Reflecting a polarised world, two major summits, within a span of three weeks, with some overlap in membership but in different continents, presented a marked contrast in goals and outcomes. The Summit of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa) hosted by South Africa, and the G-20 Summit held in India, in August and September respectively, are contrasting examples.

The BRICS Summit in the land of Mandela reflected the late leader’s ethos of pluralism and inclusivity, while the G-20 Summit in the land of Modi saw the conspicuous absence of China’s President Xi Jinping, who had been the star of the show at Johannesburg. President Putin was absent at both, while President Biden and other Western Leaders were in attendance in a spruced-up New Delhi.

However, both summits were dominated by the ‘China factor’: BRICS, which had substance, was essentially showcasing Chinese diplomacy at its best, because after Beijing brokered the historic Iran-Saudi Arabia rapprochement in March 2023, at BRICS, both these protagonists together with UAE plus Ethiopia, Egypt and Argentina, were welcomed into what is now the BRICS+, making the largest producers and consumers of oil sitting around one table. And at the G-20 Summit in Delhi, which was more about symbolism as a two-in-one attempt by Prime Minister Modi to make India as the West’s bridge to the Global South while choreographing the early launch of his own election campaign through extensive billboards, photo ops and not-so-sophisticated PR, the most concrete outcome was to unveil a copycat project of China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

Despite deriding BRI, the West pushed for launch of the rather grandiose sounding India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). Imitation, as the English saying goes, is the highest form of flattery! Interestingly, IMEC did not have a smooth launch with President Erdogan’s open opposition, plus reservations of China and Russia. Incidentally, this is the 3rd attempt in three years of a Western copycat project of the BRI: in 2021, President Biden had announced the B3W (Build Back Better World) which was later rebranded as the Partnership for Growth in Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), while the European Union, not to be left behind, announced its own copycat version of BRI, calling it ‘Global Gateway’. And what was touted as a ‘breakthrough achievement’ at G20, the ‘consensus’ on Ukraine, was actually a rehash and reaffirmation of universal principles enshrined in the UN Charter and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (200 man hours were spent in their drafting, apparently!). The real story was in the West’s retreat on Ukraine from a position of outright condemnation of Russia to acquiescence to India’s superb ‘diplomacy by deft drafting’ of verbiage in the English language!

The fundamental differences between G20 and BRICS+ is that the G20 remains an extension of the G7 with strong geopolitical overtones, as largely a status quo platform, now influenced by a Cold War mindset, of which India, as a major American ally, is a key component.

Conversely, BRICS+, spearheaded by China, is both geopolitical and geoeconomic, with strategic clarity on a vision and will to play a proactive role in a world where the Global South is the pivot. Hence, dedollarisation forms part of the BRICS+ agenda. The future of both, BRICS+ and G20, will also determined by their respective goals, stated or unstated, and their contrasting visions. China, as a country with a long civilisational heritage, has been the harbinger of globalisation for the past 2,000 years when the Silk Road used to connect China with Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe through commerce and culture. It’s modern day version of the Silk Road, the BRI, now is 10 years old, comprising 150 countries and 32 international organisations, with an investment of $ 1 trillion in 3000 projects, generating 420,000 jobs and lifting 40 million out of poverty. Out of 193 countries that are members of the United Nations, 130 countries have more trade with China than with the United States, from the Solomon Islands to Saudi Arabia.

Underpinning the BRI, and BRICS+ for that matter, are institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and New Development Bank, respectively. And BRI has been reinforced by the Global Development Initiative (GDI), Global Security Initiative (Initiative) and Global Civilisation Initiative (GCI), which are promoting equality, inclusivity and diversity through connectivity and cooperation.

China is focusing on modernisation, especially cutting-edge 21st Century technologies like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, and according to a landmark study by the Harvard University, ‘The Great Tech Rivalry - China versus United States’, ‘China is displacing the U.S. in hi-tech manufacturing’, evident in the recent launch of the Huawei Mate60Pro smartphone, which has managed to beat the American sanctions by producing an advanced, sophisticated, state-of-the-art technology product.

Conversely, the past two American Administrations have been busy in the militarisation of international relations, increasing their military budgets, building military bases (almost 400 in Asia, alone!), arming Asian allies against China and building a network of military alliances including an ‘Asian NATO’, while NATO itself now talks of the ‘China threat’.

No wonder, CNN referred to the fact that ‘China is nothing short of a foreign policy fixation in Washington’, although Fareed Zakaria gave the correct prognosis that ‘the rest of the world doesn’t see China as we do’. And one reason for this yawning chasm between the West and the Rest on China policy is, as the former Senior American Administration official, Fiona Hill, apt commented that ‘the Global South sees the U.S. as full of hubris and hypocrisy’ in the conduct of its foreign policy.

The American ‘fixation’ with China can even become borderline racist. In May 2019, Kiron Skinner, Chief of Policy Planning at the US State Department, openly described the conflict with China as a ‘fight with a different civilisation’, even providing a racial context to the emerging U.S.-China competition saying “it’s the first time, we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian’. China’s leadership role in the Global South has also been enhanced by its proactive diplomacy in building bridges as Beijing successfully became an honest broker between Iran and Saudi Arabia, ending a long-standing proxy war that was destabilising for much of the Middle East for the past three decades. 48 years after G7 was launched in 1975 and 15 years after the launch of its offshoot, G20, and 10 years after BRI was announced in 2013, their respective worldviews, policies and approaches are rooted in their different ‘Strategic Cultures’, based on their historical evolution, and analyses of these is necessary for understanding these divergences. 2023 is also the year of anniversaries for both China and the United States, reflecting this contrast in perspectives and policies. For China, which has an economic centric approach, it marks 10 years of BRI, probably the most important developmental and diplomatic initiative of the 21st Century.

For the United States, 2023 marks 3 anniversaries reflecting the U.S. security-centric worldview: 70 years of the CIA coup in Iran, 50 years of the CIA coup in Chile and 20 years of the war in Iraq. Their respective Strategic Culture reflects this contrast.

Key components of China’s Strategic Culture include: Silk Road, connectivity and cooperation amongst countries, cultures and civilisations; Great Wall, which manifests China’s defensive and protective approach against outside intruders and aggressors; Long March, an epic of the Chinese Revolution which was a long and costly struggle for survival which demonstrates patience, perseverance and persistence, and a ‘Never Give Up’ Spirit; ‘Century of Humiliation’ from 1840-1949, a determination of ‘never again’ allowing for violations of China’s unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and dignity. China’s March to modernisation this takes its inspiration from its Strategic Culture. Hence, it is no accident that China is the only global power in history to rise peacefully without any invasion, conquest, colonisation or aggression.

Earlier this year, in March 2023, President Xi Jinping announced the Global Civilisation Initiative, more about dialogue, harmony and respect among civilisations, as opposed to the mantra about ‘Clash of Civilisations’, first peddled by Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington 30 years ago.

On the contrary, the American Strategic Culture has key ingredients that are reflected in the U.S. approach and worldview in the present day era. These include: an obsession with Pax Americana, since the days of the Monroe Doctrine, a desire to dominate; a glorified self-image of ‘American Exceptionalism’, a ‘we are unique’ expression of moral superiority over others, a modern day post-colonial version of the ‘White Man’s Burden’, an international do-gooder that invades & occupies countries or brings ‘regime change’ for the greater good of countries at the receiving end; a trigger-happy ‘might is right’ ‘shock & awe’ approach in foreign affairs which can rightly be termed as ‘John Wayne style’ of diplomacy which at times ‘shoots-first, asks questions later’; a powerful Military-Industrial-Complex that is a permanent war machine which needs to be refuelled constantly by bulging military budgets and an unending quest for an ‘Enemy’.

For the foreseeable future, as these Summits underline, China is embarked on presenting a strategic option to the Global South (similar to what President Charles de Gaulle was presenting to Europe at the height of the Cold War) by building an alternative, more equitable world economic and political order, reflecting the shift in the global centre of gravity from the West to the East.

Western leaders too have hinted at this transformation. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has talked of an ‘epochal tectonic change’ or ‘Zeitenwende’, referring to a rapidly transforming global scenario. French President, Emmanuel Macron, was even more blunt, telling French diplomats that ‘we should learn to accept the fact that 300 years of Western hegemony is coming to an end’.

As regards the ‘Leader of the Free World’, the President of the United States of America, Joe Biden, the architect of the New Cold War, an influential voice of the Western Media Establishment, The Telegraph, published from London, put it rather bluntly in its edition of 13 September, 2023: ‘you are not supposed to say so in polite company, but Joe Biden is no longer fit to be President of the United States. It would be a lot better for America, and for the rest of the free world, were he to step down early for reasons of ill-health, or at the very least not stand again for the Presidency, …given Biden’s gaffes, blunders and tragic signs of rapidly deteriorating capacity’.

With an actual war raging in Europe in Ukraine, and a new Cold War in the offing in Asia, such a person as President of the United States of America is a clear and present danger to global peace, security and stability.