Dealing with interior disputes and zealous commitment to the war in Ukraine ruling in Poland lose sight of the profound changes in the planet economy and geopolitics.
The occasion for deeper reflection was the visit of the Prime Minister of India to Poland Narendra Modi, But apart from the declarations on the revival of bilateral relations, it did not broaden the global position of Polish decision-makers. In the meantime, India shows how the era of exploitation and exploitation of the weakest countries ends in our eyes; as many of the alleged countries do. The South emerges from poorness and scarcity, building the foundations of technological competition with the most developed Western powers. The second gotta face the fresh rules of the game. alternatively of constantly competing and fighting, whether it be for natural material resources or profits in global trade, Western states are forced to build a new, postliberal order based on coexistence principles. The challenge is to rebuild the model of concentration of social wealth in the hands of few, indifferent to the threats of the planet and the uncertain destiny of mankind.
Against “liberal internationalism”
For more than 2 decades, there has been a increasing opposition to “liberal internationalism”, which has become synonymous with globalized global order under the aegis of the United States. Its discrimination is to like the free marketplace economy and free trade on a global scale, to advance models of typical democracy, to strengthen common safety and to defend human rights, understood according to an individualistic concept. It is not essential to prove that these rules and values correspond most to dozens of countries of highly developed capitalism, and these are to the United States, their acolytes and customers – from Canada, Australia, Western Europe, to Japan and Southeast Asia and Latin America.
This order was American-centric from the beginning and was the consequence of the notorious “unipolar moment” which caused the disappearance of the USSR and the east bloc. Global governance was primarily dominated by institutions dominated by the West (World Bank, global Monetary Fund, planet Trade Organisation, UN and its agendas, G-7/8, G-20). any post-communist countries, and even Communist China, have accepted the importance of these institutions in the planet economy, although not all have accepted political changes.
Russia after failed experiments with democracy and the free marketplace economy in the 1990s fell to the brink of collapse. Vladimir Putin's acquisition of power and the prosperity of the oil and natural gas marketplace allowed it to consolidate its economy and take the way to dynamic growth. The strengthening of the global position dared Putin to argue the expansion of the West and to stand up for sovereignty. This coincided with the deterioration of Russian-American relations.
The PRC chose its own way of reforming its system. Without giving way to ideological issues, China has developed widely trade with Western countries. There was an idealistic view in the US that integrating the Chinese economy into global interdependencies would lead to interior liberalisation of the political system. The emergence of the mediate class was to be a lever for China's gradual beginning to the world. It is not foreseen that the fresh Chinese bourgeoisie will not only not accept typical democracy like Western societies, but will become a defender of nationalist ideology, strengthening the power of the communist organization and modernising the military power. As a result, China grew up to be America's biggest opponent.
The emergence of fresh centres of force has been conducive to undermining monocentrism in global governance and the US's pretension of power. This was primarily expressed in the criticism of the "Dashington consensus", which meant that it was essential to comply with the rules dictated by the planet Bank, the global Monetary Fund, the planet Trade Organisation and the US Treasury. They ordered the simplification of tariff barriers, deregulation of markets, the free movement of capital, the elimination of obstacles to direct investment, the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and others.
It turned out that the benefits of this program were primarily the rich Western countries, as indicated by the Nobel laureate in economics Joseph E. Stiglitz. Many of the countries joining the "consensus" were not prepared for liberalisation, imposed from above, hence apparent opposition. Its expression was the "Pekinese consensus", which defended state capitalism and emphasized the function of the state in setting conditions for economical growth. Local capital cannot compete with large corporations without state support. Therefore, it is essential to control the movement of capital and the activities of abroad investors. As a consequence of the adoption of selective rules of the free marketplace game, China and Russia were in favour of leaving the strategical sectors of the economy under control of the state, without giving up privatisation of the others.
There is no uncertainty that a large part of the alleged countries. The South has become beneficiaries of economical liberalisation. Capital flows, integration into global supply chains, dissemination of production quality standards, or access to modern licences and technologies were added to internationalisation.
It was worse to take over the patterns of systemic liberal democracy, which were losing credibility due to the crisis of systemic institutions in the Western countries themselves. It turns out that liberal democracy cannot defend itself against the waves of populism and the thrusts of its authoritarian leaders. Case Donald Trump in the US is now most frequently cited as a warning, and the degradation of various regulation of law institutions and representations in various countries, including Poland, provokes to remind dusty slogans of the "fighting democracy" (Donald Tusk).
In terms of German philosopher and lawyer Karl Loewenstein (1891-1973), after experiences with Hitler's legal entry into power, the concept of a fighting democracy is to launch preventive and anticipatory measures (repressions, censorship, delegation, restrictions on rights and freedoms) against all who endanger liberal democracy. The arbitration of the authorities in determining who is the enemy of democracy leads to "liberal totalizm" and actually means the end of it.
The Fall of Western Democracy
An example of the systemic evolution of Western countries, which clearly points to the erosion of “old patterns”, which have been developed over the last 3 centuries, clearly shows that the global strategy of states is experiencing deep divergence. Although the United States has set itself the nonsubjective of combating authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships, they themselves cannot prevent the degradation of their own democratic institutions. The West loses its credibility and systemic attractiveness. Not only BRICS members usage this. Among the countries protesting the values of political liberalism are more and more countries in different parts of the world. Russia, China and even India are only the most crucial among them.
We can safely say that entering the phase of regional powers began an era of retreat from globalisation under Western conditions. It meant, on the 1 hand, the ability to rebalance forces in Russia and China's strategy towards the West and, on the another hand, the ability to consolidate organisational efforts to address issues of regional importance. The consequence was the improvement of “contested” multilateralism, i.e. coordination of relations among 3 and more countries. Its crucial feature has been to agree policies on the basis of jointly agreed assumptions, which means creating alternate “international regimes”.
Against this background, various ideas of the formation of trilateral unions have arisen. It was an initiative of the Russian-India-China (RIC) "triangle", tabled by the Russian Prime Minister Evgeny Primakov, during his visit to India in 1998, materialized at the gathering of the abroad ministers of these 3 countries in fresh York City, at the 2001 UN General Assembly, or the "triangle" of India-Brazil-RPA (IBSA), countries seeking to stabilise their economical growth in the 1990s.
An crucial binder for the merger of these states into circumstantial “support clubs” were their negative experiences, linked to Western imperialism, from the colonial era onwards. It is not surprising, therefore, that deep resentment and common aversion to the mechanisms of global governance dominated by Western powers led them to take a unique form of cooperation.
Paradoxically, 1 catalyst for the formation of a separate group was the invitation of the French president Jacques Chirac to the 2003 G-8 summit in Evian, representatives of India and Brazil. As a result, a group of 5 countries – Outreach 5 (O-5), invited for further consultations with the G8. At first, Mexico was besides part of the "five". He was later replaced by South Africa. The rich Western states realized that without consulting the wider group of representatives of the Global South, unchangeable growth could not be maintained. The 2007/08 financial crisis besides helped consolidate the future group.
The thought for the formation of the fresh formation was the Goldman Sachs report, an American banking and investment company, entitled Building Better Global economical BRIC in 2001, in which the economist Jim O’Neill expressed the view that countries specified as Brazil, Russia, India and China (hence the acronym BRIC) would challenge Western economies in the foreseeable future. Thus, from the beginning, and even more so after joining South Africa in 2011 (South Africa), this group began to associate with the representation of the Global South. It did not replace the movement of non-involved countries, nor did it take the form of a specialised organisation, for example, OPEC.
The BRICS Phenomenon...
The thought is that despite the systemic and cultural differences, or even civilizational differences, and against geographical distances, countries that are able to mobilise their tremendous possible and challenge the rules of the game to date have been established. Many infidels emphasize that the biggest obstacle to the functioning of this body is its façade, interior inconsistency and heterogeneity of participants. The alleged regulation is besides to focus primarily on economical growth, which in different countries slows down or is unstable. However, the scope of these impacts is so broad – from climate change and the fight against terrorism, to reforms of the public wellness service – that there is no way to overlook the increasing persuasion power and alternate offer to the rules imposed by the West.
First of all, the countries forming the group have managed to show in a comparatively short time the willingness to cooperate, based on the ability to make compromises and the desire to consolidate (rutinisation) patterns of behaviour, i.e. institutionalisation. Contrary to doubts about the effectiveness of this initiative, it turned out that it was able to challenge not only the financial dominance of the West but to challenge the conditions dictated by it in various areas of global trade.
BRICS has become a convenient form of consultation and exchange of information, fostering the sharing and representation of convergent interests and the definition and mitigation of discrepancies. It is worth noting that no associate State has condemned Russia for its commitment to an armed confrontation in Ukraine. While India and China call for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, offering even "good services", in fact through intensive economical cooperation they strengthen Russian potential.
BRICS is so a form of building anti-hegemonic solidarity, as well as a way to strengthen the collective position in global relations. Countries belonging to this platform search to support each another in terms of prestige and imagery and to strengthen consensus on shared standards and ideas. On a synergistic basis, they strengthen their position of strong global players and enjoy collective reputation due to the extraordinary dynamics of power growth.
The BRICS countries represent 42% of the world's population, produce about 23% of the global product, occupy 30% of the Earth's territories and participate in 18% of global trade. Against the background of global GDP growth between 2008 and 2017, of about 1%, the increase in BRICS countries was around 8%.
The members of the group are not about revolutionary moves towards existing institutions, but about initiating their reforms and changes (e.g. with respect to the UN safety Council or the IMF due to their unrepresentativeness) or creating complementary or even alternate solutions, for example in the monetary settlement strategy (anti-dollar settlement). specified provisions included the declaration of the first BRICS Summit in Yekaterinburg in 2009. China and Russia are most critical of political liberalism, but they do not reject free trade and economical liberalisation. They argue Western protectionism practices (New Delhi Declaration 2021). They are ready to revive and renew multilateral institutions and come up with ideas for fresh forms of global governance.
The biggest advantage of BRICS...
is the flexibility of the grouping and the offer of alternate affiliate options for countries seeking not only multi-vectority of impacts but besides greater decision-making freedom. Disillusionment of the U.S.'s foreignity in the regulation of various regional problems prompted respective another countries, including pro-American orientation, to join the group. In 2023, the South African summit announced accession from the following year of Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United arabian Emirates. Argentina and Saudi Arabia yet abstained from the accession decision.
One surprise was the announcement of the desire to join BRICS+ in September 2024, which will be formally at the summit in Kazan. The second case clearly shows that the Western structures to date, especially NATO and the European Union, do not necessarily meet the expectations of countries which, due to their geopolitical position and their systemic preferences, do not share the liberal values of the West.
It is so confirmed that BRICS+ is heading towards counter-balancing the West. It besides becomes a barrier to the natural expansion of global capital, which under the name of transnational corporations attempts to penetrate the global strategy and, as a result, makes many countries and societies dependent on central control.
In the field of global law, BRICS is based on respect for sovereignty in the context of non-interference in the interior affairs of the States. They reject the concept of humanitarian intervention by Western powers, which have become a cover for political government change. Russia has shown strong opposition in 2 cases (Georgia, Ukraine) and, together with China and India, is protesting Western interference in the interior affairs of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan or yet Ukraine. They are besides skeptical of the objectives of Western intervention in the name of “responsibility for protection”.
Regardless of all the uncertainty and risks associated with the polycentricisation of the global system, the Polish politicians face a major challenge to guarantee that in the global strategy, the countries see immense opportunities arising from the reshuffling of forces in global relations. This perception should not be disrupted by atavistic hostility towards Russia.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 39-40 (22-29.09.2024)
