Ethiopia has become the most recent nation to request to join the coalition of emerging world economies known as BRICS. It has seemed as though we cannot go a week without a new state from the Global South expressing interest in choosing BRICS over strengthening political and financial ties with the West. Even French President Emmanuel Macron has requested to at least be invited to the meetings and summits taking place by this group.
Compared to the bloc of nations in the West that comprise NATO, it is simple to understand why BRICS would be the more appealing choice for developing nations. While countries across the globe are requesting to join BRICS, NATO has had trouble agreeing on who to allow to join. Sweden and Finland’s admission has been derailed by Turkish leader Tayyib Erdogan, while Hungary’s Viktor Orban has strenuously objected to bringing Ukraine into the fold.
As the dust settles from the Covid-19 pandemic, it is increasingly clear that we are witnessing a paradigm shift in the geopolitical landscape. Decades of aggressive foreign policy and disastrous domestic policy show the United States is going the way of previous empires whose collapse was once seen as impossible but became inevitable. Whatever transpires, the only surety is that those in power in the U.S. will continue to shirk accountability and shift the blame to perceived enemies, foreign and domestic, instead of taking responsibility and averting catastrophe.
The United States has been inserting itself in the internal affairs of other nations for well over a century, through outright invasions, color revolutions, and the imposition of illegal, unilateral coercive measures euphemistically-known as “sanctions.” But no person or nation’s ideology sprouts from thin air; indeed, we can track the origins of U.S. modern foreign policy to the late 1800s and early 1900s.
The Monroe Doctrine solidified a U.S.-dominated sphere of influence in the western hemisphere, while the Roosevelt Corollary asserted the U.S.’s authority to intervene in any Latin American nation if it was not governed to their liking. During the 1900s, the United States frequently deployed troops or intervened in the electoral processes of numerous Latin American countries. This interventionist approach extended beyond the confines of the so-called “America’s Backyard,” as American democracy was imposed on nations worldwide.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, which provided support to socialist countries like the DPRK and Cuba, these nations found themselves vulnerable to crushing U.S. sanctions. When a country prioritizes sovereignty over granting control of its natural resources to Western-backed corporations, it often becomes a target of sanctions that restrict its access to the global economy. The United States has imposed sanctions on companies from more than thirty countries and has implemented comprehensive sanctions against multiple governments, effectively hindering diplomatic possibilities. The U.S. believed that imposing sanctions on numerous nations and businesses would establish their dominance, but they unknowingly set themselves on a self-destructive path. When marginalized groups are excluded from the global economy, it is only natural for them to seek collaboration and mutual benefits. Burdened by overwhelming debt from institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, it should come as no surprise that developing countries prefer to strengthen economic ties with the BRICS nations.
When U.S. politicians engage in discussions about their country’s global position, they conveniently omit the history of America’s assertive foreign policy. Instead, they present themselves as victims of foreign interventions, placing blame on nations like Russia and China. Although the two-party system gives the illusion of divergent opinions, both sides are essentially two faces of the same coin, each with their preferred scapegoats to target.
Among Democrats, there is a hysterical level of opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. The 2016 election intensified the Democrats’ animosity towards Russia, as they accused that country of interfering in favor of their opponent, Republican Donald Trump. On the other hand, Republicans perceive China as the primary threat to their nation. The crucial event that solidified this view was arguably the 2020 pandemic. Many members of the Republican Party hold the Communist Party of China accountable for allegedly concealing evidence regarding the severity of Covid-19. While these allegations are baseless, they effectively enable the U.S. government to paint Russia and China as aggressors, conveniently disregarding America’s own catalogue of wars of aggression, crimes, and blunders.
Despite representing the same capitalist class, Republicans and Democrats consistently engage in blame-shifting, attributing every failure in the country to each other. One prominent issue that exemplifies this behavior is the ongoing discussion of mass shootings in the United States since the beginning of the century. However, there has been a notable lack of consensus on the root causes of these tragic events. Republicans tend to point to inadequate school security measures and mental health issues, while Democrats tend to attribute blame to the absence of gun-control laws.
Immigration is another highly contentious topic where both parties resort to blaming one another to obscure the reality of the situation. Democratic politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed solution to the border crisis, for instance, does not involve addressing the root causes of mass migration by refraining from invasive actions in Latin American countries. Instead, she tweeted about the need for the United States to act as a genuine partner in Latin America and increase visas in regions where interventions occur. The right-wing perspective, meanwhile, welcomes interventionism and attributes the high immigration rates to relaxed border enforcement. The truth is that neither party acknowledges the actual causes of the border crisis because both benefit from imperialism in Latin America.
Ultimately, there is good reason for Americans to perceive the United States as being governed by a single party comprising two factions. They may appear to be in opposition until the interests of capitalists are even slightly threatened. When supply chain disruptions emerged as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a dismissive attitude towards those who were deemed as “unwilling to work.” There was no acknowledgment of stagnant wages or the need to encourage corporations and banks to implement measures like rent freezes to prevent the rapid closure of small businesses.
The logistical challenges escalated to the extent that rail workers threatened a strike that could have potentially paralyzed the economy and disrupted supply lines during the holiday season. To compel rail workers to return to work, President Biden found bipartisan support in Congress to enact legislation outlawing their strike. Both political parties are quick to set aside their supposed differences in order to suppress any mobilization the working class.
The United States and its media apparatus often excel in crafting narratives and engaging in projection. During and after the Cold War, the United States managed to uphold the image of an ideal nation in the eyes of many in the global south. Thanks to the influence of Hollywood and an enormous military budget, the “American Dream” became an aspiration for those observing from a distance. However, the situation is drastically changing today, as images of places like Shenzhen now captivate more than those of New York. To salvage its status as a superpower, the United States still has a chance by acknowledging its manifold crimes and embracing a win-win approach to diplomacy. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to envision such a transformation taking place. The reality is that we can anticipate the United States to persist in blaming everyone except themselves for the numerous and growing challenges they face.
Get the latest news and analysis, plus special commentatory from Editor Donald Courter.
