Charting new waters. EPA/Alexey Druginyn/RIA Novosti/KREM |
While Western nations beef up economic sanctions and Nato discusses what stance to take toward Russia, the BRICS are maintaining tacit support for Moscow despite the Ukraine crisis.
This is not entirely unexpected. Yet, it suggests that the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping’s commitment to the reform of the international system is to be taken seriously. And the Ukraine crisis has provided the group with a powerful opportunity to voice its shared opposition to Western powers’ self-assigned role as the custodians of the international community.
SHOWS OF SUPPORT
Last March, the BRICS abstained from a vote at the UN General Assembly condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The group also reacted angrily to comments made by the Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, that Russia should be banned from the next November meeting of the G20 group of developed and emerging economies. The group reminded Australia about the equal status of the G20 members:The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all member states equally and no one member state can unilaterally determine its nature and character.Moscow was much more easily excluded from this year’s G8 (now G7) summit of Western industrialised nations.
CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO
The current crisis has exposed the increasingly limited capacity the West has to bring emerging powers in line with their positions. As the West tries to economically punish and politically ostracise Russia over its involvement in Ukraine, Moscow is forging a new economic and financial architecture with what is expected will be the economic powerhouses of the future.The recent creation of a US$100 billion BRICS development bank and a reserve currency fund worth another US$100 billion, as an alternative to the Western dominated IMF and Wold Bank, are concrete examples of these countries’ intentions and capabilities.
The BRICS have also shown their anti-Western stance by opposing Western attempts to review the international norm of the inviolability of sovereignty. They fiercely criticised the ousting of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi by a NATO-led intervention in 2011, perceiving it as a violation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1973, which only authorised intervention in order to protect civilians. But the military operation quickly shifted to full-blown regime change and the assassination of the Libyan leader. They thenmore vehemently resisted attempts by Western powers to assist rebels in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment