 The BRICS bloc is expanding and it will have worldwide implications. What lies ahead for the grouping? Israeli Interior Minister Itamir Ben-Guir has once again made extremely offensive comments about Palestinians. What do they say about the current government of Israel? And Australia and the Philippines have conducted joint military drills in the South China Sea. What is the politics behind this? This is the daily debrief. These are our stories for the day. And before you go any further, if you are watching this on YouTube, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. The 15th summit of BRICS leaders concluded in Johannesburg on Thursday and it lived up to its billing as one of the most significant in recent times. The highlight was the expansion of the bloc. Six new countries have been invited to join from January 2024. The leaders also released a statement which had several interesting pronouncements on the world order. To find out more, we have with us Prashant. So Prashant, the BRICS summit has concluded with some interesting developments, including the expansion of the bloc to six new countries. Can you tell us about this? Right. So I think prior to the BRICS summit, this was a single biggest question on everyone's minds. Is the BRICS bloc going to expand? Are new countries going to come in? If so, who are going to come in? And we know that, you know, about 40 countries at various points of express interest, I believe at least two dozen countries officially applied. And I think even among the members at the same time, there was a lot of discussion on, you know, how do you sort of expand a bloc like BRICS while keeping its character, keeping its goals, and at the same time, trying to sort of increase the footprint it has, increase the kind of relevance it has. And so finally, they've chosen a very interesting set of countries to begin with. I mean, if you take each one of them, you have Argentina, the country going through a grave crisis. In fact, a country which is in some senses a model of what, how a country can be destroyed by the IMF, by international financial institutions, and a country which is also very vital for Latin America. So the fact that Argentina has been brought in itself is a very interesting signal. You look at say another country like Ethiopia, which actually went through a prolonged civil war, which in which the Ethiopian government faced off against a group, the TPLF, which was believed to have strong backing from the United States and the West. And, you know, the Ethiopian government trying to sort of rebuild after the TPLF had ruled Ethiopia before, and they had a very different vision of Ethiopia as a fragmented, tribally split country, whereas the new government at IBM was trying to build a different kind of Ethiopia. And that was also one of the reasons for civil war. So again, Ethiopia being brought in very interesting in that sense. Iran no need to talk about it. We know why Iran faced so many sanctions. So definitely a very interesting move. And then you have three other very interesting countries that is actually interesting. The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all of which are actually very close to the West in various ways. We know that Saudi Arabia for long the linchpin of the petrodollar strategy, long decades and decades of relationships with the United States, the UAE also very similar. Egypt, you know, under Abdul Fateh LCC has received a huge amount of weapons from the United States. But also these countries in recent times have also, I think, been considering the possibility of expanding their traditional roles, expanding the kind of cooperation they have with other groups as well. And you know, for instance, the fact that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and India, you all have had good relationships with India, for instance, with China, for instance, and for that matter with Russia. So the expansion, I think it's a very, you know, I think it's a very carefully chosen group of six countries. On the one hand, many of them are very resource rich. Iran, UAE and Saudi Arabia together bringing a huge amount of, you know, oil reserves. And BRICS has now become one of the leading blocks in terms of oil production if you look at it, I believe it's a substantial amount. But also in terms of GDP, also the focus, for instance, on Africa, you have Egypt, you have Ethiopia, South Africa is already there. And, you know, there's a lot of focus. South Africa is considered one of the most important regions in the future for humanity as a whole. So definitely a lot of focus over there. So I think it's a very calculated, very interesting set of choices. Also in some senses, I think blunting the Western propaganda that you could see in many media houses in the days prior to the summit that there was too much disagreement between the BRICS countries, the fact that the BRICS countries, you know, they were just not going to do it because some were more pro-US, some were very anti-US. And these dissensions, they were stopped at India and Brazil were far more closer to the US. So they would not agree to this. So all that, I think they figured out a way, I think, whatever differences they may have had, whatever disagreements they may have had, they've sort of negotiated. And I think that really says a lot about BRICS. The fact that BRICS is not some kind of a perfect alliance. It's not the G7, where everyone is subsumed under US hegemony. It's not one of those blocks. BRICS is a block where different countries often have different agendas, but also are pushing for certain similar agenda points. So I think a lot of hope, I think, from this expansion process. Right. Can you also tell us about some of the other key outcomes of this summit and what implications will they have for building a multilateral world? Look at the statement, two of the important things to note. One, there was a lot of talk about the international financial system. And that was addressed. Now, again, important to note that I think some of the Western sources really focused on what was called de-dollarization. And they pitched or de-dollarization as the ultimate aim, which was the idea that there would be a new currency. And if there was no new currency, it would probably mean a defeat of the BRICS summit. Whereas I don't think the BRICS countries ever, at least at this point, are really considering and ordinates the dollar properly as a kid. Right now, I think the main focus seems to be on trading in their own currencies or mutual trade within these currencies and the building of infrastructure for that. I think these countries do understand that there are certain risks that trading with the dollar poses, including the fact that sanctions are an ever-present reality before all of them. The Russia faces them. China faces them. India, when it actually bought goods from Russia, faced a lot of criticism from the US for that. So I think many of these countries have realized that there are certain risks in completely trading in the dollar. They want to consider the option of mutual trade. They have also already initiated some of these experiments. But this will take time. This will take political will. This will take building a particular kind of infrastructure. And I think this summit has kind of set the stage for a lot of that to happen. There's been a definite push as far as that is concerned. Secondly, I think it's very interesting that they have talked about the United Nations, both Brazil and India, very keen, and South Africa for that matter, all very keen on getting permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council. I think there's a recognition of the fact that this way the system is structured right now is kind of really unfair towards the Global South. So they're really pointed out. Interestingly, they've pointed out to the WTO as well, which at some point of time, the United States and its allies really pushed. And now they are the ones really, you know, because they don't want to go into those arbitration mechanisms. So that's also very much on the agenda. So I think overall, a very interesting and progressive statement, which kind of brings the possibility of multiplicity in terms of both economic structures in terms of political resolution of various conflicts in terms of the kind of agenda that is being said is mentioned of climate change also. So I think a lot of these issues definitely breaks taking a very good stand. Now, the important point again, like I said in my last question, the fact is not that all these countries need to agree on everything. I don't think that's really at all part of the agenda at this point in time. I think what's important to note that there is space for negotiation. There is space for poaching common alliances. There is space for taking a common stand. And there is space for pushing back against some of the, you know, some of the points that the Global North has been pushing, what you would call the ex-colonial and settler colonial countries have been pushing on the Global South. There is a possibility of pushing back against some of that. And I think that is what BRICS represents at this point of time. And considering that ambition, considering that agenda, I think this has been quite a successful summit. Absolutely. Thanks Prashant for this update. Our next story is from Palestine, where Israeli Interior Minister Itamir Ben-Guy said that his right to move around is more important than those of Palestinians. Now this might sound like a textbook definition of a pathide and it has, in fact, caused a huge controversy. But this is nothing new for Ben-Guy, who has made such outrageous comments on a number of occasions and has followed it up with outrageous actions too, especially targeted at Palestinian prisoners. We go to Abdul for more. So, Abdul, can you start by telling us about the recent comments made by Ben-Guy and also give us some context and background into who he is and all the controversies surrounding him? Well, Ben-Guy is quite famous now. Ever since he became the Minister of Police, Interior Minister, Netanyahu's Cabinet last year, he has been making comments, the comments he made other day, similar comments he has made several other times. What he said on that day is nothing in a way new. The only thing which surprised the people that one of the ministers in the Israeli government is openly accepting something which is considered to be a taboo yet and Israel has objected about being an apartheid state, recognized being an apartheid state in the past. But Ben-Guy said was primarily basically defines Israel as an apartheid state. Ben-Guy said during a press conference with the Palestinian journalist, of course, that his right to move across the occupied territories, of course, whether it is West Bank, Israel, or any other Palestinian territory is superior, more important than the right to movement of Palestinians living there. When he said he, of course, it meant that the settler colonial citizens recognized as the citizens of Israel, the Zionist set of people. So that is exactly what he said. And that basically, again, you can, as I said before, he has said such things before also. For example, when while talking about Palestinian resistance, he often calls them terrorists and even talks about having a dead penalty for those who are involved in murder of quote unquote Israeli citizens. Only the Palestinians, by the way, not the other Israeli citizens. So if an Israeli citizen's motives and Israeli citizen, there is no need of a death penalty. But if a Palestinians is found involved in such a crime, then there should be a death penalty. This is a similar thing. Then he has also talked about how Palestinians need to be expelled from the occupied territories and should be exiled, should be sent into other parts of the world primarily sticking to the traditional Zionist notion of Jordan being Palestine. So he basically wants to expel all the Palestinians out of historic Palestine and send it to other parts of the world. So what he said basically is a repetition of what he believes in him being an extremist. Some of the people have identified him as a racist. He kind of a person who has also openly talked about mass ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories. So what he said other day is not something which is surprising in any way. Right. As you said, this is not the first time he's made such statements. So, you know, what kind of response has he gotten this time and in the past both within and outside the region? Well, there is already a very well-known debate in the global arena. Primarily, the progressive sections of the profile, you can say the people who stand with the Palestinian struggle have known this for quite some time that Israel is an apartheid state. The policies it is pursuing inside the occupied territories are basically the policies which were followed by South Africa when it had apartheid system before 1994. So the discrimination, the restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, the treatment of Palestinians vis-à-vis having different set of policies, then the passing of the Jewish national law which basically, even within the Israel, there is creates two kinds of different citizens, one Palestinians, Arabs and the Israelis and claiming that Israel is a Zionist state, completely denouncing the right of the Palestinians. So the kind of policies which the Palestinians have been witnessing both inside 1948 Israel and inside the occupied territories have basically made it very clear that Israel is an apartheid state and increasingly becoming so, much more pronounced apartheid state, particularly after the coming of Benjamin Netanyahu's government in power last year in November, December. So when he said those things, some of the only thing which is noticeable is some of those who so far have restrained themselves have not to say Israel as an apartheid state have not agreed to the idea of that. They had some disputes saying that okay, there are discriminations, there is an occupation, but it is not an occupied apartheid state yet. Even some of them have started questioning this notion and they have made clearly clear cut statements on Twitter and other social media platforms. If you see that more and more people are now are kind of willing to see Israel as an apartheid state. Of course, this is not a decisive shift. Of course, as I said before, this has been going on for a quite long time, but that has been the case that a large number of people are now much more in clear to see what Israel stands for and particularly under this particular regime. This also comes in the context of the increasing violence in the occupied territories. One should not forget that already according to the UN data, this is just the eight month of 2023 has been the deadliest year on record in the occupied territories, particularly in West Bank and more than 200 people Palestinians have been killed in the repeated raids. And then there are settlements are increasing on a regular basis and the settler violence has been allowed to increase. They have been unleashed. You can say there is complete impunity. No settler has been found guilty or punished for what they did and they are doing it increasingly. People are get Palestinians are getting killed and so on and so forth. So, it seems that what Ben Guir said on that day has basically made it quite clear for those who did not want to see it all this while that what is what Israel actually stands for and particularly at this point of time. Right, Abdul. Thanks for this update. And finally, Australia and the Philippines conducted joint military exercises on Friday, August 25 near disputed territories in the South China Sea. The drill was held near the Scarborough Shoal and island controlled by China and disputed by the Philippines. The joint military exercises is the first of its kind between the two countries and comes just weeks after recent tensions between China and Philippines at the second Thomas Shoal in the region. Australia's involvement is the latest in the Philippines attempt to involve foreign players in a bilateral dispute with similar exercises and patrols conducted in collaboration with the US and Japan. We speak to Anish for more. So Anish, this is the first time that Philippines and Australia are holding military exercises of this sort. Can you give us a bit of context and background into this and what does this mean for the tensions in the region between China and Philippines? Yes, I think we should start off by pointing out that very recently Philippines and China actually went into a standoff near the Scarborough Shoal, which is one of the disputed set of islands between Philippines and China in the South China Sea. So this was quite contentious, quite tense. It created a situation which was like very closely monitored by everybody around the globe at the time. And this happened very just a couple of weeks ago. And a military exercise of the sort pretty much especially initiated by two countries in the region is creating sort of like it is only aggravating the tension at this point. And we need to understand that this is a more multilateral kind of dispute that we're looking at when we talk about the South China Sea and it's not just the Philippines, but also closed a couple of other countries in the region. But the islands in dispute pretty much can be and should be ideally dealt with through resolution, something that both China and Philippines can do through diplomacy. But that is not happening. One of the primary reasons why this is not happening is because the current administration of Marcos Jr in the Philippines is pretty much taking this very anti-China, very strongly anti-China and very strongly prone United States. That's the more important part, like the fact that they are more very strongly aligned to US foreign policy creates a situation where tensions are going to keep burning in the region. And that is pretty much part of this whole joint military exercise. And the fact that Australia is also getting to become a part of this as a major pivot in the Southern Pacific region is also speaking volumes of it. Like this is essentially in many ways part of the US extension of US foreign policy of trying to encircle China. And we have spoken about this quite a lot in this show as well. Like this is pretty much an extension of that policy and that is only going to create more tensions in the region at this point. Can you also tell us more about the role being played by Australia in this encirclement of China? Yeah, it is quite an interesting position that Australia is in right now because obviously there has been a lot of back and forth. It is not as ideologically committed to the central policy of creating tensions with China, provocating or for that matter even confronting China on pretty much every single issue that we can think of. Because obviously China is the biggest trading partner for Australia and that is something that is quite irreplaceable at this point in time. No matter how much the Australian elite tries to make sure that tries to replace or make a sort of US leaning foreign policy, it is still not going to undermine the kind of economic significance that relation between these two countries have. Nevertheless there is definitely a significant section within the Australian ruling class that does believe that China is a threat and that is something that they have taken as a given. And we have seen not hints of that like very blatant pronouncements of that in the recent years. We have seen defence papers very recently talking very specifically about it pretty much parrots US line on what the Indo-Pacific policy should be and that is pretty much what Australia has taken up. We have also seen very recently Australia trying to sign a security pact with Pacific Islands in the region. Vanuatu currently is going through an entire political crisis pretty much because a deal of this kind was signed by the Australia and initiated obviously by the Australian government and all of that being done with China in mind. Australia is pretty much trying to become and we have seen a very similar kind of policy which says South Korea and Japan specifically in the region and so in the South Pacific you have Australia doing the same kind of thing and that is pretty much creating an extension of US foreign policy and pretty much jeopardises Australia's own national interest at this point and it is the same thing with Philippines. The fact is that Philippines depends a lot on China for a whole host of consumer products and not just that they also look for China for a lot of their products to be sold there like a massive market that cannot be replaced and so despite that you have governments primarily pushed by a certain kind of ideological inclination pushing cold war rhetoric and also furthering tensions that need not be there at this point in time and we have seen in the past that these tensions could have at least been kept at bay rather than kept burning the manner in which it does so this is pretty much the situation that we are at right now. Right, thank you Anish for talking to us. And this is all we have in this episode of the daily debrief for more details on these stories and for other such stories visit our website peoplecispatch.org and our social media pages on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for more video updates visit our YouTube page. Thank you for watching.