of a culture that's managed to adapt to radical changes, including military defeat and an ongoing occupation, without losing the essential elements of what it means to be Japanese.
This is a very complex issue and I'm at risk of writing a major essay on the topic from which I must refrain:) Suffice to say that some cultures are better than others at meeting the basic needs of their population while defending the core elements of their culture that constitute a successful approach to that problem.
Russian President Putin said of the BRICS that “we have taken responsibility for the future of the world, not only in words, but in deeds... The BRICS states possess truly immense potential in terms of political power, economy, science, technology and human development. Moreover, we are united by shared values and a common vision of the world”.
That a pretty tall order. Looking at the categories he enumerates, let's ask ourselves, where does the real political power, economy, science, technology and human development reside within that organization? I would say only in Russia and China, while arguably South Africa, India and Brazil are regressing, not advancing.
Those later three share a common factor in terms of economy - they are all run by well entrenched elites who hold a disproportionate share of the national wealth and show no signs of relinquishing their control. This of course speaks to the political arrangements within each that tend to perpetuate that disparity. Tribalism in South Africa's case, a persistent caste system in India which manifests as Hindu nationalism to the detriment of the various minority cultures, and in Brazil, the legacy of a colonial past of the same sort that South Africa threw off, and that would have the same outcome should that ever occur: increased crime (as if there wasn't enough already) social disorder and a declining economy, apart from the extractive industries that are mainly controlled by western corporations.
A main founding principle, the doctrine of non-interference, leads directly to the question of how, as a member of BRICS, do you influence social development in the member nations, which ultimately depends on a fair distribution of national wealth in the face of the above mentioned obstacles? Obstacle that are to one degree or another present in most of the nations lining up to join. Are you going to rely on the very people responsible for that disparity? Why should they listen and not just continue to operate as they currently do, paying lip service to the goals while hiding behind the non-interference principle? In short, how do you root these bastards out, given that that's what is needed for these nations to advance?
To put it bluntly, to make the kind of optimistic statements as Putin has against this backdrop is a bit disingenuous. As for his last statement: "Moreover, we are united by shared values and a common vision of the world”. nothing could be further from the truth. Exactly what values does South Africa or India share with Russia and China? The answer to that can be seen in the later's immigration policies and in the general public's attitude towards immigrants from those nations.
Neither Russian nor Chinese people want anything to do with them, and that's just a cold hard fact.
If you were aiming at forming a trade alliance based on the Ricardian principle of comparative advantage, and framed around a common system of settling accounts outside US dollar hegemony, fine. Nothing wrong with that idea, but why sugar coat it with a bunch of unattainable goals that sound more like a WEF conference than anything rooted in reality?
The real effective alliance that I see is much simpler and easier to manage: Russia, China, Iran. It not only meets the criteria set out by Putin, but also includes a military component which would be difficult to implement with other nations, including the founding members SA, BR and IN. All three possess the necessary prerequisites that are missing in the other members, both present and anticipated, which are: A coherent cultural belief system that the majority of the population shares, a reasonable formula for distributing national wealth, and an underlying patriotic outlook which defies foreign interference and makes them difficult to subvert via internal dissent.
These are: Christian Orthodoxy, Shia Islam, and Confucianism, all of which emphasize social order and cohesion across their entire populations, which are characterized by the underlying, yet unspoken reality of who we most like to associate with: people who look like us and share the same values.
As it stands, Putin et al have taken on the job of juggling cats, which can only lead to getting scratched. Note, I say this as someone strongly supportive of Russia, China and Iran. As for Brazil, India, SA and the rest, they need to fix their own houses before joining an alliance where, in their present forms, they can only ever be junior partners if not permanent dependants.
Seriously, without Russia and China herding them along, could Brazil, South Africa and India ever get together on anything? I just ask myself, how is it Russia or China's job to help them if they can't even help themselves?
thanks ismaele! excellent articles that were good to read..
Thank you.
Although a lot has been said and written on the recent BRICS summit, I thought to include the last two articles as they provide a slightly different perspective than other reports, especially if considered in light of what is discussed in the first article here (hence the order I chose in this post).
yes... i think brics is a long term project with long term goals... one can't expect everything to happen overnight and i think the designers know this too... essentially one system is being replaced with another one and their is no saying it happens, or that it happens smoothly, but the fact is the need for this to happen is so strong, that it is being pursued strongly for all the obvious reasons..
The last cited source lied by omission by not including Venezuela as an invited nation whose partnership was vetoed by Lula. It would be good to view/listen to his video speech to Kazan, which I tried to find. One item I did find provided important background context, https://mronline.org/2024/10/29/why-brazil-opposes-venezuelas-brics-membership/
The only video of Lula I found speaking at Kaza was his brief speech during the expanded format, https://yandex.com/video/preview/13447002963911882437
The Outlaw US Empire while clearly weakened is still strong in its backyard and has kept a choke-hold on South American politics for 150+ years while killing millions of its people directly or via proxies. Perhaps Bolivia will supplant Brazil as the B in BRICS. We'll discover the facts soon enough.
Hello Karl. Nice to see you here. That first article really nailed it IMO. Indeed the US imperialists have a choke hold on Latin America. My early political views were largely informed by this, my Spanish ex-wife being a human rights worker. Via her organization in Toronto I met many victims of US backed fascist elements in places such as El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, including people who'd taken part in armed conflict as well as simple victims, such as the young woman who spent two years in one of Pinochet's prisons simply for trying to organize a union in her workplace. I won't go into details, I'm sure you know the score.
Years later I had direct experience of how leftists, especially Marxists, undermine their own cause by their categorical resistance to any form of foreign investment, regardless of how well managed and beneficial it might be. As an investor in a mining project in Ecuador I came face to face with the problem and even offered a solution to the then government of Rafael Correa, which I was told by my intermediary had actually reached his desk and met with his approval. Unfortunately his coalition had other ideas, and so the project, which would have served as a model for managing foreign investment in resource extraction went nowhere, and the nation has suffered as a result. It's maddening really. Ecuador sits atop one of the richest untapped mineral resources in all of Latin America, and with proper management could have resolved many, if not all of its pressing social issues.
My sympathies have always been with the indigenous and ordinary working people of Latin America, but over the years I've come to despise their political leadership, both Left and Right. There are the rare exceptions of course, but they have a nasty habit of being deposed or assassinated before they can get anything done.
With regard to Lula and Brazil taking over the leadership of BRICS next year, note that Pepe Escobar says this is not good news. First, Brazil vetoed Venezuela from becoming a member (or partner, I forget which) which disappointed all the other BRICS members. Second, Pepe says Brazil is now an "occupied" nation, under the economic control of the United States. Pepe said Putin spent enormous efforts organizing the outcomes of the latest BRICS Summit because he knew that when Brazil took over next year, everything would stagnate.
Yes, I read Pepe Escobar's analysis. That's why I wrote in another comment that these articles put things in a different perspective.
While I have read lots of analyses about Lula's ban of Venezuela's BRICS partnership and articles about the final declaration or Putin's statement, I have found little about Lula's words and here they are. To be honest, I find difficult to disagree with the statements reported here. Sure, I don't like his ban of Venezuela, but we will have to wait and see what the Brazilian leadership of BRICS will (not) accomplish next year.
In the meantime, as eBear said in another comment, Putin's words are also quite a "tall order" and, so far, we have not seen anything concrete developing... yet, but as James said in one of his comments, "BRICS is a long term project with long term goals".
Yes, Pepe emphasized that there is a lot of work to be done before the implementation of their long-term plans, including settling the new partners in, resolving their disagreements, and then arranging for new partners in the future. We’re probably looking at a decade of work. All of which could be derailed by the new Middle East war which is inevitable.
It strikes me as the height of absurdity that a BRICS member would cast a veto over an allegedly stolen election when BRICS member China doesn't even have them, and several other states are being considered for membership that don't either - at least not in a form you could call democratic.
If you want to talk about stolen elections, start with India. And what's the deal with having veto power anyway? I thought that was one of the issues with the UN - that they have this security council with veto powers that includes France and the UK, as if they matter anymore. BRICS is off to a bad start I'd say, if the original members have this power. What's Pakistan supposed to do if they want to join? Would Japan be welcome? That would be a feather in the cap for Russia, but it might not sit too well with China. I could go on like this all day.
There's a real risk here to both Russia and China. What if BRICS ultimately fails? You've put all this energy into building a coalition against US hegemony only to leave these little nations out in the cold when the gloves really come off. Could happen. What does that do for your reputation and people's willingness to work with you?
There's an old Soviet expression - a sardonic comment on their leaders: "He likes to think big thoughts." I have to wonder if Russians aren't using it again, given all the grandiose schemes their government seems to come up with.
That's why Pepe Escobar said the focus for the near future is to deal with the conflict between the new members, and between them and the current members and, presumably, future members.
How that will play out, no one knows. I don't hold too much hope for that, since they're all chimpanzees like all humans. Still, if they manage to put together at least some economic challenge to the West, it will be worth it.
As for the veto, BRICS is supposed to be a "consensus organization". They should operate on a basis like NATO's Article 5: you can call on other members, but they can refuse. But the ones who don't refuse should be allowed to continue, provided they have a majority. That's how the UNSC should work - but only if the UNSC represents the vast majority of the world, which it doesn't now. BRICS OTOH does represent a significant percentage of the world, so it should operate like that. Venezuela should have been allowed in.
In the real world, as I said, chimpanzees gotta chimpanzee.
"Pepe says Brazil is now an "occupied" nation, under the economic control of the United States."
That could be said about almost every country in Latin America, save perhaps Cuba and Venezuela. The notion that Brazil with its dark history is any less corrupt than Venezuela is absurd on its face. This is what I was talking about when I called BRICS a cat juggling act. Even in the near-abroad you have rivalries and occasional open hostility between nations such as Azerbaijan & Armenia, Turkey & Armenia, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan, Pakistan & India... just to mention a few. Bringing all these disparate elements together under one roof seems like an exercise in futility. Even India and Brazil don't really fit in with China and Russia. India and China just had a dust up along their disputed border for example, and now Brazil throws a hissy fit just before a major conference? Childish nonsense. Who are they to call out Venezuela?
At a certain point you have to accept the fact that some cultures are simply defective. There's nothing you can do to help them, and there's nothing they can bring to the table except discord. Herding them all together as a plan to thwart US hegemony is just too ambitious a plan. Better to keep it small and focused, which is why I think Russia, China and Iran are good enough for now.
The idea is to try to use common economic interests, i.e., getting out from under the West's thumb, to forge connections outside and above the geopolitical conflicts in the hopes that it will motivate the parties to consider negotiating the geopolitical conflicts.
As I said above, I don't hold too much hope for that. But there are apparently signs that India and China have repaired relations over the border dispute. Also as I commented above, putting together enough nations to make a "tipping point" might be sufficient.
And there aren't some cultures which are defective: they are ALL defective. Culture by definition is defective, a historical accident, as flawed as the chimpanzees themselves.
"The idea is to try to use common economic interests"
That is the basic challenge, I agree. How to construct a framework for economic cooperation that takes mutual advantage into account. David Ricardo framed one approach with his emphasis on free trade and comparative advantage. The basic problem there is how do you establish an objective measure of value between disparate economic outputs? How many bananas do you have to export to pay for imports of steel or automobiles, for example, and how do you eliminate the financial arbitrage in such exchanges which tends to favour the owners of capital (banks) vs the owners of productive enterprises (Industrialists and their workforce). This is of course what Marx was on about.
Lyndon LaRouche is possibly one the most important economic and social theorists of our time who brought attention to these issues, which is why the Cabal set out to destroy him, and very nearly succeeded. Not sure if his ideas have been taken on board by the BRICS organization, but they do appear to have gained traction in Russia at least.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all cultures are defective. Clearly every culture has some defective elements that may undermine their long-term survival, particularly as material conditions change, the ability to adapt to those changes being one of the tests of a robust culture. By that metric, Russia, China and Iran have survived remarkably well over the centuries, given the material changes and external threats they've had to deal with. Japan is another example of a culture that's managed to adapt to radical changes, including military defeat and an ongoing occupation, without losing the essential elements of what it means to be Japanese.
This is a very complex issue and I'm at risk of writing a major essay on the topic from which I must refrain:) Suffice to say that some cultures are better than others at meeting the basic needs of their population while defending the core elements of their culture that constitute a successful approach to that problem.
Russian President Putin said of the BRICS that “we have taken responsibility for the future of the world, not only in words, but in deeds... The BRICS states possess truly immense potential in terms of political power, economy, science, technology and human development. Moreover, we are united by shared values and a common vision of the world”.
That a pretty tall order. Looking at the categories he enumerates, let's ask ourselves, where does the real political power, economy, science, technology and human development reside within that organization? I would say only in Russia and China, while arguably South Africa, India and Brazil are regressing, not advancing.
Those later three share a common factor in terms of economy - they are all run by well entrenched elites who hold a disproportionate share of the national wealth and show no signs of relinquishing their control. This of course speaks to the political arrangements within each that tend to perpetuate that disparity. Tribalism in South Africa's case, a persistent caste system in India which manifests as Hindu nationalism to the detriment of the various minority cultures, and in Brazil, the legacy of a colonial past of the same sort that South Africa threw off, and that would have the same outcome should that ever occur: increased crime (as if there wasn't enough already) social disorder and a declining economy, apart from the extractive industries that are mainly controlled by western corporations.
A main founding principle, the doctrine of non-interference, leads directly to the question of how, as a member of BRICS, do you influence social development in the member nations, which ultimately depends on a fair distribution of national wealth in the face of the above mentioned obstacles? Obstacle that are to one degree or another present in most of the nations lining up to join. Are you going to rely on the very people responsible for that disparity? Why should they listen and not just continue to operate as they currently do, paying lip service to the goals while hiding behind the non-interference principle? In short, how do you root these bastards out, given that that's what is needed for these nations to advance?
To put it bluntly, to make the kind of optimistic statements as Putin has against this backdrop is a bit disingenuous. As for his last statement: "Moreover, we are united by shared values and a common vision of the world”. nothing could be further from the truth. Exactly what values does South Africa or India share with Russia and China? The answer to that can be seen in the later's immigration policies and in the general public's attitude towards immigrants from those nations.
Neither Russian nor Chinese people want anything to do with them, and that's just a cold hard fact.
If you were aiming at forming a trade alliance based on the Ricardian principle of comparative advantage, and framed around a common system of settling accounts outside US dollar hegemony, fine. Nothing wrong with that idea, but why sugar coat it with a bunch of unattainable goals that sound more like a WEF conference than anything rooted in reality?
The real effective alliance that I see is much simpler and easier to manage: Russia, China, Iran. It not only meets the criteria set out by Putin, but also includes a military component which would be difficult to implement with other nations, including the founding members SA, BR and IN. All three possess the necessary prerequisites that are missing in the other members, both present and anticipated, which are: A coherent cultural belief system that the majority of the population shares, a reasonable formula for distributing national wealth, and an underlying patriotic outlook which defies foreign interference and makes them difficult to subvert via internal dissent.
These are: Christian Orthodoxy, Shia Islam, and Confucianism, all of which emphasize social order and cohesion across their entire populations, which are characterized by the underlying, yet unspoken reality of who we most like to associate with: people who look like us and share the same values.
As it stands, Putin et al have taken on the job of juggling cats, which can only lead to getting scratched. Note, I say this as someone strongly supportive of Russia, China and Iran. As for Brazil, India, SA and the rest, they need to fix their own houses before joining an alliance where, in their present forms, they can only ever be junior partners if not permanent dependants.
Seriously, without Russia and China herding them along, could Brazil, South Africa and India ever get together on anything? I just ask myself, how is it Russia or China's job to help them if they can't even help themselves?
Very good and interesting comment. Thank you very much.
A bit long-winded - I tend to do that - but thanks all the same:)