Price of Sovereignty: Nations face punitive action for seeking alternatives

_______________

By George Musiime

Development is to humans a breaking free from natural necessity as it is to nations breaking free from control by others. Likewise, for nations, the pursuit of development is a national interest as it improves their standing in the international arena and guarantees the attainment of other aspirations as a result.

This notwithstanding, unilateralism under the current global order often puts the interests of powerful nations ahead of those of the smaller nations. Oftentimes, actions taken by powerful countries in the name of protecting their interests are a direct challenge to interests of other nations. These interests sometimes encroach on their legitimate right to development.

For instance, earlier this month, BRICS leaders reaffirmed their commitments to the group’s values of mutual respect, sovereign equality, and solidarity among others as cornerstones of meaningful multilateralism at the group’s 17^th summit in Rio. While this was perceived as the common interest of member states, the declaration was met with threats from Washington ranging from of 10% additional tariff on all nations that align with the group. At the same time, Brazil, another member of the group, joined the likes of China, receiving a special punitive package of 50% tariffs effective August 1^st, besides being investigated for so-called unfair trade dealings.

As a platform for cooperation initially championed by the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, BRICS has added 6 new members since 2015, including Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Egypt. Despite representing close to half the global population, the group does not seek to replace the traditional multilateral system but rather to offer an alternative model of multilateral cooperation. Other than responding with opposition, such efforts must be welcomed as they exemplify what is possible under a reformed multilateral system.

By addressing legacy shortcomings of the current multilateral setup faulted for a lack of equality and representation, BRICS must provide motivation for the requisite reforms; the absence of which have for over half a century kept the global south on the sidelines of global governance. More so, the platform only aims to prioritise the southern agenda, giving it a collective voice in global governance. Therefore, to call BRICS anti-America is the equivalent of saying to be pro-America is to ignore the interests of the billions it represents.

As long as it remains difficult to delink international cooperation and development, targeting nations with punitive action on the basis of who they cooperate with or what group they are aligned with is akin to dictating what interests nations are allowed to have, or the path to development they must follow. Of course, this is not practical where, due to different national realities, development challenges and capabilities are so diverse.

When a 10% extra tariff is declared against any nation that aligns itself with what Washington calls “the anti-America BRICS,” it is an obvious threat to immediately reverse any gains nations might have sought in such a collaborative arrangement. A choice, conscious or otherwise, to perpetuate the unfair international political landscape that made BRICS possible in the first place.

Incidentally, following years of calling for reforms in the existing multilateral system, it should not come as a surprise when BRICS comes up as a brainchild of the global south. Likewise, neither should the alignment of other countries in the region with the platform be. Instead, it should be surprising that nations whose interests haven’t mattered must be punished for seeking an alternative. For one, the framework is by nations from the global south and two, it promises sovereign equality, mutual respect; a shift from the status quo under legacy institutions. The same status quo that is at the foundation of  the calls for reforms.

Whereas it is understandable why proponents might argue for the right of Washington to protect its interest, this also raises a question on what must become of the interests of the  other nations. More importantly, though, there is the question on whether there can be sovereign equality where the interests of one supersede those of many. As this scenario unfolds, because Washington believes BRICS to be anti-American, all other nations must rally behind Washington’s interests -ignoring their own, or get crushed in a fete of punitive diplomacy. Meanwhile, apart from the inherent risks that come with being added to the hit list of powerful nations, the real risk is in what nations must give up in this trade off…their own national interests, even their development goals that are entwined with these interests.

The choice of partners and forums for cooperation should be a sovereign discretion. In the same way, the kind of threats levelled against any country that aligns with BRICS does nothing short of underscore the dire urgency for an more equitable global order – an order that respects sovereign equality, mutual respect and understanding among nations. While the choice to impose tariffs would fall perfectly within the purview of those imposing them, tethering them to alignment or non-alignment with anyone highlights the fractured state of international order and the importance of platforms like BRICS.

Unless the current multilateral system is designed to act in the interests of the powerful nations, it ought to have heeded the global-south’s call for reforms. Alternatively, there is still time to act on unilateralism to keep it from suffocating the interests of smaller nations. But as long as none of these is possible, the ensuing global challenges will necessitate new perspectives on current global problems like the one offered by BRICS, and resorting to punitive action only exacerbates the original challenges.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for BRICS Studies, Uganda.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org