How the west should navigate a fast-changing world

Receive free geopolitical updates

we will send you myFT Daily Digest Email summary of the latest information geopolitics Every morning there is news.

Everyone loves the moon landing metaphor. Symbolic of a shift in the geopolitical order, India’s coup of landing its first spacecraft on the south pole of the moon is irresistible. But the dark side of this week’s BRICS summit in Johannesburg, rather than the dark side of the moon, offers a more insightful guide to this fast-changing world and how the West should navigate it.

The last time South Africa hosted a gathering that marked a global turning point was at the inauguration of Nelson Mandela in 1994. The gathering of dozens of world leaders marked the official end of the region’s days as a Cold War pawn. By contrast, this week’s events underscore the risk of the world falling back into two camps.

Yes, the BRIC nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – are torn apart by competition, fueled by distant dreams, and likely unable to achieve many of their ambitions. Yes, the US is still a preeminent economic and military power.

But the BRICs are on the move. The summit concluded by inviting two traditional Western allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to join Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran in the first phase of a planned expansion of the European Union, underscoring how a group of “middle powers” are feeling the new liberal scheme own way. Of course, the BRICS account for a growing share of global trade, population and wealth.

So how should Western officials function at a time when the world is clearly becoming more competitive and fluid and their position is threatened?

Some thoughtful people in Washington have been pondering this shift for some time. The signing of the trilateral agreement with South Korea and Japan at Camp David last week presents Evidence A — or rather C or D — that reflects the thinking of the Biden administration. That in itself was a diplomatic breakthrough in relations between Seoul and Tokyo, and the latest in a series of bespoke alliances in the Asia-Pacific region.

Administration officials see them as a network that will help ensure that the United States sets the rules of the global order for decades to come, as it has in past decades. The US is not known for being cunning in international affairs, but it is quite a crafter, very soft-spoken but wielding a big stick through its alliances.

The EU has to catch up as it realizes that it risks becoming a playground rather than a player in itself. Uptake has also been slow in the U.K., disrupted by Brexit and the ongoing search for trade deals.

For years, senior diplomats have advocated for a rethink and reinvestment in positions, language training and international expertise. When China expanded its presence in Africa 20 years ago, Britain scaled back its presence there. For example, how deep is the UK’s expertise in Indonesia, the rising giant and source of much of the world’s nickel?

Until recently, the news went unnoticed. Foreign Secretary James Cleverley has made “middle powers” a priority. This is where the dual nature of the BRICs has to do with its membership mix of potential democracies, managed democracies, dictatorships, and worse.

Zimbabwe, one of the countries it wants to join, held a mock election on Wednesday to ensure that its kleptocratic elite – backed by Moscow and Beijing – remained in power. Also on Wednesday, Russia, a founding member of the BRIC nations, happily explained how Yevgeny Prigozin, one of its president’s erstwhile top allies and the head of the Wagner Group, was killed in a plane crash killed in.

Is this the gangster world that South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi or Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva would like to see? of course not. They responded to Vladimir Putin’s speech, in which it was common to say that the war in Ukraine was all the West’s fault, but deftly avoided supporting his line.

Neo-imperialist China and Russia say with ease that, unlike the European colonialists, they come as partners. But African countries, for example, are well aware that their practices are familiar old playbooks.

History is littered with examples of enfeebled great powers mistuning their tone and appearing condescending as they try to adjust how to influence the world and its potential successors. The trick is to celebrate the moonshots, denounce blatant violations, such as in Zimbabwe, but mostly say as little as possible and let the facts tell the story.

alec.russell@ft.com