USA
Source: www.economist.com

BRICS isn’t exactly picky, but has just rejected VenezuelaThe dictatorship’s attempt to join the club was rejected, and its neighbours are now openly critical

Three months after stealing a presidential election, the Venezuelan regime is trying to give the impression that the matter is closed. On November 4th an ebullient President Nicolás Maduro joked on state television that one remaining detail he needed to clear up before being re-inaugurated on January 10th was the dress code. “Wear a tie, if possible,” quipped Jorge Rodríguez, the head of the rubber-stamp national assembly.

The carefree bonhomie is deceptive. Mr Maduro, who claims that he won the election on July 28th even though the opposition has presented clear evidence showing that he lost by a landslide, has not escaped the consequences of his fraud. One sign of that came at the Brics summit held in the Russian city of Kazan from October 22nd to 24th. Mr Maduro attended on the sidelines, his first trip abroad since the vote. The visit was meant to make him look like a legitimate leader on the world stage, with powerful friends in the global south. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping both obliged by shaking hands with the dictator in public view. But in protest at the electoral deceit, Brazil’s left-wing government vetoed Venezuela’s attempt to join the bloc.

That was a humiliation for Mr Maduro, seeing that 13 other countries, even his bankrupt ally Cuba, were accepted into the group. Mr Maduro is understood to have privately berated his foreign minister, Yván Gil, for not warning him of the risk of rejection. In public the regime’s response has been to hurl insults at the Brazilian government. Venezuela’s foreign ministry has accused Brazil, which has led efforts to negotiate a resolution to Venezuela’s crisis, of “inexplicable and immoral aggression”. It described Celso Amorim, the measured envoy of Brazil’s leftist president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as “a messenger of American imperialism”. Venezuela’s police shared an image depicting Lula’s silhouette with the caption: “If you mess with Venezuela, you fade away.”

That was followed by an equally bad-tempered falling-out with Venezuela’s other leftist neighbour in the region, Colombia. Mr Gil accused his counterpart there, Luis Gilberto Murillo, of being “cowardly” after he said Colombia’s government could not recognise Mr Maduro’s re-election unless the regime produced paper receipts from the polls as evidence of its claimed victory: an impossibility, since the official results were invented.

“They are operating like a cult,” said a businessman based in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, describing the mood within the clique around the president. “Everyone has to pretend to believe in the big lie [that Mr Maduro won the election].” Waverers are being expelled from ministries and state companies. On October 21st it was announced that an able former oil minister, Pedro Tellechea, who had resigned citing ill health just days before, had been arrested and accused of sharing privileged information with the United States. At least 12 foreigners, including seven from the United States, have been arrested since the election, most of them accused of planning terrorist attacks.

Flights from countries whose governments have criticised Venezuela, including Panama, Peru and the Dominican Republic, have been suspended. Efforts to get rid of the opposition that has exposed Mr Maduro’s unpopularity continue. Almost 2,000 political opponents (including 69 children) are in jail, most of them detained since the election, according to Foro Penal, a Venezuelan human-rights group.

The true president-elect, Edmundo González, is in exile in Spain. The opposition’s popular leader, María Corina Machado, who was banned from running for office but helped inspire millions to vote for Mr González, is in hiding. On November 6th she posted a note on social media congratulating Donald Trump on his election. In his first term he had pondered military action to topple the Maduro regime. “We have always counted on you,” she said. Mr Maduro breezily pretends that Venezuela’s turmoil is over. He is fooling no one. ■

Belgium
Source: www.europarl.europa.eu

Under Russia's presidency, BRICS (acronym for the founding states – Brazil, Russia, India and China) held its first summit following the group's expansion on 1 January 2024, from 22 to 24 October in Kazan (Russia). With more than 30 delegations, 22 heads of state or government and several representatives of international organisations including United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres attending, the summit was a diplomatic success for Russia: it offered President Vladimir Putin the opportunity to demonstrate to the world that Russia is not isolated. For the first time, a NATO member, Türkiye, attended the summit, and applied to join BRICS. The meeting in Kazan underlined BRICS's ambition to foster relations with the Global South, and its aim of shaping an alternative multipolar world order, particularly in the global financial and trade system.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2024/766243/EPRS_ATA(2024)766243_EN.pdf

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

The BRICS summit in Kazan chaired by Russia has drawn great international attention because it conveys many messages in the current geopolitical context and that of the future, writes Kanwal Sibal, former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington.

The West has tried to isolate Russia internationally, defeat it militarily, and, through an array of draconian sanctions, cause its economic collapse. None of these objectives have been met.
Russia's ties with China have deepened strategically. India has preserved its strategic ties with Moscow despite western pressure. Russia's ties with several African countries also have a new momentum. Moscow is strongly present in the West Asia region and has a close relationship with key Arab countries. Its partnership with some ASEAN countries is gathering steam too.

The expansion of BRICS in 2023, with Egypt, UAE, Iran, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, had already signalled how major countries in the Global South viewed Russia very differently from how the West saw it. The Global South sees Russia as a friendly country, not an adversary. That almost 40 countries have shown interest in joining BRICS, a forum in which Moscow plays a key role, signifies that for them, Russia is an attractive partner.

The countries of the Global South seek a reformed international system that would reflect the shifts in power equations away from the West, both economic and political, that have occurred over the years. They want more attention to be paid to their concerns and priorities.

The hypocrisy and double standards of the West's “values-based” policies, its military interventions and the use of various means to bring about regime changes, the use of sanctions as a policy tool, the weaponisation of the dollar and the global financial system by the US, have increasingly pushed non-Western countries to hedge themselves against western pressures by joining forums such as BRICS. If Russia earlier looked westwards, the West has turned its back on Russia, and now Russia is much more focused on its Eurasian identity and is looking eastwards.

Non-western countries cannot opt out of the existing international system or create one of their own. What they hope to do is to change the balance of power within the existing system and reform it to ensure more equality and equity in its functioning. The Global South countries, which also have close relations with the West, are being attracted to join BRICS or associate with it in order to increase their political, economic and security options.

With 24 world leaders having attended the Kazan summit, including those of five founding members and the four new permanent members, the West's already failing efforts to isolate President Putin and Russia have been strongly rebuffed.

With so much interest in BRICS in the Global South, the question of expanding its membership and the criteria for that have posed difficulties. BRICS is a consensus-based forum. With the expansion, building a consensus on issues would become more difficult, and that would affect the working and credibility of the forum.

The decision, therefore, has been not to broaden the BRICS membership for the moment but to enlarge its base by accepting new countries as partners. Developing a consensus within BRICS on which countries should be admitted as partners was presumably not an easy exercise, as all the BRICS members, old and new, had effective veto rights. It had to be ensured that no member country was particularly advantaged by the choice of partners and that the final list reflected a balance between the preferences of the forum's members.

Thirteen new BRICS partners have been accepted at Kazan—Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. That four members of the ASEAN are also among these is significant.

Russia's obvious preference for Turkey has also been accommodated given the latter's geopolitical importance for Russia, even though giving a partner status to a NATO country might not seem to fit into any normal criteria for deciding BRICS partnerships. Should NATO get a foothold in BRICS? From the Russian point of view, this would be a welcome political development in NATO's eastern flank. The US, which sees BRICS as an organisation created to rival the West in the global system, would be obviously perturbed by Turkey's decision.

The importance of BRICS' expanded partnerships across Asia, Africa and Latin America should not be underestimated. It shows dissatisfaction with the current international system. Non-western countries want an end to the West's hegemony. They suffer from the West's self-centred and arbitrary policies. Strengthened multilateralism reflected in multipolarity is seen as the key to change.
All said and done, BRICS expansion, with all its challenges, is a vehicle for a much-needed re-balancing within the global system, which India also seeks.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Colleagues and friends,

It is a privilege to be part of this new initiative, which seeks to unite people, identify shared values, and develop recommendations that will enable humanity to live in accordance with the legacies bestowed by the ancestors of each nation and nationality.

In this context, the platform of the Russia National Centre, established under the auspices of President Vladimir Putin, aims to consolidate Russia's social, economic, scientific, technological, and cultural potential. This will facilitate its continued sustainable development and promote our experiences, traditions, and ideals in dialogue with the global community, which I trust will commence today.

We convened here on November 4, National Unity Day, a public holiday commemorating the valiant efforts of self-defence forces. Precisely 412 years ago, under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky, they liberated Moscow from Polish invaders and their collaborators. This vibrant chapter of our history exemplifies the achievements that can be realised when people unite for a common cause.

One session of our symposium, as just announced by Dimitri Simes, is themed The Future of a Multipolar World. This topic aptly captures the essence of discussions taking place within academic, expert, and political circles both in Russia and internationally. It is difficult to imagine today that in the early 1990s, many believed the "end of history" had arrived and that unipolarity would prevail indefinitely – a global Pax Americana, where Washington's oversight extended to every corner of the world. During that era, the distinguished statesman Yevgeny Primakov articulated and championed the then-novel concept of multipolarity.

Initially, few foreign partners (and candidly, even within our own country) were prepared to embrace this vision seriously. Nonetheless, our Chinese counterparts resonated with Mr Primakov's ideas. In 1997, the Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order was signed, marking the first foreign policy document on this topic in history. Today, we observe that the foresight of Yevgeny Primakov and his colleagues has been vindicated.

The global balance of power is undergoing transformative changes, driven by the objective trends in the world economy where the influence of the states of the Global South and the Global East, and indeed the World Majority, is growing. By the end of 2024, the BRICS nations' share of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is expected to approach 37 percent, confidently surpassing the share of the Group of Seven, which stood at 30 percent at the close of 2023.

The economic resurgence enables an increasing number of non-Western nations to consistently bolster their sovereignty and to pursue a nationally oriented agenda in both foreign and domestic policy. Much like Russia, these nations are increasingly advocating for the democratisation of international relations and a multipolar world, showing growing resilience against external interference.

This is also evident in practical policy, particularly in the rising interest in groups such as the SCO and BRICS. The Kazan summit, which was attended by delegations from 36 countries, left an indelible impression, with the association receiving over 30 applications for membership or special relations. It is fair to assert that the strengthening of BRICS has become a catalyst for the emergence of a polycentric world order, which has its passionate supporters as well as open foes and detractors.

We are aware that not everyone is prepared to accept the natural progression of events. The Western community, which once took the lead owing to well-known historical occurrences – such as the Great Discoveries, the development of capitalism, and the amassing of wealth largely through colonial empires – seeks to retain its privileged status indefinitely. The United States and its subordinate Western countries are reviving the spirit of the Cold War with their doctrinal documents proclaiming the need to eliminate so-called threats to their dominance posed by Russia, China, and other nations pursuing independent national policies.

Following the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, Washington and its allies, as part of the hybrid war they are waging, have launched an aggressive sanctions campaign against Russia. In the past decade, more than 21,000 sanctions have been imposed on our country across various domains, including economy, finance, trade, investment, media, culture, sport, and broadly, people-to-people contacts.

These neo-colonial practices of the West primarily impact the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The extraterritorial application of unilateral restrictions harms the poorest nations by depriving them of essential energy resources, food, fertiliser, and basic technologies, not to mention advanced scientific achievements and developments.

The adverse effect of this campaign against the undesired is that the West is undermining itself and dismantling the global division of labour system that it has propagated since the early 1990s. Western capitals have conveniently forgotten principles such as fair competition, the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence, among others. The dollar, long touted as the global commons of humanity, has been weaponised to suppress and penalise geopolitical competitors and the non-compliant. Thus, effectively, it has been nullified as the world's reserve currency and means of international settlements. Consequently, the United States and its allies are dismantling the globalisation framework they once fostered and promoted globally.

I would like to recall President Vladimir Putin's words at the Kazan summit, where he emphasised that BRICS, in developing alternative payment platforms and new interbank settlement systems, is not opposing the dollar. The United States itself is driving the dollar out of circulation, as more countries become wary of being the next target. No one can predict the reasons for which they might be penalised, or the whims of a particular US agency head.

When economic pressure fails to sway truly sovereign nations, the West, led by the United States, resorts to threats, blackmail, and even the use of force.

The coercive practices are used in a variety of forms. In 2022, the goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia was proclaimed. That takes us back to London and Washington hatching Operation Unthinkable back in May 1945 to destroy or dismember the Soviet Union, their ally in the battle against Nazism, even before World War II ended. Today, the Anglo-Saxons plan to defeat our country using the Kiev regime as a proxy, just as Hitler tried to do when he rallied most European countries under Nazi banners. As a backup plan in case the Zelensky regime fails to deliver, they are priming continental Europe for a suicidal mission which is a direct armed conflict with Russia.

It is sad to state that the ruling elites in many European countries evidently see no future for themselves in a multipolar world and are looking instead to the overseas hegemon to save them. The German government has disgracefully acquiesced to the humiliating destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, despite the severe harm this caused to Germany’s economy and people. Now, Berlin has fallen in line with the United States announcing its decision to deploy US intermediate-range ground-based missiles on German territory. All Chancellor Olaf Scholz did was call it a “good” decision.
Reckless proposals are being put forth to use long-range Western systems to strike deep into Russia’s territory. I won’t discuss the futility of the very idea of “prevailing” over Russia. At the very least, doing so will sharply reduce the chances of any such participant to play any role whatsoever in a multipolar future.

The desperate situation facing Western elites can be seen in the increasingly irrational behaviour of the countries that are following the policies promoted by these elites. The West (the Anglo-Saxons in particular) is never satisfied with what they have. The war they started against Russia in Europe wasn’t enough. In July, at a summit in Washington, NATO leaders asserted the alliance’s claim to a dominant role not only in the Euro-Atlantic region, but in the Asia-Pacific as well. If you look at NATO’s declaration, it may appear that this (supposedly defensive) alliance now plans to conduct “defensive” operations in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait which lie thousands of miles away from its shores.

Any right-minded observer knows that this path will lead nowhere. However, the United States is purposefully taking NATO’s military infrastructure to the Pacific, openly aiming to ratchet up pressure on China, North Korea, and Russia. While doing so, they are undermining the ASEAN-centric architecture of regional security and cooperation in Southeast Asia, which has been built over decades on the basis of equality, mutual interests, and consensus. In place of open mechanisms built around ASEAN, the United States and its allies are creating minilateral alliances such as AUKUS, the Quad, and various trilateral and quadrilateral groups involving Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. They are also trying to pull ASEAN members into these configurations in order to destabilise ASEAN and to take it out of the game as a competitor to pro-Western bloc alignments.

The obsession with controlling absolutely everything has led to a rash of tragedies in the Middle East, including the US invasion of Iraq under the false pretext of searching for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and the destruction of Libya’s statehood, with tragic consequences not only for Libya, but for North Africa and the Sahel region as well.

This year, yet another independent UN member -Yemen - came under an Anglo-Saxon aggression. The Syrian Arab Republic is still reeling from the shock of American interference. The United States has effectively blocked all multilateral mechanisms aimed at promoting the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, especially the work of the Quartet, which included Russia, the United States, the UN, and the EU. Washington is now trying to monopolise mediation efforts, organising improvised negotiating formats and putting forth new proposals that are supposedly meant to end the bloodshed in Gaza and Lebanon. Notwithstanding these efforts, casualties are mounting at an alarming rate, affecting mostly civilians - women, children, and the elderly - while the West stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the facts.

In just one year that the Israeli operation has been in effect, the death toll among Palestinian and Lebanese civilians is double of the civilian casualties on both sides in Ukraine over the ten years that elapsed since the neo-Nazi coup. Almost twice as many casualties in just one year, compared to ten years.

When the Americans and their satellites engage in international and regional issues, their primary goal is to preserve their privileged position and to call all the shots. They pay little attention to the lives of ordinary people. However, the serious challenges facing the world call for a united effort based on equality, rather than submission to those who seek global dominance.

In addition to armed conflicts, this applies to ensuring legal democratic regulations governing the use of innovative technologies, including artificial intelligence; adapting to climate change; engaging in joint exploration of outer space; preventing infectious disease epidemics; overcoming socioeconomic and digital inequities; combatting hunger and poverty; and many other areas that are crucial for the future of humanity.

Our diplomatic contacts, including at the BRICS summit in Kazan, have led us to make an unequivocal conclusion: the Global Majority countries clearly see that confrontation and hegemony are harmful and do not solve anything. The Global South and the Global East are increasingly asserting their right to fully participate in decision-making processes across all aspects of international life.

With the non-Western countries ramping up their foreign policy activities, the role of regional and interregional interstate associations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is growing. In Eurasia, these include the SCO, ASEAN, the EAEU, the CIS, the CSTO, the LAS, the GCC, and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

In Africa, the African Union members are becoming increasingly determined to ensure that the continent’s rich resources enter global markets not as raw materials, but as goods with high added value. This move is designed to put an end to neo-colonial practices and will radically shift the economic balance with Western countries in favour of Africans. Similar processes are underway in Latin America and Asia, which has long acted as the driver of the global economy.

Establishing direct contacts and horizontal ties among all regional integration entities and with BRICS which already includes the key countries that are regional leaders, is a significant step towards multipolarity. BRICS could act as a harmonising entity and make it possible to softly coordinate the approaches of integration associations of the Global South and the Global East.

Another area of focus is the de-dollarisation of the international financial and economic system. I wish to remind you that the share of national currencies in Russia's transactions with the SCO and EAEU countries has surpassed 90 percent, and with the BRICS nations, we are approaching 65 percent. This figure continues to grow.

Russia will persist in playing its vital role in this process, given our status as the world's fourth-largest economy (according to the International Monetary Fund, in terms of purchasing power parity) and as the largest resource power. Efforts to establish new payment platforms were initiated within BRICS under Russia's chairmanship and will be continued by our Brazilian successors in 2025.

Certain experts predict not only a strengthening of the role of national and regional currencies in international trade but also the formation of several macro-regions with their own standards, regulations, and value chains, as the once-global system rapidly fragments due to the self-serving actions of the United States.

Confidence in the dollar is dwindling. Regardless of how events unfold, we will continue to bolster the mechanisms of the EAEU and the SCO and deepen ties with members of other integration structures both on the Eurasian continent and globally, paving new avenues for mutually beneficial, genuinely equitable cooperation. This approach yields dividends for all participants without exception.

In this regard, we will persist in promoting the concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Its development will provide a tangible foundation for the realisation of another initiative by Russian President Vladimir Putin, aimed at constructing an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia. This architecture will be open to all countries and associations on our continent without exception which are ready to collaborate in finding universally acceptable solutions. The highly productive International Conference on Eurasian Security, recently held in Minsk with participation from numerous Eurasian countries, associations, and delegations from across the continent, including Western Europe, was specifically dedicated to this topic.

We aspire that the countries of the Eurasian continent – the largest, fastest-growing, and richest in natural resources – determine their own destinies without external interference and resolve their issues in such a manner that Greater Eurasia will contribute to the construction of a sustainable multipolar world.

I wish to emphasise that we are not isolating ourselves from dialogue with the West. Although we will draw the necessary conclusions from the manner in which our Western neighbours abruptly backed on their promises, commitments, and agreements with us, and the decorum they exhibited, undermining their credibility. Should they become ready to resume contacts and build relations based on the principles of mutual respect and a fair balance of interests, we will decide how to approach such proposals, guided by our national interests rather than the "wishes" that we occasionally hear from Western capitals.

In July of this year, under our presidency, the United Nations Security Council convened an open debate on the principles of coexistence among nations in a multipolar world. We proposed a series of concrete steps for discussion, aimed at restoring confidence and stabilising the international situation. We intend to continue this dialogue at other multilateral platforms, including this month at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro.

As of now, the conversation at the intergovernmental, official level has been sluggish. The West persists in seeking unilateral advantages, resorting to any means necessary, including, I regret to say, privatising the secretariats of international organisations. This is vividly evident in the operations of the OSCE and the United Nations Secretariat where outdated and inefficient criteria for the formation of the Secretariat result in Western representatives dominating all key departments of these esteemed bodies. It is deeply regrettable that the leaders of the OSCE and the UN Secretariat are beginning to play unsavourily to Western interests.

On my way here, I came across a RIA Novosti article regarding a statement made by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General during a press briefing. When asked about the Secretary-General's view on reports of military plans by Russia and the DPRK, he expressed deep concern as these reports contribute to the internationalisation of the Ukrainian crisis. The Secretary-General, therefore, stands firmly in support of resolving the Ukrainian conflict in accordance with the UN Charter, international law, and General Assembly resolutions.

I have two comments in this regard. Firstly, the Secretary-General mentioned "internationalisation" nearly three years after the West had prepared Ukraine for war and was directing it on the ground.

The facts were presented numerous times in the past. Yet, at that time, the leadership of the UN Secretariat was not troubled by internationalisation.

Secondly, we all aspire to be guided by the UN Charter (as the Secretary-General advocates) and UNGA resolutions. Let me remind you that when the West, fully supported by the Secretariat of the World Organisation, demands the restoration of Ukraine to its 1991 borders, it cites the Charter's principle on respecting the territorial integrity of all states, along with a series of resolutions adopted by voting, with a division among UN members, at the General Assembly in support of Ukraine's calls to restore its territorial integrity. Everything seems to coincide. There is indeed such a provision in the Charter and the UNGA resolutions. A partial truth is worse than a lie. The Charter, before mentioning territorial integrity, acknowledges the right of nations to self-determination, which underpinned the greatest decolonisation process in recent history. It is the right of a nation to self-determination.

Among the resolutions of the UN General Assembly, long predating the events in Ukraine, in 1970, the detailed Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by consensus. It states that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of countries that honour the right of a nation to self-determination and, as such, have governments representing the entire population living within the territory. This was a UNGA resolution. Unlike those provocatively introduced following the launch of the special military operation and voted upon (with roughly a third of UN members not supporting them, and in some cases half), the Declaration I refer to was adopted by consensus.

The putschists who, in violation of the agreements with the legitimate government, staged a coup in February 2014 and took over government institutions, proclaimed their first goal which was to eliminate the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. They also sent groups of thugs to Crimea on “friendship trains” to storm the Supreme Council building. Did these people represent the people of Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya? Of course, not.

The UN Secretary-General should instruct his official envoy to have the UN Secretariat provide a more coherent and accurate interpretation of international law.

The UN Charter should be read in its entirety, not just the parts that one finds convenient to highlight in order to suit a particular conflict.

In 2008, Western countries declared independence of Kosovo, and not a single Western nation had anything to say about it. The International Court of Justice stated in its findings (President Putin often mentions it) that if a portion of a state unilaterally decides to declare independence, approval from the central authorities is not necessary.

Even if we take this off the table, the first article of the UN Charter (you can’t miss it if you read the document for real) stipulates that the rights of all people must be respected regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. This, too, is part of the UN Charter, which Secretary-General Antonio Guterres encourages everyone to follow with regard to the Ukraine conflict. I have yet to hear a single comment from his official representative addressing the law-based annihilation of the Russian language in Ukraine in all spheres of life, including education, culture, media, and everyday life. Nor have I heard anyone say anything about the recently adopted law on dissolution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. According to the UN Charter, language and religion must be respected, and Secretary-General Guterres is the main advocate for enforcing the Charter.

People often ask: what will multipolarity rely on in terms of international legal foundation? There’s no need to look for new principles; they are all there in the UN Charter. The problem is that our Western partners have never fully respected these principles. As a reminder, a key principle of the Charter states that the UN is founded on the sovereign equality of states. Now, quickly recap the conflicts and crises that broke out since the UN had been founded. In none of these has the United States or its Western allies abided by the principle of sovereign equality or treated anyone as equal partner.

We consider it a major achievement that the Declaration unanimously adopted by the leaders at the BRICS summit in Kazan explicitly underscores the importance of respecting the goals and principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnectedness, rather than selectively, which is unfortunately what we observe today.

In this day and age of rapid change, we are interested in having researchers, thinkers, futurists, and (in modern parlance) visionaries who are endowed with imagination and an ability for unconventional thinking look beyond the horizon and contribute to conceptualising current processes, forecasting, and modelling new forms of international life that align with new realities and, in my view, should be based on timeless principles of the UN Charter. These principles are not upheld not because they are flawed or unfair. In fact, they are fair, and this is precisely why the West is reluctant to follow them.

Justice is not an attribute of the world system that the West created and would like to perpetuate against an objective historical trend towards greater multipolarity.

In this kind of work, it’s essential to rely on facts and clear-eyed analysis, while also being bold and courageous in articulating ideas that could become the foundation for a vision of the future of choice. That’s what you are encouraged to discuss here today.

Russia stands ready to be part of a group of countries that will provide intellectual leadership. Our nation’s millennia-long track record in statecraft and achievements - soon to be vividly displayed at the National Centre “Russia” - should serve as a powerful incentive for the creative activity of our civil society. If someone comes forward with such an activity (they always do in critical times), rest assured that diplomats will be your most dependable allies.

Here’s what I would like to say in closing. Your gathering bears the name of a science fiction symposium. I have no doubt that its scientific side is guaranteed by the high quality and reputation of the attending experts from many countries. As for the “fiction” aspect of your agenda, the discussions will surely offer much food for thought for practicing politicians.

To contribute to the exploration of the “fiction” side of it, I dare to propose that you consider the idea of “when and if the West comes to its senses” and “when it might regain its conscience.” I believe this will make a compelling scenario. Perhaps, one day the West (after all, there are many intelligent people there) will realise that neo-colonial approaches cause nothing but harm, including to the West itself, and that arrogance kills its reputation. Let us think back to what EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell had to say: Europe is a “garden,” and everything around it is a “jungle.” Or, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “If you’re not at the table in the international system, you’re going to be on the menu.” It’s a quote. I was shocked when I read this.

I also encourage you to imagine what the Global Majority countries should do to expedite the process of awakening our Western colleagues, who, in the best interests of their own people, must come to understand that it’s critically important to behave.

Russia
Source: valdaiclub.com

The goal of a society of equal opportunities has many sides to it. This paper will address international economic dimensions, and more specifically the issue of how BRICS and other developing countries can deal with the glaring inequities and deficiencies of the current monetary and financial system, writes Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. for the 21st Annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club.

The goal of a society of equal opportunities has many sides to it. This paper will address international economic dimensions, and more specifically the issue of how BRICS and other developing countries can deal with the glaring inequities and deficiencies of the current monetary and financial system.
These inequities and deficiencies are well-know and there is no need to discuss them at length. Suffice to recall that we live in a world where a national currency, the US dollar, and a national central bank, the Federal Reserve, function as the international reserve currency and international lender of last resort. To use an expression coined as far back as the 1960s, the dollar’s role gives the United States the longstanding “exorbitant privilege” of settling its debts and acquiring real resources by money creation. And the absence of a true global lender of last resort allows the Federal Reserve to provide liquidity in times of stress only to a circle of close allies or satellites, leaving the rest of the world no alternative but to hold on to high and costly precautionary international reserves or else run the risk of having to resort to the International Monetary Fund when facing balance-of-payments difficulties.

The IMF, as is well known, is tightly controlled by the West, i.e., the high-income nations led by the US, and routinely imposes harsh macroeconomic adjustment measures on unfriendly or unruly countries or even excludes them altogether from emergency balance-of -payment support. On the other hand, countries seen as geopolitically close to the West obtain generous support with soft conditionality. Lack of even handedness is the prevailing mode of operation and the normal state of affairs. This has always been the case but became more pronounced with the deterioration of geopolitics since the second decade of this century.

No fundamental reform of the Bretton Woods institutions can realistically be expected. Incremental adjustments are possible and may improve their working but nothing will be contemplated that alters the prevailing concentration of decision-making power in the hands of the US, the Europe Union and a few other high-income nations. Thus, the IMF is not and will not become a global lender of last resort. The quota and voting power distribution and the other rules that provide the West with full control of the Fund have remained frozen in the last 14 years and there is no prospect of change in the foreseeable future. Mutatis mutandi, the same holds true for the World Bank.

Similarly, there is no prospect of a major reform in the Special Drawing Rights of the IMF, the SDRs, created in 1969 as a potential international currency. They have become and will remain a limited unit of account and reserve currency, confined by US decade-long resistance to a secondary role within the IMF.

The SWIFT system of international payments has also become a geopolitical instrument to sanction, punish and exclude countries and entities seen as unfriendly by the West. Even official international reserves are no longer respected. Several countries, including Russia, Iran, Libya, Syria, Venezuela and Afghanistan, have been the victims of unilateral decisions that froze or confiscated their dollar or euro assets, as well as gold deposits held abroad. The rule of law is basically gone. Piracy prevails. 
One thing seems evident: the current international monetary and financial system is fundamentally unreformable. Piecemeal and partial adjustments can still be made, but the basic inequitable features of this system will not be changed anytime soon.

How should developing countries respond to this? To begin with, It is incumbent upon us to be realistic and to stop hoping that fundamental reform of the existing international system (or non-system) will somehow occur. Although political politeness may lead us to talk and behave as though there is still a residual belief in reform, we should brace ourselves and prepare to build equitable and independent alternatives. The BRICS can have a special role here. Given their size and increasing relative importance in the world, they are uniquely positioned to bring a measure of order and fairness into international relations. This is an undoubtedly difficult goal to achieve, especially in the short and even medium term. However, the challenge is inescapable if we are really serious about constructing a multipolar world in the 21st century and ridding ourselves from the blemishes and distortions of the Western-dominated institutions. In this paper, I will try to sketch out how these independent monetary and financial alternatives might look like, building on what the BRICS have already done in these fields.

De-dollarization and alternatives to SWIFT

Let us begin with the alternatives to the dollar and the Western crossborder interbank messaging and payment system. Two points work in favor of building alternatives. First, de-dollarization has one powerful ally – the US itself. The dollar and the SWIFT system have been systematically misused as geopolitical weapons. Not only primary sanctions but also secondary ones have been imposed unilaterally, the latter affecting countries that transact or seek to transact with sanctioned entities and countries. This malpractice has pushed countries into seeking ways to replace the dollar and the SWIFT network.

Second point, deriving from the first: when discussing and engaging in de-dollarization, we are by no means starting from scratch. De-dollarization is an ongoing process and has indeed been going on for some time now. It happens gradually, since there is considerable inertia in monetary arrangements, but the trend seems clear and is probably irreversible. It is driven not only by the weaponization of the currency and of the cross border payment system but also by the perceived fiscal and financial problems of the American economy. Trust in a currency depends after all in confidence that the economy of the issuing country is managed in a responsible and sustainable manner. There are legitimate doubts as to whether the US still meets this requirement, plagued as it is by fiscal problems, an ever-increasing public debt and recurring instability and crises in its financial system.

Reflecting these uncertainties, the share of the dollar in official reserves has been declining gradually over the last two decades, from more than 70% to less than 60%, according to data reported to the IMF. The relative decline in the dollar share corresponds not to a rise in the shares of the euro, the yen or the pound sterling, but to an increase in the holdings of non-traditional currencies, notably the renminbi. Note also that data reported to the IMF may understate the dollar’s decline, since diversifying central banks would tend to underreport their shift to alternative reserve currencies.
Symptomatic of de-dollarization is also the rise in gold prices, reflecting in part defensive movements of central banks, alarmed as they are by the weaponization of the dollar and suspicious of the fragilities of the US economy. Not only the dollar, but also the euro and other traditional reserve currencies have suffered a loss of confidence as a result of the tendency of most developed nations to accompany the US in the imposition of unilateral sanctions. With such actions becoming more frequent, an increase in the demand for gold is only natural, since it is a reserve asset that can be safely warehoused in the home country.

The Federal Reserve’s traditional near monopoly as an international lender of last resort has in turn been increasingly challenged by competition from the People’s Bank of China. Bilateral swap agreements between the PBoC and dozens of central banks of developing countries, carried out in dollars but also in renminbi, have led to some erosion of the bargaining power of the Fed and the IMF vis-à-vis countries facing balance-of-payments crises. In the case of Argentina, for example, the PBoC stepped in to offer financial support in the midst of complicated negotiations between Buenos Aires and Washington. Without actually confronting Washington, the PBoC activated bilateral swap lines with the central bank of Argentina and made its influence felt, bringing a discreet but welcome change in the balance of power between an important debtor country and the IMF. The bilateral swaps with China may not have had a decisive influence on the outcome of Argentina’s negotiations with the IMF but should be seen as a harbinger of things to come.

More importantly, there has been a striking increase in bilateral transactions conducted in national currencies. Not only between BRICS countries and between them and other developing nations, but also outside BRICS, notably in Southeast Asia. This is clearly the area where de-dollarization is advancing more rapidly. Dealing directly in national currencies and by-passing the dollar has the advantages of reducing transaction costs and political risks. Not surprisingly, countries such as Russia, China, and Iran have shifted most of their bilateral trade to national currencies. For instance, more than 90% of bilateral transactions between China and Russia are now carried out in national currencies. More than half of China’s overall crossborder transactions are now settled in renminbi. 
Moreover, China, Russia and Iran, as well as other countries, have set up their own interbank messaging and payment systems as alternatives to the traditional Western-controlled SWIFT infrastructure. During its chairmanship of the BRICS in 2024, Russia took a step further by working out a detailed proposal for a new plurilateral and independent infrastructure, denominated the BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative (BCBPI,) that would be based on national currencies and interactions between central banks. In their summit in Kazan, Russia, BRICS leaders encouraged further work in this area and tasked their Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors to continue consideration of local currencies, payment instruments and platforms and report back to them by the next Presidency.
One task ahead for the BRICS is, therefore, to deepen the discussion initiated by Russia and reach an agreement on further steps. Hopefully, this will be done in the Brazilian presidency in 2025.
On the Russian proposal, two brief observations. As noted by Jeffrey Sachs, the BCBPI may not be invulnerable to Western pressure, given that it still relies on commercial banks as intermediaries. Commercial banks would have no incentive to participate in the BCPI as this could create the risk of exclusion from SWIFT. It might therefore be necessary to create special purpose vehicles or special banks, non-SWIFT dependent, designed specifically to operate as intermediaries in the BCBPI.
Another difficulty, perhaps more serious. The rather vague statements on this topic made by BRICS leaders in Kazan probably reflect lack of consensus on the Russian initiative. The truth is that some countries may hesitate to endorse a new system in such a sensitive area. Now, this is a considerable hurdle. Consensus is an entrenched tradition in the BRICS process. Countries are normally averse to depart from this tradition since it ensures that everyone’s concerns and sensitivities are reflected in the group’s deliberations.

The downside to this is that consensus, especially if understood as unanimity, may be a recipe for paralysis. At best, is slows down action considerably. When the group was composed of five countries, decision-making by consensus was already a considerable challenge – witness the limited progress in the development of the financing mechanisms the BRICS created.

In January 2024, four more countries joined BRICS as full members and consensus will now be even harder to achieve. Further expansion of membership could make consensus unworkable. The BRICS would become probably incapable of going beyond vague communiqués and statements of general principles in Leaders’ declarations. In fact, the BRICS already are at this stage of relative ineffectiveness and risks turning more and more into a forum of symbolic political value. This may sound overly negative, given the intense media attention that BRICS meetings have been receiving all over the world. But if practical realities are taken into account, it seems difficult to avoid the unpleasant conclusion that the group may not live up to expectations if it continues expanding membership and working on the basis of strict adherence to consensus.

One solution would be to present any initiative, the BRICS payment initiative as well as others, as strictly voluntary, without assuming that they would need support from all BRICS countries to be set in motion. This would mean avoiding the use of the BRICS or BRICS+ acronyms. The BRICS payment initiative, for example, could be called New International Payment System (NIPS). Countries willing to participate would jointly launch the NIPS; others would be welcome to join later. The NIPS could be open to the 13 partner countries of the BRICS that were admitted in Kazan, as well as to others – a further reason not to call it a BRICS initiative.

A reserve currency is ultimately indispensable

Transactions in national currencies and new payment platforms are undoubtedly welcome steps in the process of ensuring independence from the US dollar and Western systems. But they do not provide a complete solution. Full-fledged de-dollarization ultimately requires an alternative reserve currency.

The limitations of cross border transactions in national currencies are often overlooked. For instance, in a recent interview, India’s distinguished Foreign Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, remarked that bilateral currency deals work well enough and appear satisfactory to most BRICS countries, adding that a common currency would require a substantial legal architecture and reduce national sovereignty.

Mr. Jaishankar’s remarks seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what is required and is being proposed in recent discussions. First, an alternative means of payment would by no means imply replacing national currencies. The currencies and central banks of the participating countries would continue to exist as before. A “common currency” would not be a euro-like currency issued by a common central bank. Thus, there would be no loss of sovereignty, no common monetary policy and not even the need to coordinate national monetary policies. I will back to these points below.

It is doubtful, moreover, that bilateral deals in national currencies are working well enough. They work poorly in fact and, as time goes by, the limitations of these bilateral arrangements will be felt more and more. The reason is that cross border transactions cannot be expected to balance over time and a reserve currency is required to allow countries to incur surpluses and deficits.

India herself provides an illustration of why this is so. Her trade with Russia is done mainly by means of rubles and rupees. Since India runs a substantial deficit, Russia is accumulating large stocks of Indian currency. Now, the Russian central bank may be reluctant to hold rupees, a currency that is inconvertible and perhaps prone to instability. So, Russia will seek to dispose of the unwanted excess supply of Indian currency.

What can Russia do? The options are far from ideal. It could perhaps seek investment opportunities in India. However, this may be difficult and slow. It could well stumble on Indian restrictions to foreign investments in certain areas and sectors of its economy. Additional efforts to import goods and services from India might in turn run up against Russia’s own concerns with excessive external competition from abroad in certain markets. These limitations may perhaps be circumvented by triangular operations in which excess rupees would be used by Russia to acquire goods and services and undertake investments in countries that have a demand for rupees due to economic ties with India. This resort to third countries can provide an escape valve but would hardly be sufficient to solve the problem, especially if the imbalance in the bilateral relation with India is large and persistent. As a result, the excess supply of rupees could lead Russia to sell rupees to third countries at a discount.
 In short, these alternatives smack of a barter system in which participants either balance their mutual transactions or seek third parties to dispose of unwanted stocks and obtain desired merchandise. It is precisely to avoid these cumbersome and inefficient methods that money was introduced in the first place – not only to provide a common unit of account and means of payment but also a store of value.  

To judge from President Lula’s statements in Kazan, Brazil has already taken these points on board. In his speech during the plenary session of the summit, the Brazilian president was spot on when stating that “now is the time to move forward with creating alternative means of payment for transactions among our countries. It’s not about replacing our currencies. But we need to work to ensure that the multipolar order we desire is reflected in the international financial system.” Let us hope that Brazil, as chair of the BRICS in 2025, will be capable of guiding the group’s discussion in this direction.

Could the renminbi be the solution?

Before going into the creation of a new means of payment, we may want to inquire whether an alternative does not exist already. Why not simply rely on the Chinese renminbi as an international reserve currency? This option may look attractive and pragmatic but does not really solve the problem.

From the point of view of countries other than China, substituting the dollar for the renminbi would in a sense amount to exchanging six for half of a dozen. We would in the end remain in the same position that we are in now in – with an international system relying on a national currency and a national central bank.

From the point of view of China herself, this solution could also be problematic. One should not lose sight of the fact that China, for all the progress it has made in the last four decades, is still a middle-income country and, as such, faces problems and constraints that are essentially different from those of high-income countries, the traditional suppliers of international reserve currencies. In contrast to other developing countries, China has successfully relied on strict exchange controls and restrictions on capital movements to protect its economy from the chronic instability of international finance.

Would it be willing to abandon this protection for the sake of promoting a greater international role for its currency? Would it be willing to run large external deficits in order to supply the world economy with an alternative to the dollar? The increased demand for renminbi as an international currency would lead to its appreciation relatively to other currencies. This would generate the required external deficits but only by weakening the competitiveness of China’s export sector, the country’s long-time engine of economic growth. For these reasons, it seems reasonable to assume that China will be reluctant to offer its currency as a global rival to the US dollar.

Central elements of a new international monetary and financial system

Thus, we would need to establish a new international reserve currency, let us call it the NRC, that would be the linchpin of what could become a new international monetary and financial system (NIFMS). This NIFMS would need to include the main elements of the current international monetary and financial system (IMFS). However, as highlighted above, the IMFS works poorly and unfairly, downgraded as it has been to the role of a geopolitical instrument, a weapon used to blackmail the rest of the world into complying with the West’s interests and priorities. This means that the NIFMS would have to be fully independent and obey principles of fairness and inclusiveness. It would work alongside the IMFS and could even cooperate with and learn from the positive sides of existing institutions but would have to be crafted as immune from Western interference and political meddling.

The possibility of a NRC, under different denominations, has already been raised a few times in BRICS related discussions. I take up the matter once again to introduce new elements and expand the approach, while remaining conscious of the fact that the BRICS process is still at an early stage, historically speaking, and that most of what follows cannot be expected to happen in the short run and even in the medium run. Even so, in light of the acute problems and blatant unfairness of the current monetary and financial architecture, we should not shy away from imagining new paths.
It might be helpful to present a few diagrams that set out the main characteristics and components of a NIMFS. The new architecture would, as mentioned, function in parallel to but be independent of the existing one. It would mirror the institutions of the IMFS but would not be multilateral in nature. At an initial stage at least, it would be a plurilateral structure and would not include a very large number of countries (diagram 1).

For the reasons given above, we should avoid assuming that all BRICS would join the initiative right away. No one would be excluded but membership of the new system and of each of its components would be strictly voluntary. Countries could initially decide to stay away from some or all of the new institutions, The nine BRICS members and the recently admitted 13 partners countries can be expected to participate in the discussions and negotiations but no country would be obliged to be a part of the actual outcomes. Countries opting out would retain the right to become members at some later date, once they become confident that the NIMFS or at least part of its components are attractive and safe.

Safety is indeed a paramount consideration. The BRICS are rightly seen all over the world as a counter-hegemonic force, a group of countries that have the economic, territorial and demographic clout to challenge the international status quo. It is also true, however, that there has been some reluctance to embrace initiatives that touch raw nerves in the West. One thing to remember is that the United States, although a declining hegemon, still holds considerable power and influence. It can exert pressures on all countries, backstage and front stage. Donald Trump, for instance, publicly stated that, if elected, he would punish countries seeking to replace the dollar as a reserve currency with punitive tariffs of 100% on everything they export to the United States. Trump is more outspoken and prone to bluffs and aggressive statements than other American leaders, but there should be no doubt that the US political establishment deeply resents any attempt to unseat the dollar from its longstanding role of dominant international currency. It will attempt to undermine any initiative that threatens or weakens the multilateral structures it controls with the help of allies and satellites.
It is precisely this geopolitical context that makes it very difficult, perhaps impossible, to advance discussions and take actual practical decisions if the BRICS stick to consensus-based decision making, especially now that we have nine or more countries around the table. As previously suggested, we should therefore consider moving forward with a subset of BRICS countries in the construction of alternatives to the current monetary and financial system. Again, no country would be excluded from the discussions and new initiatives, but a coalition of willing and able countries could start the process on a strictly voluntary basis.

Experience has shown that even seemingly simple steps encounter resistance within the group. Nonetheless, if there is a minimum of clarity of purpose and determination, the Brazilian presidency of the BRICS next year could start with the initial steps set out in diagram 2. As previously indicated, a new international payment system (NIPS) would require completing the discussion initiated by Russia in 2024 and putting together a coalition of countries willing to move forward on this basis. The Russian proposal will of course need to be duly adjusted and improved to garner support. Ideally, this NIPS could be put together and announced as a building block of a NIMFS by the end of 2025.

In parallel, the BRICS could initiate the discussion of a new unit of account, let’s call it the NUA, to serve as a transition mechanism to the NRC (diagram 2). This step is by now pretty familiar to those that follow BRICS-related discussions. Indeed, it dates back to a proposal made by the Valdai Club as far back as 2018 to establish an SDR-like unit of account, in the form of a basket of currencies. Again, not necessarily the currencies of all BRICS countries, but of those willing to participate, including perhaps some non-BRICS countries. Weights could correspond roughly to the share of each country’s currency in the aggregate GDP of the participating countries.

A unit of account benefits from network effects, with users or potential users tending to rely on it more as its use becomes more widespread. To facilitate the dissemination of the NUA, one could construct the basket in such a manner as to have it begin on a one-to-one parity with the US dollar (diagram 2), allowing the NUA to piggy-back on the dollar’s traditional role as an international standard value. This would not imply, however, any need to stabilize the NUA/dollar exchange rate, and much less to establish parity as a rule or legal requirement. On the contrary, the NUA would automatically float with respect to the dollar and other currencies, in line with the weighted fluctuations of the bilateral exchange rates of the currencies in the basket. Despite this, one could expect the NUA to display a relative measure of stability. For one, inflation rates in BRICS countries are reasonably low, working in favor of moderation in the changes in the external value of their currencies. Also working in favor of some stability of the NUA would be the fact that some of the major BRICS currencies stand on opposite sides of commodity price cycles, given that Brazil, Russia, and South Africa are commodity exporters while India and China are commodity importers.

Needless to say, a NUA would be meaningless unless it is conceived from the very start as a bridge to the more fundamental step of creating a NRC as an alternative to the dollar and other national reserve currencies that play the role of international assets (diagram 3). A number of routes to a new currency have been contemplated in recent discussions among economists of BRICS countries. One approach that has received some attention would be to back a new currency with gold or a combination of gold and other commodities, drawing on the ample reserves of such assets held by some BRICS countries. However, “backing” a currency actually means making it freely convertible into the backing asset at a fixed or predictable rate. This would be hardly possible if, as is the case, the prices of the backing asset or assets are fundamentally unstable, dependent as they are on the numerous and unpredictable factors that affect the demand for and supply of these commodities.

To be successful, the NRC would have to be a 21^st century currency. It could not be a throwback to a commodity standard, to the antiquated system of backing a currency by gold and/or other commodities. It could also not be anchored to any other currency or basket of currencies. The NRC would have to be a floating fiat currency.

 To dispel a common misunderstanding, one should stress once again that the NRC would by no means replace the national currencies of the participating countries. Statements to the contrary are either based on misunderstandings or are perhaps attempts to hold up a straw man in order to discredit any such initiative. Thus, it bears repeating that the currencies of the participants would continue to exist exactly as before. Their central banks would continue as national monetary authorities in charge of conducting monetary and exchange-rate policies, managing international reserves, supervising domestic financial systems, and discharging any other functions specified in their national legal frameworks. In other words, the NRC would not be a euro-type currency issued and managed by a common central bank like the European Central Bank. Its creation would not involve any loss of economic sovereignty as there would be no unification of monetary policies. Not even coordination of these policies would be required (diagram 3).

The NRC would have a purely international role. It would be used only for cross border transactions and as a reserve asset, functioning in parallel to national currencies. It would not need to exist in physical form as paper money and coins. It could be a digital currency, similar to the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) that are in the process of being created in a number of countries. Its existence would reconcile cross border transactions in national currencies with the need to allow for surpluses and deficits between countries, obviating the problems that arise out of the aforementioned limitations of dealing in national currencies without an international store of value.

A basic questions remains, however. How would confidence in the NRC be ensured? Or, to put it differently, how would this new fiat currency be “backed”? Confidence would depend on the institutional structure underpinning the NRC. One possibility would be to create an issuing bank, let’s call it the New Reserve Monetary Authority (NRMA), responsible for creating NRCs, according to predetermined rules (diagram 4). Participation of countries in the NRMA would mirror their shares in the NUA/NRC. The NRMA would also be responsible for issuing bonds, let’s call them the New Reserve Bonds (NRBs), into which NRCs would be freely convertible. The NRBs would in turn be fully guaranteed by the Treasuries of the participating countries.

The financing mechanisms established by the BRICS – the New Development Bank NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) – would be natural channels through which the NUA and subsequently the NRC could be launched (diagram 5). The original purpose of the NDB and the CRA when they were created back in 2014 was to provide alternatives to the World Bank and the IMF, signaling the BRICS’ discontent with the Bretton Woods institutions.

Thus, it would only be logical to build on the NDB and the CRA when constructing the envisaged NIMFS. The NDB and the CRA could in effect become the international financial organizations of the new architecture. To play such a role, however, they would have to be revamped and reenergized.
To begin with, the NDB and the CRA could use the NAU and subsequently the NRC as units of account in lieu of the dollar. This is a relatively simple step. More importantly, the NDB, which is still largely dollarized in its assets and liabilities, should move towards operating mostly in national currencies and in NRCs, de-dollarizing gradually its loans and bond issuances. The CRA, a reserve pooling arrangement, would need to move towards swaps in eligible national currencies and NRCs.
Both the NDB and the CRA, especially the latter, are still small and at an incipient stage of development. The NDB has yet to expand its membership so as to allow it to lend on a global scale. It currently has only ten members (or eight, if one considers that Uruguay has yet to complete the parliamentary procedures required for membership and that Algeria´s entry to the bank has only recently been approved). By contrast, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), led by China and established at the same time as the NDB, has 109 member countries. The CRA, that is still limited to the five founding members, should also incorporate new countries, beginning with those that joined the BRICS as full members or partners.

This expansion of membership would bring in new capital and, together with additional capital resources from the five founding members, would allow the BRICS financing mechanisms to operate on a larger scale. To become efficient institutions of the NIMFS they would also need high quality administration and staff. The CRA has yet to establish a surveillance unit, foreseen since its creation ten years ago. This unit could be headquartered in Shanghai to facilitate coordination with the NDB. The creation of a solid, professional and independent macroeconomic surveillance system would allow the reduction of the IMF-link, still at 70%, increasing the size of CRA swaps that can be activated without the precondition of a program with the IMF (diagram 5).

A complete NIFMS would need to include other elements not discussed in this paper. For instance, the establishment of credit card or digital payment systems that would allow individuals and companies to make payments outside the network of Western credit card institutions that cease to function when sanctions are applied. Also, credit rating agencies would have to be created or strengthened to make our countries independent of the Western agencies – Moody´s, S&P, and Fitch – that, despite repeated failures and poor performance, continue to monopolize the market for credit ratings.

Concluding remarks

Is all this too much to expect from the BRICS? It may well be. Nothing like a new international monetary and financial system is likely to emerge soon. Certainly not in the short-run, probably not even in the medium-term. The BRICS are a heterogeneous group, not immune to Western pressure and blackmail. To set out on such a complex journey, strong leadership and strong political preconditions would be necessary.

This should not discourage us, I believe, from imagining long-term solutions to the intractable problems and chronic arbitrariness of the current Western-dominated international architecture. Attempts to reform it in fundamental ways, even gradually, have failed repeatedly and will, in all probability, continue to fail. Our countries are thus confronted with the choice of either passively accepting the inequities of Western financial arrangements or either of mustering the intelligence and courage to begin building something different in the 21^st century, to the benefit not only of BRICS but of developing countries as a whole.
_____________


References
Arsanalp, Serkan; Eichengreen, Barry & Simpson-Bell, Chirna. “The Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance: Active Diversifiers and the Rise of Nontraditional Reserve Currencies”, International Monetary Fund, Working Paper WP/22/58, March 2022.
Arsanalp, Serkan; Eichengreen, Barry & Simpson-Bell, Chirna. “Dollar Dominance in the International Reserve System: An Update”, IMF Blog, June 11, 2024.
BRICS Chairmanship Research. Improvement of the International Monetary and Financial System: Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security, BRICS Russia 2024, Report presented by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, the Bank of Russia, and Yakov and Partners.
BRICS Russia 2024. XVI BRICS Summit Kazan Declaration: Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security, Kazan, October 23, 2024.
Galbraith, James Kenneth. “The Dollar System in a Multipolar Word”, The Institute for New Economic Thinking, May 5, 2022.
Giambruno, Nick. “The REPO Act: A Precursor to the Dollar’s Downfall”, International Man, July 2024.
Kern, Michael. “The Start of De-Dollarization: China’s Move Away from the USD”, Oilprice, August 6, 2024.
Lissovolik, Yaroslav. “Boosting the use of national currencies among BRICS”, Russia in Global Affairs, September 14, 2018.
Lissovolik, Yaroslav. “A BRICS Reserve Currency: Exploring the Pathways”, BRICS+ Analytics, December 21, 2022.
Nogueira Batista Jr., Paulo. “A BRICS currency?”, Contemporary World Economy Journal, Vol 3, No 1, 2023, School of World Economy, Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, HSE University.
Nogueira Batista Jr., Paulo. “BRICS: Geopolitics and monetary initiatives in a multipolar world – how could a new international reserve currency look like?”, paper presented at the BRICS Seminar on Governance & Cultural Exchange Forum 2024, Moscow, September 23, 2024.
Silva, Luiz Inácio Lula da. Discurso do presidente Lula em Sessão Plenária Aberta da XVI Cúpula do BRICS, Kazan (Rússia), 23 de outubro de 2024.
Smith, Yves. “Indian Foreign Minister Throws Cold Water on the Idea of a BRICS Currency”, Naked Capitalism, September 26, 2024.

USA
Source: www.piie.com

While finance ministers and central bank governors from around the world rubbed shoulders in Washington, DC, in late October, Russian president Vladimir Putin was hosting another high-level meeting in Kazan, Russia—the BRICS Summit. Attended by leaders from China, India, and many other countries for a total of 36 countries represented, the gathering grandly demonstrated the failure of the West's effort to isolate Russia after its the invasion of Ukraine.

The summit reflected the BRICS countries' understandable concern about their lack of agency in the Western-dominated international governance and financial system. But the BRICS—made up of its eponymous members Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, plus newcomers Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Iran—remains unable to coalesce around much besides those concerns in the abstract. It is plagued by members' misalignments on the group's identity and how much they want to distance the group from the "rules-based" order they criticize.

This inability to agree on an orientation has obstructed achieving stated economic goals, like creating payment and currency systems to avoid the dollar. Nevertheless, Western nations would be foolish to ignore the dissatisfaction with the status quo voiced in Kazan.

Building BRICS

The original BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has always been a peculiar grouping. The economies have little in common besides being "big." Brazil, Russia, India, and China were lumped together by Goldman Sachs in 2001 as potential emerging drivers of economic growth. The group evolved into a loose geopolitical bloc when it began holding annual summits with a rotating host in 2009 (adding South Africa in 2010).

At the 2023 Johannesburg Summit, the BRICS invited Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia to join the group at the start of 2024. The first four did, while Argentina's newly-elected president Javier Milei withdrew earlier this year. Saudi Arabia is equivocating, neither accepting nor rejecting its invitation, participating in BRICS gatherings and meeting with Western officials at the same time.

Picking sides

What unites the BRICS is less a positive agenda of agreed-upon goals and more shared dissatisfaction with the Western-dominated rules-based international economic order. The relationships among members can be tense. For example, Egypt and Ethiopia have been locked in a dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River for decades. Despite a deal on the Himalayan border and the first formal meeting in five years between China's president Xi Jinping and India's prime minister Narendra Modi, where they both said cooperation is positive for a multipolar world, many issues remain a source of conflict between them.

And a more fundamental tension remains.

For Russia and China, the motivation is a desire for something explicitly anti- or at least post-Western. Putin has called the West's rules-based international order "classic colonialism." Xi has long railed against Western hegemony, suggesting BRICS expansion could counterweigh the West's power. Adding Iran last year further illustrates the group's anti-Western bent.

For others, it's different. India, South Africa, and Brazil would rather reform the Western order from the inside, echoing many arguing the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are dominated by the United States and Europe. "BRICS is not a counterpoint to the G7, nor the G20, nor against anyone," Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva tweeted last year. The day after the 2024 BRICS Summit ended, the Reserve Bank of India's governor outlined priorities for the G20 and international financial institutions, not mentioning the BRICS once.

This fundamental tension between the anti-Western-institutions and reform-Western-institutions stances has limited the BRICS members' ability to articulate a raison d'etre.

What happens in Kazan…

These divisions have also limited what the BRICS can get done concretely. Much digital ink was spilled before the 2024 summit about a potential BRICS alternative payment and settlement system—Russia indicated it would feature heavily. Conducting commerce in something other than the dollar would enable Russia and Iran to escape globally coordinated economic sanctions that cut off their ability to transact with much of the world; China is looking to reduce its reliance on the dollar; Lula has long advocated for developing countries to conduct trade in their own currencies or shared non-dollar currencies; and India is increasingly transacting in rupees, including with fellow BRICS members Russia and the UAE.

But per the Kazan Declaration from the summit, no significant changes to or creation of payment structures will materialize anytime soon—the BRICS countries "agree[d] to discuss and study the feasibility of establishment of an independent cross-border settlement and depositary infrastructure" and tasked finance ministers and central bank governors (many were in Washington at the time) to "continue consideration" of local currencies and payment instruments. Putin said as much in a post-summit news conference. While the members agree in theory on the necessity of such a platform, they could not come to a consensus on what actually operationalizing it would look like.

BRICS watchers also expected another expansion. The Kazan Declaration did "endorse" "Modalities of BRICS Partner Country Category"—13 were added by consensus: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey (notably a NATO country), Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam—but does not elaborate what defines a "Partner Country." Further highlighting disagreements between members, Brazil reportedly blocked Venezuela's addition to the partner list despite Russia's support.

Yes, and…

The Kazan Declaration illustrates how BRICS members can agree in abstract but not on mechanisms and implementation. What this diverse group of countries have in common is that they want to be grouped together at all.

Even as it struggles to define its identity, it is unlikely the BRICS is the last iteration of a new geopolitical bloc. What the BRICS is right now is a symbol of what's next in international cooperation not led by the West.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. The theme of the meeting is Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century.


Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.

We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.

Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.

There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.

The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.

Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.

Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You're either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“
Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You're either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.

So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.

I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.

The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West's monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.
Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.
Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.
It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.
We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.
We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

Thank you very much for your attention.