How global summits are reshaping world order

If key international indabas say under the aegis of the United Nations had a Summit Competition Czar, then he or she could be excused for being bemused if not downright confused.

October has become the new silly season for global conferences. That very human instinct of “jaw jaw”, as opposed unfortunately to the equally human instinct of “war war”, is descending into a competitive beauty parade seemingly drawn along age old ideological lines. This is further complicated by inevitable instances of cross-dressing, given the socio-cultural, economic and financial complexities and disparities of the groupings.

Hardly had the inaugural EU-Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) Summit finished in Brussels on October 16, which saw European leaders such as President Emmanuel Macron of France cock-a-hoop hobnobbing with the likes of Saudi strongman MBS (Crown Prince Muhammed Bin Salman) and the UAE’s MBN (Sheikh Muhammed Bin Nahayan) with one eye on their vast petrodollar largesse, the World Bank/IMF Group were preparing for their Annual Autumn Meetings in October in Washington, DC at a time when the world could not be more divided, unequal, fragmented and polarised.

Talk of humanity sleepwalking into World War III thanks to the brutalities and genocide in Europe’s eastern flank, Ukraine, and in the holy lands and wider Middle East, may be alarmist, but then both Russia and Israel’s conduct based on a supreme sense of self-entitlement, self-righteousness, chauvinism and hubris which has been festering for decades so easily can blur the lines between moral certainty, political expediency and power.

Coinciding with the events in Washington DC, was the 16th BRICS Head of States Summit in Kazan, in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, from October 22-24, hosted by bad boy President Vladimir Putin, in the eyes of the West, the international pariah who famously did not attend the Johannesburg BRICS Summit last November because of the fear of the implementation of an outstanding international arrest warrant.

The presence of presidents Xi Jinping of China and Cyril Ramaphosa, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, together with new BRICS members Egypt, UAE, Ethiopia and Iran, and an additional bevy of aspirant members including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkiye added a seemingly exotic flavour of diversity and balance as a precursor to achieving the holy grail of a new “multipolar” world order consistent with the catch-all Kazan Declaration and the summit’s theme, ‘’Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security’’.

No wonder Putin was beaming with pride at this diplomatic and foreign policy coup highlighted by his bilateral meetings with Xi, Modi, Ramaphosa, Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran, MBN and Erdogan, which has seen the Russian leader being transformed from a pariah to a protector, partner and patron in the space of a mere year.

As if that was not enough. On the other side of the world at the same time, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa, bereft of Messrs Ramaphosa and Modi, otherwise occupied in Kazan, were embroiled in a mounting showdown with their former colonial power, the UK, over an apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and starting a discussion on the possibility of paying reparations.

The common theme of all these summits is the rhetoric of aspiration.

The monumental challenge is capacity building, resource mobilisation, arm’s-length independent oversight, common red lines, a minimum of functional unity, and implementation and delivery.

Another common theme is the overwhelming quest to counter the centuries old geopolitical, security, economic, financial, and cultural hegemony of the West, exacerbated by imperialism and colonialism, and in the case of South Africa by apartheid. This to be done by establishing an alternative multipolar world order through an expanded BRICS based on “the three pillars of political and security, economic and financial, cultural and people-to-people co-operation towards a fairer, more representative world order, a reformed multilateral system, sustainable development and inclusive growth.”

Where the Kazan Declaration starts losing credibility is the commitment to “mutual respect, democracy, (and) sovereign equality”.

Putin can claim kudos for midwifing a thaw between China and India which resulted in Modi and Xi holding their first bilateral meeting in over four-and-a-half years on the sidelines of the summit.

In his speeches, Ramaphosa rightly flagged three important issues – support for the orderly expansion of BRICS, justice and a sovereign state for the Palestinians, and a more equitable payments system for emerging and developing countries.

“Over the years, BRICS has emerged as an important voice of the Global South. The expansion of BRICS is evidence of the growing value of our co-operation. By working together, we can pave the way for a brighter future for all our peoples – and for the global community of nations,” he stressed.

As the world bears witness to the continued plight of the Palestinian people, South Africa, he maintained, was compelled to emulate that spirit of solidarity.

“As a country, we understand the value of global support for a people’s right to self-determination and statehood. South Africa has been unwavering in advocating for a two-state solution that would see an independent Palestinian state along the borders set out in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This would be in line with UN resolutions, international law and internationally agreed parameters.”

Those who expected quick solutions to complex economic issues will be disappointed by the lack of progress towards a definitive working plan on the strengthening of correspondent banking networks between BRICS countries and bilateral payments arrangements in local currencies. Talks about de-dollarisation and its replacement by a yuan-based BRICS currency are premature.

BRICS in fact is more of a riposte to perceived neo-colonialist economic and financial hegemony of the developed economies against the Global South aided and abetted by the post-war Bretton Woods institutions, international agencies such as the World Bank/IMF Group, the Basel Committee, the G7, OECD, the WTO, the G20 and UN structures such as the Security Council with its nefarious veto power.

Developing countries have a legitimate and moral case against prohibitively expensive correspondent banking charges for trade and investment transactions done through London, Frankfurt and New York because of the dominance of the dollar, euro and pound, exacerbated by exaggerated risk perceptions of the Western rating agencies, the imposition of extraterritorial sanctions by the US and EU, and their control of global trade and investment structures.

While Malaysia under Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad in the 1980s set a precedent in forging bilateral payment arrangements with Chile and Iran in local currencies at the respective central banks, any attempt to repeat it at a multilateral level elicited the wrath of the IMF who threatened Malaysia with expulsion.

* Parker is an economist and writer based in London

Cape Times