EDITORIAL
Dismantling Northern Hegemony BRICS by BRICS
Published
2 years agoon
By
Editor
Hegemony is the phenomenon whereby one group leads the whole by projecting its interests as the collective interest. For a long time, the international system has functioned under the leadership of the Global North, particularly the richest and most heavily-armed North American and European states.
This hegemony is so powerful that it is often not noticed. Students at Global North universities studying other parts of the world usually actually study US and EU strategic interests in those other parts of the world, which are passed off as common sense. The media with the biggest global reach frames its reporting of the world through the lens of Global North interests. But our world is changing and that hegemony is being challenged.
The BRICS, whose summit took place in South Africa last week, provides a telling case study. The term BRICs (lowercase S at the time) was first coined in a 2001 report authored by Jim O’Neill, then Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs’ head of economic research. In the paper for the firm, O’Neill pointed out that Brazil, Russia, India and China were the largest “emerging markets” (itself a term of capitalist hegemony, as countries are defined by their value to external investors) and set to grow faster than G7 countries. He argued that international economic policy-making, and in particular the G7, should be “adjusted to incorporate BRICs representatives.”
It is disputed whether O’Neill personally came up with the term BRICs or whether it was his research assistant, a young Indian woman called Roopa Purushothaman. She is now chief economist to India’s Tata group, whose estimated value is now around three times Goldman Sachs’ $106 billion market capitalisation. Another example of hegemony and its unravelling perhaps.
O’Neill’s predictions about economic growth proved accurate, but his prescription for greater inclusion in geo-economic management was not. Nevertheless, what started as a shorthand for Wall Street investment bankers to talk about rapidly growing economies began to take real form.
In 2006, the foreign ministers of the four countries met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. In 2009, the presidents of the four states: Lula, Dimitry Medvedev, Manmohan Singh and Hu Jintao held the group’s first formal summit. The following year, South Africa was admitted to the group, helpfully adding an S to the acronym and representation from the African continent.
As a grouping, BRICS is still young but there are signs it is developing quickly, with this week’s summit marking a potential turning point. Mainly excluded from the US and EU-dominated system of global economic governance, BRICS is developing its own through the New Development Bank. Under the leadership of former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, who took over as chair of the Bank earlier this year, the NDB looks set to expand its role as a rival to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The Bank has an authorized capital of $100 billion, which it lends to countries for development projects and infrastructure without the IMF’s austerity conditionalities. Interestingly, at the Summit this week, Rousseff announced her intention to issue around 30% of loans in local currencies, reducing the exchange rate risk for the recipient country.
Now twenty-three other Global South states have applied to join the club, including seven of the thirteen oil-producing OPEC states. As the summit closed, six were admitted, swelling the size and economic clout of the grouping.
Much of the coverage of the summit in Western media has focused on the geopolitics of the war in Ukraine. But its attendees were focused on the major issues of geo-economics: trade, the dollar, sanctions, development and infrastructure finance.
That’s because BRICS is not an anti-imperialist bloc, nor is it a socialist one. Indeed, according to both Xi Jinping of China and Lula of Brazil, it isn’t intended to be a bloc at all. Rather, it is a vehicle through which the global majority’s governments can express and coordinate their geo-economic interests in a world market whose governance systems all bear the impression of Global North hegemony.
The BRICS is not a moral force. But its development is part of a historical process that sees Northern hegemony wane and splinter. That process presents opportunities for progressive forces around the world to engage with critically.
That potential space for action could open not just for Southern progressive forces but those in the North, too. Global North hegemony has not been that of all the peoples of the Global North but that of the Global North’s ruling class. With that shaking, the majority in the Global North could join hands with the majority in the Global South to construct a new world on more equal terms for all.
You may like
EDITORIAL
When America Turns Away, Who Will Stand with the World’s Poor?
Published
4 weeks agoon
April 21, 2025By
Editor
The silent dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Trump administration has already begun to cast a long and catastrophic shadow across some of the most vulnerable regions of our planet. While the world watched in disbelief, Washington took a scalpel—and at times a sledgehammer—to decades of humanitarian partnerships, transforming America’s image from a flawed but willing global responder to an indifferent bystander.
Under the guise of the “America First” doctrine, the White House is not only slashing funds—it is uprooting entire systems of international solidarity. USAID, long a cornerstone of the U.S. foreign policy arsenal, is being dissolved into the bureaucratic core of the State Department, its staff decimated, its mission neutered. This is not just policy redirection. It is strategic retreat.
And the consequences are already devastating.
In Myanmar, a country teetering between civil war and natural catastrophe, a deadly 7.7 magnitude earthquake has laid bare the moral vacuum left by the U.S. pullback. More than 3,300 people are dead. Entire neighborhoods are reduced to rubble. While Washington has offered a paltry $9 million in aid, the true toll lies not in numbers but in absence—no boots on the ground, no structured response, no meaningful engagement. By contrast, in the 2023 Turkey-Syria quake, the U.S. pledged $185 million and dispatched hundreds of relief workers. Myanmar, it seems, is now relegated to the back pages of the U.S. conscience.
In Afghanistan, the picture is equally dire. The abrupt halt of funding for World Food Programme (WFP) operations, and the shuttering of hundreds of WHO-supported clinics, has pushed a starving, war-weary population further into the abyss. Twenty-three million Afghans need humanitarian aid. Two million rely on WFP food rations that will now no longer come. The rationale? That funds might trickle to the Taliban. But blanket punishment of a population—especially women, children, and the elderly—is neither just nor strategic.
In Sudan, now entering its third year of a brutal civil war, the picture is almost apocalyptic. More than 30 million people are in need of aid. Nearly half a million have already died of hunger and disease in 2024 alone. With the U.S. pulling out, 80% of community kitchens have shut down. Refugees in Chad, already living on the brink, are now left without food, water, or hope. Once again, the U.S. has ceded moral ground.
Even in South Africa, where the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has for two decades been the world’s most successful anti-HIV initiative, the damage is palpable. Experts now warn that without sustained funding, South Africa could face an additional 565,000 HIV infections and over 600,000 deaths by 2034. Thousands of support services have been halted, and a generation of progress stands at risk.
These aren’t just numbers. They are the real, lived experiences of millions of human beings—trapped in crises not of their making, caught in the crosshairs of global geopolitics, abandoned in their hour of greatest need.
And yet, amid the wreckage, a critical question arises: Who will fill the void?
If the United States is retreating from its role as the world’s emergency responder, the onus must shift to others with the capacity and resources to help. Here, we must issue a moral and strategic challenge to the wealthier nations of the Gulf—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, and Kuwait.
These countries have benefited from decades of immense oil wealth, and many have built modern economies, world-class cities, and sophisticated diplomatic networks. But with wealth comes responsibility. It is time for the Gulf to rise to the mantle of global humanitarian leadership—not just through quiet diplomacy or symbolic donations, but through bold, coordinated, and sustained intervention in global crises.
Gulf nations, particularly those that claim leadership in the Islamic world, must now walk their talk. Islam’s teachings on compassion, zakat, and the duty to protect the vulnerable are clear and uncompromising. What greater test of faith and moral purpose than to respond to famines in Sudan, earthquakes in Myanmar, or epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa?
In 2022, Qatar showed remarkable leadership by mediating in Afghanistan and offering humanitarian aid during natural disasters. The UAE has increasingly stepped into the humanitarian space in East Africa and Yemen. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre has made strides in emergency response. But these efforts must now be scaled, systematized, and globalized. The Gulf must move beyond regional charity into international humanitarianism.
Moreover, such leadership is not only ethical—it is strategic. By filling the humanitarian gap left by the United States, Gulf countries can enhance their soft power, build alliances with Global South nations, and demonstrate that a multipolar world need not be a fractured one. If the West is faltering, the Global East and South must not fail.
Let the response to this moment of crisis become a defining chapter in Gulf leadership. Let the world say that when America turned away, others stood up. That amid despair, compassion found new champions.
For in the end, history will judge not the power we held, but the lives we saved with it.
EDITORIAL
Trump’s Tariff Tsunami: Charting a Strategic Response from the Islamic World
Published
1 month agoon
April 15, 2025By
Editor
The world today stands on the precipice of a profound geopolitical and economic recalibration. With his latest sweeping tariff declaration—a 10% blanket levy on nearly all imported goods, alongside severe country-specific tariffs—Donald J. Trump has launched what may prove to be one of the most consequential acts of economic nationalism in modern history. Framed as a patriotic revival of American industry, it is, in fact, a seismic disruption of global trade norms with reverberations that will be especially destructive to the Global South and, by extension, the Islamic world.
This moment calls for clarity—not only of analysis but of strategy. For Muslim-majority countries already navigating fragile developmental paths, Trump’s tariff agenda may well become a catalyst for systemic realignment. It demands not despair, but a redoubling of efforts toward economic self-determination, intra-OIC trade expansion, and a bold embrace of Islamic economic principles.
A Revival of Mercantilism in a Globalized Age
At the heart of Trump’s new economic policy lies a nostalgia-fueled resurrection of mercantilist thought. In seeking to reverse the effects of decades-long globalization, his administration is deploying 20th-century tools against a 21st-century reality. The United States, no longer the singular industrial hegemon it was after World War II, now competes in a multipolar economic world. Yet Trump’s tariff regime assumes that insulating domestic markets from international competition will singlehandedly reindustrialize the American economy.
History, however, warns against such assumptions. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—often cited by economists as a contributing factor to the Great Depression—demonstrated how aggressive protectionism can lead to retaliatory spirals, global contraction, and social unrest. What we are witnessing today bears alarming similarities, albeit on a digitally interconnected and supply-chain-dependent global stage.
An Asymmetric Earthquake: The Vulnerability of Emerging Islamic Economies
The Islamic world—comprising over 50 nations, many of which are dependent on exports to Western markets—is uniquely exposed to this unfolding economic earthquake. While countries like China and the European Union may possess the leverage and infrastructure to respond with countermeasures, Muslim-majority economies—especially in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia—face a more existential challenge.
Consider the case of Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Egypt. These nations are not only reliant on textile and agricultural exports to the United States but are also structurally embedded within global value chains that feed Western consumer markets. A sudden imposition of high tariffs on these exports—some reportedly as high as 50%—is not just punitive; it is potentially ruinous.
More alarmingly, these policies threaten to undermine decades of incremental gains achieved through preferential trade agreements, foreign direct investment, and participation in multilateral trading systems. For many of these nations, Trump’s tariffs are not just economic measures—they are external shocks with deeply internal consequences: rising unemployment, inflationary pressures, balance-of-payments crises, and heightened political instability.
An Opportunity to Reclaim Strategic Economic Sovereignty
Yet within this crisis lies a generational opportunity. Trump’s unilateralism and the broader Western trend toward economic insularity may, paradoxically, offer the Islamic world a historic opening to reimagine its position in the global economy—not as passive peripheries, but as an interconnected bloc of strategic importance.
There is a growing case for the acceleration of intra-OIC trade, currently hovering around a modest 20% of total trade among member states. Through strengthened regional economic cooperation, harmonized halal certification, integrated digital payment systems, and Islamic finance-backed industrial projects, Muslim-majority nations can foster alternative markets less susceptible to Western volatility.
Institutions such as the Islamic Development Bank, OIC Trade Negotiating Committee, and D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation must now take center stage in coordinating a South-South trade renaissance. Additionally, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations, with their sovereign wealth and capital surpluses, have a critical role to play in underwriting industrialization efforts across lower-income OIC partners, creating mutually reinforcing economic corridors.
Furthermore, this is an opportune moment to reinvigorate the Islamic economic paradigm itself. Rooted in risk-sharing, ethical finance, and real-sector investment, Islamic economics offers a framework better attuned to sustainable development than the speculative excesses of neoliberal globalization. The decoupling of global trade may, therefore, provide the Islamic world with the impetus to invest in economic models that reflect its values and aspirations.
The Imperative of Strategic Unity
A fragmented response to this crisis will only deepen vulnerabilities. But a coordinated, principle-driven, and future-focused strategy could transform this tariff tsunami into a platform for economic reawakening across the Islamic world. The choice before us is stark: either remain at the mercy of shifting Western political winds or rise collectively to forge new alliances, institutions, and economic instruments.
Let us be clear: Trump’s tariffs are not simply a U.S. domestic policy—they are a challenge to the very fabric of globalization and an implicit message that the rules-based international economic order may no longer serve emerging economies. If so, then the Islamic world must not only ask what it stands to lose—but what it can gain by standing together.
Conclusion: Beyond Reaction, Toward Reinvention
In Surah Ar-Ra’d (13:11), the Qur’an reminds us: “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” This is not merely spiritual counsel—it is strategic guidance.
The Islamic world now faces a defining test. Will it continue to look outward for validation and markets, or will it summon the internal resolve to build resilient, just, and independent economies? Trump’s tariff tsunami may well be a global economic earthquake—but it could also be the spark of a long-overdue economic renaissance for the Ummah.
EDITORIAL
Trump’s Tariff Gambit and the Specter of Global Economic Chaos
Published
1 month agoon
April 11, 2025By
Editor
From the heart of Washington, D.C., the world is once again being dragged into an economic tailspin orchestrated by one man’s populist instincts and obsession with “winning.” Donald Trump’s latest tariff moves are not merely policy missteps—they are manifestations of a worldview that sees international economic cooperation not as a shared platform for mutual benefit, but as a zero-sum game of dominance and coercion.
For Islamic economists and policymakers concerned with equity, stability, and the moral dimensions of trade, the Trump Tariff Show is more than just theatrics—it’s a warning signal of how deeply distorted the global economic order has become.
Tariffs as Weapons, Not Tools
Unlike the Islamic economic tradition which views trade as a mutual covenant governed by justice (adl
) and cooperation (ta’awun
), Trump’s tariffs are being wielded as economic weapons. The idea of “reciprocal tariffs”—the notion that trade must always be balanced in numerical terms—is rooted in transactional nationalism, not in economic sense. In fact, scholars from Brookings to Peterson Institute for International Economics have repeatedly warned that such a view misinterprets the nature of global value chains and ignores the very logic of comparative advantage.
Islamic teachings on trade, as found in both the Qur’an and Hadith, emphasize ethical conduct, fairness, and avoiding harm (darar
). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself was a merchant whose success came not from closing markets to others, but from being known as “Al-Amin” – the trustworthy. Trump’s approach undermines trust and creates fear, a far cry from the Prophetic model.
A Strategy Without Strategy
Trump’s tariff saga lacks coherence. As reported, there is no clear doctrine—only the impulsive judgments of a leader playing to his domestic base. One day tariffs are imposed, the next day they’re paused. Global markets reel and recover like an abused partner in an unpredictable relationship. As The Economist notes, America has moved from predictable superpower to mercurial bully, unsettling even its closest allies.
Compare this with the Islamic economic emphasis on istiqrar (stability) and maslahah (public interest). Policies must be predictable, transparent, and rooted in long-term welfare—not short-term political spectacle. The Qur’an explicitly condemns deceit and sudden, destabilizing action in commercial dealings. In the Islamic vision of a just economic order, the state should be a shepherd (ra’i
), not a predator.
The Myth of Reshoring and Manufacturing Mirages
Trump’s fantasy of “bringing jobs back” through punitive tariffs ignores basic economic realities. U.S. manufacturers are not leaving because tariffs are too low—they’re moving operations because of automation, wage differentials, and global efficiency gains. Punishing trading partners won’t change this. On the contrary, it risks triggering retaliation, increasing consumer costs, and destabilizing emerging economies—including those in the Muslim world.
China has already responded with its own tariffs, and others may follow. The world is being forced into trade blocs and protectionist corners. Islamic economies, particularly those dependent on export markets—like Malaysia, Indonesia, and even parts of the Middle East—stand to lose significantly. The result? Greater inequality, disrupted supply chains, and rising food and energy insecurity.
The Islamic Economic Alternative: Justice and Interdependence
The Islamic economic system envisions a world of interdependence based on moral values. Trade is a bridge, not a battleground. Protectionism must be measured, not malicious. Policies must promote the maqasid al-shari’ah—preservation of wealth, life, and dignity—not endanger them.
Instead of Trump’s chaos, we need international trade governed by mudarabah (risk-sharing), sukuk for infrastructure development, and transparent mechanisms that elevate developing economies rather than suffocate them.
Muslim-majority countries, especially those in the OIC, must use this moment to reevaluate their dependency on unpredictable partners and instead pursue regional trade, South-South cooperation, and Islamic economic integration. The Islamic Development Bank and institutions like D-8 must step up with frameworks that promote intra-OIC trade based on principles of equity, not economic blackmail.
Conclusion: Chaos as a Symptom of Deeper Decay
Trump’s tariff theatrics are not an isolated event—they are symptomatic of a deeper corrosion of global economic ethics. For Islamic economists, the lesson is clear: the time has come to build parallel economic institutions rooted in moral clarity, strategic foresight, and inclusive prosperity.
The Qur’an reminds us: “Woe to those who give less [than due], who when they take a measure from people take in full. But if they give by measure or by weight to them, they cause loss.” (Surah al-Mutaffifin 83:1-3). That, precisely, is the spirit of Trump’s tariff regime—mutaffifin economics. It is neither sustainable nor just.
Let us not merely watch this TV show from the sidelines. Let us offer a better script.

In Memoriam: Professor Khurshid Ahmad (1932–2025). An Intellectual Giant and Father of Islamic Economics.

Absent from Abuja, Present in Paris

Collateral Damage: The Global Fallout of Trump’s USAID Cuts

How Hajj Has Become a Billion-Dollar Industry in Saudi Arabia

How Shariah-Compliant is Islamic Banking?

The Triangulation of Entrepreneurialism with Women, Food Production and Technologies
Topics
- AGRIBUSINESS & AGRICULTURE
- BUSINESS & ECONOMY
- CULTURE
- DIGITAL ECONOMY & TECHNOLOGY
- EDITORIAL
- ENERGY
- EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
- HEALTH & EDUCATION
- IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
- ISLAMIC ECONOMY
- ISLAMIC FINANCE & CAPITAL MARKETS
- KNOWLEDGE CENTRE, CULTURE & INTERVIEWS
- OBITUARY
- OPINION
- POLITICS
- PROFILE
- PUBLICATIONS
- REPORTS
- SPECIAL FEATURES/ECONOMIC FOOTPRINTS
- SPECIAL REPORTS
- SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE CHANGE
- THIS WEEK'S TOP STORIES
- TRENDING
- UNCATEGORIZED
- UNITED NATIONS SDGS