by Gabriele Adinolfi
There is much talk about the entry of six new members into the BRICS club from 2024 because, considering GDP and population, this is expected to be a revolutionary event and, according to some, could signal the decline of the dominance of the Dollar.
Let me clarify my stance right away. This is not about the Russian war on Europe or – despite the loud propaganda from the Lubjanka – an extension of the same or the reason Moscow decided to attack and consolidate NATO.
If there were dedollarization, I would generally be content, just as I would be with any event that generates fractures and potentialities.
Hence, those who begin with the bias of interpreting this analysis as a defense of the established order or as an aversion to what is not Western (even though some of the Western BRICS countries are) can spare themselves the effort of reading. What matters to me is to focus on the issue.
To start, let's say that BRICS is a multinational agreement, just like ASEAN or RCEP, or if it weren't frozen, the CAI – all related to the Asian powerhouse. Its formal de-Americanization stems from the ill-advised choices of Trump that sabotaged the TPP.
The 11-member agreement – which can expand – is by no means a fragmentation of a part of the world or the closure into a bloc because – as you can read in the appendix – virtually none of the eleven members is exempt from strong dependencies on the United States, the EU, and the Pacific QUAD countries.
There are no substantial military alliances either (except, perhaps, between Russia and Iran, but certainly not in Nagorno-Karabakh).
No one intends to reshape the world in their own image, and furthermore, there is no consensus on how the various actors envision the new regulated world order or even society itself.
China, for example, seeks regulation of international trade, which is eluding Washington, but not climate regulation, which Brazil is pursuing.
Regarding the codification of the New Order with repressive laws on historical revisionism in the name of the victory in the Second World War and the defense of the Jewish cause, Russia, which is promoting it, might garner the support of South Africa and perhaps Brazil and Argentina, but China and India have already given it a firm no, which is presumably echoed by Iran.
Among the eleven, there are countries that hang homosexuals and discriminate against women, side by side with Brazil's LGBTQ community and gender issues. Among the former are irreconcilable mutual enemies, from Wahhabi fanaticism to Shiites, and two of the main signatories of the Abraham Accords with Israel, hence anti-Palestinian.
It is true that the majority of BRICS members have highly radical classist policies and minimal to social considerations. However, there are also Argentina and Brazil which hold very different views and traditions on this matter.
The only thing that unites them is the pursuit of their interests in a streamlined manner, especially through clearing and transactions not subject to SWIFT. These, it is clearly stated, are primary, so each does as they please with everything else.
With an overused and entirely inaccurate term, people talk about "multipolarism." Instead, we are faced with a tangible realization of what Americans have been calling global "interdependence" for three decades, and the Indians have termed it "multi-alignment". This doesn't mean there are many alignments (multipolarism by blocs), but rather, each does what they please in a new mercantile era.
Can BRICS Still Revolutionize the Global System?
As noted by Eugenio Palazzini, 60% of the world's foreign exchange reserves are in dollars, 20% in euros, 5% in yen, and 5% in pounds. Among the BRICS countries, only China stands out, accounting for only 2% in renminbi.
This implies that BRICS countries mostly trade abroad and get paid in dollars. Consequently, a US default would have disastrous effects on them. Would the creation of a BRICS currency to facilitate internal trade and reduce dependencies be revolutionary? Not exactly. I've already mentioned the establishment economist Sullivan who supports it, suggesting that the US might benefit from it. Is he right or wrong? I don't know. However, it's worth noting that Washington has supported Ethiopia's entry into BRICS to counter the influence of the Euro.
But what if the new BRICS currency is linked to gold, as some whisper? First, this would require acquiring significant reserves of gold. What would the consequences be? Let's assume that, due to convertibility, this currency attracted savers (the good money drives out the bad). However, this is not a given, and there are caveats.
The first concern is, if the BRICS currency were backed by gold, who would own that gold? Would ownership be determined by proportion? In such a scenario, the poorer nations should become practically enslaved to the richer ones.
The second concern is that the convertibility of the Dollar into gold was abolished in 1971 after De Gaulle accumulated gold and asked to exchange it for dollars, which risked sidelining the US from global dominance. Revisiting this path today carries its dangers.
Of course, such a variant would compel Europeans to revise their monetary policies (which could be either beneficial or detrimental).
Palazzini further points out that Italy holds the world's third-largest gold reserves after the US and Germany, making it richer than China in this specific aspect. However, it's worth considering that Italy's gold reserves have been stored at Fort Knox since 1937, not just after the Anzio disembarkation, possibly as part of economic warfare against England. Which didn't prevent us from declaring war on the United States four years later. This should make those who always get tangled up in banal patterns that determine their existential impossibility reflect.
A third consequence would be the inability to print currency arbitrarily, rendering the sovereigntist narrative with recipes like those of Simon Magus from circus unmentionable.
What's crucial, and my intention is to understand, is how these dynamics play out – whether they lead to the sidelining of Europe by global powers (as desired by the Anglo-Americans and their Russian proxies) or allow Europe to not only maintain but perhaps gain political ground. This is particularly appreciated by India and partially China, but probably also by Argentina and Brazil, and undoubtedly by the majority of African states, despite the Kremlin's influence.
In the meantime, allow me the usual lighthearted mockery of our local self-proclaimed "anti-Americans," those who don't live FOR but AGAINST. They started by supporting the invasion that rejuvenated NATO (as even Biden admitted) because they are "against NATO." Well, sure, not everyone has the time and means to reflect deeply. But oh, how amusing it is indeed.
They began by defending the white race and now find themselves supporting the programs of Mandela and Lumumba, applauding the party in South Africa that preaches genocide against whites. They started to curb immigration and now extol those who have greatly promoted it, boasting about it. They began with various forms of anti-Semitism and now find themselves supporting the Abraham Accords, denying Palestine, and preferring relations between Moscow and Tel Aviv. They started by defending Christianity and now find themselves aligned with atheism, animism, and every form of Muslim regime, sacrificing Armenia. They began against LGBTQ+ rights and now walk hand in hand with them. They started against Islamic terrorism in Europe and now stand with those who arm and finance it. They began with a clash of civilizations narrative in Syria and now witness the embrace between Iranians, Russians, and anti-Assad militias. They began against globalization and now call for more regulated forms of it, aligning themselves with Porto Alegre. They began against the Euro (the only thing they didn't delude themselves about, but rather just took the wrong side), talking about the freedom of devaluation, and now hope for a currency that will prevent it.
Furthermore, they quiver at the idea of a gold-backed currency. Perhaps they are the ones who, as in the song by Battiato, have confused the golden age with Wall Street. Evidently, they don't know that the entire war effort of the Axis powers was against the gold standard, but let's not expect too much from them; surely no tattoo artist explained this to them.
However, let's return to the real world and leave these individuals lost in the contradictions they are trapped in due to their fanatical adherence to a non-existent front.
But let's remember that if the zealots deserve all the ridicule, the cause of the tree's disease lies in the seedling. This is a group that defines itself AGAINST, which means it isn't truly defining itself at all. The "ANTI" stance is always misguided. Antifascism is emblematic: it mobilizes and gathers hysterical people who unload all their troubles onto fascism, what Umberto Eco defined as "ur-fascism". These people are no longer capable of making connections and recognizing nuances. They chaotically attribute all their discomfort (mostly their own) to fascism, while they are manipulated as a mass by powerful oligarchies that embody exactly what they believe to be fascist. The same thing is happening today with the current form of anti-Americanism (distinct from the past). And there's nothing more American and useful to Americans than this "anti-Americanism," which has created an "ur-America". If there's still anyone left, like me, who really intends to liberate themselves from WASP hegemony, they must reason in sober, secular, and concrete terms, rather than becoming ridiculous obsessives.
And here, in the appendix, is the table of commercial and international relations within the BRICS bloc, which is not a united front.
....
"B like Brazil
Economy: Exports mainly to the United States (17.8%), Argentina (8.5%), China (6.1%), the Netherlands (4.2%), and Germany (4.1%).
Defense: In April 2022, a new agreement signed in 2020 between Brazil and the United States in the field of military technology research and development.
R like Russia. After the invasion of Ukraine, trade with the EU dropped by 18%, and Russia has become colonized by Beijing. Chinese product exports to Russia increased by 90.9%, reaching $9.5 billion. According to the Autostat analysis agency, today, six out of the ten most purchased car brands in Russia are Chinese.
I like India (Commonwealth)
Economy: The EU is its top trading partner, along with China and the United States.
Defense: Under the January 2023 agreement, the American company General Electric will join forces with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), government-owned, to co-produce jet engines for the Indian fighter program.
C like China
Economy: Its main trading partners are the United States, Hong Kong, Japan, Germany, and South Korea.
S like South Africa (Commonwealth)
About 40% of its exports go to Europe, and over 11% go to the United States. Its top export markets are China (12.7%), the United States (9.3%), Japan (8.1%), and India (7.7%).
And now, the six that will join from 2024:
Egypt. Mainly trading with China and Saudi Arabia, followed by the United States, Turkey, and Italy.
Defense: In January 2023, the U.S. Army awarded Boeing a contract for producing 12 new CH-47F Chinook helicopters for the Egyptian Air Force. Egypt will replace its aging fleet of 19 CH-47D helicopters with the modern F model and benefit from its advanced multi-mission capabilities.
Ethiopia's main export destinations are China (16%), Switzerland (13%), the United States (12%), the Netherlands (11%), and Germany (8.4%).
Argentina, whose relations with the U.S. are at their lowest since the Falklands War and which has China as its top partner, initiated contacts with the U.S. in April 2022 concerning aircraft and helicopter supplies, and contemplates U.S. involvement in exploiting its lithium resources with Buenos Aires' participation in a space program.
Economically, Argentina exports to Brazil, Chile, the United States, China, and Spain. The main suppliers are Brazil, the United States, China, Germany, Mexico, Japan, Italy, and France.
Around 2.5% of Iran's exports and 23% of its imports by value were traded with the United Arab Emirates, its second-largest trading partner. Other important trading partners were Turkey, Brazil, Germany, India, Italy, Ukraine (prior to the conflict), Oman, and Pakistan.
Saudi Arabia maintains close commercial ties with the United States, Japan, South Korea, China, and the European Union, the major recipients of its oil exports.
The United Arab Emirates primarily trades with Japan, India, and South Korea. They are among the early signatories of the Abraham Accords with Israel and on February 2, 2023, reached a total of 12 agreements with military-industrial companies worth 8.14 billion dirhams ($2.2 billion), mainly French and German."