Verlust der Swing States: Washington treibt die BRICS dazu, ein antiamerikanischer Block zu werden
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/losing-swing-states
Verlust der Swing States: Washington treibt die BRICS dazu, ein antiamerikanischer Block zu werden
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/losing-swing-states
3 Kommentare
[SS from essay by Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security. He has worked at the U.S. Department of State, on the National Security Council, and as a foreign policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain; and Gibbs McKinley, Research Associate to the CEO at the Center for a New American Security. She previously worked at the International Republican Institute on the Countering Foreign Authoritarian Influence program.]
In the battle to shape the global order, the BRICS—a ten-country group, which is named for its first five members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)—has become increasingly important. The bloc represents roughly a third of global GDP and nearly half the world’s population. It exists to give countries that belong to the so-called global South more sway on the world stage.
That might make the [BRICS](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/tags/brics) seem like an inherently anti-Western group. It was, after all, founded in part by Beijing and Moscow. But for most of its 16-year history, the BRICS has not positioned itself in opposition to the United States and its allies. Several BRICS members have even been close U.S. partners. Washington has built a strong trade relationship with Brazil, for instance, and cooperates with India and Indonesia on matters of defense.
BRICS has always been intended as an Anti-American influence bloc. The entire point was to reduce American hegemony and to transfer global influence from the US to its member states.
I think the article is correct that some BRICS members are shifting away from the US (or at least signaling that shift as a negotiating threat), but the point of BRICS to begin with has always been in opposition of the US.
Unless these states can address consumption, or involution as the Chinese call it, within their own countries, then I find all of it meaningless as they will still rely on the US to accept their trade imbalances.
The world does not have a supply issue, but a demand issue. So a bunch of countries, whose economies are built on suppressing wages to increase production and ensure jobs for their citizens, is not a concern. If India starts opening their markets to these countries, then we can talk.