Venezuela and the Future of the West

LONDON: In a recent commentary, Gemma Cheng’er Deng and I argued that the West needs to open its eyes to how the world is evolving, especially in light of the United States’ new National Security Strategy, which appeared to call for the world to be divided into three blocs (around the US, China, and Russia). Now, with 2026 barely underway, President Donald Trump has pulled the rug out from under anyone who still believed in the salvageability of the old international order. The midnight raid to capture Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, confirms that we are in a new era.

Trump has shown that his administration intends to do whatever it wants, according to its own definition of “right” and regardless of international law or rules of engagement. That means the rest of the West must get real and stop hiding behind niceties and standard diplomatic language. America’s old friends, partners, and allies must offer substantive explanations of where they stand on the world stage. Hortatory platitudes will no longer do. New economic, geopolitical, and diplomatic realities are becoming clearer by the week.

Notably, this year also marks the 25th anniversary of my paper coining the BRICs (originally Brazil, Russia, India, and China) acronym. As I have emphasised before, my argument for these countries’ importance was never about investment. Rather, it was about the need for fairer, more representative, and effective global governance, based on what I saw as emerging economic and strategic realities.

For example, with the advent of the eurozone and the single currency, I asked why France, Germany, and Italy should still be individually represented in major global governance organisations, especially in cases where they were taking seats from others whose international significance would only continue to grow.

It was already clear 25 years ago that these European countries’ relative economic influence would wane. And, now that the European Union and the euro have been around for decades, it is reasonable to ask what purpose they have served. Why haven’t Europeans done what is needed to create the economies of scale that would allow their industries to deliver the productivity growth that ultimately supports higher standards of living?

Of course, in posing that question to Europe, I must also include the United Kingdom. My own country and all other Western powers urgently need to do some soul-searching about their long-term priorities. The Trump administration’s own approach has further underscored the rest of the West’s casual complacency. If now isn’t the time for Westerners to articulate their foundational beliefs, when is? What do you truly value, and how will you ensure that your values are consistently upheld in your own dealings with the rest of the world?

In arguing that Europeans should make more room for large, populous emerging economies, I expected that, as these countries continued to grow, they would demand a greater voice at the table. China and India have already reached the economic stage that my BRICs paper anticipated, even if the other two, Brazil and Russia, have not. And, since 2008-09, the BRICS (which added South Africa in 2010) have often spoken with one voice, at least symbolically, through their annual summits.

More recently, BRICS has added new members – Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. Despite their own efforts to foster cross-border collaboration, though, the BRICS+ countries still demand – and in most cases deserve – a greater voice in global affairs.

In this context, it is telling that, according to Politico, the Trump administration is exploring the possibility of creating a C5 that would include the US, Japan, and three BRICS members: China, India, and Russia. That is close to the global-governance arrangement I suggested 25 years ago, notwithstanding the absence of Brazil or any European country. While it might turn out to be nothing, such reports offer insights into whom the Trump administration deems relevant. Trump may prefer to align himself with ideological fellow-travellers but, if Europe could prove more successful economically and technologically, one can imagine it joining a future C7.

To his credit, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney does seem to recognise the broader changes that are afoot. He has been pursuing stronger bilateral ties with China and earnestly considering what mix of realism and values Canada should embrace. Similarly, while the UK is still languishing in its self-imposed post-Brexit trauma, it does make occasional baby steps in the same direction.

By contrast, continental Europe remains rather clueless. It is apparently too scared to pull its head out of the sand and exhibit anything resembling ambition. But, with a clear-eyed vision and the commitment to see it through, you never know how things might turn out 25 years from now. The time has come for some fresh thinking about BRICS+.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2026.
www.project-syndicate.org
 

For feedback: contact the Editorial Department at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com.