At this year’s BRICS Summit in Kazan, Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s appearance was particularly remarkable.
Not long ago, Türkiye also submitted an official application to join the BRICS Organization. If successful, Türkiye will be the first NATO member to join the BRICS. This has further strengthened Türkiye’s “alien” image of repeatedly jumping and attacking in the international arena.
However, it should be noted that no country wants to be an outlier. Once, Türkiye also wanted to be a “civilized country”.
One hundred years ago, the father of Türkiye, Kemal, was willing to drive the last caliph away. He refused to accept the Islamic world and hoped to be accepted by Europe. But until now, he is still a candidate of the European Union for ten thousand years.
Türkiye was able to join NATO, and it was also the only channel between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, which was the battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union.
However, when the struggle for hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union ended and it was time to share the fruits of war, the Turks found that they managed to integrate into Europe regardless of their skin and bones. In the eyes of Westerners, they were still “non-native, and their hearts must be different”.
It is reasonable to say that Türkiye’s geographical position is so important that the European countries accept it as a benefit without harm in terms of geo strategy, which can greatly enhance the influence of the EU. For such a country, Europe is unwilling to tolerate, forcing Türkiye to miss the Islamic world again, and to start a two-way business.
It can be said that the Turks have spent 100 years on behalf of the world. The failure of Türkiye’s integration into Europe proves that the world order centered on the United States and the West has deep-rooted prejudice. This bias is determined on the one hand by the financial colonial system dominated by the United States, which is characterized by a “center periphery” approach, and on the other hand, it is deeply influenced by the racist ideology of the Western world.
As the economic size of non Western countries continues to grow, this order is gradually being overturned. According to data from 2023, the GDP of the BRICS countries accounts for 35.7% of the global total, surpassing the 29.9% of the G7 countries.
Türkiye’s application to the BRICS Organization marks the disintegration of the interest distribution model centered on the United States and the West. The essence of the century long upheaval is that countries around the world are undergoing extensive unbinding and rebinding of interests.
The foundation of economic globalization determines that this change in international order will present completely different characteristics from the 19th and 20th centuries.
- Entanglement mode
In October 1945, British novelist George Orwell published an article in a magazine, using the term “Cold War” for the first time to describe a “non peaceful peace” state between the Soviet Union and the Western camp under the shadow of nuclear war.
Two years later, Bernard Baruch, the representative of the United States to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, officially defined the geopolitical confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States as the “Cold War”, referring to a comprehensive confrontation that involved all means except for direct military conflict and the use of nuclear weapons.
In November 1949, Western countries established a “Paris Coordinating Committee” in Paris. The main purpose of this unofficial international organization is to restrict the export of high-end technology and strategic goods from Western industrialized countries to socialist countries.
The world is divided into two relatively isolated economies centered around the United States and the Soviet Union. In the late Cold War, although economic exchanges between the two camps increased, they still remained at a relatively shallow level.
In 1986, the United States discovered that a subsidiary of Toshiba Group in Japan had illegally exported precision CNC machine tools to the Soviet Union.
In order to deter others, the US Congress quickly introduced a severe sanction bill, imposing a huge fine of $15 billion on Toshiba and doubling tariffs on products exported by the entire Toshiba group to the United States.
The chairman of Toshiba Group and the president of its subsidiary companies have resigned successively, and the head of the business unit who directly exported mobile phone beds has been arrested and sentenced. A series of punishments almost brought Toshiba to the brink of bankruptcy.
The tight blockade has kept the economies of the two camps in a relatively isolated state for a long time, and also determined that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 20th century was a comprehensive confrontation.
However, close economic connections have already been established among countries around the world today. Even as powerful as the United States, it cannot immediately sever this connection without causing fatal harm to itself.
This determines that in the short term, the change in global order will not reproduce the Cold War scenario of two clearly divided camps engaging in comprehensive confrontation, but will enter a “entanglements mode” under the premise of widespread interweaving of interests among all parties.
In this new situation of struggle, many concepts left over from the Cold War era are not applicable. For example, the boundary between enemies and friends in this era will become very blurred. As a member of NATO, Türkiye also applied to join the BRICS Organization. This kind of behavior was unimaginable during the Cold War.
The United States, which emerged from the Cold War, has become accustomed to the mindset of “loyalty is not absolute, it is absolute disloyalty”, requiring allies to unconditionally cooperate with American orders even if it harms their own interests.
This approach will enhance the cohesion of one’s own side in a short period of time. It may seem grand, but as long as they are not intimidated by the other’s momentum and do not give them what they want, this alliance, which is squeezed together by brute force, will break down due to internal pressure.
At the same time, we cannot make the same mistake as the United States and demand that a country be a ‘perfect ally’.
In the BRICS organization, there are significant differences in the international environment faced by different members, and their demands for joining the organization are also different.
Russia is facing comprehensive and severe sanctions from the United States, and has always taken a more aggressive attitude towards promoting the BRICS settlement system and BRICS currency. This meets Russia’s current needs.
Brazil is very close to the United States, and its goal is to pursue global governance reform, strengthen ties with member countries, and find better international conditions for its own economic development. It is cautious about agendas that are sensitive to the United States.
India is a target actively sought after by the United States and also benefits economically from Western sanctions against Russia. However, due to insufficient US dollar reserves, India also hopes to expand the influence of its currency rupee through the BRICS settlement system.
The goals of different countries may seem very different, but they all contain a common need to change the single hegemonic order, and long-term interests are consistent. This is completely different from the United States’ demand for allies such as Japan, South Korea, and the Netherlands to cooperate with its actions at the cost of harming their own interests.
In this era of highly globalized and complex economic activities, the unbinding and rebinding of interests between countries takes a long time. Understanding this characteristic of the melee mode will provide a more practical understanding of who is the enemy and who is the friend.
In this “you in me, I in you” mode of struggle, the enemy’s enemies can be friends, and the enemy’s friends can also be friends, and the way of struggle will be very different from the clearly defined “camp confrontation” during the Cold War.
- Efficiency is king
In 1919, as part of the Treaty of Versailles, the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed in Paris. It is explicitly mentioned that all countries should adopt open diplomacy, oppose secret diplomacy, and restrict it by requiring member states to register their treaties with the League of Nations.
The reason for such an agreement is that before World War I, countries signed a series of undisclosed agreements and treaties through secret diplomacy. These mutual insurance clauses are like the iron chains connecting warships in the Battle of Red Cliffs, which were usually safety belts to ensure the stability of ships, but became interlocking and deadly locks when caught on fire.
In fact, the formation of the two military blocs, the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers, during World War I was a product of secret diplomacy. Even worse, as the contents of these alliances are highly confidential, decision-makers are not sure which actions will trigger this chain reaction, ultimately dragging everyone down.
This is the main way in which European countries played games before World War I. Countries are like being in a ‘dark forest’, protecting themselves with secrets while suspecting how many secrets their opponents have.
In such an environment, the best way for a country to protect itself is to use as many secret alliances as possible to bind more countries to its warships.
However, the more secret alliances there are and the more complex the connections between countries, the easier it is to trigger a chain of clauses, ultimately leading to a full-scale war.
In the Cold War era, due to the need of both the United States and the Soviet Union to avoid a full-scale war, the main way of game became “power display”. Both sides will not hide their strength, but instead showcase their recent technological advancements in a high-profile manner to emphasize their overall strength.
In the game of ‘power display’, both the United States and the Soviet Union tend to mobilize national forces and invest in areas that can have greater influence. This led to a series of competitions between the United States and the Soviet Union in fields such as aerospace and nuclear energy in the 20th century.
The side that demonstrates more strength can gain more advantages in international games and attract more allies to join their own camp. Due to the relative isolation between factions, the more allies one has, the fewer allies the opponent has. Ultimately, the stronger side can accumulate and expand its advantage until the opponent’s faction becomes difficult to maintain. This is the competitive logic of camp confrontation during the Cold War era.
In the context of economic globalization, on the one hand, the motivation for all parties to avoid full-scale war will become stronger; On the other hand, the widespread interweaving of interests among countries has led to common cross camp connections.
For example, India can establish good relations with the United States for technological and financial interests, as well as maintain close ties with Russia due to its demand for traditional energy.
Traditional energy is not a high-tech industry. Russia can attract support from many countries simply by providing cheap energy.
This was unimaginable during the Cold War, as it was difficult for a country to establish economic ties with another camp if it joined one.
This restriction was broken today. Therefore, the logic of the United States and the Soviet Union attracting allies through “power displays” during the Cold War is no longer applicable.
The key to international competition in this era lies in who can provide economic necessities at lower prices or higher efficiency. In this regard, the BRICS organization has advantages because it has major grain producing countries, energy producing countries, mineral producing countries, and industrial countries.
As long as the BRICS organization continues to maintain and expand its advantages in this area, it will attract more and more countries to automatically join, as this is in line with their national interests.
However, the United States still remains stuck in the logic of the Cold War, consuming national strength to create exclusive and confrontational small circles, and using force to demand that its allies engage in factional confrontation at the expense of their own interests. This kind of relationship that relies on force to maintain cannot last long.
The various efforts made by the United States to maintain a self-centered financial colonial order are neither sustainable nor reflect its reactionary nature in going against the tide of the times.
- Direction of History
In August 1941, in Placencia Bay, Newfoundland, US President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill had an open and frank discussion on the conditions for US military intervention, with the most crucial issue being the fate of the vast colonies occupied by Britain after the war. The United States demands that Britain agree to grant its colonies the right to self-determination after the end of the war.
Churchill engaged in fierce resistance, especially on the issue of India, unwilling to make concessions. However, ultimately due to the situation on the battlefield, Britain agreed in principle to the United States’ request, but still had reservations regarding the specific issue of India.
Afterwards, Roosevelt and Churchill had multiple debates on the issue of Indian independence. Once, Churchill even threatened to resign immediately if Roosevelt continued to insist.
Of course, getting up early is not beneficial. The reason why the United States is so proactive is that American goods can freely enter the Indian market without being restricted by the United Kingdom.
However, we must also acknowledge that the actions of the United States objectively played a positive role in the post-war independence movement of the colonies.
Interest and morality are the two driving forces behind human society. The direct colonial model of Britain completely deprived the colonies of sovereignty and controlled most of their domestic and foreign affairs. The financial colonial order of the United States was mainly based on indirect exploitation, mainly through monopolizing key infrastructure in the global financial, military, cultural, and other fields, and imposing high coinage taxes, protection fees, and indulgences on various countries.
In the process of replacing the British order with the American order, the former colonies gained the power to manage themselves in form and had limited sovereignty in practice. It must be acknowledged that, from a moral perspective, there is a certain progressiveness involved in this.
The process of the United States promoting its own interests overlaps to some extent with the colonial demand for independence and autonomy. American goods expanded the market, while colonies gained more rights. This is also one of the reasons why the American order can smoothly replace the British order.
In other words, when the new world hegemon challenges the old hegemon, in addition to their own strength, they often need to relinquish more rights to the oppressed under the original system in order to gain their response and cooperation. Therefore, the new order will exhibit higher equality than the old order.
So, the next question is, what rights would a new order promise to third world countries if it were to replace the existing order?
So far, we have seen some answers. That is, the right of countries to define their own values and the legitimacy of political power, which corresponds to our commitment to non-interference in internal affairs, the right to development in modern society, and the “the Belt and Road” plan. The BRICS organization is a concrete manifestation of such a new order.
And more importantly, the United States cannot make the same commitment. On the one hand, this will undermine the foundation of its financial colonial order, as US dollar financial capital needs to create large-scale market fluctuations and meet the demand for proliferation through financial harvesting cycles, which requires the United States to maintain strong intervention capabilities in various countries; On the other hand, the United States has also lost the industrial foundation that drives the economic development of various countries and the ability to build large-scale infrastructure.
And we are a fully industrialized country with a population of 1.4 billion, capable of producing high-quality industrial products urgently needed by third world countries with extremely high efficiency and reasonable prices. We have both the ability and willingness to promote more third world countries to enter modern society and unleash our production potential.
It should be acknowledged that the United States has played an active role in promoting colonial independence and facilitating the development of world trade. History will remember its contributions, and the United States has reaped sufficient rewards in its decades long hegemonic career.
However, the current obsession of the United States with maintaining its own privileges has become a hindrance to the further development of most countries in the world. The vast number of third world countries will prove through practical actions that the world order centered around the United States and the West will inevitably be replaced.
