Latest news with #multipolarity
Russia Today
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
The battle for the Middle East is going global
Global events increasingly reflect the growing confrontation between the Western bloc, led by the United States and its allies, and the countries of the so-called 'World Majority,' coalescing around BRICS. This geopolitical tension is particularly evident against the backdrop of escalating conflicts in the Middle East, where the actions of the US and Israel are seen as manifestations of Western hegemony, while BRICS nations and their partners are increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of multipolarity, sovereignty, and a just international order. On July 7, US President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders discussed two major issues: the upcoming negotiations with Iran and the controversial initiative to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. These topics underscored Washington and West Jerusalem's efforts to reshape the Middle East's security architecture – framed under the banner of offering a 'better future,' yet unfolding amid growing accusations of violations of international law. During a working dinner, Netanyahu stated that Israel and the US had been consulting with several countries allegedly willing to accept Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza. He emphasized that the proposed relocation would be 'voluntary,' offering a better future to those who seek it. According to him, agreements with a number of countries were already nearing completion. Initially, Trump refrained from making a clear statement on the matter, but later remarked that 'neighboring countries have been extremely cooperative,' expressing confidence that 'something good will happen.' This ambiguity may reflect either an attempt to soften the political sensitivity of the issue or a reluctance to prematurely reveal the details of a plan that has drawn considerable criticism. Previously, Trump had proposed transforming Gaza into the 'Riviera of the Middle East' and relocating its population – an idea harshly rejected both by the residents of the enclave and by international human rights organizations, which characterized it as a form of ethnic cleansing. Behind the scenes of the dinner, indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas were ongoing, focused on securing a ceasefire and a hostage exchange. The meeting marked the third in-person encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since the Republican leader's return to the White House in January. Just two weeks earlier, the US had carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israeli military action. Days later, Trump helped broker a short-term ceasefire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran – an achievement likely intended to bolster his own diplomatic credentials. During the meeting, Trump announced that his administration had scheduled formal talks with Iran. He said that Tehran had shown a willingness to negotiate following substantial military and economic pressure. US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff confirmed that the meeting was expected to take place 'within the next week.' Trump also indicated he was open to lifting sanctions on Iran under the right circumstances. Meanwhile, Iran's newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed hope that tensions with the United States could be resolved through diplomacy. These statements suggested a potential, albeit limited, window for resetting US-Iranian relations, though both sides appeared driven primarily by tactical considerations. The political significance of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting was further underscored by protests outside the White House. Hundreds of demonstrators, waving Palestinian flags, demanded an end to US military support for Israel and called for Netanyahu's arrest in light of the International Criminal Court's warrant against him for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Earlier that day, Netanyahu had met with Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The following day, he held talks with congressional leaders. During his meeting with Trump, the Israeli prime minister also handed the president a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize – a symbolic gesture aimed at reinforcing the strategic bond between the two leaders and appealing to their respective domestic audiences. The Israeli side expressed hope that the outcome of the conflict with Iran could help advance the normalization of relations with several Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In this sense, the actions of Israel and the US in the region appear to be aimed not only at immediate security concerns but also at a long-term strategic reshaping of the Middle Eastern landscape. However, the situation is far from straightforward. It seems that Netanyahu is trying to create the appearance of active engagement in peace processes, while in reality showing little interest in achieving meaningful change. Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu is under 'intense pressure' from Trump, who is pushing for a Gaza ceasefire deal. Nevertheless, no substantial progress has yet been made. Media sources indicate that Witkoff's planned trip to Doha has been postponed. Earlier that evening, Witkoff had expressed optimism, claiming that only one issue remained unresolved: where the Israeli army would redeploy. This question is crucial, as Israel insists on retaining control over the city of Rafah in southern Gaza and securing the release of hostages. Current estimates suggest that around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 believed to be alive. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced plans to establish a tent city in Rafah to relocate up to 600,000 Palestinians. Israel would control entry into the camp, prevent residents from leaving, and subsequently begin the process of transferring them out of Gaza altogether. This is all part of what has been referred to as the 'Trump Plan' for the 'depopulation' of the enclave and the establishment of full Israeli control. According to Katz's broader plan, the remainder of Gaza's 2.1 million residents could eventually be expelled as well. Critics argue that this approach would amount to the forced displacement of Palestinians to third countries. Annelle Sheline, a fellow with the Quincy Institute's Middle East program, described the proposed camps as 'concentration camps' and expressed doubt that the Trump administration would intervene to stop the implementation of Israeli plans. 'Although Washington wields considerable influence over the details of what's happening, Trump effectively sidestepped the question of forced displacement by deferring responsibility to Netanyahu,' Sheline told Al Jazeera. She further stated that Trump is surrounded by advisors who are unlikely to challenge him on moral or legal grounds. 'What's happening isn't just a potential crime against humanity – it's an effort to legitimize genocide and the subsequent deportation of survivors. And it implicates the United States directly,' the expert emphasized. Trump himself has continued to strongly support Netanyahu, including by interfering in Israel's internal politics – he has openly criticized the prosecutors leading the corruption investigation against the Israeli prime minister, who faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Netanyahu has denied all allegations. According to the latest figures, the war in Gaza has killed at least 57,575 Palestinians and injured another 136,879. The majority of Gaza's population has been displaced, and UN estimates suggest that nearly half a million people are now on the brink of famine. Against the backdrop of Netanyahu's visit to Washington, the day before – on July 6 – the BRICS leaders issued a joint declaration condemning the June strikes by Israel and the US on Iran, particularly targeting nuclear facilities. 'We condemn the military strikes against Iran that have taken place since June 13, 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the UN Charter,' the statement read. Specifically, the BRICS leaders expressed concern over attacks on civilian infrastructure and nuclear facilities. They also voiced alarm over the escalating tensions in the Middle East and called for diplomatic efforts to resolve regional crises. The declaration demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories and urged an immediate, lasting, and unconditional ceasefire. It further affirmed that Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine, which must be granted full independence. The summit participants also called for the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza and advocated for the prompt release of both Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. The declaration emphasized that Gaza and the West Bank should be administered by the future government of a sovereign Palestinian state. Unsurprisingly, Trump – along with Netanyahu – was deeply displeased by the BRICS statement. He has repeatedly threatened sanctions against BRICS member states and their allies. According to Politico, Trump sent a letter to the Brazilian government threatening to impose 50% tariffs, accusing the country of politically persecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is under investigation for his alleged role in the attempted coup of 2022. The White House reportedly chose swift and effective trade pressure over more complex sanctions mechanisms. According to former US Special Envoy to Latin America Mauricio Claver-Carone, the BRICS summit was 'the last straw' for Washington. Trump's anger, his allies say, stems not only from the situation around Bolsonaro but also from BRICS's ongoing efforts to de-dollarize the global economy. The group's condemnation of the strikes on Iran and Israeli actions in the Middle East was also met with frustration in Washington. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon noted that Trump is irritated by every step the bloc takes to undermine the US dollar, and that the summit in Rio de Janeiro only intensified that irritation. In response to Washington's threats, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced retaliatory 50% tariffs on US goods. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ramp up pressure on other BRICS-aligned countries, threatening 10% tariffs – and previously even floated 100% tariffs – should the bloc attempt to replace the dollar in global trade. Analyzing current global developments – from the BRICS summit in Rio to the escalating tensions in the Middle East – it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is moving toward a pronounced geopolitical divide. The interconnected nature of political, economic, and military processes across continents demonstrates that the era of unipolar dominance is fading. A growing confrontation is unfolding between two major blocs: the so-called West, led by the US, and the emerging non-Western world, whose political and economic core is increasingly represented by BRICS. This coalition is steadily solidifying its role as the voice of the Global South, positioning itself as the flagship of a movement advocating for multipolarity and greater equity in international affairs. In its bid to preserve global dominance, the US has increasingly resorted to political and economic coercion, viewing BRICS' efforts as a direct challenge to the existing order. Yet, the global rift is not merely economic or ideological. The Middle East has become a frontline where this confrontation takes on the form of open conflict. Israel's actions, backed by Washington, are increasingly perceived in the non-Western world as a Western offensive against the interests of the 'World Majority' – nations that reject the dictates of traditional power centers. Within this context, Russia and China – both staunch supporters of Iran and other regional actors – are seen as natural allies to those resisting what is perceived as destructive Western policy. The contours of this global divide are becoming ever more defined: on one side, the US and its allies and proxies; on the other, those advocating for a reimagined world order based on fairness, sovereignty, and a balance of interests. From this, one clear conclusion emerges: conflicts in the Middle East are set to intensify. Gaza will likely remain a flashpoint of violence and humanitarian crisis, as the root political and geopolitical causes of the conflict go unaddressed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran – already escalating through direct military engagements and cyber operations – may evolve into a wider and more dangerous conflict. Moreover, the arc of tension is likely to draw in additional regional players, including Türkiye and various Arab states. Despite longstanding economic and military ties with the West, many of these countries are increasingly gravitating toward the non-Western camp, which champions reforms to global institutions, challenges hegemonic structures, and upholds sovereignty and equality in international relations. This trend lays the groundwork for a profound transformation – not only of the Middle East, but of the global system itself – where the battle over new rules of engagement becomes a driving force behind enduring instability and conflict.
Bloomberg
04-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Brazil's BRICS Fixation Has Delivered Few Benefits
As leaders of the China-led group of emerging-market economies known as the BRICS descend on Rio de Janeiro for their summit starting Sunday, expect the usual coterie of talking heads offering prepared remarks to the media with the city's iconic Sugarloaf mountain serving as a picturesque backdrop. And yet, behind the diplomatic niceties and pledges of cooperation lies an uncomfortable truth for Brazil, which is that the value of belonging to this incoherent club that also consists of Russia, India and South Africa is rapidly diminishing. Since its founding in 2009, the bloc has presented itself as an alternative to the postwar global order shaped by the US and its developed-nation allies. Instead of a system based on liberal democratic values, the BRICS promote an alternative view that favors multipolar engagement and leveling the playing field for developing nations. The idea has caught on, with Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates becoming members.
South China Morning Post
29-06-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Southeast Asia increasingly finds China more reliable and predictable
As a nation, China sees itself as a rational, peaceful and stabilising force in an increasingly dangerous and fragmented global order. While such national characteristics may be relative and are mostly in the eyes of the beholder, they seem to be less debatable when compared with the erratic and unpredictable actions and policy flip-flops coming out of the White House of Donald Trump. In his first official visit last week, Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong was given the same message Xi Jinping has been sending to other Southeast Asian leaders during the latter's tour of the region earlier this year. Singapore and China together need to 'stand on the right side of history', Xi says, and push for an equitable multipolar world against 'unilateral bullying' and 'tariff abuse'. That was obviously a reference to the Trump administration's 'reciprocal tariffs', which have especially irked Singapore because of its trade deficit with the United States. In April, Wong criticised the US tariffs as 'not actions one does to a friend', so Xi's message was calibrated to appeal to the Singaporean sense of unfairness. It's often been claimed that, unlike the transatlanticism of Nato and the democratic governance of the European Union, Asean countries that collectively account for most of the economic activities of Southeast Asia lack a cohesive ideology. But despite their differences in government, culture and language, they do share some strong beliefs; that is, in growth, prosperity, pragmatism and peaceful coexistence over sabre-rattling. These are the same values to which China has long been committed. Also, it's long been debated whether Asean countries such as Singapore will end up having to choose between China and the US in their increasingly bitter rivalry. Asean's common response has been that they can be friends with everyone.
Times of Oman
23-06-2025
- Business
- Times of Oman
Putin: BRICS contributes 40 per cent to global economy
Moscow: President Vladimir Putin, addressing the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), said the global economy is witnessing its most profound shift in decades. He highlighted the rising prominence of BRICS nations, noting their contribution has doubled from 20 per cent at the turn of the century to nearly 40 per cent of global economic output today. Putin underscored Russia's commitment to a new development model--one rooted in fairness, openness, and national interests. Recalling the 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan, he said 35 countries expressed the need for a global framework aligned with today's multipolar reality. He noted that trade among participating nations has already surpassed USD 1 trillion, with joint projects gaining momentum in sectors like AI, nuclear energy, aviation, and IT, as reported by TV BRICS. "Russia invites its partners to contribute to the formation of a new global growth model, to jointly ensure the prosperity of our countries and the stable development of the whole world for many, many years to come," Putin stated. South African Deputy President Paul Mashatile called multipolarity a defining theme in global affairs. Hailing Russia as a key partner in BRICS and G20, he stressed the growing strategic importance of Africa in population and industrial potential. "Africa is looking for partnerships based on equality, equal access to capital markets, knowledge and technology," he said. Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang reaffirmed China's dedication to open cooperation with developing economies, stating, "The civilisations of the world must develop through mutual enrichment, based on equality, dialogue, and respect for diversity." Bahrain's National Security Advisor, Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, lauded Russia's economic vision, particularly in energy and industry, and reiterated Bahrain's intent to deepen economic ties with Moscow.
Mail & Guardian
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
The future world order must be based on tolerance and diversity
American academic Ali Mazrui said that the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio in particular, should be saying 'what is good for the world is good for my country'. American political scientist Joseph S Nye Jr, who died last month, recently wrote in an The Future of World Order that we may not know until 2029 whether we are entering a totally new period of American decline or whether the second Trump administration's attacks on the American Century's institutions and alliances will prove to be another cyclical dip. One thing is certain. Nye will be proved correct, regardless of what happens. But we do not know what the post-American world order will look like, should we indeed be 'entering a totally new period'. Will it be a multipolar world order of the same Westphalian states with reformed global institutions or one of civilisations and cultures? Will democracies and non-democracies constitute each of the multiple poles or will it be one that is composed of poles formed around key states in each major world region? Will it be a Sino-centric, unipolar international system or more balanced? All we can say for now is that the future world order will be a product of the interplay between cultural processes and existing global structures. Beyond that, nothing is certain. A discourse on the future world order is, therefore, appropriate and timely. Ideally, the future world order will be based on at least two interrelated normative principles. The first principle is a steadfast commitment to respecting diversity, encompassing cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and ideological differences. We recognise that diversity is not a popular notion in some circles today. Indeed, globalisation has significantly contributed to greater global homogeneity, as lifestyles have become increasingly similar across vast distances. But let us not forget that the lifestyle that has become globalised is predominantly Western. At the same time, we also have a rich intermingling of racial, cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups at the local level. The primary drivers of this local heterogeneity have been the forces of migration and colonialism. In other words, the local landscape has evolved into a microcosm of the world. On the global level, the world has become an approximation of a village, without the empathy of the village. This creates a compelling paradox — as we experience local heterogenisation, we simultaneously witness a vibrant explosion of global homogenisation. The future world order must rise to the challenge of embracing both emerging trends as its normative foundation. We must embrace a creative synthesis incorporating the finest aspects of the world's major cultures and traditions. Consider, for instance, what is known as Africa's triple heritage: indigenous values, Islam and Western culture. An aspect of Africa's indigenous values is the remarkable ability of Africans to forgive. While Africans have endured more than their fair share of violence, they often embrace moments of reconciliation with an inspiring quickness. This short memory of hate can serve as a powerful antidote to endless division and hatred and it can also become the continent's contribution to a global ethic of tolerance. From the West, we can take the wealth of knowledge and innovative spirit that drives educational advancements and capitalistic growth — if they survive until 2029. Let us be inspired by Islam's profound emphasis on modesty and humility in character and appearance. By incorporating lessons from other civilisations and traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Sikhism etc) such an approach can provide a solid basis for a harmonious world order. It would be a great opportunity for a grand synthesis based on the word's rich diversity. The second principle is tolerance. If diversity can be measured through the objective lens of heterogeneity, true tolerance can be assessed by the degree of our willingness to accept and even embrace differences. This acceptance is not just a moral obligation. It is essential for a harmonious and sustainable world order. However, it is worth noting that being a victim of intolerance in the past does not always lead to an understanding of its importance. The very faith that endured persecution by Roman gladiators in the West eventually became the instrument of severe repression through the Inquisition. In Africa, as well, there has been, for example, a conflictual relationship between the majority Hutu and the minority Tutsi of Rwanda. At times, the Hutu have perpetrated violence against the Tutsi and at other times, it was the Tutsi who were the culprits. The conflict culminated in genocide in 1994. It is essential to acknowledge that Islam too, has, at various times and to different degrees, exhibited characteristics of heightened political militancy and religious bigotry. It may be that Islam in the pre-Ottoman empire was more tolerant and ecumenical. Sustainable tolerance needs unwavering attention and effort. Tolerance is not a one-time achievement. It is a vital practice that must be actively nurtured and systematically reinforced through institutional measures. Diversity, tolerance and a creative synthesis of global pools of shared values and distinctive traditions should form the basis of the future world order. This may be the most promising pathway towards building a constructively pluralistic world order and resolving the tension between the increasingly diverse global actors and the originally Western international system. The alternative is divisive pluralism. In short, tolerance and accepting diversity is good for the world and, therefore, good for the future world order. Unfortunately, however, the logic of the current US administration appears different. In the In what can be regarded as a word-for-word 'response' to Rubio, a wise man once said: 'Today, in the United States, there are many Americans who believe that what is good for America is good for the world, that my country is the world. We need to change the logic of global expectations … Instead of arguing, like the Americans, my country is the world, we should move to the proposition that what is good for the world is good for my country.' That wise man is Joseph Nye's contemporary and a pan-African political scientist. His name is Ali Mazrui. Mazrui Dr Seifudein Adem is a research fellow at JICA Ogata Research Institute for Peace and Development in Tokyo, Japan.
