The international order is breaking up as the Global Emerging Markets (GEMs) build a raft of new non-Western interlocking international institutions to run their vision of a new multipolar world order. At the same time the incumbent Western-dominated global institutions that have run the world since WWII are falling into disrepair and are becoming increasingly redundant.

The dominance of the Global North is giving way to the rapid rise of what should be dubbed the Global Emerging Markets Institutions, or “GEMIs”, increasingly influential organisations that have little or no Western membership. And the process has been decades in the making; the GEMIs first rose to prominence during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis when a meeting was called, not of the G7 to coordinate a worldwide response to the financial meltdown, but the G20.

Since then, these new bodies have played an increasingly important role. The BRIC moniker was originally coined by legendary Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in 2001 to sell hot emerging market stocks. Since then it has metamorphosed into a physical geopolitical organisation after its inaugural summit in Yekaterinburg in 2009 and grown from the original four members to 11 full members and another ten candidate countries.

A veritable alphabet soup of organisations has emerged from the “Rise of the Rest” led by China and Russia. The GEMIs are increasingly interlocking with overlapping membership and coordinated agendas based on trade and security. The development is being driven by opposition or rivalry with the West, and has received a major catalytic boost by the aggressive Trump administration tariff policies.

The incumbent system that ran the world for the last eight decades is breaking up. Geography is reasserting itself in a new fractured world. US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the “rules based order” and has abandoned “values” in favour of a new transactional based system. Analysts have argued we have entered a new mercantile economic paradigm. The old system was not country or region specific but led by like-minded great powers that emerged after WWII. These ideas are enshrined in things like the post WWI League of Nations, the European Coal and Steel Community that grew into the EU, or the 1975 Helsinki Accords that laid the foundations of the values-based ideology.

Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs are an attack on some of America’s oldest and most loyal allies, and a withdrawal from the US’ role of global policeman by snapping its security umbrella shut and quitting half a dozen UN organisations.

This comes at a time when the GEMs, led by China and Russia, have come of age. Three decades after the collapse of the socialist experiment, they have built new capitalist market economies and taken in enough foreign direct investment (FDI) to learn how to run them efficiently. Their economic development has reached a point where they are now starting to flex their new economic muscles and in China’s case at least, the technological development has caught up with, and is now starting to surpass, that of the West.

The very term “emerging markets” is seen by these emergent economies as belittling by the so-called developed markets (DMs). Likewise, “globalisations” that was the fad in the 1990s is seen in the Global South as a new form of neo-colonialism – a theme both Xi and Putin play on constantly and that goes down very well in places like India and Africa. It exported massive amounts of wealth to the West, in the form of big wage differentials for human capital, that allowed the Global North to flourish. According to a study published in Nature Communications last year, today Global South workers still account for over 90% of Western manufacturing, which has led to the rapid decline of US manufacturing jobs that Trump is complaining about.

What emerged was a two-tier system where the DMs felt free to dictate to their emerging peers, without any reciprocity, imposing sanctions on the big countries and dropping bombs on the small ones if they misbehaved. The US also took it on itself as a standard foreign policy, to interfere in the domestic elections to ensure the election of US-friendly governments; the Washington Post, amongst many others, reported that the CIA interfered in 72 elections in 30 years during the Cold War. That policy has not changed: Trump slapped Brazil with 50% tariffs, despite the fact that Brazil ran a trade deficit with the US last year, to pressure the government into dropping the prosecution of former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, a close ideological ally of the US president.

Now the wage differentials with the DMs are closing. Average incomes in Russia are today at a historical high, on a par with average incomes in the EU in adjusted terms, and in the big cities like Moscow in nominal terms too. The value of the Chinese economy has also overtaken the US in PPP (purchase power parity) adjusted terms to become the largest economy in the world, according to the World Bank’s April assessment and both China and India will overtake the US in nominal terms as well by 2070 if current trends persist, say the experts.

Global South leaders like Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin have demonised the old system as a US-led “unipolar” hegemony and are actively working to break it up; in Putin’s case with the extreme measure of invading Ukraine, after the US refused to listen to his security concerns in the last round of diplomacy in January 2022. Now Russia has flipped the DM’s military tactics and resorted to bombing back.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is nominally about securing a no-Nato promise from Ukraine, but his wider agenda is to undermine the unipolar order. He has taken the drastic action of abandoning relations with the West and made a big bet on the Global South Century. And it is going well. Russia has not been isolated. Its economy has not been wrecked. And other GEMs are now flocking to the Sino-Russia banner, albeit cautiously.

Europe is sliding into recession and crisis. The Israeli war on Palestine has acted as second catalyst and fuelling the opprobrium much of the Global South holds for the Western support for Israel’s genocide in Palestine.

Netanyahu was booed during his UN speech on September 25 (video) and spoke to an almost empty hall after delegations from most countries walked out in protest.

“Surrender now, lay down your weapons, free the hostages now! If you do, you will live. If not, Israel will find you and destroy you," Netanyahu said in his UNGA speech on September 2 that was relayed live to speakers on the streets of Gaza.

Of the United Nations' 193 member states, approximately 134-140 (about 70-72%) are considered part of the Global South. Those delegates leaving the hall highlight the increasing cynicism with which the Global South see the developed world countries. It was lost on no one that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on war crime charges, yet his ally, the US, allowed him to travel to New York and speak at the UN unmolested. If Putin had gone to the UN, he could have been arrested, even though the US has not signed the Rome Statutes.

Putin has found a natural ally in China, even though China and Russia are not natural allies. Xi has much the same complaints about the West as Putin. The two presidents set out their vision for this order in an 8,000 word essay last year and after more than three years this order is rapidly emerging,

The changing voting patterns in the UN also reflect the growing disillusionment amongst the Global South with the Global North’s campaign to isolate Russia. The first UN votes to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  in 2022 garnered almost overwhelming support from UNGA (141 votes “for” and a mere five “against” in March 2022), but the latest vote to condemn Russia’s drone incursion into Poland on September 10 only had 46 votes “for” – or roughly the number of countries associated with the Global North, which is the one starting to look isolated, not Russia.

The principles espoused by Xi and Putin are coming up increasingly often amongst other GEM leaders. Argentina’s President Javier Milei made very similar points during his 15-minute speech at the recent United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Milei proposed four reform principles: focusing resources exclusively on international peace and security, intervening only when nations cannot act independently, demanding institutional efficiency with verifiable results, and simplifying existing regulations.

In the new world order, relations are increasingly breaking up into regional blocs under the GEMIs that are then tying up with each other into a patchwork quilt of international cooperation. 

GEM groupings
Very High Overlap (5-7 Groups)
Country	BRICS	SCO	BRI	G20	EAEU	ASEAN	MERCOSUR
Russia	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	BRICS, SCO, BRI, G20, EAEU (5)
China	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRICS, SCO, BRI, G20 (4)
India	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRICS, SCO, BRI, G20 (4)
High Overlap (4 Groups)
Country	BRICS	SCO	BRI	G20	EAEU	ASEAN	MERCOSUR
Argentina	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	BRICS, BRI, G20, MERCOSUR (4)
Brazil	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	BRICS, BRI, G20, MERCOSUR (4)
Indonesia	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	BRICS, BRI, G20, ASEAN (4)
Medium Overlap (2-3 Groups)
Country	BRICS	SCO	BRI	G20	EAEU	ASEAN	MERCOSUR
Armenia	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	SCO, BRI, EAEU (3)
Australia	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Belarus	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	SCO, BRI, EAEU (3)
Bolivia	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	BRI, MERCOSUR (2)
Cambodia	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Canada	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Egypt	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRICS, BRI (2)
Ethiopia	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRICS, BRI (2)
France	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Germany	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Iran	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRICS, SCO, BRI (3)
Italy	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Japan	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Kazakhstan	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	SCO, BRI, EAEU (3)
Kyrgyzstan	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	SCO, BRI, EAEU (3)
Laos	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Malaysia	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Mexico	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Myanmar	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Pakistan	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	SCO, BRI (2)
Paraguay	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	BRI, MERCOSUR (2)
Philippines	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Saudi Arabia	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	SCO, BRI, G20 (3)
Singapore	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
South Africa	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRICS, BRI, G20 (3)
South Korea	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Tajikistan	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	SCO, BRI, EAEU (3)
Thailand	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Turkey	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	SCO, BRI (2)
UAE	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRICS, BRI (2)
United Kingdom	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
United States	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	BRI, G20 (2)
Uruguay	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	BRICS, BRI, MERCOSUR (3)
Uzbekistan	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	SCO, BRI (2)
Vietnam	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	BRI, ASEAN (2)
Low Overlap (1 Group)
Country	BRICS	SCO	BRI	G20	EAEU	ASEAN	MERCOSUR
Azerbaijan	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRI (1)
Brunei	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	ASEAN (1)
Kenya	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRI (1)
Nigeria	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	BRI (1)
source: bne IntellINews

 

For example, in just the last few weeks seismic shifts rippled through the Middle East that highlight the changes. The nuclear-armed Pakistan signed off on a Nato Article 5-like nuclear security guarantees with Saudi Arabia on September 19 that will dramatically undermine American influence in the region and boost’s China’s role. The following day, the Trump administration revealed it was in talks with the Taliban for control of Bagram Airbase, and the day after that the US revoked its sanctions waiver for India's Chabahar port project in Iran—a crown jewel for India's Central Asian trade.

“I think that the deeper trend that this revealed is that the map is reasserting itself against the narrative. For decades, we've lived in a world where stories mattered more than geography - where being a “democracy” or an “ally” or part of the “rules-based order” determined your place in the world more than your location, resources, or neighbours,” political commentator and bne IntelliNews columnist Arnaud Bertrand said in a substack post. “But these four events suggest a revenge of the physical world, a return of the law of geopolitical gravity.”  

GEMS vs DMs

The GEMs organisations are truly huge compared to what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has dubbed those of the “golden billion”. Eight out of nine humans on the planet live in one of the GEMs. The largest of the new GEMIs are multiple times bigger than the biggest DM institutions – both in terms of the number of people they represent and the value of their economies.

The EU is home to 450mn people, slightly more than America’s 345mn, but that is still only 5.6% of the global population of circa 8.2bn. There is nowhere in Europe that has a replacement rate above 2.1 children per woman; Europe is suffering from an underreported demographic crisis that will take it back to the early 20^th century. Not only is Europe’s share of the global population falling, but its populations are also shrinking.

Many of the GEMs are enjoying population growth, but not all. China and Russia are facing the same demographic problems as Europe. Indonesia’s population growth is at breakeven (replacement rate 2.13) while India’s population growth is in slight decline (1.98). South Africa’s population is growing nicely (2.3) and Africa’s 1bn strong-population is the fastest growing in the world along with Central Asia.

At the same time, despite its wealth and power, the EU only accounts for 16.5% of global GDP in PPP adjusted terms and even in nominal terms it is still only 15.8%, according to the World Bank – the closing wage differentials mean the difference between PPP estimates and nominal is also narrowing of the leading GEMs, which is at the heart of change in the global economic make up and financial manifestation of the rise of the rest. The spread between PPP and nominal amongst the poor members of the GEMs is still much wider.

Expanding the catchment area to the G7, the picture doesn’t improve much. The G7 has a population of 780mn people, or 9.7% of the world’s population, and accounts for 28.4% of adjusted global GDP, and 29.3% in nominal terms in 2024, according to the IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) data from April 2025.

As the table and maps in this article highlight, nearly all the GEMs bodies represent a far bigger share of the world’s population, land and wealth creation. As bne IntelliNews has reported, from the top five largest economies in the world in PPP terms three of them are now BRICS nations (China, India and Russia) with many others at the top of the rankings rising in the last two years (Brazil, Indonesia) while some developed nation stalwarts continue to fall (Germany, Japan).

While the US is often quoted as the largest and most powerful country in the world in terms of the size of its economy ($27.4 trillion), followed by China ($17.8 trillion), in PPP adjusted terms China has already overtaken the US ($27.4 trillion vs $35.3 trillion respectively).

Less well understood is to make the same comparison in terms of blocs. The BRICS are ahead of the G7 in PPP terms ($79 trillion vs $63 trillion) but behind in nominal terms ($32 trillion vs $53 trillion). However, the G20 is well ahead of the G7 on both counts (PPP: $179 trillion, nominal: $97 trillion).

Even if you take the largest Western group available, the 32-strong Nato, and treat it like an economic entity, then it doesn’t change this picture – ahead in nominal terms, but well behind in adjusted terms.
The big difference is of course that the GEMIs remain immature and highly fragmented, with no real unifying ideology or goals, other than a vague “not-West” mind set, whereas the DMs are high coordinated group, bound together with decades of like-minded thinking, protected by the tight-knit Nato military alliance.

Selected GEMIs vs Developed Markets: GDP and population
Organisation	Share global GDP (PPP) %	Share global GDP (Nominal USD) %	GDP (PPP, USD trillions)	Nominal GDP (USD trillions)	Members’ population (millions)	Share of world population %
BRICS	37.5%	26.8%	79	32	3,950	49.3%
SCO	34.2%	22.1%	72	26	3,420	42.7%
BRI	42.0%	28.5%	88	34	5,340	66.7%
G20	85.0%	82.3%	179	97	4,950	61.8%
EAEU	4.0%	3.2%	8.4	3.8	185	2.3%
ASEAN	6.8%	5.1%	14	6.0	685	8.6%
MERCOSUR	2.9%	2.4%	6	2.8	295	3.7%
G7	29.8%	44.5%	63	53	775	9.7%
EU (27)	16.5%	15.8%	35	19	448	5.6%
NATO	33.1%	44.3%	70	52	981	12.3%
Sources: IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2025) for GDP (PPP and nominal); UN Population Division (2024 revision, mid-2025 estimates) for population. Global PPP GDP ~$210 trillion; nominal ~$118 trillion

Interlocking relations

So how do the GEMIs work together in practise? It is still very much a work in progress, but trade plays a major and pragmatic role as the glue that binds the GEMs together. India highlights the fluid and difficult nature of the intra-country relations.

Currently, the original four BRIC countries dominate the GEMIs but there are rivalries and different ideas between them of how to organise the war. Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs economist that coined the term, told bne IntelliNews at the EBRD annual meeting this year that he didn’t think that South Africa was a true BRIC country as “It’s too small. The original idea was to pick the biggest emerging markets, and while it makes sense as you need an African country for political reasons, economically, South Africa is an order of magnitude smaller than the others.”

Xi and Putin have become closely aligned and see the BRICS+ group as a geopolitical rival to the G7. However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva want a much more economic and trade focused group that works with, not against, the G7. As a result, Modi has invested more into the G20, where India leads, while Lula has it easier as Latin America is more geographically isolated form the other GEMs and already dominates Mercosur, the leading trade club in the Americas.

But Lula has also been pushing for a more moderate interaction with the West. This month the EU signed a deal with Mexico and Mercosur and formally launched the ratification process, designed to boost trade and make business ties easier, even as relations between the US and Latin America continue to deteriorate. The EU has had much less luck with doing similar deals in Africa, which is staunchly in the Sino-Russia camp after decades of heavy investment into raw material production, and arms and energy support.

There is also a long-standing tension between India and China who have been clashing regularly on their shared Himalayan border for decades.  The number of interconnections is proliferating. Two years ago the African Union (54 countries) joined the G20 during the India-hosted G20 summit. Modi invited the 54 countries of the African Union to join the organisation (technically making it the G74) and lobbying for a middle ground between East and West with a focus on economic development. Nether Xi or Putin turned up to the meeting.

The same year the BRICS took in several new members to become the BRICS+ and added Indonesia this January in a major expansion. And in May the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) tied up with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) to create what is now the biggest trade club in the world bring together the Middle East and SE Asia, accounting for around a third of global GDP and more than half of global growth.

The leading Western nations are being invited to participate in few of these organisations. The only EU member to attend the recent expanded SCO summit in Tianjin in China was Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. Modi was a noticeable honoured guest at the summit in Tianjin and China and India are now attempting a very uncomfortable reset.

The SCO, originally established as a regional security bloc, now includes 10 full members and 17 observers and dialogue partners. Its core membership includes China, Russia, India, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus. Observer states include Mongolia and Afghanistan, with dialogue partners ranging from Sri Lanka and Turkey to Qatar, Egypt, and Laos. The SCO grouping accounts for around 3.96bn people and $62tn in GDP, or 36% of global output. 

Accounting for overlaps between the BRICS and the SCO —such as China, Russia, India, and Iran—the consolidated total is 5.26bn people and $95 trillion in nominal GDP.

UN's special role

From all the old order institutions, the UN plays a special role and even China and Russia would like to see it as the governing umbrella organization that regulates international relations. Someone has to be in charge.

Leading Western-founded institutions that were supposed to coordinate international relations are fading away. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has become dysfunctional. It still regulates global trade through rules, negotiations, and dispute resolution, but it is only partially functional and its operations are severely impaired.

Even the UN is under pressure as Washington is pulling money and retreating from agencies. US President Donald Trump lambasted the UN during his speech on September 23, criticising the organisation as “not being well run” and ordered reviews of all pending US funding.

Trump has pulled the US out of several key institutions including: WHO, UNHRC, UNESCO, and the Paris Climate Accord. The international institutional infrastructure used to coordinate global action amongst the leading Western powers is slowly falling into disrepair and disuse. For the GEMs, these institutions are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

GEM trade organisations
Alliance	Current Full Members
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)	China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus (joined 2024)
Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)	Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)	Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam (Timor-Leste as observer, accession expected 2025)
G20	Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States (plus European Union and African Union as institutional members)
BRICS+	Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt (2024), Ethiopia (2024), Iran (2024), United Arab Emirates (2024), Indonesia (joined January 2025)
MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market)	Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia (full since 2024; Venezuela suspended since 2016)
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)	Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam
African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)	48 ratified members: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Rep.), Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea (signed but not ratified), Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe (Eritrea and South Sudan signed but not yet ratified; full operational phase for 54 AU states ongoing)
Pacific Alliance	Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru (Costa Rica in accession process since 2022)
Southern African Development Community (SADC)	Angola, Botswana, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)	Benin, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo (12 active members; Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger withdrew January 2025)
Arab Maghreb Union (AMU)	Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia
Central American Integration System (SICA)	Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
Andean Community (CAN)	Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru
Source: bne IntelliNews

 

 

APPENDIX: Leading Global Emerging Markets Institutions (GEMIs)