The Shifting Sands of Global Order: BRICS, Middle Powers, and the Search for Resilience
The post-World War II international order is undergoing a profound transformation. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent address at the World Economic Forum in Davos highlighted a growing recognition, even among global elites, that the “rules-based liberal international order” is fracturing. This isn’t simply a transition, but a “rupture,” as Carney described it, driven by great power rivalry and a willingness to disregard established norms.
The Rise of Middle Power Diplomacy
Carney’s speech wasn’t a lament, but a call to action. He argued that middle powers – nations that aren’t global superpowers but wield significant regional influence – are not powerless in this new landscape. Instead, they possess the capacity to forge a new order grounded in values like human rights, sovereignty, and sustainable development. This requires honesty about the changing world and a willingness to build “collective investments in resilience.”
BRICS: A Space for Alternative Governance
The BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia) exemplifies this trend. Originally conceived as a forum for emerging economies, BRICS has evolved into a platform for challenging the existing global governance system. Its core aim is to reform institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, advocating for a more multipolar order that reflects the realities of 21st-century power dynamics.
BRICS isn’t a new invention, but rather a continuation of earlier efforts by the “Third World” – including the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 – to revise an international order that historically excluded less developed countries. These earlier movements sought a “New International Economic Order” focused on industrialization, economic sovereignty, and restitution for colonial exploitation.
The Unequal Foundations of the Existing Order
The current international system, designed in the aftermath of World War II, was inherently unequal. The UN Security Council, for example, grants permanent seats and veto power to the victorious powers of the war, effectively allowing them to override the will of the majority. This structure, as noted by Stephen Krasner, often operates on “organized hypocrisy,” proclaiming universal principles while selectively applying them.
Much of the Global South was still under colonial rule when these institutions were established, and their voices were largely absent from the design process. This historical context is crucial to understanding the ongoing push for reform.
Navigating a Multialigned World
The United States, under the second Donald Trump administration, has further accelerated this shift by withdrawing from international organizations and pursuing aggressive unilateral policies. This has prompted countries across the globe – even those traditionally aligned with the U.S. – to diversify their partnerships and reduce their vulnerabilities.
Strategies for navigating this complex landscape have taken various forms: “non-alignment” during the Cold War, “active non-alignment,” and “multi-alignment.” India, for example, participates in BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, demonstrating a willingness to engage with multiple power centers.
The European Union and Mercosur recently unlocked stalled trade agreements, partly in response to U.S. Threats, illustrating a similar trend towards diversifying relationships.
BRICS’s Expanding Influence and Flexible Approach
BRICS has defied predictions of its demise, recently doubling its membership. Its strength lies in its heterogeneity and its willingness to embrace difference. Unlike traditional Western institutions, BRICS doesn’t impose rigid conditions on its members, focusing instead on shared principles like opposition to unilateral sanctions.
The recent Peace Council launched in Davos highlighted this flexibility. While some BRICS members joined the Council, others – like Brazil – imposed conditions, such as the inclusion of a Palestinian representative, reflecting their commitment to specific principles.
FAQ
Q: What is the “rules-based international order”?
A: It refers to the set of international norms, treaties, and institutions that have governed international relations since World War II, largely shaped by the United States and its allies.
Q: What is BRICS’s main goal?
A: To promote a more multipolar world order and reform global governance institutions to better reflect the interests of developing countries.
Q: What is “active non-alignment”?
A: A foreign policy strategy of diversifying relationships and avoiding rigid alignment with any single power bloc, while pursuing national interests.
The future of the international order remains uncertain. Yet, the rise of middle power diplomacy, the growing influence of BRICS, and the search for resilience in a turbulent world suggest a significant shift away from the unipolar dominance of the past. The emphasis on pragmatism, issue-based cooperation, and a willingness to challenge established norms will likely define the contours of this new era.
Explore further: Read more about the evolving dynamics of global power on E-International Relations.
