Next Change: The World Order According to BRICS?

The Washington Post carried a fascinating Associated Press article about the growing international clout of the so-called BRICS countries, from the initial letters of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

These five countries account for 40 per cent of the world's population, 18 per cent of global trade and 45 per cent of current growth. Their voices are also being heard on security matters. All five are currently represented in the UN Security Council (Russia and China are permanent SC members). In the recent SC debate over a No-fly Zone over Libya, only South Africa among the BRICS supported the No-fly Zone. And they are having a pow-wow Thursday (tomorrow) on China's Hainan island.

Will there be a world order according to BRICS one day? See the article here:   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/summit-offers-watershed-moment-for-the-worlds-largest-emerging-economies/2011/04/13/AFmq6iTD_story.html?nl_headlines

It got me thinking. When the Cold War ended in and around 1989/1990, Western pundits were heralding a New World Order based on Western liberal triumphalism. "It was the end of history," one US academic claimed. With the Cold War "Balance of Terror" between the superpowers having ended, a new era of peace -- "the peace dividend" -- lay ahead. Alas, all this was not to be. The ancient Greeks called such pontification hubris.

Putting on my humour cap, here's my alternative brief current history:

NWO, NIEO... New World Order and New International Economic Order respectively. These were the terms bandied about in the new millennium.

Sorry, guys. What we have now is WATAMESS -- World Affairs Today: A Major Economic and Security Shift.

China was, from 1989 to 2000, still an emerging economy; Russia was written off. India? Brazil? And, of all places, South Africa? You gotta be kiddin'. But now there is BRICS -- coming at the West like a ton of bricks.

So the West is now in some, er, sh*t. Let's call several of its major players FUKUSALL (try pronouncing this acronym of mine creatively).

 The players here are France, UK, US Australia, Low and Laggard countries. Australia is included here because it sees itself as culturally Western and is a key US ally; it also sees itself as an Asia-Pacific country, and will be counted again below. The Low countries refer to Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (Benelux). The "Laggards" is my catch-all term for the Eastern European countries which have joined, or hope to join, the EU. They are typically behind in most key indicators.

Then there is what I shall dub the "G1" -- Germany. It openly defied the US over the No-fly Zone and is not keen to bail out EU countries in deep economic sh*t. G1 may become a G-force if others join it.

Meanwhile, the saying "you reap what you sow" has come true for profligate European countries. So there is now the label PIGS -- for heavily indebted Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

Over in this part of the world, everyone -- Japan most of all -- is starting to fret about China's growing clout and power. So let's call them all "JAPS" -- for Japan, Asia Pacific, and South Korea.

Australia is of course in this group; so is New Zealand. And across the Pacific, countries like Canada (North America) and Chile (South America).

If Brazil and Chile have started to emerge, watch out for the rest of South America. So let's group them as "SALSA" -- South America, Latin Spanish Areas.   

Did I leave any countries or regions out? Of course; this is not a comprehensive survey. But I would conclude by identifying a still "recalcitrant" group -- their shared outlook being that of a pain in the ass for the US. These are the "CAVeMEN" -- Cuba, Africa, Venezuela, Mid-East, and North Korea.