Introduction

Apparent clarity of global order at end of Cold War: “the West has won”. → USA was sole
superpower: as such, world entering a period of unipolarity which many scholars argued
would continue well into 21st Century.
New, US-led, global order built on three foundations:
1. First, economic and military power of USA itself.
2. Second, continuing influence of Western-dominated institutions and multilateral
organizations originally created after World War Two: United Nations, World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
(which became, after 1995, World Trade Organization).
3. Third, very dense network of alliances and close bilateral relationships across
Atlantic and Pacific.

In sum, Andrew Hurrell: “For many commentators, [the] West had triumphed and was bound
to increase its global reach – partly through the intensification of economic and social
globalization, partly through the power and attractiveness of Western ideas of democracy,
human rights, and liberal capitalism, and partly through deliberate US policies and the
effective deployment of American power”.

In many ways, the 1990s marked high point of modern liberal view of, and hopes for, world
politics: Communism defeated by Capitalism, expansion around globe of free market.
→Strong belief that the Western order worked and had answers to world’s problems.
→Strong assumption that this liberal global order would be defined and led by the USA.
President Bill Clinton: opponents of this type of thinking were on “the wrong side of history”.

Realist scholars also agreed that this US-led new world order would be stable and
long-lasting, because of USA’s overwhelming military power:
→Accounts for huge proportion of world’s military spending.
→USA leads in new military technologies.
→Global network of more than 750 overseas military bases in over 100 countries.

Even Marxist/neo-Marxist scholars acknowledged that economic neoliberalism was

spreading across the developing world, partly imposed by the USA and US-dominated
international institutions, and partly as the result of policies adopted by elites in developing
countries themselves.
In sum, Andrew Hurrell: “During the 1990s there was near universal agreement that the
global system was dominated by the power of the United States and its allies and by the
institutions that the US dominated”.
 Challenges of the Post-Cold War Order

By late 1990s/early 2000s: idea of stable, US-dominated, global order being increasingly
challenged:
- Terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
- Attempt to wage “war” on terrorism; use of coercive power to dominate Iraq and
Afghanistan >> limits to use of military power to pursue political goals.
- “Mismatch” between USA’s rhetoric on importance of human rights and democracy
and its systematic willingness to violate human rights in defence of national security
(e.g., Guantanamo, Abu Graib): damaging to Western claims of moral leadership and
superiority.
- Unilateralism of George W. Bush Presidency: alienated allies and weakened
legitimacy and acceptability of US leadership.

Also, trajectory of European Union – key ally of USA – far less positive in 21st Century:
- 1990s: successful enlargement of EU (as post-Communist countries of Central and
Eastern Europe entered EU), further deepening of institutional integration.
- But 21st Century: especially with euro crisis, sense that EU, and general process of
European unity and integration is stalled, and even threatened.
- This threat reinforced by Britain’s exit from the EU in 2020.

But above all, in early 21st Century, large number of fast-growing countries appearing in the
“Third World”, or “Global South”, to challenge the idea of US-led order.

- China: establishing itself as major manufacturing power of global economy.

But in addition, range of other countries becoming more active and influential globally, and
acquiring significant degree of regional influence. For example:
- Latin America: Brazil.
- Central America: Mexico.
- South Asia: India.
- South-East Asia: Indonesia.
- Africa: Nigeria and South Africa.
Rise of these countries not only challenges power of USA and Europe, but challenges
eurocentrism and Western dominance of international order as a whole – an international
order created, historically, through process of European imperialism and colonialism.

New Powers Rising

As these countries have developed, so have perceptions of their own power >> much
greater willingness to act in pursuit of collective interests and against traditionally dominant
countries of developed world.

Emerging powers of developing world – Brazil, China, India and South Africa – have taken
lead in expressing this collective dissatisfaction with existing US-led order, but have been
joined by many other developing countries.
As consequence, notable feature of 21st Century is increased diplomatic activism,
collaboration and coordination on part of large developing countries across whole range of
global issues, and which challenges traditional predominance of USA and countries of
Europe. Several examples:
- In negotiations at the World Trade Organization, Brazil and India, for example, have
increasingly allied themselves with each other as a means of challenging neoliberal
economic and trading policies favoured by USA in particular and by West in general.*
*General tendencies. Need to take into account domestic political situation of any
given country at any given time. For example, in Brazil, governments of Lula da Silva
and Dilma Rousseff much more willing to challenge commercial priorities of USA. In
contrast, much greater policy synthesis between governments of Bolsonaro and
Trump.

Further example: creation in 2003 of India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA):
- Project of cooperation between these 3 countries on range of issues. Annual
meetings between Heads of State, and further annual meetings between Foreign
Ministers: “These meetings at the highest level often lead to declarations that
consolidate common positions about global issues between the three countries.
There are also working groups in a variety of areas – such as agriculture, defence,
health and trade – with the aim of exploring shared interests...”

Further example of coordination between large developing countries is that of BASIC (Brazil,
India, South Africa and China): this coalition of countries took leading role in climate change
negotiations in international summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. But best-known
example of how structure, dynamics and “centre of gravity” in global capitalist economy are
changing is phenomenon of the BRICs.

The BRICs

BRICs: acronym referring to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. Term coined by
Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in 2001, who considered these 4 countries as key
emerging powers in world economy, in long run:
- China and India as world’s principal suppliers of manufactured goods and services.
- Brazil and Russia as world’s dominant suppliers of raw materials.
Considerable evidence for importance of these 4 countries, taken together:
- Four largest countries outside the OECD.
- No longer typical developing countries reliant on foreign aid: in fact, China, India and
Brazil have become major foreign aid donors themselves.
- They have expanded their trading relations with each other: China has taken over
from USA as Brazil’s major trading partner; Chinese-Indian trading relations worth
nearly US$ 60 billion per year.
Notably, BRIC countries survived / withstood financial crisis of 2007-2009 relatively well:
- True that Russia suffered fall in GDP from 2008-2009, but China and India recorded
GDP growth despite global financial crisis.
- In years since 2009, China, India and Brazil have all increased their contributions to
world economic activity.
 (In historical terms, worth remembering that financial crisis broke out in Western
“core” countries: seriously damaged their economies but also undermined the
technical and moral authority of institutions at heart of global capitalist system).

Increasing attention paid in 21st Century to BRICs (and also other phenomena like IBSA,
BASICs etc.) simply reflects increasing awareness and acceptance that, in long run, balance
of global economic power is shifting: this is the true significance of referring to “rising” or
“emerging” powers.
Interesting that “Western” institutions such as IMF, World Bank, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace both acknowledge and predict this.

New Rising Powers Implications

Major implication of both financial crisis and these long run trends: reinforcement of
argument that international (economic) institutions should be reformed to reflect shifting
economic power.
(Similar parallel tendency in political sphere: for example, growing demands for meaningful
reform of principal insitutions of United Nations, viz. longstanding demands of Brazil and
India for permanent membership of UN Security Council).

Two examples of how international institutions have been reformed to reflect shifting balance
of global economic power
1. First: entry of India and Brazil into World Trade Organization’s inner negotiating circle
(so-called “quad” of USA, European Union, Brazil and India).
2. Second – and major – example: creation in 2008 of G20 (Group of 20). G20 is
 long-term expansion of original G5 (USA, Japan, Germany, France and UK) into G7
(+ Canada and Italy), then into G8+5 (+ Russia, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and
South Africa) and finally into G20 (+ Australia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
South Korea, Argentina and European Union).

The G20

G20 reflects growing importance of key emerging powers in world economy: Group
represents approximately 90% of world’s gross national product, and 80% of world trade.
G20 is major symbol, or reflection, of how structures of global governance are changing in
response to the new “geography” of the world economy.
So: in middle of financial crisis in 2008, first G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank
Governors Summit took place: very powerful demonstration of how traditional Western
economic powers have been joined by non-Western and other emerging new powers to
negotiate and decide responses to global challenges.

Summary

In 21st Century, many of large, emerging, developing, countries have recognised need for
cooperation – often via multilateral agreements or institutions – in order to promote their
agenda.
What is this agenda? Fundamentally, rising economic powers argue that with an increasing
economic share of the world market, they deserve a greater political say in international
community as well: this represents a key challenge for world politics in coming decades.

Some Further Issues

If it is true that traditional economic and political domination of USA and Western Europe,
there is significant debate about where, and in what ways, power is going to.
- Realists tend to identify specific rising powers – such as China, India, or Brazil – that
are taking power away from traditionally dominant countries. For example, John
Mearsheimer (2013) argues that in future, will be difficult to avoid direct conflict
between USA, as declining power, and China, as rising power: changes in the global
balance of power are always potentially dangerous periods in world politics.
- In contrast, others argue that power is being diffused away from the traditionally
dominant countries in a much more general way. In other words, “the decline of the
West and the rise of the rest”. Such analysts point to a much broader range of
developing countries that are also emerging as significant economic powers in 21st
century: for example, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey.
Other new development with respect to ways in which fast developing countries have used,
and will use, their increasing power:
- Notable that countries like China, India, South Africa, and Brazil have first emerged
as important regional powers. They have then used this as a platform to gain
influence on a global scale.
- Also, such countries are not necessarily military powers: true that China has massive
military capacity, and India has nuclear weapons, but other emerging economic
powers have much more limited military capabilities (Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria,
Indonesia). As such, have sought to increase, and use, their power in different ways.
So Brazil, for example, notable for its “diplomatic activism”: using its influence via diplomatic
channels to reform World Trade Organization, or in climate change negotiations, or in its
attempts to play role of “bridge-builder” between emerging and developed worlds. South
Africa and India – former European colonies - also playing similar roles.
In a way, emerging powers therefore “bridge” the gap between North and South (or “core”
and “periphery”) at the same time as blurring the lines between North and South.

Conclusions

In 20th Century, central problem of global order was the struggle of the “Third World” against
Western dominance of the international economic system.
In 21st Century, traditional picture of “ a world divided between a rich and powerful North and
an impoverished and marginalized South” not so clear. Robert Zoellick, former President of
World Bank (2010): “We are now in a new, fast-evolving multi-polar world economy ... where
North and South, East and West, are now points on a compass, not economic destinies”.

Let’s not exaggerate: still a clear international economic hierarchy, in which richer,
developed, countries concentrated in North, and poorer, less developed, countries,
concentrated in South.
Need to remember that emerging countries like Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, India... remain
relatively poor in per capita terms, and have very high levels of poverty and economic
inequality.

Also true that these emerging economic powers have desperately poor neighbours (for
example, India and Bangladesh, or China and Laos and Cambodia, or Mexico and
Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador...)

But: importance for world politics are long-term trends – and these are running increasingly
in favour of non-Western powers.
Need to remember: most emerging powers in world are attempting to escape from an
historical situation of what they perceive to be second-class treatment, of marginalization, of
subordinate status in an unequal and unjust global economic and political system. Thus:
Foreign policies of emerging powers like China and Brazil centre on demand for status,
recognition and respect. Huge component of China’s foreign policy “narrative” in 21st
Century is to reverse the “humiliations” which country suffered in 20th Century by further
increasing its power and wealth.

Also need to remember that today’s emerging powers have been historically outside, or on
the margins, of the “West”. The expansion of the G5 into the G20 has involved incorporation
of countries, remember, including: India, South Africa, Saudia Arabia, South Korea,
Indonesia…

Key political consequence for global system is that these emerging, non-Western, powers
will continue to demand, and increase their demands for, fundamental reform of international
political institutions (for example, United Nations) and economic institutions (for example,
IMF and World Bank) so that they better reflect this new global balance of power.
Speech by Brazilian President Lula da Silva, 2003: “As we grow, and as we convert
promises into reality, our participation in international relations will also widen and deepen. It
falls to us to demand, with simplicity but without hesitation, the recognition and respect for
the new dimensions of our interests”.