CAN THE BRICS GLOBAL MAJORITY CONTAIN THE USA & ITS PROXIES?

Is the effort of the USA and its allies to mold the world to its self-conceived image benign or malign, and if it is malign, are those affected now in a position to safeguard themselves against it?

There is still an opinion out there that the political elites of the USA, UK and EU along with a few others such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan are the predominant civilized powers holding the rest of the world’s barbarity a bay. This concept of the world as a wicked place only held together by dint of the good guys of the West doing so out of the goodness of their hearts is getting difficult to maintain however. Was it ever true? This is highly doubtful.

Was the British Empire for instance, an example of an outreach program seeking to do good for all it touched, or was it rather an aggressive policy of blatant exloitation? What about the desire by the British to get the Chinese hooked on opium so that the vast resources of China could come into British hands? Was the concept of U.S. exceptionalism and British superiority anything other than a means to an end, that end being continually in a position to more easily exploit the rest of the world and having a believable justification for it?

There are various opinions regarding the motivations of the political, media, military and intel elites of North America and the british Isles in relation to those nations’ very similar foreign policy. That it is quite obviously interventionist is hopefully an uncontroversial statement. Whether the motivations, and the consequences, of the pursuit of that interventionist foreign policy are benign or malign are the subject of this commentary along with the question of what, if anything, should be done about it.

We have seen many regime change wars rage since 9/11. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria the chief of them. There have been some successes in the short term in some cases while long term failures are more pronounced. Both predicated of course on what the precise goals were for these operations. For some, merely ‘taking out’ certain leaders/regimes may well have been enough of a success without any kind of nation-building project being successful afterward. Simply neutralizing the threat to the USA or West in general as perceived by them being enough.

Coming after most of these regime change wars we had the intervention in Syria of Russia which arguably stopped the western regime change project there in its tracks. A few years previously Russia’s red lines had been crossed in Ukraine. Meanwhile, relations with China were constantly being soured by the West leading to ever worsening relations on that front. The constant acts of intervention, and i other words by interference, by the western powers becme an observable every day occurrence.

Previous to more recent interventions were eras when generations of North American elites engaged in such acts as a matter of routine wherever it was perceived ‘U.S. interests’ were under threat. A great many of them took place in Latin America. The justifications used for these U.S. interventions and indeed for all those carried out by the elites of the western world as a whole seek to create a platform for action that amounts to a uniquely, self-awarded dispensation where international law need not apply. 

These justifications amount to the buzzwords we are all familiar with:

Democracy

Freedom

Human Rights

In the name of all three above the USA and its allies have given themselves the right to intervene whatever way they see fit globally where they assert any one of these elements is considered missing to any degree. In effect the USA and its allies act as if they have been tasked by some higher power to command and discipline any and all others they conceive to be requiring correction and restructuring. No ultimate authority (except conceivably a creator god) is required to provide the authority to do this. International law need not apply.

You may conceive the activity above to be urgently required, an essential civilizing effect that should be carried out in all our names. Presumably, if you have this opinion, you conceive of a far better world in prospect if it is carried out with maximum efficiency. But what of those who point to the democratically-elected leaders who were overthrown by these elites, or the dictators they managed to put in their place and who they supported because ‘they are OUR dictators’? How do these events sit with the idea that these powers world only to ‘do good’?

The means employed and the motivations behind using those means indicate the factor of self-interest is strongly at work. It is this self-interest (usually called ‘defending U.S. national interests’) which alloys the fine sentiments expressed, of building a better, more democratic, freer world where human rights are rigorously enforced for all. This all sounds so noble until we take a closer look. The track record on this score is patchy at best. And the motivation to gain advantage for self rather than engage in selfless good for all must inevitably play some, and possibly aeven the largest part of the enterprise.

Yet despite the flaws inevitably introduced by human nature into the proceedings we see the robust and always determined agenda to continually promote those policies that bring an enormous degree of western intervention worldwide. The virtuous circle constantly talked of where democracy, freedom and human rights will result from these interventions will quite predictably (based on recent experience) never be squared. Yet the interventions appear intended to go on essentially forever. Or until factors arise which bring them to a halt. What might these factors be?

This brings us to the question framed in the title of this commentary. Can those who have had their internal structures, whether political, military, religious or social, interfered with through western government initiatives for generations mount a challenge to this process and succeed in halting it completely? There have been very few instances where this exceptionally difficult task have achieved any success until now. Arguably China has been most resilient in this respect since the victory of the Chinese communist party over Chiang Kai-shek’s forces. With only very few successful attempts to initiate subversive elements within the resulting Chinese society it has managed to prevent any substantial regime change efforts.

In fact the rise of China as the single predominantly successful and economically powerful nation highly resistant to western interference has created a foundation upon which others now have an opportunity to stand. This is a process we see actively occurring on an almost daily basis as ever more nations seek a closer relationship with the BRICS group which acts as a central hub for nations looking to protect their national interests from the interventionist forces of the West. This trend, toward strengthening the barriers to western desires to intervene and manipulate the sovereign concerns of nations, for whatever justifications, appears to be one that will continue to grow. Now, with the recent ending of the Petrodollar agreement between Saudi Arabia and the USA another stick the U.S. elites have used to beat nations into line, is broken. 

Th days of western dominance, sought for whatever reason, benign or malign, is clearly now progressively ending and no reversal of this movement of nations to protect themselves is in prospect. The situation appears likely to grow progressively worse for the ambitions of the western powers to hold onto the remaining weapons of manipulation, persuasion and intervention they continue to employ. The continued use of these weapons is in fact motivating nations to even greater speed in their pursuit of protection against them. Therefore we can begin to make out the ultimate destination in which we are headed; to the full quarantining of western efforts to manipulate nations that now have the strength to protect themselves to the full from  such activity.

The ever-expanding BRICS group is the global majority’s answer to all that is described above. These nations have been on the receiving end of the purportedly benign actions of the West over centuries now. Weak and exploited for centuries one or two of them, in particular China and India, have in recent times, become economically strong. Strong enough to finally do something about those who would continually exploit them if allowed to do so (while protesting they are only out to help you). They say “Enough!” we won’t tolerate this any longer. And THIS is why BRICS is growing. And THIS is why the power of the West to do as they have done in the past, will shrink.

The world is changing… and the change is unstoppable. The western abusers and exploiters will now daily, weekly, monthly and yearly see their power, influence and ability to dominate, threaten and wage war on others, fade. Their time as the top dogs of our world is ending. And with that era ending a completely different reality will emerge and become the norm. That reality will emphasise peace, stability and tolerance of diverse systems of governance in a spirit of bridge building and trade fostering. A world very close to the dream of idealists down through the ages will emerge. The BRICS summit in Kazan over the last few days heralds the renewed possibility of a true civilization at last on Planet Earth.