Kumar Bahukhandi
But now, things have changed. With the brazen spirit of MAGA (Make America Great Again) or “America First”, under President Donald Trump, there is not even a pretence of civil engagement with anyone calling out US unilateralism. — AP
Aothor
The founding fathers of NAM included Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of India, as well as Josip Broz Tito, Kwame Nkrumah, Sukarno and Gamal Abdel Nasser. The maverick Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, described its objective as a, “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.”
The Nonaligned Movement (NAM) came into being at the height of the Cold War, with many countries across the world getting tired of polarizing pulls and pressure to be drawn into two distinct and opposing “blocs”. The founding fathers of NAM included Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of India, as well as Josip Broz Tito, Kwame Nkrumah, Sukarno and Gamal Abdel Nasser. The maverick Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, described its objective as a, “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics”. But the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the realignment of global power centers diminished the role and rationale of NAM.
However, criticism of the unilateral approach of the United States had always been a recurring theme of the working of NAM. Then US secretary of state John Foster Dulles had attacked NAM right at the outset as “immoral and short-sighted” for refusing to choose sides. But aside ideological differences and the subliminal perception of NAM as favoring the “other side”, meaning the Soviet bloc, Washington did not actively take any punitive action against NAM members. Many NAM countries remained pro-American, while many others were pro-Soviet Union. However, the emergence and growing acceptance of an assertive “bloc” that could question America’s hegemonic instinct was always unwelcome in US eyes, but it was tolerated, and even kept engaged.
But now, things have changed. With the brazen spirit of MAGA (Make America Great Again) or “America First”, under President Donald Trump, there is not even a pretence of civil engagement with anyone calling out US unilateralism. For one, President Trump is pathologically averse to multilateralism of any kind and has routinely pooh-poohed bodies like the United Nations or the World Health Organisation. He has not even spared the most strategically significant Western alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), from his line of fire. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that his views on the novel “bloc” of Brics countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and several additional new members), is met with similar scorn and derision.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva claims that Brics is a “natural heir to the Nonaligned Movement”, but that does not sit well with Donald Trump. True to his bullying nature, Mr Trump has threatened all countries aligning themselves with Brics with an additional 10 per cent tariff, and clarified: “There will be no exceptions to this policy.” This follows an earlier threat to slap 100 per cent levies on Brics should the group ditch the US dollar for bilateral trade. But perhaps it was the Brics secretariat’s language condemning the US-Israeli attacks on Iran and calling on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to withdraw troops from the Gaza Strip that got Mr Trump all worked up. The language insisting on a “just and lasting” resolution to conflicts across the Middle East may have been deciphered as a personal affront by Donald Trump, who seeks valorisation as the singular “dealmaker” in the world!
Within Brics, besides Russia and China, who obviously hold hostile positions against the US on the world stage, Brazil’s President Lula had famously declared that Mr Trump wanted to become the “emperor of the world”, thereby earning the US President’s wrath. Even beyond the ostensible and projected bonhomie between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Mr Trump, India-US bilateral relations are far from stable or on an even keel, as tensions are palpable. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa had a disastrous visit to the White House some time ago, where he was ambushed into watching videos of supposed “white genocide” in his country, leaving the statesmanlike Mr Ramaphosa to retort that it “wasn’t the state policy”.
While South Africans were aghast at the treatment meted out to their President, Mr Trump remained unmoved and further threatened South Africa with 30 per cent trade tariffs and offered refugee status to white South African farmers! So, despite Mr Ramaphosa’s attempts to “reset the relationship”, US-South Africa relations are at their lowest ever.
Thus, the composition of Brics (representing over half the world population and 40 per cent of global GDP) presents a natural anathema and perceived threat to the political sensibilities of a Donald Trump. The fact is that like NAM in its heyday, the Brics “bloc”, with its progressive, alternative and unbiased underpinning, is gaining traction with countries like Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the UAE knocking on its doors for membership. This sort of a multilateral convergence rattles Donald Trump, who wants to control the global narrative all by himself, without allowing any multilateral forum to correct his “America First” stance. China, understandably, hit back hard at the American threats, while India offered more mealy-mouthed platitudes (given it is now working on a bilateral trade agreement).
American inelegance, bullying and coercive tactics are thus on full display. While the accusatory language of Brics is not explicit in condemning any specific country, there is no doubt at the direction of the finger when the protectionist trade policies and the “weaponisation of tariffs” are banded about. Besides affording a critical voice for the “Global South” (to counter the West-led formations like the G-7), the conceptualisation of initiatives like the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) offers alternatives to Western-dominated financial systems like the IMF and the World Bank.
There are also enough financial/material reserves, political will power and aspirations within Brics to challenge the hegemonic impulses of unilateralism. Donald Trump is, therefore, up in arms. The world needs to brace for a realignment of geopolitical alliances and “blocs” mainly due to Mr Trump’s unhinged unilateralism.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant-governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry.
