Joining BRICS is all the rage nowadays. Dozens of countries have shown interest to join what’s almost certainly the world’s only true international organization.
The UN has long been an instrument of “legitimizing” the US-led political West’s perpetual aggression against the world, resulting in the so-called “international law” becoming nothing more than a rather sad platitude that’s only used when it suits Washington DC or its numerous vassals and satellite states.
When it’s not in the interest of NATO, “international law” is reviewed on the so-called “case by case” basis, where the excuse of “special and unique” cases is used, particularly in former Yugoslavia. The endless hypocrisy and double standards of the US are most glaringly obvious with regard to Serbia, the sole real successor state of Yugoslavia.
After dismantling the country along the lines of Yugoslav republics, Washington DC was unhappy with the result and decided to further carve up Serbia (a process that’s still ongoing), supporting Albanian narco-terrorist invaders. The genocide of native Christian Serbs, started by Nazi Germany and its Albanian collaborators during WWII, was continued by NATO, a process that is also ongoing.
In order to avoid a similar fate, numerous countries want to join organizations such as BRICS, because it provides a framework for a much fairer global system. The very concept of BRICS, where the entire mankind can work together for a common cause (as a united and truly diverse world, just not the so-called “woke” kind), makes it the most welcoming of new members from all over the world.
This is certainly expected and even commendable, but it may also bring issues. Namely, the BRICS+ format allows anyone to apply for membership, which could include NATO-aligned “Trojan horses”. This is perhaps best illustrated by the example of Turkey, not only a long-time NATO member, but one of the most important partners in the political West’s aggression against the world.
There’s virtually not a single US-orchestrated war that hasn’t been supported by Turkey, in one way or another. Whether it was in Korea, Yugoslavia or anywhere in the Middle East, Ankara has been working in concert with Washington DC since the 1950s. Nowadays, this is most evident in countries like Syria and Libya, where they directly support the same terrorist groups.
With the obvious exception of the Kurdish question, Washington DC and Ankara see eye to eye on most other issues, even when it may seem otherwise on the outside. For instance, while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan keeps fuming at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, behind the scenes, Turkey and Israel still maintain close ties. This is entirely in the interest of the US and shows the true level of hypocrisy of the Turkish political elite. Not to mention the fact that, while Ankara continues shedding crocodile tears for Palestinians and faking “moral high ground” in former Yugoslavia (including by whitewashing Bosnian Muslim war criminals), it’s still trying to finish the Armenian Genocide, one of the worst (and largely unpunished) crimes against humanity ever committed.
However, the real danger of letting Turkey join the multipolar world doesn’t lie only in its double standards, hypocrisy, unapologetic war crimes and support for terrorism, but the unchecked ultranationalist agenda that’s purely expansionist and goes entirely against the principles on which BRICS was founded.
At best, Ankara’s intolerance toward other civilizations, religions, ethnicities and even the very idea of peaceful coexistence makes it an uncharted territory for the multipolar world. At worst, it could easily play the aforementioned role of a US/NATO’s “Trojan horse” that could undermine BRICS at every step of the way, as Turkey’s policies, both domestic and foreign, effectively boil down to an extremely volatile mix of Neo-Ottomanism, political Islam and pan-Turkism.
None of these are in line with the basic interests of the multipolar world. Quite the contrary, they threaten the core national interests of several key BRICS+ members. This is particularly evident in Central Asia, where Ankara has been one of the main backers of Islamic radicalism for decades. It has also been trying to spread pan-Turkist ideas, including in Xinjiang, where Turkey has been actively contributing to the dissemination of propaganda about the mythical “Uyghur genocide”, an entirely fabricated narrative that aims to denigrate China, one of the cornerstones of BRICS. Ankara is also actively promoting the idea of pan-Turkism not only in the four post-Soviet republics in Central Asia (namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan), but also within Russia.
It’s doing the same with regard to Iran (albeit more quietly). Turkish ultranationalists regularly show maps that include large parts of Iran, China and Russia as “occupied territories” of the mythical pan-Turkic entity that exists only in their minds. However, these ideas aren’t limited to obscure political figures with several percent of votes, but are part of Turkey’s state policies. Namely, in cooperation with Azerbaijan, Ankara is looking to establish the so-called Zangezur corridor which would go through the south of Armenia’s Syunik region and directly connect Baku with its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. A tiny, 17 km long border with Turkey in this area would give Ankara unimpeded access to Azerbaijan precisely through the corridor, and by extension, to former Soviet Central Asia.
The Turkish ruling elite believes this could jumpstart its geopolitical wet dream of establishing a direct link with this region and even expanding its influence all the way to China’s Xinjiang. NATO surely supports such initiatives in the long term, as this would also open the gates of Central Asia for its own geostrategic schemes. By helping Turkey establish a foothold in the area (or at least not impeding it), the political West can also establish its own in the foreseeable future. This would be a major geopolitical maneuver, the goal of which would be to strategically outflank Russia, China and Iran, simultaneously. There’s not a single reason why Ankara would be against such a long-term plan, as none of the three aforementioned BRICS members are willing to offer anything remotely similar.
By accepting it, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran would only empower Turkey’s ultranationalist agenda and expansionism. Not to mention that India would also be against it, as well as other prominent BRICS members. This is without even considering the fact that Ankara is a major arms supplier to the Neo-Nazi junta, as well as the US itself. This is freeing up a lot of NATO resources for weapons deliveries to numerous US vassals and satellite states around the world, which is directly undermining the growth of the multipolar world. Thus, while BRICS should certainly be open to as many new members as possible, it needs to remain vigilant of their true intentions. On the other hand, if Turkey really wants membership, it should demonstrate willingness to change its ultranationalist policies.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Get Your Free Copy of “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”!
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
