Explore Article | 9-12-2025

Can BRICS challenge the US-led World Order?

Politics

The global economic and political landscape is undergoing a profound transformation. The BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), now expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, seeks to challenge the U.S.-led financial system, while former U.S. President Donald Trump threatens retaliatory tariffs against nations aligning with the bloc. Meanwhile, a UN report has accused multinational corporations of profiting from what it describes as genocide in Gaza, raising urgent questions about corporate accountability in conflict zones. Together, these developments signal a new era of economic fragmentation, geopolitical realignment, and ethical scrutiny in global affairs. BRICS: A Rising Counterweight to Western Dominance Originally formed in 2009, BRICS has evolved into a coalition of major emerging economies seeking to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and Western financial institutions. The group’s recent expansion reflects its ambition to reshape global governance, particularly in trade, finance, and development. Economic and Geopolitical Ambitions De-dollarization Efforts: BRICS nations are promoting trade in local currencies and developing alternative payment systems to bypass SWIFT and U.S. sanctions, particularly benefiting Russia and Iran. Challenges to the IMF and World Bank: The bloc advocates for reformed voting rights in Bretton Woods institutions, arguing that they disproportionately favor Western powers. Internal Divisions: Despite shared economic goals, political differences persist—India and Brazil maintain ties with the West, while China and Russia push for a more confrontational stance. U.S. Response: Trump’s Tariff Threats Former President Donald Trump, a vocal critic of multilateral trade agreements, has threatened to impose 10% tariffs on nations aligning with BRICS policies, framing the bloc as an "anti-American" economic alliance. His rhetoric reflects a broader U.S. strategy of economic containment, particularly targeting China’s influence. However, many BRICS members reject this characterization, emphasizing non-alignment and multipolarity rather than outright opposition to the West. Corporate Complicity in Gaza: A UN Investigation Amid these economic tensions, a UN Special Rapporteur report has accused 48 multinational companies of profiting from Israel’s military operations in Gaza, which it labels as genocide. The findings highlight the role of global capitalism in perpetuating conflict. Key Industries Implicated Military Suppliers: Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics provide weapons used in airstrikes. Tech Firms: Google, Amazon, and Microsoft supply cloud computing and AI tools to Israeli security forces. Financial Backers: Banks such as Barclays and JPMorgan Chase invest in Israeli defense bonds, indirectly funding military actions. Calls for Accountability The report urges sanctions, arms embargoes, and legal action against these corporations, drawing parallels to past anti-apartheid divestment campaigns. It also raises ethical questions about Western corporate involvement in conflict zones and whether shareholders and consumers bear moral responsibility. The Future of Global Economic Governance The clash between BRICS and U.S. protectionism, alongside growing scrutiny of corporate war profiteering, underscores a broader crisis in global governance. A Multipolar World? BRICS’ expansion suggests a decline in unipolar U.S. dominance, but internal divisions may limit its effectiveness. Trade Wars and Fragmentation: Trump’s tariff threats could accelerate economic decoupling, leading to competing trade blocs. Ethical Capitalism? The Gaza report may inspire new regulations on conflict-linked investments, forcing firms to choose between profits and human rights.