There is a BRICS far away!

Since the dates coincided, I decided to continue from last week. In last Sunday's article, I touched upon Turkey's position in the Asian Age, which is leaving its mark on today's world. Today, I will talk about BRICS due to the 18th Summit held in New Delhi, the capital of India, and its relevance (or lack thereof) to Turkey.

BRICS is an international organization that has been frequently mentioned in recent years and has come to the fore with the claim of being an alternative to the Western-centered economic system. This concept, which was put into circulation by investment banker O'Neill in the early 2000s with the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) to describe emerging economies, took on a completely different identity after the participation of South Africa, taking the name BRICS. With the latest expansion waves, the number of members has reached ten with the participation of Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Unlike the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is specific to the Asian geography and focused on soft power threats, BRICS is essentially a structure that is associated with countries in different geographies of the world and stands out with its foreign economic relations. BRICS, which has not yet completed its institutional development and is also seen as an international platform, can be compared in this respect to the G-7 platform, which is known as the club of wealthy Westerners. In the organization, which has surpassed the G-7 in terms of purchasing power parity and accounts for more than a third of the world economy and about half of the world's population, commercial and cultural interaction among member countries tends to increase regularly.

BRICS is a center of attraction for third countries that cannot find what they are looking for in Western-centered institutions, with its rules that are respectful of national sovereignty and are not rigid or binding. One of the features that makes BRICS unique is that it sees differences as wealth and, with the common understanding of members from various continents, prioritizes the preservation of traditional cultures outside the West instead of a global monolithic culture, while rejecting any clash of civilizations. For this reason, the most concise expression describing BRICS is 'Not Western, but not anti-Western'.

In addition to the pluses recorded so far, there is also the other side of the coin, that is, problems, regarding the future of BRICS. In this context, debates about where BRICS, a relatively new international organization, will evolve are occupying the agenda. Although they meet on some common points, it is difficult to claim that BRICS member countries follow identical policies and that their interests completely overlap. The best example of this is that despite the harmony regarding trade in national currencies within the scope of the de-dollarization trend among members, there are hesitations in creating a common currency.

Intra-BRICS discussions and the complex relationships between some countries included in the platform, just as in the G-7, seem to play a key role for the future. It is necessary to especially underline the competition between China, the engine of the organization, and India, which receives intense US-Israel support to balance this rapidly rising country. Indeed, this friction makes itself felt even in the organization's expansion policy. For example, it is noteworthy that the United Arab Emirates, which has intense relations with the US-Israel bloc like India, was included in BRICS in response to Iran, which is supported by China.

When the institutional structure of BRICS is examined, some ups and downs can be identified. The most important pillar of BRICS is the New Development Bank, established with 100 billion dollars of capital and the partnership of the initial five countries. This bank, which has a multilateral operation and generally finances infrastructure projects, stands out with the opportunity it provides to member countries to borrow in their own national currencies instead of the dollar. In addition, within the BRICS New Development Bank, there is a 'Contingent Reserve Arrangement' to provide liquidity for financial stability against economic crises that may occur in member countries. However, it is known that the financial framework in question, which was initially designed as an alternative to the IMF, has not been able to deliver what was expected so far.

To be one of the reference points of the renewed world system, BRICS needs to take concrete steps on some critical points by moving its institutional evolution to a higher level. In this framework, a topic that will deeply shake the geoeconomic power balances specifically for BRICS is being discussed: The BRICS Payment System. This system, also called "BRICS Bridge/Pay", refers to a common mechanism for international payments other than the US-controlled SWIFT. Accordingly, it is envisaged that financial transfers between member countries will be regulated in a way that includes clearing through Central Banks with a blockchain-based digital application. Considering that BRICS countries are pioneers in Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), have successfully tested digital assets in their internal financial systems for years, and have developed their own messaging systems, establishing a common payment system does not seem difficult. Making payments between two or more countries independent of US control is noteworthy both because it eliminates the threat of unilateral sanctions and because it will offer a concrete alternative outside the Western economic system for the first time since the establishment of BRICS. However, a definitive decision must be made here. Whether the will can be demonstrated on this issue or whether intra-BRICS discussions will flare up, you need at least a year to understand this.

Let's come to Turkey and BRICS relations. For Turkey, which has been in the Western system for eighty years and has been struggling with constant economic crises without being able to solve its basic development problems, membership in BRICS seems positive as it includes both access to alternative financial resources and opportunities for cooperation with rising powers. Moreover, there is no requirement for any transfer of sovereignty for membership in BRICS, which is a positive feature for someone like me who approaches international organizations cautiously, whether they are Atlantic or Asia-centered.

However, it is open to debate to what extent a country dominated by a mentality that reads international relations only on the Western axis as a result of interest networks woven over decades can benefit from BRICS and other current opportunities in the world. Even if the world enters a renewal process in the digital age, these discussions do not reach us. Moreover, it is obvious that for the government, which seems to have re-indexed both its economy and foreign policy to the West recently and prioritizes cadres accordingly, BRICS membership remains at the level of discourse. Especially to think that there is a real desire to enter BRICS, which stands out with its foreign economic relations, with names like Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Minister of Economy Mehmet Şimşek, calls to mind a fantasy beyond a dream. In short, all roads lead to Rome for Ankara, and BRICS remains like a village far away!

On this occasion, it is useful to touch upon the unserious and 'mixed' East-West, Eurasia-Atlantic discussions in Turkey that I mentioned last week. Unfortunately, our people, and ironically, even more so our elite, cannot tear off the straitjackets tailored for them and cannot break their prejudices. When the words East-West pass somewhere, the formalism that the East is terrible and the West is perfect cannot be overcome. Is the situation really like that in today's world? For example, while the West really brings progress and democracy to our country, does the East promise backwardness and authoritarianism? If so, shouldn't we have developed at full speed and our democracy should have flourished since Ankara turned the rudder back to the US in recent years? Well, did that happen, or did our economy become 'depressed' and our democracy 'void' when we approached the West? If we look at recent history, for example, didn't the September 12, 2010 referendum pave the way for July 15 by entrusting the judiciary to FETÖ while being marketed as democracy and progressivism? Didn't the ECHR, the 'cradle of democracy', make a bizarre decision by saying 'fair' for detention periods in the Balyoz case, one of the conspiracy cases? And most importantly, did our NATO ally the US, which had a coup d'état in Turkey on September 12, 1980 and prepared a format change, bring us democracy or authoritarianism? Questions can be multiplied, but the essential point is that international relations are interest-based; progress and development can be achieved not through relations established with external blocs, but only and only through the internal dynamics of the country concerned. Atatürk's revolutions are a model.

Seeing the world in black and white with mental habits left over from the Cold War era should now remain in the past for modern minds. The world has been renewed. Power balances have changed. With this awareness, for those who stand on Anatolia, first of all, this should not be forgotten: What happens if a Turkey where the basic qualities of the Republic are eroded, social and economic problems increase, incompetence surrounds everything, and even giving up on the nation-state is discussed while independence is worn out, stays in the Atlantic, or what comes of it if it goes to Eurasia? I think we should remain us, that is, Turkish. That is enough for us!