As BRICS nations unite to foster global cooperation and economic growth, the US retreats, closing doors with strict policies and diplomatic tensions. A tale of two approaches shaping our world.
BRICS member South Africa made a deal with the EU to participate in EU's version of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Gateway. In other words BRICS member South Africa plays both sides, yet this site and promoters of BRICS always try to give the impression that South Africa is fully on the side of BRICS and in opposition to the West, that South Africa wants to "break away" from the colonial hold of the West, etc. This is simply not true. Look at the facts and South Africa's trade and investment deals with the West.
"The European Union (EU) and South Africa have announced a €4.7-billion (R94-billion) package of new investments in South Africa, mainly for the transition to clean energy and for boosting vaccine manufacturing.
The “Global Gateway Investment Package” was announced at the 8th SA-EU summit, in Cape Town on Thursday. It will comprise €303-million in grants from the EU and its members and loans from the European financial institutions and SA’s development banks to leverage a further €4.4-billion in investments.
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, who headed the EU delegation along with EU Council President António Costa, announced the programme. She said there was already almost €50-billion in annual trade between SA and the EU, and 98% of SA exports to the EU were duty- and quota- free."
[13 March, 2025: EU and SA announce R94bn package for new investments in clean energy, vaccine manufacturing]
Your take oversimplifies things. South Africa’s EU deal doesn’t betray BRICS—it’s the same pragmatic trade approach China, India, Brazil, and Russia take. BRICS isn’t about being anti-West; it’s a pro-Global South vision in a multipolar world. BRICS leaders have been very clear about this. There's absolutely no problem with trading outside the bloc. Instead of rigid labels, let's appreciate how flexible alliances foster unity and benefit everyone.
From the article: "...he has repeatedly criticised South Africa for promoting what he considers an anti-White agenda".
The article does not comment on whether this is true or not. According to this site [linked below] there are 142 operative race laws in South Africa that discriminate against white people.
[from the link] : "...the government began (re)enacting race law and pursuing racial policy. The two most notable instances of this are the 1998 Employment Equity Act and the 2003 Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act. Various other pieces of legislation exist among dozens of charters, plans, regulations, directives, notices, and policies that attempt to regulate aspects of society along racial lines and racialise commerce."
This goes to the heart of what multipolarity actually means, because if it means a respect for other cultures and civilisations (as put forward by promonents of it), then surely that must extend to the different nations and cultures within a multi-nation (10 nations, 11 official languages) country like South Africa? (Considering that this was the principle of the so-called "Rainbow Nation" concept put forward by Nelson Mandela).
Look, the anti-white narrative is just a smear tactic—not a BRICS issue. BRICS stands by non-interference and a pro-Global South stance. South Africa's politics are nuanced; even the ANC faces criticism for being “too white” because of the new government coalition. Instead of taking one-sided claims at face value, it's best to dive deeper and hear all sides.
I'm sorry, but I don't think your dismissive response is credible. I have just presented you with factual evidence of official race discrimination laws against a specific ethnic group in South Africa (in fact there is a hierarchy of discrimination, just like under apartheid) and I have stated that this is against the spirit of the post-1994 (post-apartheid) agreements, but you call this a "smear tactic".
South Africa is a microcosm within a macrocosm. Since it has multiple nations and languages within it's territory, having respect for all nations within it's borders is absolutely essential. It would constitute practising multipolarity internally. Please see my comment to professor Alexander Dugin where I elaborate more on this point:
" It's [the current concept of multipolarity as put forward by proponents of it] not about genuine multipolarity, though, which would require and entail cultural, linguistic, religious and property rights on a national and local level, but that's not what multipolarity stands for, or advocates [...]
"Unity in Diversity" has FAILED exactly because it failed to live up to the promise of respecting the integrity of each civilisation construct within the boundaries of the multicultural/multipolar state."
The "non-interference" policy/stance is strategically convenient, but undermines multipolarity and shows it up as a superficial construct. All current BRICS members interfered in South Africa's affairs during the apartheid-era campaigning at the UN for sanctions againts South Africa exactly because of its race laws - but now (with even more race laws in place) "it doesn't matter", it is "an internal affair" and has "nothing to do with BRICS" ... (?).
In light of this why should any minority group within a prospective BRICS-memebr-state feel comfortable if their nations plan to join BRICS?
You're conflating two different eras. Apartheid was a state-enforced racial hierarchy; today's South African government is multiracial, with major white representation. Claiming current policies mirror apartheid ignores historical context. As for BRICS, its stance has always been non-interference; supporting decolonization back then doesn’t mean micromanaging internal policies now. Multipolarity isn’t about reshaping nations internally; it's about global balance. If anything, BRICS offers a space where diverse nations cooperate without imposing ideological control, unlike the West’s interventionist model.
The so-called "government of national unity" (a coalition government) in South Africa [*which has only existed since the last elections there in 2024] is a self-appointed arrangement NOT supported by the electorate (contrary to how it's presented). It was formed after the ANC lost their majority and ended up with just 40% support. It was an arrangement/agreement between them and the main (so-called) "opposition" party, the D.A. but nobody in S.A. voted for that arrangement and there's widespread and major dissatisfaction with it among all groups in the country. In short, the ANC is being propped-up by the DA. a pro-EU party.
*All the race laws mentioned above were created by the Black ANC government during the last 30 years since 1994, so in other words virtually no different from the apartheid-state (one race in power discriminating against another).
Multipolarity is just an alternative form of globalism and globalization, meaning it's not authentic mulitpolarity, which would be: anti-globalist. It's just the same "fries" (chips) but with different "ketchup" (tomato sauce). Different, but the same as far as their global policies being aligned with supranational organisations' directives are concerned. (climate change agenda, 4IR, "green" energy transition, digitisation, etc, etc).
Anyway, thank you for the interaction, I feel it's important that some of these issues are fleshed out for some clarity as there's widespread belief within the (so-called) alternative media sphere that BRICS and the concept of multipolarity are against globalism, which is not the case at all (but more often than not it's the impression given).
First of all, to my mind, BRICS is not a "bloc" but a loose knit group of nation states agreeing on some basic principles & trade opportunities. The leaders are looking for new ways to interact with the larger world beyond their conventional mostly "post colonial partners."
Most are still deeply tied with "neo-colonialism" but are seeking more autonomy as the colonial grasp weakens. However, capitalism reigns supreme for better or worse.
As for racism, probably all people grapple with that in one form or another. I'm aware that Cuba has been working societally & culturally on the problem for many years, seeking root causes & solutions & doing it's best to implement best practices to teach mutual respect & inclusion.
While I have plenty of criticism toward USA, your piece seems overly harsh & simplistic. The history of USA is a settler colony, not unlike Israel, on a much larger land mass. The UK is the founder of both. As the military arm of that empire, contradictions abound. We'll likely see similar contradictions within BRICS nations as well.
Finally, BRICS started as an investment prospect named by a Goldman Sachs analyst. He was simply looking at the most likely nations for future profitable investment. That the group has morphed into a "beacon of hope" for needed changes in global trade & international interaction is somewhat of a surprise.
Good and balanced comment overall. It's true that all (multicultural) countries have race problems, Cuba included which I saw for myself when I visited there more than a decade ago.
The issue with regards to South Africa (which this article is about also) is that country was singled out as the ultimate villain (never happened to any other countries for their segregation policies) and had sanctions placed on it (the whole world ganged up on it) and was deemed to be an international pariah for trying the find a solution to the racial complexities brought by the British by creating the country artificially in 1910 (Union of South Africa) by forcing numerous different cultural and language groups together into one massive land area and calling it "one country" after all those groups had already had their own parts of the country (before it was a country). The separate development project was aimed at giving all the nations their own part of the country back and give them autonomy and sovereignty - in other words internal multipolarity ... See this documentary for context:
What is irksome is that the high levels of discrimination against white people in that country - in law - is now hand waved away like it's not important, kind of normal, or even a "smear campaign", no doubt because the cause seems to have been taken up by the current administration in the USA, but otherwise the ongoing discrimination there would have been totally ignored by the same people campaigning against it 30 years ago. Racism only REALLY matters when it suits a political agenda such as regime change.
"That the group has morphed into a "beacon of hope" for needed changes in global trade & international interaction is somewhat of a surprise."
- Yes, exactly. Multipolarity as promoted doesn't mean what "it says on the tin". The concept of BRICS has been promoted as an alternative to Globalism for years by now, especially within alternative and social media. In other words it seems to be a deliberate campaign to obfuscate the fact BRICS is just an extension of globalisation / a shifting of gears of globalism.
TRUE
BRICS member South Africa made a deal with the EU to participate in EU's version of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Gateway. In other words BRICS member South Africa plays both sides, yet this site and promoters of BRICS always try to give the impression that South Africa is fully on the side of BRICS and in opposition to the West, that South Africa wants to "break away" from the colonial hold of the West, etc. This is simply not true. Look at the facts and South Africa's trade and investment deals with the West.
"The European Union (EU) and South Africa have announced a €4.7-billion (R94-billion) package of new investments in South Africa, mainly for the transition to clean energy and for boosting vaccine manufacturing.
The “Global Gateway Investment Package” was announced at the 8th SA-EU summit, in Cape Town on Thursday. It will comprise €303-million in grants from the EU and its members and loans from the European financial institutions and SA’s development banks to leverage a further €4.4-billion in investments.
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, who headed the EU delegation along with EU Council President António Costa, announced the programme. She said there was already almost €50-billion in annual trade between SA and the EU, and 98% of SA exports to the EU were duty- and quota- free."
[13 March, 2025: EU and SA announce R94bn package for new investments in clean energy, vaccine manufacturing]
http://archive.today/6tdBv
Your take oversimplifies things. South Africa’s EU deal doesn’t betray BRICS—it’s the same pragmatic trade approach China, India, Brazil, and Russia take. BRICS isn’t about being anti-West; it’s a pro-Global South vision in a multipolar world. BRICS leaders have been very clear about this. There's absolutely no problem with trading outside the bloc. Instead of rigid labels, let's appreciate how flexible alliances foster unity and benefit everyone.
From the article: "...he has repeatedly criticised South Africa for promoting what he considers an anti-White agenda".
The article does not comment on whether this is true or not. According to this site [linked below] there are 142 operative race laws in South Africa that discriminate against white people.
[from the link] : "...the government began (re)enacting race law and pursuing racial policy. The two most notable instances of this are the 1998 Employment Equity Act and the 2003 Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act. Various other pieces of legislation exist among dozens of charters, plans, regulations, directives, notices, and policies that attempt to regulate aspects of society along racial lines and racialise commerce."
https://racelaw.co.za
This goes to the heart of what multipolarity actually means, because if it means a respect for other cultures and civilisations (as put forward by promonents of it), then surely that must extend to the different nations and cultures within a multi-nation (10 nations, 11 official languages) country like South Africa? (Considering that this was the principle of the so-called "Rainbow Nation" concept put forward by Nelson Mandela).
Look, the anti-white narrative is just a smear tactic—not a BRICS issue. BRICS stands by non-interference and a pro-Global South stance. South Africa's politics are nuanced; even the ANC faces criticism for being “too white” because of the new government coalition. Instead of taking one-sided claims at face value, it's best to dive deeper and hear all sides.
I'm sorry, but I don't think your dismissive response is credible. I have just presented you with factual evidence of official race discrimination laws against a specific ethnic group in South Africa (in fact there is a hierarchy of discrimination, just like under apartheid) and I have stated that this is against the spirit of the post-1994 (post-apartheid) agreements, but you call this a "smear tactic".
South Africa is a microcosm within a macrocosm. Since it has multiple nations and languages within it's territory, having respect for all nations within it's borders is absolutely essential. It would constitute practising multipolarity internally. Please see my comment to professor Alexander Dugin where I elaborate more on this point:
" It's [the current concept of multipolarity as put forward by proponents of it] not about genuine multipolarity, though, which would require and entail cultural, linguistic, religious and property rights on a national and local level, but that's not what multipolarity stands for, or advocates [...]
"Unity in Diversity" has FAILED exactly because it failed to live up to the promise of respecting the integrity of each civilisation construct within the boundaries of the multicultural/multipolar state."
Full comment here:
https://alexanderdugin.substack.com/p/alexander-dugin-on-multipolarity/comment/96192079
The "non-interference" policy/stance is strategically convenient, but undermines multipolarity and shows it up as a superficial construct. All current BRICS members interfered in South Africa's affairs during the apartheid-era campaigning at the UN for sanctions againts South Africa exactly because of its race laws - but now (with even more race laws in place) "it doesn't matter", it is "an internal affair" and has "nothing to do with BRICS" ... (?).
In light of this why should any minority group within a prospective BRICS-memebr-state feel comfortable if their nations plan to join BRICS?
You're conflating two different eras. Apartheid was a state-enforced racial hierarchy; today's South African government is multiracial, with major white representation. Claiming current policies mirror apartheid ignores historical context. As for BRICS, its stance has always been non-interference; supporting decolonization back then doesn’t mean micromanaging internal policies now. Multipolarity isn’t about reshaping nations internally; it's about global balance. If anything, BRICS offers a space where diverse nations cooperate without imposing ideological control, unlike the West’s interventionist model.
The so-called "government of national unity" (a coalition government) in South Africa [*which has only existed since the last elections there in 2024] is a self-appointed arrangement NOT supported by the electorate (contrary to how it's presented). It was formed after the ANC lost their majority and ended up with just 40% support. It was an arrangement/agreement between them and the main (so-called) "opposition" party, the D.A. but nobody in S.A. voted for that arrangement and there's widespread and major dissatisfaction with it among all groups in the country. In short, the ANC is being propped-up by the DA. a pro-EU party.
*All the race laws mentioned above were created by the Black ANC government during the last 30 years since 1994, so in other words virtually no different from the apartheid-state (one race in power discriminating against another).
Multipolarity is just an alternative form of globalism and globalization, meaning it's not authentic mulitpolarity, which would be: anti-globalist. It's just the same "fries" (chips) but with different "ketchup" (tomato sauce). Different, but the same as far as their global policies being aligned with supranational organisations' directives are concerned. (climate change agenda, 4IR, "green" energy transition, digitisation, etc, etc).
Anyway, thank you for the interaction, I feel it's important that some of these issues are fleshed out for some clarity as there's widespread belief within the (so-called) alternative media sphere that BRICS and the concept of multipolarity are against globalism, which is not the case at all (but more often than not it's the impression given).
About this, you can watch this interview https://youtu.be/BvAQsrbG_ms?si=KH9VTBI_6fTJ_daf
First of all, to my mind, BRICS is not a "bloc" but a loose knit group of nation states agreeing on some basic principles & trade opportunities. The leaders are looking for new ways to interact with the larger world beyond their conventional mostly "post colonial partners."
Most are still deeply tied with "neo-colonialism" but are seeking more autonomy as the colonial grasp weakens. However, capitalism reigns supreme for better or worse.
As for racism, probably all people grapple with that in one form or another. I'm aware that Cuba has been working societally & culturally on the problem for many years, seeking root causes & solutions & doing it's best to implement best practices to teach mutual respect & inclusion.
While I have plenty of criticism toward USA, your piece seems overly harsh & simplistic. The history of USA is a settler colony, not unlike Israel, on a much larger land mass. The UK is the founder of both. As the military arm of that empire, contradictions abound. We'll likely see similar contradictions within BRICS nations as well.
Finally, BRICS started as an investment prospect named by a Goldman Sachs analyst. He was simply looking at the most likely nations for future profitable investment. That the group has morphed into a "beacon of hope" for needed changes in global trade & international interaction is somewhat of a surprise.
Good and balanced comment overall. It's true that all (multicultural) countries have race problems, Cuba included which I saw for myself when I visited there more than a decade ago.
The issue with regards to South Africa (which this article is about also) is that country was singled out as the ultimate villain (never happened to any other countries for their segregation policies) and had sanctions placed on it (the whole world ganged up on it) and was deemed to be an international pariah for trying the find a solution to the racial complexities brought by the British by creating the country artificially in 1910 (Union of South Africa) by forcing numerous different cultural and language groups together into one massive land area and calling it "one country" after all those groups had already had their own parts of the country (before it was a country). The separate development project was aimed at giving all the nations their own part of the country back and give them autonomy and sovereignty - in other words internal multipolarity ... See this documentary for context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhMqc7exTus
Moreover, while apartheid is deemed very bad in some cases, it's considered quite acceptable in others - as this article illuminates further:
https://archive.ph/GPZb9
What is irksome is that the high levels of discrimination against white people in that country - in law - is now hand waved away like it's not important, kind of normal, or even a "smear campaign", no doubt because the cause seems to have been taken up by the current administration in the USA, but otherwise the ongoing discrimination there would have been totally ignored by the same people campaigning against it 30 years ago. Racism only REALLY matters when it suits a political agenda such as regime change.
"That the group has morphed into a "beacon of hope" for needed changes in global trade & international interaction is somewhat of a surprise."
- Yes, exactly. Multipolarity as promoted doesn't mean what "it says on the tin". The concept of BRICS has been promoted as an alternative to Globalism for years by now, especially within alternative and social media. In other words it seems to be a deliberate campaign to obfuscate the fact BRICS is just an extension of globalisation / a shifting of gears of globalism.
What do you expect
Just recently another white man murdered in his home and his fiancée gang raped by six men. Not a country I would want to cozy up to.
Hopefully the usual bastards won't come and destroy what is actually the most important project.