 Hi, this is Sandy Baird with our guest, Kurt Mehta here for our monthly show called What's Happening, which is a different take, we hope, on the news and public affairs. Kurt is an attorney in our neighborhood and is an immigration attorney and has special knowledge and scholarly knowledge, I believe, of the world and public affairs. He also was born in India. Is that correct? That is correct. And came here. I don't know how old we are when you came here. He's ten months old. So you don't remember it. No, I was born on a cold, cold 90 degree day in January. In January? Yeah, yeah. And so today we're going to be talking about an economic development in our world, which is an important development very little covered in the mainstream media and one that threatens, I believe, to shake at least the ultimate power of the United States economically and also Western Europe primarily, right? That's correct. Okay. So what is that? What are we talking about? Thanks for having me, Sandy. So I'd like to start out. Thank you for talking about this. Yeah. I'd like to start out by talking about, when we talk about the BRICS nations, let's establish who we're talking about. Can you spell it first? Yes. There's no K in BRICS. It's B-R-I-C-S, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Okay. So places on all the continents, correct? Except Europe. Except Europe, if you don't consider Russia European, which I think they would take umbrage with. They might, but they're also Eurasian, and they would not take umbrage with that because they're well aware of that, for sure. So we have a number of the continents of the world represented. Brazil and South America. Brazil and South America. Russia. Eurasia. Or Europe, right? And China and India and Asia, and then of course South Africa and Africa. Right, correct. Yeah. The only continents not represented are Antarctica, North America, and Australia. Nothing in North America, correct? That is correct. Right. Yeah. North America is represented quite well in the G7. Okay, so is this an alternative to the G7? I really think it is, Sandy. Yeah. It is an alternative. Tell me what the G7 is. The G7 are the seven biggest and most advanced economies of the world. They consist of the United States, foremost, which is, you know, the... Hegemonic. Hegemonic, you know, unsaid leader of the G7, as well as Canada are neighbor to the North, France, Italy, and Germany, and Japan and the UK. So very Euro-centric. So these are the advanced capitalist countries and also the most powerful imperial countries as well, wouldn't you say? In large part, yeah, but I think it is largely based on financials. And they just happen to be countries that the United States also enjoys really strong defense and political ties. Ties. Ties. Ties. Ties. That's NATO in a sense, isn't it? Essentially, it is a large part of the... NATO. It's the nuclear powers of NATO. It's the nuclear powers, but not Japan, right? Not Japan. But I mean, we have the UK, we have France, we have the United States represented. Right. So, you know, you're talking about some of the most powerful countries. Canada. Yeah, I don't know. Is Canada nuclear? I'm not even sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about Canada and the United States. I'm sure that... Right. Yeah, it doesn't need to be. Right. So, I mean, so let me just talk a little bit about how BRICS started up. Right, right. So BRICS was a... It was a term that was coined by Goldman Sachs, believe it or not, in the early, early 2000s in a report on emerging economies. So this wasn't something where, you know, like the United Nations where a number of countries got together and said, hey, let's sit down and form an organization and we're going to call it BRICS. It was something that showed up in a report that a financial firm in New York, named Goldman Sachs, prepared and they referred to... At that point, it was only BRICS. There was no South Africa in this group. And it was just Brazil, Russia, India, and China. And what happened later is these four countries decided, that were mentioned in this report, decided to basically create an investment club where they would try to seek foreign investment in their respective countries and with respect to some of the leading companies and corporations in these countries. That's all it was. There was nothing more than that until a couple of years later, we're going to say about between 2006 and 2009, when there was a little bit of an intergovernmental connection that these countries thought, let's take it to the next step. Why? I think my personal opinion was there were some objections at that point. There have been objections really for the last five decades, but especially as some of these countries are starting to catch up with the West in terms of GDP, in terms of GDP, not necessarily in terms of the care of the poorest of the poor in these places. But basically, essentially the international domination that the US dollar has enjoyed for, I would say, seven decades starting with the end of the Second World War. It's been a dominance that has been unchallenged. And I think- There are reasons for that, I would guess, right? Well, absolutely. I mean, look, the historical reasons was largely the US homeland was unscathed in World War II. During the Second World War and World War I, and especially the Second World War, where some of the other countries in the G7 were utterly devastated. All of them. Can you name one country that was not devastated? Our friends, Canada, that's about it because they're North America. But no, you're absolutely right. Utterly devastated as well as a couple of countries in Bricks, Russia being the biggest recipient of incredible, incredible wartime damage and casualties. And China had a difficult time also with Japan, quite difficult. Exactly. And a little bit on the borders of India, a little bit on the borders of India. So the United States was unscathed. So the victor of World War II really was the United States. It really was. Right. Right. So we did, we, as I said, we said that the country was unscathed, the US homeland, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, which was not a state then. Exactly. At that time in 1941, of course. But the United States was also able to enjoy a recreation of the economic system. How so? They had a conference in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire where some of the top economists of the world, the Western world, were able to sit down and recreate an economic system that they were hoping would somehow be a buffer or act as a hedge against another war of the scale that World War II was from a financial standpoint, not from a territorial dispute standpoint. So this was a, this was... Was that the hopes, really? That was one of the hopes of the Bretton Woods Conference. The other thing was the establishment of the United Nations in New York City after the United Nations Conference took place in San Francisco in the mid-1940s. So the United States really had a chance of redesigning the world order in large part. And it was able to do that because of the fact that it wasn't, it didn't suffer the casualties and the damage that some of the other countries did. All of the other countries? Mostly, yes. Yeah, right. Yeah, so let's, you know, going back to BRICS, this domination for seven decades. But that also brought about the hegemonic position of the U.S. dollar, correct? Absolutely. Absolutely. The... Which was on the gold standard at that time. Which was on the gold standard. You know, Roosevelt took it off the gold standard, went back on the gold standard, and then, you know, President Nixon took it off the gold standard during the Vietnam War. Right. Right. Right. So, but through all of this, the dollar has remained the international exchange currency. Exactly. Right. And we have also, we as Americans, we have also, our government has also taken advantage of that in political situations, international politics, where if we have, you know, state actors that we don't deem as good actors, they have suffered... Like? Cuba being an example, Iran being an example. These were countries that didn't necessarily play by what we considered the rules. And as a result, you know, they couldn't get funding from the World Bank. They couldn't participate in, you know, programs that the IMF sponsors. And they couldn't participate, specifically, Cuba. I don't know about Iran. But in this swift economic system, SWIFT, which is basically the system that governs international money transfers, which is absolutely critical for any kind of purchase. Like what? Purchase of petroleum. Purchase of... Okay, so... Info. All right. They... Those transfers? Yeah, because... Done in dollars? Well, right. They're done in dollars. And they're done through banks that the United States... Controls. ...has a significant amount of control in. And if you exclude a country from being able to participate in the SWIFT money transfer system, you're basically telling them to, you know, take a hike essentially. And that country... In the world economy. In the world economy. Right. Yeah. And what do they do? In often cases, they wind up having to pay cash. Like Cuba. Like an individual would pay cash for a particular, you know, consumer item. But it makes life quite difficult. Right. Quite difficult to make large purchases, to purchase resources that your country may need to purchase medicines. But you don't have dollars, right? Because you don't have dollars. And, you know, taking a bag of cash, you know, or an equivalent is not the way countries work. Mm-hmm. You know, maybe the way that drug cartels work, but not the way countries work. So as the concept of BRICS, which I mentioned was originally an investment club, continued or grew, developed further, they started looking at one another, these countries, as an alternative system to the system, a financial system that was largely put together by the United States. At Bretton Woods. Yeah. At Bretton Woods. Yeah. And through other, you know, intergovernmental treaties. Mm-hmm. Largely with other Western countries, really. Mm-hmm. You know, even the Far East, even Japan at that time was not a participant in these conferences. Yes. It's important to remember that Japan actually was the enemy in those elections. Japan was the enemy and Japan was the occupied power after the Second World War. Mm-hmm. Japan would argue still is, based on our, you know, bases in Okinawa. Right, right. But so BRICS, you know, they, through the 2010s, began entering into treaties and agreements with one another, the member nations, these four countries. Then South Africa joined on in 2011. Why would South Africa join? They were considered an emerging economy and they expressed interest in joining. Period. They just expressed interest. Expressed interest. But they didn't have any particular beef with the United States, right? No, they didn't. No, they didn't. And, you know, a few of these countries have, you know, very good relations with the United States. Right. So it's not to, you know, they're not necessarily the black sheep of the world, you know, and I'm not to put them on the spot, but, you know, it's not, we're not talking about Sudan or North Korea. Or Saudi Arabia. Yeah. Saudi Arabia is pretty hooked in well because of their petroleum reserves. But we're not talking about Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and just the, you know, the countries that we considered, you know, the outliers. Right. Some of these countries are pretty involved in the world economy, China and India. Brazil. And Brazil, of course, in the western hemisphere. So a couple of interesting points, you know, when you compare the G7, the countries with the advanced economies, with the BRICS nations. So the BRICS nations consist of 41% of the population of the world. 41%, wow. Yeah. Over three billion. Both India and China. And China in one organization. Right. And then you've got Brazil on one side. And then you've got, you know, Russia that has a significant population too. Where the, so the population over three billion of these three countries, of these, I'm sorry, five countries put together, the G7 to contrast the most populous nation is the United States. And it doesn't even crack a billion with, with its seven members. We're talking about 26% of the land, surface land area of the world is, Wow. is within BRICS countries borders. So we're talking about it's much more representative, if you think about it, in terms of having, you know. And consumers too. Right. Right. And many more consumers, three times consumers, though not as well off. Right. Exactly. Exactly. But what they started to look at one, you know, this organization, which was just an investment club initially, was to look at it as an alternative to the G7. To, yeah. Okay. To the G7. And to the American dollar? To the American dollar eventually, but I mean, the other things that they were really interested in, you know, distance, distancing themselves from, which were also ruled in large part by the United States or controlled, is the access to international cables for communication. Oh, yeah. For communication purposes. So after the whole Edward Snowden affair, where, you know, people found out that the U.S. government, the National Security Agency was essentially spying on everyone and everything. And they happened because of Edward Snowden, correct? Snowden's disclosures. Yes, right. Now he lives in Russia. Guess where? He's persona non grata here. But he's now a Russian citizen. Did you see that? I understand he is. Yeah. He became a Russian citizen. He became a Russian citizen. But as these countries began learning that, you know, there was a vast spy network on all communications, they signed a memo and they're working on a Submariner cable system for communication and info, info technology that is an alternative to the ones established. What will that mean? It will provide a certain amount of privacy to these countries. How will you get on it? I guess we won't be able to, right? Not from this country. No. No. So in addition to something like the communication sector, the other things that they want to provide an alternative to not just their own countries but to other developing countries is an alternative to the World Bank. Uh-huh. So they have the New Development Bank. Which is what? That's already in place. Yeah. It's in China. Uh-huh. And basically their objective is to provide infrastructure loans to developing countries. Which China does. Yeah. As an alternative to the World Bank. And they also established a, not a corporation, but a government corporation called the CRA, which is an alternative to the IMF. Also very strongly controlled by the United States and Great Britain and France. Uh-huh. As is the World Bank. And, you know, countries that are not considered good state actors are essentially excluded from the development loans and the infrastructure loans that the World Bank and the IMF provide. And can then go to these other banks now. Right. Right. Right. So basically situated in Shanghai, it was actually created by the BRICS countries through donations, well, not donations, but contributions from the other member states. And they would provide loans not just to member states, meaning the, you know, the five BRICS countries, but to what they call member states of the New Development Bank. So there are countries like Bangladesh right now, for example, that are, uh, Paraguay that are enjoying financing for infrastructure projects that are fully financed by the New Development Bank that was created by BRICS. So what, would they be excluded then from the World Bank? Not necessarily. Yeah. But a country like Cuba would be. Yes. Right. But can Cuba, can Cuba use these new banks? The New Development Bank? Absolutely. Yeah, good. I guess. Yeah. They would have the opportunity to do that. Uh-huh. And Korea would have the ability to do that. Now, remember, these aren't defense finance projects. These are projects for infrastructure development that, you know, actually will, you know, help ordinary people that are, you know, living on the streets in these countries, on the ground, these countries, as well as, uh, you know, other infrastructure and development projects. Now, so why did the BRICS nations do this? I think. Because they were sick of it? Yeah. Because they are now developing and are at a point where they can do this? Or both? I think all the above. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I think, you know, they can do it now where they couldn't before. Why couldn't they? Because they were less developed. Correct. It's really just a matter of the money. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. China wasn't where it's at now. No. You know, India wasn't where it's at now. You know, uh, you know, Russia had a complete restructuring of its economy. After. Uh-huh. In 1991. Right. Exactly. Uh-huh. Could it seem to forget that they still seem to think Russia's communists in the course of the season? Right. Right. Right. Yeah. We're not talking about 1970. Right. Well, Russia anymore. Uh, so they're in a better position to create this alternative. Uh-huh. System. You know, there's also a great deal of interest in terms of alternatives to SWIFT and the dominance of the US dollar. You know, what role these cryptocurrencies will potentially play in the future to get out of the SWIFT international financial transaction system and allow, you know, countries and other non-state actors to potentially, you know, participate in the world economy. Right. Which they've largely been excluded from doing. Exactly. Why? Why is it? Why? Because there were certain criteria, you know, political criteria that were placed, you know, if a country wasn't a democracy, a democracy, how we would define it. Define it. Right. Right. You know, if a country had questionable human rights records. As we define it. As we define it, you know, ignoring anything that happened or happens here or elsewhere in the west, then those countries, you know, the, our government as well as other western governments were in a position to place restrictions on such countries and to have them adjust their behavior before they could re-enter this, you know, essentially. Or enter. Enter. Yeah. Enter. Enter the system in the first place. And that made it very difficult. You know, it was kind of a chicken and the egg thing. You want these, you know, countries to act a certain way, but you make life so difficult for them that, you know, maybe if they were going to change, they wouldn't, they couldn't because of, you know, the restriction of funds. So we're essentially hoping for regime change often is the case. Right. So what has been the reaction of the west? Any? No, no. Certainly there has been a reaction to the west. And by the United States. Yeah. I mean, look, when BRICS began entering into these intergovernmental treaties, multilateral treaties with one another to create the new development bank, to create the CRA, to create this, you know, the system of new cable communications without U.S. interference, without interference from the U.S. government, then the initial thinking on the part of BRICS was that we were going to work, that they were going to work in cooperation with established systems that we have now already. So the new development bank was going to work in conjunction with the IMF, in conjunction with the World Bank to basically, you know, provide more infrastructure money to the world. Right. You know, but I think as time went on, you know, critics largely from the west began looking at these organizations that were being established by BRICS countries as competitors. Right, exactly. Yep. And they turned it into the IMF based on the criteria that was placed before member nations could potentially get financing for infrastructure development projects. They were quite different from the criteria that the IMF of the World Bank put forth, being out of Washington, D.C., of course. So they have been criticized, and now I think in large part they're viewed as, you know, alternatives to the west. And there have been some critiques, which some, you know, some are, I think, just, you know, an expression of animosity, you know, and some of them are valid critiques in terms of the viability, the long-term viability of the BRICS nations. Why? Why aren't they as viable? I mean, they're developing nations. They're not. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they refer to as emerging economies. Right, right. Yeah, I think, you know, what's interesting with the G7 nations, the G7 countries are mostly, they have the same political systems. Right, exactly. Yeah. The same form of government. Yeah, more or less. More or less. Yeah, not a whole great deal of deviation from, you know, Germany and France and Canada. Right. You know, and they also share the same defense goals. Yes, sure. Which are what? Which are the U.S. Goals. In large part. NATO. Support of NATO, absolutely. Right. And other geopolitical goals that the United States has, you know, the control of China. Ha, right. I guess so. Attempted. Yeah, but yeah. Attempted. Yeah. And the control of Russia. And the control of Russia. And to, you know, make sure that the dollar rains supreme. I mean, that's the ultimate goal, correct? Of G7. Right, right. Now, some of the critiques of the, I think some of the well-founded critiques of the long-term viability of BRICS is these countries all have different forms of government. So? Not a big deal. Yeah. But there are also different geopolitical goals that they share. So, two of the countries with the largest populations in BRICS, China and India, not only do they have different political and economic systems, but there are also territorial disputes that the two countries themselves have. Yes, right. Because they share a border. Right. So, and they're often, you know, even their media are often working against one another. So, you know, there have been questions as to whether or not, you know, how long is, how stable is this framework, this alternative framework to the G7? China, I didn't think that. And will they actually be able to crack the U.S. dollars dominance? So these are questions. We don't have answers to. But there are also cracks in the West, too, probably, but they're not as severe. They're not, yeah, the fissures aren't as deep. Right. At this point, they're not. Yeah. And they have not, in terms of the member states since 1945, these countries have not been at war against one another or seen action against one another. Right. Well, there haven't been any European wars since then, except right now, right? Right. And in the Balkans. But it wasn't against members of the G7 fighting amongst one another. Right. Where that is not the case, you know, with respect to Britain. So the division between China and India, though, is relatively deep, isn't it? It is quite deep. Yeah. So what do you think? Do you think that ever could be softened or eliminated? I think. I mean, could they ever really be allies? I think they could be nominal allies, but I think their interests are to control Asia. Both. Both of them. India too. Absolutely. I mean, China seems obvious. Yeah. Yeah. Just because where China is in the development. Right. Well, also because the way, in some ways, the way China acts also. Absolutely. But it would, you know, it would be sort of like the United States, you know, not having our friendly Canadians to the border, but another country as militarily powerful as the United States. With goals as expansive as the United States. And both countries being best friends. Well, it's tough to imagine. Yeah. Right. I mean, in the European context, think historically, you know, of Germany and France or Germany and Britain. Well, they got it together. Yeah, they did. Yeah. But there were many times where they did. Yes, exactly. And a lot of people unfortunately died in the process. Yes. Right. Right. So, particularly between BRICS nations and the G7. So my understanding is the G7, as we mentioned, you know, you said the unspoken commonality is there, you know, they're all supporters of NATO. And therefore the war in Ukraine. Right. If not outright members of NATO. Yeah. Right. No, they're all, aren't they? All members? They may be. Yeah. Yeah. They may be the G7 or not. In the case of BRICS, as of now, my understanding is there are not any defense treaties. Right. Amongst the member states of BRICS. No, they're all fairly independent, aren't they? They are fairly independent. Yeah. I mean, they're not involved in... But it's also because, you know, one of the first points you made, Sandy, was you've got South America representative. Exactly. You've got Asia representative. Right. With the exception of Japan, you know, with the G7, you're talking a pretty, you know, pretty... Exclusive club. Yeah. Um-hum. Homogeneous and... Light. Yeah. And culturally. Yeah. Right. Culturally, you know, in tune with one another. Yeah. Mostly. Right. With the exception of Japan. Right. That's it. But it's always been with the exception of Japan. Right. Right. Capitalist nations. Sure. Sure. Absolutely. They've all been the white Western Europeans with the exception of Japan. Yeah. An occupied country. Yes. Right. Since the Second World War. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So... But this division is also showing itself, I believe, between the two economic blocks in this present war in Ukraine. That's a good point, Sandy. Yeah. And it's hard to know where that's going to go. But if you think of BRICS as a quasi-alliance. Yeah. It seems that all those countries are either on the side of Russia. Yeah. Or neutral, like India. Yeah. I mean, India is contracted, you know, with Russian petroleum producers. Right. You know, very cheap oil in a country where oil is usually quite expensive in India being. So they've gotten some very sweet contracts with Russian oil producers to provide very cheap energy. Mm-hmm. So they've, you know... But all of them have... The role is also in historical ties between Russia and India, too. Always. Yeah. Ever since the Cold War, correct? Yeah, absolutely. Since the Cold War and since India's independence. I just think that's a really interesting... I never really thought about this division in terms of how this war is being viewed, really by most of the world. In other words... It's a North-South division, certainly. It seems that way. It certainly does seem that way. Right. Right. It's not highly publicized. No, it's not. You think about it. Yeah, because the assumption is that, you know, everyone is against Russia. Right. That's not true. And if there is a country that isn't against Russia, they're really an outlier, you know. Right. Yeah. But in fact, in the end... Yeah. All of those countries are either neutral... Yeah. And they haven't even gone along with sanctions, correct? That is correct. Yeah. Okay, so they're either neutral or outright pro-Russia. And, you know, one of the stats I quoted earlier is that's... 41%... 41% of the human population on Earth. So when our... And that doesn't even include, you know, the other countries that are not member states. Right. So when our country talks about this as a world war, in a sense, and that most of the world is with us, it's just not true. I don't think it's an accurate assessment of the situation. Right, exactly. I don't think it's accurate. Neither I think is it an accurate assessment more and more that Russia is losing, either. Right. There's a whole new reassessment about that, too. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. But anyway, we only have a... Not a cakewalk, but not, you know, but not losing, either. So we only have a couple of minutes left. Is my understanding that you're going to visit India? I am, yeah. Really? So you're going to another disputed region? Right, right. Kashmir? The objective is to go to Kashmir. Yeah. Wow. So you're going to have a nice report for us next month? I will, with some pictures of snow leopards. That's the reason I'm going, guys. Okay, well, you're not only going to see snow leopards. Correct. Yeah, I'm hoping to see some lions, too. Oh, okay. No people? Right, a couple of people. Okay, correct. In India, I think that's unavoidable. There are a couple of people there. Yeah, I think it's unavoidable. Yeah, right. All right. So thank you very much. And we'll see you next month. Yeah, thanks for having me, Sandy. Yeah, thank you.