Ragpicking is a serious women’s business, extracting value from rubbish. Cheerleading is the unserious business of girls waving pompoms at football games.

There are those who claim the Kazan Declaration is today’s equivalent of the Bretton Woods Final Act (1944) and Bandung Declaration (1955), or a “a huge manifesto”, or “v ictory for all decent freedom-loving people on Earth”.

To help decide if these aren’t pompoms, here’s a pick through the 33 pages, 131 paragraphs of the terms the BRICS member states were able to agree and agree to disagree on, particularly the three most powerful states – China, India, Russia (alphabetical).

As Russia has been the chairman of BRICS for 2024, host of the summit meeting in Kazan this week, and led in the plenaries by President Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin release of this English version of the Declaration should be considered authoritative.

Paragraphs 6 and 8: “…we reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone, and the central role of the UN in the international system…We further emphasize the urgent need to achieve equitable and inclusive geographical representation in the staff composition of the Secretariat of the United Nations and other international organizations in a timely manner…we reaffirm our support for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council, with a view to making it more democratic, representative, effective and efficient, and to increase the representation of developing countries in the Council’s memberships so that it can adequately respond to prevailing global challenges and support the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America, including BRICS countries, to play a greater role in international affairs, in particular in the United Nations, including its Security Council.”

Reorganizing the Anglo-American and French domination of the national staff quotas at the UN in New York, especially to rebalance the way in which the current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has acted prejudicially, is much less than the reform of the membership of the UN Security Council because India, Brazil, and South Africa do not agree with Russia and China. Improving the UN staff quotas for BRICS member state nationals is tokenism without policy impact. Score for pompoms.

Left: https://johnhelmer.net/did-un-secretary-general-guterres-commit-a-war-crime-at-azovstal/ Right: https://johnhelmer.net/the-food-war-the-grain-deal-and-the-real-deal/

Paragraph 10: “We are deeply concerned about the disruptive effect of unlawful unilateral coercive measures, including illegal sanctions, on the world economy, international trade, and the achievement of the sustainable development goals. Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements. They also negatively impact economic growth, energy, health and food security exacerbating poverty and environmental challenges.”

Economic sanctions against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Syria are forms of US warfare with the objective of regime change. “Deep concern” is less than a commitment to economic self-defence, including the right to support alternative trade and sanctions-busting measures in which all five of the targeted states are engaged, with tacit support from the nine BRICS member states as well as the thirteen newly confirmed partner states. Score for pompoms.

Paragraphs 11-12. “We reaffirm our commitment to maintaining a strong and effective Global Financial Safety Net with a quota-based and adequately resourced IMF at its center… We recognise the crucial role of BRICS in the process of improving the international monetary and financial system (IMFS), with a view to making it more responsive to the needs of all countries…We encourage our Finance Ministers and Central /National Bank Governors to continue this work.”

The IMF is not now and never has been, certainly not in Russia and the Ukraine, a financial safety net. It remains a tool of US economic warfare and regime change against target states in which the Yeltsin Administration was complicit. The BRICS consensus, led by President Putin and his Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina, aims to preserve the IMF as a bank with Yeltsin-era objectives. Score for ragpicking by the oligarch faction in Moscow.

Paragraph 14: “We underscore the key role of the G20 as the premier global forum for multilateral economic and financial cooperation that provides a platform for dialogue of both developed and emerging economies on an equal and mutually beneficial footing for jointly seeking shared solutions to global challenges. We recognise the importance of the continued and productive functioning of the G20, based on consensus with a focus on result-oriented outcomes.”
This is an application by the BRICS members and partners to enjoy consensus with the US and the NATO and AUKUS members of the G20. This is an impossibility — a falsification of the politico-economic realities. Score for pompoms.

Paragraph 22: “We reiterate that the unilateral coercive measures, inter-alia in the form of unilateral economic sanctions and secondary sanctions that are contrary to international law, have far-reaching implications for the human rights, including the right to development, of the general population of targeted states, disproportionally affecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. Therefore, we call for their elimination.”

See Paragraph 10 above – pompoms score again.

Paragraphs 29-30: “We call for urgent measures, in accordance with international law, to ensure the protection of lives. We reiterate our grave concern at the deterioration of the situation and humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the unprecedented escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip and in West Bank as a result of the Israeli military offensive, which led to mass killing and injury of civilians, forced displacement and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. We stress the urgent need for an immediate, comprehensive and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and detainees from both sides who are being illegally held captive and the unhindered sustainable and at scale supply of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, and cessation of all aggressive actions. We denounce the Israeli attacks… We acknowledge the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in the legal proceedings instituted by South Africa against Israel.”

This is a strong attack on Israel and the closest the BRICS consensus comes to calling Israel to account for genocide as ruled by the International Court of Justice in January. It implies there was an international law right of self-defence on the part of Hamas in the offensive of October 7, 2023, and no right for Israel to conduct the Gaza genocide and the mass imprisonment of Palestinians on the West Bank. In his statements at the summit – in impromptu remarks after the plenary speech of Mahmoud Abbas and in his later press conference — Putin contradicted the BRICS consensus and the meaning of these paragraphs, telling the plenum that Israel’s genocide in Palestine is a “special situation”, then telling the press “we need to work with Israel, which, admittedly, still faced a terrorist attack last October… we must analyze the situation very calmly.” BRICS ragpickers score against Russian pompoms.

Paragraphs 32 and 34: “We express our concern over the increasing incidents of terrorist attacks linked with ICT capabilities. In this regard, we condemn the premeditated terrorist act of detonating handheld communication devices in Beirut on 17 September 2024…We stress that Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be strictly observed. We condemn illegal foreign military presence that lead to increasing risks of a large-scale conflict in the region. We emphasize that illegal unilateral sanctions seriously exacerbate the suffering of the Syrian people.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry avoided blaming Israel directly for the Beirut attack on September 17, instead quoting the Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah as saying so. “A comprehensive investigation of this crime is in order,” the Russian official statement said. “All those responsible must be held accountable. It is essential that this new act of terrorism is not swept under the carpet, as Western countries have been trying to do with regard to the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosions. We call on all parties involved to exercise restraint and refrain from steps that threaten further destabilisation of the military and political situation in the Middle East.” This Russian position of September 17 appears to have been diluted in the Declaration of October 24. Pompoms score.

Russian anti-missile defences have not been used to defend Syria from Israeli attacks, including a bomb and missile attack close to the Russian airbase at Khmeimim on October 3. It is unclear whether Russian air defence batteries intercepted Israeli missiles fired at Tartus on October 8; if they did, this would be the first time. Ragpickers may have scored over pompoms.

Paragraph 36: “We recall national positions concerning the situation in and around Ukraine as expressed in the appropriate fora, including the UNSC and the UNGA. We emphasize that all states should act consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation. We note with appreciation relevant proposals of mediation and good offices, aimed at a peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy.”
This is the only reference to the US-led alliance war against Russia in the Ukraine. It is an agreement by Russia to agree to disagree with the “national positions” of other BRICS members who were unwilling to agree to the stronger language the Russians had sought. Score pompoms.

Paragraphs 65-67: “We reiterate our commitment to enhancing financial cooperation within BRICS. We recognise the widespread benefits of faster, low cost, more efficient, transparent, safe and inclusive cross-border payment instruments built upon the principle of minimizing trade barriers and non-discriminatory access. We welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. We encourage strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI), which is voluntary and nonbinding, and look forward to further discussions in this area, including in the BRICS Payment Task Force. We acknowledge the importance of exploring the feasibility of connecting BRICS countries’ financial markets infrastructure. We agree to discuss and study the feasibility of establishment of an independent cross-border settlement and depositary infrastructure, BRICS Clear, an initiative to complement the existing financial market infrastructure, as well as BRICS independent reinsurance capacity, including BRICS (Re)Insurance Company, with participation on a voluntary basis. We task our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, as appropriate, to continue consideration of the issue of local currencies, payment instruments and platforms and report back to us by the next Presidency.”
This is an acknowledgement that there remains little agreement to date among the BRICS members, especially China and India with Russia, on the means for replacing the SWIFT and other payment systems which the US is manipulating to wage direct and indirect economic war. The Declaration buries especially sharp concerns in India over the rupee-rouble trade. The Chinese have now almost cancelled yuan payments with Russia; they deal in US dollars. The Indians are more accommodating but the Russians less so. In Kazan the Indians and Chinese have made it clear that BRICS is nowhere near being an alternative to the Bretton Woods institutions.

A source in New Delhi adds: “as usual pro-Russia commentators in the West are gung-ho because they do not understand the nuance. They don’t need to. They will be right in a few years. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal understand the nuance and know these issues will be resolved and in five years from now a full alternative to the US dollar will be in play. A new settlement system in which Africans and South Americans can sell their resources to markets ( BRICS plus), earn corrupt kickbacks ( Dubai), draw investment (China), technology ( India), and arms (Russia), and still send their children to Oxford and Cambridge is in the making.”

Agreement to continue negotiations is a score for the ragpickers over the cheerleaders.

Paragraph 83: “We reject unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures, that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns…We also oppose unilateral protectionist measures, which deliberately disrupt the global supply and production chains and distort competition.”

This is a strike against the US, especially the former Trump and promised Trump administrations. Ragpickers score.

Paragraph 89: “ Recognising that environmental problems are posing increasing threat, causing huge damage to the economy and affecting the quality of life of our citizens…we encourage more active involvement of young people in environmental activities believing it is critical to increase environmental culture and knowledge among the population, primarily young people.”
Pompoms.

Paragraph 91: “We support the Kimberley Process as the sole global intergovernmental certification scheme, regulating trade in rough diamonds emphasising our commitment to preventing conflict diamonds from entering the markets and acknowledge the launch of the Informal BRICS Cooperation Platform with the participation of African diamond-mining nations to ensure free trade in rough diamonds and the sustainable development of the global diamond industry. We welcome the UAE’s efforts as chair of the Kimberly Process for 2024.”
This is a strike by India, Russia, South Africa, and the UAE as major diamond producers and processors against the efforts of the US, UK, and Belgium to destroy the Russian diamond trade. Ragpickers score.

Source: https://johnhelmer.net/

Paragraphs 123 and 124: “We emphasize that all BRICS countries have rich traditional sport culture and agree to support each other in the promotion of traditional and indigenous sports among BRICS countries and around the world. We strongly oppose any form of discrimination on grounds of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, economic or other status of athletes. We recognise the importance of joint BRICS sports events, meetings, conferences, seminars in the field of sports science and sports medicine. We attach great importance to the role of BRICS in developing sports ties among BRICS countries, including mass, youth, school and student sports, high priority sports, parasport, national and traditional sports. In this regard we highly appreciate Russia’s Chairship for hosting the BRICS Games in Kazan in June, which brought together participants in 27 sports disciplines.”
This is a strike against the politicization of the Olympic Games and of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and the sanctions and boycotts which have resulted. Ragpickers score over pompoms.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in a photo op before the start of the BRICS plenary session in Kazan on October 23.

There are five references to “national sovereignty and territorial integrity” in the Declaration: they refer to Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Afghanistan; they do not refer to the protracted conflict between China and India on the Himalayan frontier. A well-informed Indian source acknowledges that he views the direct talks in Kazan between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping, with Putin as mediator, will turn out to have “positive” results. “Putin has without doubt played the diplomat in this. No question. Modi and Xi fully trust him not to betray them. There is reluctance now to admit this, at least not for a while, but the timing suggests Putin played a role.”

The three-way talks at Kazan did not touch concretely on the demarcation of the Himalayan border. “The Indians and Chinese have held 21 rounds of talks at the level of military corps commanders, the most recent of them last February 24. Thus, it’s been delegated to the military to negotiate, confirm incursions and terms of conflict reduction. The foreign ministries then follow up with precise language. This year we have seen several high-level changes in the Chinese defense establishment which have perplexed the Indians. Evidently, some of it was internal Chinese power struggles. That seems to have played out now, and Xi is fully in control. He seems to have asserted his dominance. At the military and diplomatic levels, the two sides seem to have agreed to calm things down and return to the pre-2022 status quo ante.”

Source: https://chinaglobalsouth.com

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/

The Indian source continued: “No detailed talk on the Himalayan border issue would have taken place between Xi and Modi. Inch on inch, there will be issues but that’s how it will be for a thousand years. You can’t resolve an undemarcated 3,800 km border fully and completely.”

“The Indian side should also understand that the Chinese were right to feel a threat that if Indians move into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) that would cut off the Karakoram Highway and the Chinese gateway to Gwadar and Arabian Sea. Indians will give no reassurance that they won’t hit Pakistan. If anything, the chances they will [move on the POK] are at an all-time high. But will the Indians take territory and choke off the highway? Perhaps assurance has been given that they won’t. If both have returned to frontier patrolling without guns, then it’s a huge achievement. By the way, no shots have been fired by either side in the past three years.”