“There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear;” New International Realities

 Harry Targ

Confusion in the Moment

The combination of social media,  media “breaking news” stories, the politics of the spectacle, the frenetic criminal conduct of the Trump administration, and the agonizing killing, starvation, deaths, pain and suffering happening all around us have been immobilizing. Consequently, it is even more difficult for those working for change to make sense out of the world we are inhabiting. This is particularly so in international relations where “something is happening” but we don’t hear about it or get just pieces of misinformation. If we sift through the fog and confusion, we might discern the emergence of New International Realities.

Recent Developments in International Relations

                                        People's World
On July 6-7, the BRICS nations met in summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. BRICS is a Global South bloc launched in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now has many affiliating “partner” nations and 30 other nations requesting membership. BRICS has been meeting regularly to strengthen the voice politically and economically of the traditionally powerless nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Host President Lula spoke of the meeting’s purpose: “If international governance does not reflect the new multipolar reality of the 21^st century, it is up to BRICS to help bring it up to date.”

According to Duncan McFarland,  (https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/heir-to-the-non-aligned-movement-brics-presents-alternative-to-u-s-hegemony/) the BRICS countries, members and associates, surpass the GDP of the G7 countries, the historic former colonial powers. Also BRICS members and associates are much larger in population than the G7.

BRICS countries are animated by the needs for economic development and a new international order based on the spirit of multilateralism and multipolarity. Concretely, they oppose tariff barriers, the currency and loan system created at Breton Woods in the 1940s, and Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza.

Paralleling and expanding on the BRICS “movement,” the Shanghai Cooperation Organization met in Tianjin, China on September 1. They issued the Tianjin Declaration, which calls for “peaceful and equitable governance and increased South-South cooperation.” Formed in 1996 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, it became the SCO in 2001. SCO now has ten members including India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus (with 26 countries and representatives of ten global organizations  participating in the recent meeting).

                                                International Peace Institute

SCO heard comments from Chinese President Xi. He proposed a Global Governance Initiative (GGI) emphasizing sovereign equality, a commitment to international law, multilateralism, a “people-centered” approach to global policy, and concrete actions to achieve these goals. He committed funds to a soon-to-be created SCO Development Bank. In addition, the Tianjin Declaration endorsed programs to combat drug trafficking, terrorism, and also pledged cooperation on the use of artificial intelligence and protection of the environment. (https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/09/02/xi-jinping-proposes-a-new-global-governance-framework-based-on-sovereignty-and-multilateralism-at-sco-summit/)

Finally, while the United Nations General Assembly opened its meeting in New York (the 80^th year of its founding) there had been calls to move the session to Geneva, Switzerland to protest the US refusal to allow leaders of the Palestinian Authority to enter the country. The General Assembly over the years has passed resolutions criticizing Israeli policies and sanctions against Cuba. And at both the BRICS and SCO meetings it has been suggested that existing international institutions, such as the United Nations, be transformed to reflect global economic interests and the interests of the vast majority of humankind. The United Nations Security Council, with five “permanent members” each with veto power, reflects not the new international realities but the international system established during the era of big power dominance.

The United States Responds to the New International Realities

Although the responses of the Trump administration (and its predecessors) have reflected resistance to the challenge to US global hegemony, it is clear that US policy has been impacted. For over a decade United States policy has involved a “pivot to Asia,” that is challenging China’s rising power militarily and economically. Alfred McCoy has warned that while China’s economy is reaching the levels of the United States, the US response has been more investment in its military. Also, the Trump administration has sought to use tariff policies to stifle China’s increasing global economic presence and exports to the US.

However, recent developments suggest that US policy may be shifting back to the eras of the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. Recognizing that the distribution of power on the world stage is changing (BRICS and SCO for example), the Trump administration may be returning to a fortress America approach (that is the Western Hemisphere), a kind of Monroe Doctrine 2.

                                        Code Pink

Indications of this would include solidifying and increasing economic sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela, seeking to undermine the Lula government of Brazil, and also trying to intimidate the independence of the Mexican government of Claudia Sheinbaum. Most recently the Trump Administration has renewed a “war on drugs.” As to the latter, the US military destroyed a Venezuelan boat on September 2 in the Caribbean murdering eleven unidentified inhabitants and alleging with no proof that they were members of a Venezuelan drug cartel. And the Secretary of Defense visited Puerto Rico on September 8 to investigate sites for new military installations to make war on hemisphere “drug cartels.”

Vijay Prashad,  has pointed out that there is no evidence of any connection between drug cartels and the government of Venezuela. But Prashad  warns that claiming a connection of drugs with Venezuela should remind us of the “weapons of mass destruction” that were claimed to have existed in Iraq to justify that brutal war in 2003.

https://venezuelanalysis.com/opinion/the-united-states-uses-a-fabricated-drug-charge-for-a-potential-strike-on-venezuela/

Also in addition a Reuters article on the US. Secretary of State's visits to Mexico and Ecuador suggests: "Rubio, the first Latino U.S. secretary of state, traveled to countries in Central America and the Caribbean during his first overseas trip after taking office as the administration sought to shift back focus to Latin America."

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-emphasizes-sovereignty-good-ties-during-rubio-visit-2025-09-03/

While there is reason to believe that the United States recognizes the shift in global power from the North to the South and is acting accordingly by retargeting the Western Hemisphere, it is important to note that the “new” policy still involves US continuing support for its key allies and their wars, such as Ukraine and Israel. In addition, the US remains the number one world arms merchant, even if its specific focus might be shifting to the Western Hemisphere.

The Meanings of the New International Realities for Peace and Justice Movements

First, we activists need to have a clear, rigorous understanding of the world in which we act. Recognition of The New International Realities is increasingly important as we think about our political work (A multiplicity of scholars and activists have begun to address the NIR and many of us have been inspired by Howard Zinn’s injunction that history involves not just a retelling of the behavior of elites but also the reaction of those who had and are now resisting. The dominant paradigms of the past, among international relations scholars, have concentrated on “the big powers,” ignoring the acts of those who resist and most importantly the masses of workers and peasants who say “no” to repression and exploitation).

Second, recognition of the NIR obliges activists in the core countries to act in solidarity with movements and nations in the Global South. Examples of this include solidarity movements with Palestine and Cuba and campaigns led by the Global South such as BDS.

Third, activists need to continue their work opposing US imperialism and militarism. It is clear that the military/industrial/university complex is squeezing more and more of societal resources in the direction of profits from wars and interventions.

Fourth, peace and justice movements in core countries like the United States must continue to link pain and injustice at home with pain and injustice in other countries. In other words, the NIR, we should claim,will benefit us in the United States as well as peoples in the Global South.

Fifth, there do exist international institutions such as the UN system, that provide activists everywhere with the skeletal form of a New World Order. Activists need to inform themselves about the myriad of UN agencies that do work for people and some, such as the Security Council, which reinforce the old order of militarism and exploitation.

Finally, peace and justice movements must further articulate a consciousness that national borders are artificial, that “enemies” are the creation of ruling elites, and all the world’s citizens would be the beneficiaries of a New World Order.

(This essay was inspired by discussions with friends and comrades in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) sub-committee on The New International Realities)