Trump’s Second Term: A Shift in Global Alliances and Geopolitics

Er Mukesh Singh

US President-elect Donald Trump: The World Watches as He Prepares to Take the Helm

For months, Donald Trump has insisted that the global landscape would have been vastly different had he been in power instead of his predecessors. He claims that his leadership would have ensured a more stable, prosperous, and secure world. As Trump prepares to take office once again, the world is left to wonder whether his vision of global affairs will come to fruition or if the challenges that lie ahead will prove too complex for any leader to solve, regardless of their promises.

1. Shifting Global Alliances and Diplomacy

One of the most prominent aspects of Trump’s foreign policy has been his focus on “America First,” emphasizing the importance of U.S. interests over global cooperation. During his first term, he pulled out of several international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, and questioned the value of NATO. If his second term reflects similar policies, the U.S. may continue to prioritize bilateral agreements over multilateral cooperation, leading to a fragmented global diplomatic landscape. Allies in Europe and Asia, particularly those relying on U.S. leadership, will need to adapt to a more transactional and less predictable international environment.

2. Economic Nationalism and Trade Wars

Trump’s stance on trade has been one of his most defining features. His administration imposed tariffs on China and sought to renegotiate trade deals to favor the U.S. economy. His return to office could reignite trade tensions, especially with China and other key trading partners. With global supply chains still reeling from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s approach to economic nationalism could have far-reaching consequences on the global market, potentially leading to economic disruptions, inflationary pressures, and shifts in global production networks.

Additionally, his stance on immigration and foreign labor could have ripple effects on countries that rely on American markets for goods and services. As he pushes for reshoring jobs, it may prompt other nations to reassess their trade policies with the U.S. to avoid any negative economic fallout.

3. Handling Global Conflicts and Security

Trump’s first term saw a mixed approach to global security. On one hand, he pursued disengagement from prolonged military conflicts in the Middle East, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria. On the other, his administration took a tough stance on Iran and North Korea, resulting in a volatile diplomatic environment. His second term could see a continuation of military disengagement in some regions while intensifying U.S. pressure on adversaries like Iran and China, especially regarding nuclear arms and military expansion.

For nations in the Middle East, particularly those in conflict zones such as Syria and Yemen, Trump’s return could mean a shift in U.S. policy toward either further military involvement or an even more isolationist approach, depending on his focus at the time. Global security alliances, especially NATO, could face additional strain if Trump pushes for more “burden-sharing” by other nations, leaving questions about the future of collective security.

4. The Climate Crisis and Environmental Policy

Trump’s record on climate change during his first term was marked by deregulation of environmental protections and his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. A second term could see even fewer regulations and a further rollback of Obama-era environmental policies. This could have significant consequences for global efforts to address climate change, especially with major emitting countries like China and India already facing pressure to curb their carbon footprints.

Countries that have made progress on environmental issues may find it increasingly difficult to collaborate with the U.S. on global climate agreements, which could stall critical initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, his stance on energy independence might also push for greater innovation in alternative energy within the U.S., but without significant international collaboration, it may not be enough to mitigate global climate risks.

5. Reasserting U.S. Global Dominance

Trump’s view of America’s role on the world stage has often been that the U.S. should lead without being bound by international rules or norms. This philosophy could bring back a more dominant and unilaterally acting United States, one that seeks to reassert its influence over global institutions, trade agreements, and foreign aid. While some of this approach may appeal to American voters who prioritize national interests, it could lead to deeper divisions between the U.S. and other countries that rely on multilateral diplomacy for addressing global challenges.

Trump’s approach could also mean a continuation of U.S. dominance in technology and military power, which would have significant implications for global security, innovation, and economic development.

6. Domestic Challenges and Global Repercussions

While Trump’s foreign policies will certainly shape global affairs, his leadership will also be deeply influenced by domestic challenges. The U.S. remains deeply divided politically, with polarized opinions on key issues like healthcare, immigration, and racial justice. The effects of this internal division could spill over into the country’s international relationships, especially as the U.S. grapples with its own social and political crises.

Domestically, Trump’s leadership style—characterized by its unorthodox approach to governance and communication—may continue to cause friction within U.S. institutions, impacting how the country addresses global challenges. How he handles domestic issues, such as the economy, the COVID-19 aftermath, and civil unrest, will be closely monitored by international leaders, as these could have broader geopolitical implications.

Conclusion: The World Awaits

Donald Trump’s claim that the world would have been better off under his leadership is a bold assertion, but whether it proves true or not will depend on how his policies evolve in a second term. The world is watching closely as he prepares to navigate the complex challenges of the modern geopolitical landscape. His approach to trade, security, climate change, and international diplomacy will define not just his legacy but the future of global relations. As time progresses, the international community will learn whether Trump’s leadership truly leads to the outcomes he promised or if the world’s interconnected challenges require a different kind of global cooperation.

COURTESY: ANI News

Trump’s Second Term: What the Future Holds for Domestic and Global Affairs

Donald Trump will officially be sworn in for his second term as U.S. President on January 20, 2025. His 2024 presidential campaign has been marked by promises to address pressing domestic issues, particularly immigration and inflation, while signaling a return to his signature “America First” foreign policy. As the world watches, the question remains: how will his domestic agenda shape the future of the United States, and what impact will his foreign policy have on global relations?

1. Immigration: A Return to Hardline Policies

Trump’s stance on immigration has been a defining feature of his first term, and he has made it clear that it will be a priority in his second term as well. He is expected to revive his tough stance on border security, including the construction of a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a proposal he pushed heavily during his first presidency. Trump has also promised stricter immigration policies, including reducing the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the U.S., a move that is likely to face strong opposition from advocacy groups and Democrats.

Trump’s immigration policies are set to continue to shape the U.S.’s relationship with neighboring countries, particularly Mexico and Central American nations. His focus on curbing illegal immigration may lead to further tensions with Latin American countries, which could have significant implications for regional stability and cooperation.

2. Inflation and the Economy: The “America First” Economic Agenda

Inflation has been a major concern for American households and businesses, and Trump has promised to tackle this issue head-on in his second term. He has pledged to implement policies aimed at reducing inflation, likely through tax cuts, deregulation, and measures to increase American production. His “America First” economic agenda could include bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., reducing dependence on foreign imports, and reducing the U.S. trade deficit.

Trump’s economic policies could have a significant impact on global trade relations, especially with China, where he is likely to continue to push for fairer trade terms. His administration’s approach to tariffs and trade negotiations may result in continued tensions, particularly in the technology and manufacturing sectors.

3. Foreign Policy: A Stronger “America First” Approach

Trump has consistently advocated for an “America First” foreign policy, which focuses on prioritizing U.S. interests above global agreements and multilateral cooperation. In his second term, he is likely to double down on this stance, potentially withdrawing from more international agreements and questioning the U.S.’s role in organizations such as NATO and the United Nations.

This approach could lead to further strain in the U.S.’s relations with traditional allies, particularly in Europe, who may find it difficult to cooperate with an administration that is more focused on unilateral action. On the other hand, Trump’s stance could also strengthen ties with countries that share his “America First” ethos, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some Eastern European nations.

Additionally, Trump has indicated that he will take a harder line on China, especially in regard to trade, technology, and military expansion. His administration is expected to continue exerting pressure on Beijing, which could lead to a further deterioration of U.S.-China relations and impact the global economy.

4. Climate Change and Environmental Policy: Deregulation and Energy Independence

During his first term, Trump rolled back many environmental regulations and withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. In his second term, it is likely that he will continue to prioritize deregulation and the expansion of domestic energy production. His focus on achieving energy independence could mean further support for fossil fuel industries, such as oil and coal, while limiting the scope for renewable energy initiatives.

This stance could have serious global implications, as the U.S.’s withdrawal from international climate agreements would weaken global efforts to tackle climate change. Countries around the world, particularly those most affected by rising temperatures and extreme weather, may find it increasingly difficult to engage with the U.S. on climate action.

5. National Security and Global Alliances: A Shift Toward Unilateralism

Trump’s first term saw a shift in U.S. foreign policy toward unilateralism, with a focus on military disengagement from conflicts in the Middle East and a desire to reduce U.S. involvement in overseas operations. His second term is likely to continue this trend, although it remains unclear whether Trump will seek to withdraw from more regions or reassert U.S. military dominance in others.

NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, could find itself facing increased challenges as Trump demands that European nations contribute more to defense spending. His skepticism toward multilateral military organizations and defense agreements could lead to a weakening of global security alliances, making it more difficult for the U.S. and its allies to respond effectively to emerging global threats.

6. Global Reactions: Tensions and Opportunities

As Trump prepares for his second term, the world will closely watch how his policies evolve. Allies, adversaries, and international organizations will have to adapt to a U.S. president who is likely to continue pursuing an “America First” agenda that places national interests above global cooperation. This could lead to a more fragmented world order, with countries either aligning with or pushing back against U.S. policies depending on their own national priorities.

While Trump’s second term could offer opportunities for countries that share his vision of global governance, such as those seeking a stronger role for nationalism and sovereignty, it also poses risks for global stability. His potential withdrawal from international agreements and focus on trade protectionism could exacerbate tensions between the U.S. and other global powers, leading to further uncertainty in global markets, security, and diplomacy.

Conclusion: A New Era of American Leadership

Donald Trump’s return to the White House signifies the beginning of a new chapter in American politics, one marked by a reaffirmed focus on domestic priorities and a strong “America First” foreign policy. While his promises to address issues like immigration and inflation are likely to resonate with many American voters, his approach to international relations could have far-reaching consequences for the global community. As the world braces for his second term, it is clear that the future of global diplomacy and economic stability will be shaped by the actions of the U.S. under Trump’s leadership. Time will tell whether his vision of a more nationalistic and self-interested America will bring about the results he promises or if it will lead to greater isolation and geopolitical challenges.

COURTESY: DD India

Trump’s Bold Claims on Global Peace and Trade: What Does His Agenda Mean for the World?

As Donald Trump prepares for his second term in office, his bold statements on foreign policy have captured global attention. Trump has made strong promises regarding the resolution of major international conflicts, including Russia’s war against Ukraine and the ongoing tensions in the Middle East. He has also unveiled plans to introduce more aggressive trade policies, including slapping increased tariffs on foreign goods entering the U.S. Here’s a closer look at what his claims could mean for the world:

1. Ending the War in Ukraine in 24 Hours: Is It Possible?

One of Trump’s most striking claims during his presidential campaign has been his assertion that he could end Russia’s war against Ukraine within 24 hours of assuming office. Trump has suggested that his personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his unconventional diplomatic style would allow him to broker a deal that would bring the conflict to an immediate halt.

However, such a bold claim raises questions about its feasibility. The war in Ukraine is complex, involving not only Russia and Ukraine but also NATO countries, the European Union, and other global powers. Negotiating a peace agreement that satisfies all parties, particularly Ukraine, which has firmly rejected any concession to Russian territorial demands, would be a significant challenge. While Trump’s approach to diplomacy could bring a different dynamic to peace talks, achieving a resolution within a day seems unlikely given the deeply entrenched interests and stakes in the conflict.

If Trump succeeds in bringing Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table, it could result in a shift in global alliances and security arrangements. The U.S.’s role in Europe and its relationship with NATO members would likely be recalibrated, potentially reducing European dependence on U.S. military support. However, a sudden shift in policy could also undermine the ongoing efforts by Western nations to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

2. Ending Wars in West Asia: A New Approach or More of the Same?

Trump has also vowed to end the wars in West Asia, particularly in the Middle East. During his first term, Trump sought to reduce U.S. military involvement in the region, including withdrawing troops from Syria and seeking to renegotiate U.S. relations with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. His “America First” approach prioritized bringing American troops home and reducing the U.S.’s involvement in long-standing conflicts.

If re-elected, Trump may push for similar policies, emphasizing diplomatic solutions over military intervention. His administration’s approach could lead to further disengagement from the region, with a focus on economic sanctions, arms deals, and political negotiations to manage conflicts. While this may appeal to some voters who are weary of endless military engagements, it could also leave regional power vacuums that other countries, such as Russia and Iran, may seek to fill.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy could also lead to shifting alliances in the region, particularly with key partners such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other Gulf states. His stance on issues like Iran and his previous efforts to broker the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab nations suggest that he may seek to continue fostering relationships with allies while distancing the U.S. from direct military involvement in the region’s conflicts.

3. Increased Tariffs: A Shift Toward Protectionism

In addition to his foreign policy claims, Trump has also promised to introduce increased tariffs on foreign goods entering the U.S. His first term was marked by a trade war with China, and it seems that his approach to trade policy will continue to focus on reducing the U.S. trade deficit and encouraging domestic manufacturing. Trump’s plan to slap higher tariffs on foreign goods is likely to be part of his broader “America First” economic agenda, which prioritizes American jobs and industries over global trade agreements.

While tariffs can provide short-term benefits to domestic industries by making foreign goods more expensive, they can also lead to retaliatory measures from other countries, potentially resulting in a trade war. Countries like China, the European Union, and others may impose tariffs on U.S. goods in response, potentially raising the cost of products for American consumers. The global economy could face disruptions as trade relationships are reshaped, leading to a more fragmented and less predictable market environment.

4. The Global Impact: A More Unilateral U.S. Role in the World

Trump’s promises to end wars, resolve international conflicts, and implement protectionist trade policies signal a shift toward a more unilateral U.S. approach to global issues. While his rhetoric focuses on “winning” for America, this could have significant repercussions for international cooperation.

In the realm of diplomacy, Trump’s proposed direct intervention in conflicts like Ukraine and West Asia could weaken multilateral efforts by institutions such as the United Nations and NATO. His skepticism of international organizations has already led to the U.S. withdrawing from several global agreements, including the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. A return to such policies would signal a continued decline in global cooperation on pressing issues like climate change, arms control, and humanitarian intervention.

Trump’s protectionist trade policies could also isolate the U.S. economically from the rest of the world. If other countries retaliate with tariffs or other trade restrictions, the global economy could suffer from reduced trade flows and increased costs. Smaller and developing nations that rely on trade with the U.S. may face economic setbacks, further exacerbating global inequality.

Conclusion: A World in Flux

As Trump returns to the White House for his second term, his promises to end wars, reduce military engagement, and protect American industries will shape not only the U.S.’s domestic policies but also its role on the world stage. While his approach may appeal to voters seeking a more isolationist or protectionist America, it is unclear whether his bold claims about resolving international conflicts in record time will lead to long-term peace and stability.

The global community will be watching closely to see how Trump’s “America First” agenda unfolds, as his policies could significantly impact global security, trade, and diplomatic relations. Whether these promises will bring peace or create further divisions will only become clear as his second term progresses. For now, the world faces an uncertain future, with a U.S. president who continues to challenge traditional diplomatic norms.

More Tariffs

Trump’s Tough Talk on Tariffs and Global Trade: What His Threats Mean for International Relations

US President-elect Donald Trump’s hardline stance on international trade and foreign relations continues to dominate the headlines as he prepares to take office for a second term. This month, Trump delivered a striking warning to the BRICS nations, including India, regarding the US dollar’s role in global trade. His threats to impose 100% tariffs on countries attempting to replace the dollar with alternative currencies have raised concerns among global economists and policymakers. At the same time, he has announced aggressive tariff policies targeting countries like Mexico, Canada, and China. Here’s a breakdown of his latest statements and their potential impact on global trade:

1. The BRICS and the US Dollar: A Threat to Global Currency Dominance

Trump’s remarks about the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have drawn significant attention. In a post on Truth Social, he threatened to impose 100% tariffs on goods from countries that attempt to replace the US dollar with a new currency. Trump stated that he would demand a commitment from these countries not to support any efforts to create an alternative currency or back one other than the US dollar for international trade. He emphasized that any country attempting to move away from the dollar would “lose access” to the US market, adding that they would need to “find another sucker.”

This bold rhetoric underscores the centrality of the US dollar in the global economy and signals Trump’s intention to defend its dominance at all costs. While it’s unlikely that the BRICS nations will abandon the dollar in the near future, the rise of alternative currencies, such as China’s digital yuan, continues to gather attention. Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs could further strain US relations with these nations, many of which already view the US’s influence on global trade with skepticism.

2. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada: Border Crisis and Reciprocal Trade Policies

In another controversial statement, Trump pledged to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada, blaming illegal immigration and the flow of drugs, particularly fentanyl, as the cause for the border crisis. He described this tariff as a direct response to what he considers the failure of these countries to stop the influx of illegal immigration and drugs into the US. Trump’s promise to implement this tariff on the first day of his second term has raised concerns about the economic impact on both countries and the potential for retaliatory measures.

Trump’s stance aligns with his broader “America First” agenda, which prioritizes securing the US border and protecting domestic industries. However, such tariffs could disrupt trade flows between North American countries and increase costs for US consumers. Canada and Mexico, both key trading partners of the US under the USMCA (formerly NAFTA), would likely retaliate, potentially leading to a trade war that could hurt businesses and consumers on both sides of the border.

In addition to these tariffs, Trump has proposed a 10% additional tariff on Chinese products, citing China’s failure to curb the flow of fentanyl into the US. This move would escalate tensions between the US and China, prolonging the trade war initiated during his first term. Given the ongoing global supply chain disruptions and economic uncertainty, Trump’s tariff-heavy approach could create further instability in international markets.

3. Trump’s Criticism of Canada and His ’51st State’ Comments

Trump’s relationship with Canada has been another point of contention. In a recent post, he criticized US subsidies to Canada, claiming that no one could explain why the US subsidizes the country to the tune of over $100 million a year. He also humorously suggested that many Canadians would prefer to become the 51st state of the US, citing potential tax savings and military protection as benefits.

While his comments were likely intended as lighthearted, they also reflect a broader frustration with Canada’s trade policies and the balance of benefits between the two nations. In addition, Trump mocked Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, dubbing him the “Governor” of the “Great State” of Canada. This offhand remark is yet another example of Trump’s tendency to poke fun at foreign leaders, which often complicates diplomatic relations.

4. The Trump Reciprocal Trade Act: A Bold Trade Strategy

One of Trump’s signature policy proposals, the “Trump Reciprocal Trade Act,” could further reshape US trade policy. Under this act, Trump has proposed that the US would charge other countries the same tariffs they charge on US goods. If a country imposes a 10% tariff on US goods, for example, the US would reciprocate by charging that country the same rate. This approach, Trump argues, would lead to “free trade” by ensuring that trade barriers are eliminated or reduced.

While this approach could put pressure on trading partners to lower their tariffs, it could also escalate trade disputes and trigger retaliatory actions. Countries would likely view the Trump Reciprocal Trade Act as an attempt to impose unfair trade terms, leading to increased tensions and potential disruptions to global supply chains. It could also result in the US being isolated from key trading partners if they choose to seek alternative markets.

5. Global Impact: An Uncertain Future for International Trade

Trump’s aggressive stance on tariffs and his threats to disrupt global trade relationships could have far-reaching consequences for the global economy. His policies could lead to a fragmented world economy where countries increasingly turn to protectionist measures, making it harder to maintain stable, open international trade.

Moreover, his rhetoric could further alienate US allies and trading partners, many of whom view Trump’s policies as detrimental to the principles of free trade and international cooperation. Countries may seek to diversify their trade relationships, reducing reliance on the US and looking to emerging markets or regional trade agreements as alternatives.

The increased tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico could harm American businesses that rely on imports from these countries, leading to higher production costs and potentially higher prices for consumers. Furthermore, Trump’s focus on tariffs and trade wars may hinder efforts to address other pressing global challenges, such as climate change, healthcare, and technological advancement.

COURTESY: BBC News

As Trump takes office for a second term, his tough talk on tariffs and global trade is likely to create a volatile environment for international relations. His threats to BRICS nations, his proposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and his focus on reciprocal trade policies all signal a shift toward a more isolationist and protectionist US approach.

While Trump’s policies may resonate with some voters who seek to prioritize American interests above all else, the global economic consequences of his approach remain uncertain. Trade wars, rising tariffs, and the potential for retaliation could disrupt global markets, making it more challenging for countries to cooperate and address shared challenges. The world will be watching closely to see how Trump’s bold promises impact the global economy and US relations with its allies and adversaries.

6. Trump’s Approach to Multilateralism: A Step Away from Global Cooperation

Trump’s approach to global governance has often been marked by skepticism toward multilateral organizations and alliances. His “America First” policy has led to the US withdrawing from various international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Similarly, his comments about BRICS and his threats of 100% tariffs suggest he’s willing to take a unilateral stance on international trade matters, disregarding the potential consequences for diplomatic and economic relations.

This shift away from multilateralism could exacerbate global instability. By threatening countries with severe economic penalties for stepping outside the dollar-based trade system, Trump risks isolating the US from the broader international community, which may lead to the formation of alternative alliances and trade networks. Nations that are increasingly dissatisfied with the US’s role in global trade could seek to form new coalitions, thus diminishing the US’s influence in shaping global economic and political dynamics.

As countries like China and Russia, along with the BRICS bloc, look to assert their own interests, there is growing concern over the potential for rival trading systems that bypass the US dollar. In this environment, the US risks losing its central role in shaping global economic policy, which would mark a significant shift from the decades-long status quo.

7. Trump’s Economic Nationalism: Weighing the Costs and Benefits

Trump’s economic nationalism, which heavily emphasizes protectionism and safeguarding domestic industries, is rooted in a desire to reduce the US’s trade deficit and revitalize American manufacturing. By imposing tariffs and focusing on securing better trade deals, Trump aims to create a more favorable economic environment for US companies, reduce outsourcing, and increase jobs in the US.

However, the long-term effectiveness of this approach is still highly debated. While protectionist policies might protect certain industries in the short term, they can have negative consequences in the broader economy. Higher tariffs could increase the cost of goods for US consumers and businesses, particularly those that rely on imported goods or supply chains that span multiple countries. American farmers, in particular, have expressed concern about retaliatory tariffs from other nations, which could harm agricultural exports.

Furthermore, tariffs often trigger a cycle of retaliation, as seen in the ongoing trade war with China. These retaliatory measures not only hurt businesses in both countries but also reduce consumer choice and raise costs for manufacturers who rely on raw materials and intermediate goods from abroad. Over time, this could dampen economic growth, making it harder to achieve Trump’s goal of a prosperous, self-reliant economy.

8. The Impact on Global Supply Chains: Increased Uncertainty and Costs

Global supply chains have become increasingly interconnected, with companies sourcing raw materials, components, and finished goods from around the world. Trump’s tariff policies, combined with his threats of increased taxes on imports, could significantly disrupt these global networks. Manufacturers who rely on products from abroad might face higher input costs, which could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

In particular, industries that are highly dependent on Chinese imports—such as electronics, automotive, and consumer goods—could see price hikes if Trump’s additional tariffs on Chinese products are implemented. Similarly, US-based companies that sell products to Canada and Mexico might face additional scrutiny or tariffs under Trump’s proposal to impose punitive tariffs on these countries.

Supply chain disruptions can also harm global trade flows, as countries may reconsider their reliance on suppliers from countries with strained trade relations with the US. This could lead to a reshuffling of global trade partners and an increase in the cost of doing business across borders. In the long run, US companies might be forced to diversify their supply chains, but this process could take years to complete, during which time businesses may struggle with higher costs and inefficiencies.

9. China’s Response: Countermeasures and Strategic Adjustments

China, the world’s second-largest economy and a key trading partner of the US, has already demonstrated its willingness to engage in retaliatory trade measures in response to Trump’s tariffs. Since 2018, China has imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US goods, ranging from agricultural products to electronics. In response to Trump’s vow to increase tariffs, China may further adjust its trade policies to shield its economy from the effects of US tariffs.

One possible strategy for China could be to continue diversifying its global trade relationships. Over the past few years, China has deepened its economic ties with other countries, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which seeks to enhance trade infrastructure across Asia, Africa, and Europe. China could also intensify its efforts to promote the use of its currency, the renminbi, in international trade, offering an alternative to the US dollar.

Another tactic China may use is leveraging its dominance in rare earth minerals and other key industries. China controls a significant portion of the world’s supply of rare earths, which are crucial for industries like electronics and green energy. In a trade dispute, China could restrict exports of these minerals to the US, further exacerbating the supply chain disruptions caused by tariffs. These countermeasures could have long-lasting implications for US industries that depend on Chinese imports.

10. The Long-Term Impact on the US Economy: Growth or Stagnation?

Trump’s economic policies have been characterized by bold, aggressive moves to shift the US away from a globalized economy and back toward a more protectionist stance. The potential success or failure of this approach depends largely on how well the US economy adapts to these changes. While Trump’s administration has emphasized bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US, critics argue that such policies could lead to a decline in overall productivity, with higher costs for consumers and businesses.

Trade wars and tariffs, if prolonged, could hurt the US economy’s competitiveness in the global market. American businesses that depend on exports could face market access restrictions and retaliatory tariffs from other countries, potentially leading to a decline in overseas sales. On the other hand, certain sectors of the US economy, such as those in the energy industry or high-tech sectors, could benefit from a focus on domestic production and reduced foreign competition.

Moreover, the trade policies could result in long-term inflationary pressures in the US. As tariffs increase the cost of goods and services, consumer prices could rise, reducing purchasing power. This could especially harm lower-income households, who are more sensitive to price increases in everyday goods. Additionally, higher inflation could prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, which could slow down economic growth.

11. Conclusion: A New Era of Trade Wars?

As Trump prepares to take office again, his rhetoric and policy proposals indicate a willingness to engage in aggressive trade wars with both allies and adversaries. His threats to BRICS nations, proposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and his focus on economic nationalism paint a picture of a more isolationist US trade policy. While these moves may resonate with some parts of the American electorate, they could have significant consequences for global trade, potentially leading to increased costs, supply chain disruptions, and retaliatory actions from other nations.

In the long run, the success of Trump’s trade agenda will depend on how the US economy adapts to these changes, as well as how other nations respond to his policies. If the US fails to maintain its leadership in global trade, it could find itself in a more fragmented world economy, with countries increasingly seeking alternatives to the dollar and establishing new trade alliances outside of US influence.

The coming years will be critical in shaping the future of global trade and the US’s role in it. As Trump’s policies unfold, the international community will be watching closely, as the outcome of this new era of trade wars will have far-reaching consequences for all nations involved.

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b “Goldman’s BRIC Era Ends as Fund Folds After Years of Losses”. Bloomberg. 8 November 2015. Archived from the original on 31 January 2023. Retrieved 10 November 2022.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Patrick, Stewart (9 October 2024). “BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order”. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  3.  Archived from the original on 19 November 2024. Retrieved 24 November 2024. … To some in the West, the emergence of BRICS+ suggests something even more ominous—a world that is fragmenting into competing blocs, thanks to intensifying geopolitical rivalry between East and West and growing mutual alienation between North and South. According to this reading, Beijing and Moscow are intent on exploiting some countries’ resentment of the United States and its wealthy world allies to consolidate an anti-Western counterweight to the venerable Group of 7 (G7), a process that is likely to paralyze global cooperation within other multilateral venues. … From the outset, BRICS was conceived as a geopolitical and geoeconomic counterweight to the West …
  4. ^ Gutemberg Pacheco Lopes Junior. “The Sino-Brazilian Principles in a Latin American and BRICS Context: The Case for Comparative Public Budgeting Legal Research; Wisconsin International Law Journal; 13 May 2015” (PDF). University of Wisconsin Law School. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 September 2021. Retrieved 7 September 2016.
  5. ^ “What is BRICS, which countries want to join and why?”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 18 November 2023. Retrieved 8 February 2024.
  6. ^ Oliver Stuenkel (2020). The BRICS and the Future of Global Order (2 ed.). Lexington Books. p. 1. ISBN 978-0739193211.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d “Expansion of BRICS: A quest for greater global influence?” (PDF). Think Tank, European Parliament. 15 March 2024. Archived from the original on 20 March 2024.
  8. ^ “BRICS Joint Statistical Publications”. Federal State Statistics Service. Archived from the original on 17 January 2024.
  9. ^ Raimondi, Paolo (2 September 2023). “BRICS: The role of the unit of account for the new “basket of currencies””. India Foundation. Archived from the original on 4 October 2023.
  10. ^ “ILO head praises BRICS countries’ commitment to social dialogue”. ILO. 3 August 2018. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  11. ^ Wolff, Richard D. (3 October 2022). “BRICS: the powerful global alliance”. canadiandimension.com. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  12. ^ Maitra, Sumantra (18 April 2013). “BRICS – India is the biggest loser”. USINPAC. Archived from the original on 28 October 2013. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  13. ^ Blakeley, Grace (15 February 2023). “BRIC Nationalism Is No Alternative”. Jacobin. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Coughlin, Con (24 August 2023). “Brics is now a motley crew of failing states”. The Daily Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  15. ^ Jim O’Neill (30th November 2001).“Building Better Global Economic BRICs” Archived 14 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine . Goldman Sachs. Retrieved 12 February 2015.
  16. ^ Nagashybayeva, Gulnar (November 2016). “Research Guides: BRICS: Sources of Information: Introduction”. guides.loc.gov. Archived from the original on 23 July 2023. Retrieved 23 July 2023.
  17. ^ “Jim O’Neill Named Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management”. www.goldmansachs.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2024. Retrieved 31 October 2024.
  18. ^ “Information about BRICS”. Brics6.itamaraty.gov.br. 27 March 2013. Archived from the original on 10 July 2015. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  19. ^ “Cooperation within BRIC” Archived 19 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine. Kremlin.ru. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b “First summit for emerging giants”. BBC News. 16 June 2009. Archived from the original on 18 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
  21. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bryanski, Gleb (26 June 2009). “BRIC demands more clout, steers clear of dollar talk”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 19 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
  22. ^ “BRIC wants more influence”. euronews. Euronews. 16 June 2009. Archived from the original on 21 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
  23. ^ Zhou, Wanfeng (16 June 2009). “Dollar slides after Russia comments, BRIC summit”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b Smith, Jack A. (21 January 2011). “BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical Chessboard”. Foreign Policy Journal. Archived from the original on 26 January 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
  25. ^ “China invites South Africa to join BRIC: Xinhua”. Reuters. 24 December 2010. Archived from the original on 9 June 2019. Retrieved 9 June 2019.
  26. ^ Blanchard, Ben and Zhou Xin (14 April 2011). “UPDATE 1-BRICS discussed global monetary reform, not yuan” Archived 20 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Reuters Africa. Retrieved 26 April 2013.
  27. ^ “South Africa joins BRIC as full member”. Xinhua. 24 December 2010. Archived from the original on 28 December 2010. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
  28. ^ “BRICS countries need to further enhance coordination: Manmohan Singh”. The Times of India. 12 April 2011. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
  29. ^ “BRICS should coordinate in key areas of development: PM”. Indian Express. 10 April 2011. Archived from the original on 15 April 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
  30. ^ “Russia says BRICS eye joint anti-crisis fund”. Reuters. 21 June 2012. Archived from the original on 15 May 2013. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
  31. ^ “Brics eye infrastructure funding through new development bank”. The Guardian. 28 March 2013. Archived from the original on 30 October 2013. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
  32. ^ “India sees BRICS development bank agreed by 2014 summit”. Reuters. 19 April 2013. Archived from the original on 28 May 2013. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  33. ^ “BRICS may decide on $100 billion fund early 2014 – Russia”. In.reuters.com. 11 October 2013. Archived from the original on 1 February 2014. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  34. ^ Silvio Cascione; Patricia Duarte (10 October 2013). “Brazil’s Mantega urges Fed to communicate tapering ‘clearly'”. In.reuters.com. Archived from the original on 1 February 2014. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  35. ^ “rbth.com: “BRICS countries to set up their own IMF” 14 Apr 2014″. 14 April 2014. Archived from the original on 31 May 2014. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
  36. ^ “BRICS to launch bank, tighten Latin America ties” Archived 12 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine . Yahoo.com. 11 July 2014. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
  37. ^ “Brics Cable Unveiled for Direct and Cohesive Communications Services between Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa”. Bloomberg News. 16 April 2012. Archived from the original on 19 November 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
  38. ^ Rolland, Nadège (2 April 2015). “A Fiber-Optic Silk Road”. The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 19 November 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  39. ^ “BRICS countries to cooperate in ICT sector”. Archived from the original on 20 August 2019. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
  40. ^ “BRICS To Allocate $15 Billion For Rebuilding Economies Hit By COVID-19”. NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  41. ^ Haidar, Suhasini; Krishnan, Ananth (15 September 2021). “India, China avoided open clash over COVID-19 origins”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 16 September 2021. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  42. ^ Carter, Sarah (30 May 2023). “South Africa moves to let Putin attend BRICS summit despite ICC arrest warrant over Ukraine war”. CBS News. Archived from the original on 16 June 2023. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  43. ^ “South Africa’s diplomatic dilemma with Putin”. Deutsche Welle. 2 June 2023. Archived from the original on 12 June 2023. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  44. ^ Bartlett K. (July 19, 2023). “Putin won’t attend a South Africa summit next month, avoiding possible arrest” Archived 21 July 2023 at the Wayback Machine NPR.org. Accessed 21 July 2023.
  45. ^ Monteiro, Ana (29 December 2023). “BRICS to Grow as Saudi, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia Join Ranks”. Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 31 December 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b c Sharma, Shweta (24 August 2023). “Brics countries agree major expansion as 6 countries invited to join”. The Independent. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  47. ^ Jump up to:a b c du Plessis, Carien; Miridzhanian, Anait; Acharya, Bhargav (24 August 2023). “BRICS welcomes new members in push to reshuffle world order”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  48. ^ “BRICS membership in doubt as opposition rejects move”. www.batimes.com.ar. 24 August 2023. Archived from the original on 28 August 2023. Retrieved 28 August 2023.
  49. ^ Jump up to:a b Bonelli, Matías (1 December 2023). “Diana Mondino confirmó que la Argentina no ingresará a los BRICS” [Diana Mondino confirmed that Argentina won’t join BRICS]. El Cronista (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 30 November 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
  50. ^ Jump up to:a b “El gobierno de Javier Milei oficializó que la Argentina no entrará a los Brics”. La Nación (in Spanish). 29 December 2023. Archived from the original on 29 December 2023. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
  51. ^ El Dahan, Maha; Zhdannikov, Dmitry (18 January 2024). “Exclusive: Saudi Arabia still considering BRICS membership, sources say”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 February 2024. Retrieved 23 March 2024.
  52. ^ “Saudi MBS on BRICS leaders calling him to abandon U.S. dollar in oil transactions”. Tactical Report. 26 April 2024. Archived from the original on 16 July 2024. Retrieved 16 July 2024.
  53. ^ Ismail, Sumayya (24 August 2023). “Saudi Arabia, Iran among 6 nations invited to join BRICS”. Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
  54. ^ 杜娟. “More nations interested in joining BRICS”. www.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 19 July 2024.
  55. ^ “Report for Selected Countries and Subjects”. IMF. Archived from the original on 30 April 2023. Retrieved 30 October 2024.
  56. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g “What is BRICS”. Africa Facts. 15 October 2018. Archived from the original on 31 July 2020. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
  57. ^ Jump up to:a b “How aid for trade could help SVEs integrate in the global economy”. Effectiveness of Aid for Trade in Small and Vulnerable Economies. Economic Paper. Commonwealth. 15 March 2011. pp. 30–37. doi:10.14217/9781848591004-6-en. ISBN 9781848591004. Archived from the original on 31 December 2023. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
  58. ^ “A Cúpula de Durban e o futuro dos BRICS”. Post-Western World. 4 July 2013. Archived from the original on 7 September 2013. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
  59. ^ “BRICS summit: PM Modi to leave for Brazil tomorrow, will seek reforms”. Hindustan Times. 12 July 2014. Archived from the original on 13 July 2014. Retrieved 12 July 2014.
  60. ^ “Ufa to host SCO and BRICS summits in 2015”. UfaCity.info. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
  61. ^ Jump up to:a b “Theme and priorities”. BRICS BRASIL 2019. Archived from the original on 28 August 2019. Retrieved 26 July 2019.
  62. ^ “BRICS and the SCO summits postponed | Official website of the Russian BRICS Chairmanship in 2020”. eng.brics-russia2020.ru. 27 May 2020. Archived from the original on 17 November 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2020.
  63. ^ “BRICS Summit to be held virtually on Nov 17; strengthening cooperation, global stability on agenda”. Hindustan Times. 5 October 2020. Archived from the original on 5 October 2020. Retrieved 5 October 2020.
  64. ^ “Путин заявил о переносе саммитов БРИКС и ШОС из Челябинска”. 19 July 2019. Archived from the original on 19 July 2019. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
  65. ^ Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy. “BRICS Summit to be held virtually on November 17”. The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  66. ^ “India plans to host BRICS Games during Khelo India Games in 2021”. Firstpost. 26 August 2020. Archived from the original on 27 June 2023. Retrieved 23 September 2020.
  67. ^ “Saudi Arabia has not yet joined BRICS – Saudi official source”. Archived from the original on 12 February 2024. Retrieved 8 February 2024.
  68. ^ Korostovtseva, Yekaterina (5 March 2024). Юрий Ушаков: БРИКС на деле выражает интересы мирового большинства [Yuriy Ushakov: BRICS expresses the interests of the world majority in practice]. TASS (in Russian). Archived from the original on 18 April 2024. Retrieved 18 April 2024. «Главным событием российского председательства, разумеется, станет саммит БРИКС в Казани 22–24 октября». [The main event of Russia’s chairmanship will, of course, be the October 22–24 BRICS summit in Kazan.]
  69. ^ “News conference following 16th BRICS Summit”. brics-russia2024.ru. 24 October 2024. Retrieved 6 December 2024.
  70. ^ Jump up to:a b “Outcome of the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia”. Think Tank, European Parliament. 8 November 2024. Archived from the original on 7 December 2024. Retrieved 6 December 2024.
  71. ^ Correia, Victor. “Lula: com Brasil presidente, prioridade do Brics será desigualdade” [Lula: with Brazil president, Brics’ priority will be inequality]. Correio Braziliense (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 23 January 2024. Retrieved 11 June 2024.
  72. ^ at purchasing power parity, per capita, in international dollars (rounded IMF 2012)
  73. ^ at Human Development Index (New 2013 Estimates for 2012)
  74. ^ Jump up to:a b “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Order of the President No.37)”. Archived from the original on 24 July 2013. Retrieved 28 August 2023.
  75. ^ “New era as South Africa joins BRICS” Archived 18 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine . SouthAfrica.info. 11 April 2010. Retrieved 2 December 2012.
  76. ^ “S. Africa Joins; BRIC Now BRICS, 13 de abril de 2011”. Archived from the original on 24 February 2011. Retrieved 15 April 2011.
  77. ^ “BRICS Gain Global Influence as South Africa Joins, Medvedev Says”. Bloomberg.com. 12 April 2011. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
  78. ^ Fletcher, Owen (13 April 2011). “China Seeks Heft for ‘BRICS'”. Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
  79. ^ Devonshire-Ellis, Chris (9 November 2022). “The New Candidate Countries For BRICS Expansion”. Silk Road Briefing. Archived from the original on 17 January 2023. Retrieved 21 February 2023.
  80. ^ “Wang Yi Chairs Dialogue of Foreign Ministers between BRICS and Emerging Markets and Developing Countries”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People’s Republic of China. 20 May 2022. Archived from the original on 15 April 2023. Retrieved 21 February 2023.
  81. ^ Teslova, Elena (8 November 2022). “At least a dozen countries interested in joining BRICS: Russian foreign minister”. Anadolu Agency. Archived from the original on 16 January 2023. Retrieved 21 February 2023.
  82. ^ “Argentina formally rejects BRICS membership”. 29 December 2023. Archived from the original on 29 December 2023. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
  83. ^ “Is Saudi Arabia a Brics member or not? A curious case of invitation, acceptance and a delay”. Firstpost. 22 October 2024. Retrieved 22 October 2024.
  84. ^ “BRICS expansion: five countries join ranks”. Africa News. 2 January 2024. Archived from the original on 4 January 2024. Retrieved 4 January 2024.
  85. ^ Frantzman, Seth J. (3 January 2024). “Iran, UAE, Egypt and Ethiopia join BRICS”. The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Archived from the original on 3 January 2024. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  86. ^ Hacaoglu, Selcan; Kozok, Firat (2 September 2024). “Turkey Bids to Join BRICS in Push to Build Alliances Beyond West”. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 3 September 2024. Retrieved 8 November 2024.
  87. ^ Bandow, Doug (14 July 2022). “Why Is Turkey Still in NATO?”. Cato Institute. Archived from the original on 2 September 2024. Retrieved 2 September 2024.
  88. ^ Pangalos, Philip (13 March 2019). “European Parliament calls for suspension of Turkey EU accession talks”. Euronews. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 2 September 2024.
  89. ^ Balci, Baris; Hacaoglu, Selcan (17 September 2022). “Turkey Seeks to Be First NATO Member to Join China-Led SCO”. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 18 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
  90. ^ O’Connor, Tom (11 July 2024). “Exclusive: Why Turkey’s Erdogan Is Breaking With Biden on Ukraine and Gaza”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on 3 September 2024. Retrieved 3 September 2024.
  91. ^ “Algeria president: ‘Country applied to join BRICS, offered $1.5bn'”. July 2023. Archived from the original on 2 October 2024. Retrieved 5 July 2024.
  92. ^ “Algeria no longer express interest in joining according to Algerian news agency”. Aps.
  93. ^ “Angered over BRICS veto, Venezuela recalls ambassador to Brazil”. Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 8 November 2024. Retrieved 30 October 2024.
  94. ^ Saudi Arabia has not yet joined BRICs – minister
  95. ^ “MSN”. MSN.
  96. ^ Hussain, Abid. “Pakistan seeks BRICS membership, despite India roadblock”. Al Jazeera. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
  97. ^ Ndiaye, Juliette (21 August 2023). “EMERGING COUNTRIES – Senegal wants to integrate the Brics”. Ze-AfricaNews. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
  98. ^ “Sri Lanka set to officially apply for BRICS membership”.
  99. ^ “BRICS Bank to be headquartered in Shanghai, India to hold presidency” Archived 12 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine . Indiasnaps.com. 16 July 2014
  100. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Desai, Raj M.; Vreeland, James Raymond (17 July 2014). “What the new bank of BRICS is all about”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 17 July 2014. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
  101. ^ Jump up to:a b “New BRICS Bank a Building Block of Alternative World Order”. The Huffington Post. 18 July 2014. Archived from the original on 19 July 2014. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
  102. ^ Jump up to:a b “BRICS countries launch $100 billion developmental bank, currency pool”. Russia & India Report. 16 July 2014. Archived from the original on 26 May 2022. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
  103. ^ Jump up to:a b c “BRICS Bank ready for launch – Russian Finance Minister”. Russia & India Report. 10 July 2014. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
  104. ^ “History”. New Development Bank. Archived from the original on 1 December 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  105. ^ Strohecker, Karin (2 September 2021). Blair, Edmund (ed.). “BRICS development bank admits UAE, Bangladesh, Uruguay as new members”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 12 March 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
  106. ^ Jump up to:a b “BRICS currency fund to protect members from volatility – Russia’s top banker”. Russia & India Report. 17 July 2014. Archived from the original on 25 September 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
  107. ^ Biziwick, Mayamiko; Cattaneo, Nicolette; Fryer, David (2015). “The rationale for and potential role of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement”. South African Journal of International Affairs. 22 (3): 307–324. doi:10.1080/10220461.2015.1069208. S2CID 153695521.
  108. ^ On the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) Governing Council and Standing Committee inaugural meetings Archived 2 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine 4 September 2015. Retrieved 22 September 2016
  109. ^ “DMPQ- BRICS payment system”. 27 May 2019. Archived from the original on 21 January 2023. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  110. ^ “Russia offers to discuss BRICS prototype of SWIFT global system”. Russia & India Report. 1 June 2015. Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 26 March 2016.
  111. ^ “Exclusive: China’s international payments system ready, could launch by end-2015 – sources”. Reuters. 9 March 2015. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 10 March 2015.
  112. ^ “BRICS to discuss common currency plan during the summit, says South African Foreign Minister”. cnbctv18.com. 10 May 2023. Archived from the original on 12 May 2023. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
  113. ^ “Lula confirma criação de uma moeda comum dos Brics para facilitar trocas comerciais”. CNN Brasil. Archived from the original on 26 August 2023. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
  114. ^ “BRICS summit: Leaders eye expansion, common currency – DW – 08/23/2023”. dw.com. Archived from the original on 26 August 2023. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
  115. ^ “Common Currency on Agenda for South African BRICS Summit”. VOA. 12 May 2023. Archived from the original on 12 May 2023. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
  116. ^ Bryanski, Gleb (10 October 2024). “Russia calls on BRICS partners to create alternative to IMF”. Reuters.com.
  117. ^ Insights, Ledger (28 February 2024). “Finance ministers discuss BRICS Bridge digital currency payments”. Ledger Insights – blockchain for enterprise. Archived from the original on 2 December 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  118. ^ “Putin’s plan to dethrone the dollar”. The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 27 November 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  119. ^ “Explainer: Putin’s Swift rival a bridge too far for Brics”. www.thebanker.com. Archived from the original on 4 December 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  120. ^ Ebel, Francesca (24 October 2024). “Putin presents himself as champion of the developing world at summit”. Washingtonpost.com.
  121. ^ “A surprise new twist in Putin’s currency wars”. The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
  122. ^ “Brics a force for world peace, says China”. Business Day. 8 August 2012. Archived from the original on 22 April 2013. Retrieved 9 November 2013.
  123. ^ Sharma, Ruchir (November–December 2012). “Broken BRICs: Why the Rest Stopped Rising”. Foreign Affairs. 91 (November/December 2012). Archived from the original on 20 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  124. ^ “China Loses Control of Its Frankenstein Economy”. Bloomberg. 24 June 2013. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
  125. ^ “Brazil Stocks In Bear Market As Economy Struggles”. Investor’s Business Daily. Investors.com. 26 June 2013. Archived from the original on 9 November 2013. Retrieved 29 June 2013.
  126. ^ “Emerging economies: The Great Deceleration”. The Economist. 27 July 2013. Archived from the original on 26 July 2013. Retrieved 27 July 2013.
  127. ^ “BRICS Leaders Fail to Create Rival to World Bank” Archived 4 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine . The New York Times. 29 March 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
  128. ^ Global, IndraStra. “EXCERPT | A Test of China–India Cooperative Dynamics within the BRICS Framework”. IndraStra. ISSN 2381-3652. Archived from the original on 24 April 2017. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
  129. ^ Khadija Patel (3 April 2012). “Brics summit exposes the high wall between India and China”. Daily Maverick. Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2013 – via Asia Times.
  130. ^ Coleman, Isobel (9 April 2013). “Ten Questions for the New BRICS Bank”. Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2 October 2016. Retrieved 24 September 2016.
  131. ^ O’Donnell, Frank; Papa, Mihaela; Han, Zhen (18 August 2023). “As BRICS cooperation accelerates, is it time for the US to develop a BRICS policy?”. The Conversation. Archived from the original on 27 September 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
  132. ^ Jump up to:a b Dagres, Holly (14 December 2023). “China’s de-dollarization message finds a receptive audience in North Africa”. Atlantic Council. Archived from the original on 7 January 2024. Retrieved 7 January 2024.
  133. ^ “Brics: How an evolving and expanding bloc benefits India”. www.bbc.com. Archived from the original on 5 November 2024. Retrieved 8 November 2024.
  134. ^ Iyer, Kaanita (1 December 2024). “Trump threatens 100% tariff on BRICS countries if they pursue creating new currency | CNN Politics”. CNN. Retrieved 1 December 2024.
  135. ^ Wearden, Graeme (1 December 2024). “Trump threat of 100% tariffs against Brics nations raises trade war fears”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 1 December 2024.
  136. ^ Prashad, Vijay 2014. The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. Verso. p10-11
  137. ^ “BRICS expansion – less than one in five positive about it”. Gallup International Association. 14 March 2024. Archived from the original on 23 April 2024. Retrieved 12 May 2024.
  138. ^ “Attitudes towards BRICS: Gallup International’s research”. Rating (sociological group). Retrieved 12 May 2024.
  139. ^ “CALENDAR OF MEETINGS/EVENTS FOR SOUTH AFRICA’S 2018 BRICS CHAIRSHIP” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 July 2018. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
  140. ^ “BRICS information portal”. BRICS. Archived from the original on 22 March 2017. Retrieved 26 October 2020.


Exit mobile version