Prof. Anuradha Mitra Chenoy: “Algeria can become a major voice for the Global South”

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: You have often written about the rise of the Global South. Do you think that organizations such as the BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) currently have the institutional capacity to replace the governance bodies that emerged from the Bretton Woods agreements? 

Anuradha Mitra Chenoy: The BRICS and SCO are regional multilateral bodies formed to address issues concerning their members in a cooperative and interconnected way. Their members are also members of global multilateral governance bodies like the United Nations. These bodies adhere to the principles of global governance bodies that are inclusive and of which they are members. These groupings never had and do not have any intention of replacing global institutions like the UN but instead contextualizing their resolutions and facilitating mutual interests where the idea of peaceful coexistence.

Professor Chenoy, you often analyze the transition to a multipolar world. To what extent is the current international order’s inability to halt the humanitarian crisis in Gaza accelerating the loss of legitimacy of Western institutions in favor of alternatives championed by the BRICS+? 

Multipolarity means the dispersal of power from one centre that has controlled power in the international system to multiple nations that have shown capability and responsibility. So essentially, multipolarity is polycentrism where there are different nodes that can project power- both regionally and internationally. Multipolarity challenges the primacy and hegemony asserted by one power the USA in alliance with the political West. Multipolarity on the other hand opposes any singular hegemony and seeks diversity and democracy in international governance. This concept was formally developed by the former Russian foreign minister Evgenii Primakov and also passed the Chinese Communist Party in their 19 Congress in 1992. Since then this concept has materialised with the rise of China, the stabilization of Russia, the rise of many countries with high growth and stable political systems like India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Malasia and others.

The current problem in Gaza is specifically linked to US hegemony and their interests in controlling the oil rich and strategic region of the Middle East North Africa. Their preferred way for this control has been through their proxy and deep partner Israel. Israel always had exclusivist policy of a state only for Jews. It is a settler colonialism like an apartheid religious state. It has been carrying on ethnic cleansing of the real indigenous people the Palestinians since the state of Israel was established. Israel is militarily and economically safeguarded by the political West. The humanitarian crises is the planned outcome end of this political agenda. The crises has been normalised by the narrative of Jewish victimhood- which was a historical fact and memory but has been long compensated. Now the Zionists themselves with their partners are normalizing a similar holocaust on Gaza and Palestinian people. They do not allow humanitarian relief and are ensuring a genocide, as adjudicated by the International Court of Justice that calls this a “plausible genocide” in its interim judgment.

The conflict in Gaza highlights a blatant double standard on the part of Western powers compared to other conflicts (such as Ukraine). How can the Global South organize itself to ensure that international law is uniformly enforced? 

The Global South is a loose and unorganized body of decolonized countries. They do not have military or economic means of this collective. They do have some collectives like the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) that meets one in two years and passes resolutions. But their relations and decisions are through individual national interests, bilateral relations and regional organizations. The main military alliance globally is NATO led by the US that uses force to intervene, carry out regime change, protect only its own (western/US interest) impose sanctions unilaterally, violate international law and so on. They have organised military force behind them. Any opposition to NATO can lead to a major war as currently between Russia and Ukraine backed by NATO. So US and NATO have chosen to back Israel on its genocidal policies on Gaza and the rest of the world can only pass resolutions since it does not want to enter into any opposing military alliance and have another World War. This goes to the advantage of Western imperialism.

Given the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and political pressure, what real impact do these legal institutions have on the ground in Gaza if the major powers continue to block sanctions?

It has a long-term impact because it enforces legitimacy to the international law and de-legitimizes the role and policies of those who oppose and violate it- primarily the collective West but also others.

Can the Global South be defined as a positive, autonomous project, or is it primarily a coalition formed in response to Western hegemony?

The Global South is a positive, autonomous project, based on its own collective and individual civilizational values. Its national liberation movements from India- to Algeria and embedded in their own deep philosophical traditions. However, the power of Eurocentrism is very deep and powerful. They control the means of communication and discourse in hegemonic ways. They deny or at best ignore other civilizational and alternate ideas while they reinforce and propagate Eurocentric ideas. These ideas are rooted in international organizations from UN, IMF, World Bank etc. As they are also systems of ideas. Many alternative ideas challenge these also- from the feminists to climate movements. But Western control with corporate control with power over education, and AI and social media etc are able to prominently continue the Eurocentric and US hegemonic ideologies.

How does the recent expansion of the BRICS modify the balance of power against the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank)?

The IMF and World Bank are very old Bretton woods institutions and control huge amounts of funds; many countries are indebted to them. They have conditions for loans like privatization and cutting down state expenditure on welfare. The BRICS had created a New Development Bank (NDB) but this is a comparatively new Bank with limited funding. This NDB says it is NOT an alternative to the IMF but in parallel to it. But its terms of lending are different in that they are recipient based and unconditional and with low interests and 50% can be in national currencies. But this Bank is very small compared to the IMF and so cannot as yet change the balance of economic power. But it does challenge the unfair and interventionist policies of the IMF through its alternate example only.

In your recent writings on the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, you mention a transition toward a “fragmented multipolarity.” How does this fragmentation affect the effectiveness of global governance and the Security Council?

Fragmented multipolarity is because some countries because of US pressure and their own national interests and historical ties have compromised with normative policies and instead of opposing imperialist and hegemonic policies in West Asia that are harming Iran, Lebanon Syria etc by supporting Israel’s expansionism have not openly supported Iran. Inface some have alliances or give Israel arms- like India, even many Arab countries. So while multipolarity helps these countries strategic autonomy they comprise with forces of unipolarity and hegemony.

Algeria has historically been a pillar of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In the face of the current polarization between the Western bloc and the Sino-Russian bloc, how can Algeria reinvent its role as a diplomatic mediator within the Global South?

Countries like Algeria can challenge Western and imperial and Eurocentric discourses. They can turn to their writers of the Algerian revolution like Fanon and others. They can use social media and challenge the French dominant discourses and use the example of Iran in creative ways. I am not advocating war but peaceful ways and mass movements.

What role can Algeria play to counter the increasing militarization of the Mediterranean and Sahel regions, often exacerbated by foreign influences (NATO, private security forces)?

They should reject NATO and build regional platforms with Sahel countries and their progressive forces. They need to build social cohesion internally so that external disruptive forces do not bribe and coopt internal dissentions to break their movement. This can be dome with the strength of numbers as the majority are always dispossessed. The student movement in India currently has a slogan of education agitate and organise. This is just an example.

In the face of the current geopolitical reconfiguration, how can Algeria and India reinvent the principles of historical non-alignment to promote equitable multipolarity?

Algeria should be active in NAM and propagate its views regionally and have discussions on it. Using social media, webinars and discussions is a good way.

You frequently analyze the rise of alternative payment systems and the circumvention of the US dollar. To what extent is this “de-dollarization” viable for emerging economies in the medium term, and what risks of major financial destabilization does it pose for the global system?

De-dollarization is a slogan and not a reality as yet. What it means is that dollar hegemony should be bypassed. This is not easy to do since the dollar is the easiest form of international currency easily convertible and exchanged. No other currency has this status. What de-dollarization is when countries trade bilaterally in national currencies. There should be pressure and will be good id Algeria does bilateral trade with its partners with local/ national currencies and focuses on trade on equal terms. And diversifies trade with BRICS and global South countries.

Professor Chenoy, you often analyze the transition from a unipolar order to a multipolar world. In your opinion, is the decline of the West primarily dictated by its own internal contradictions (inflation, militarization) or is it accelerated by the alternative structures created by emerging countries like the BRICS financial institutions?

The decline of the West is dictated by its own internal policies of excessive militarization that now has a backlash on its own citizens, its following neoliberal policies that focus more on profit, the decrease of social and welfare policies to serve interests of corporations, and over extension of imperialist polices. Other countries have risen after de-colonization and de-industrialization and extraction they faced for centuries by Western colonial policies. They have taken decades to recover. But many follow polices of neoliberal growth that is harming their people even as their economies grow in lopsided- uneven ways. But they do have a collective will for inter-dependent growth along peaceful ways. Wars and conflicts harm them more than they do the collective/political West.

You argue that the Maoist insurgency in India is the product of structural inequalities rather than a mere terrorist threat. Do you think that the current strategy of the Indian state prioritizes the military response too much at the expense of social justice?

Yes, India like many parts of the North and South is turning to increasing militarization and national security state. Where security is prioritised over equality and liberty and other freedoms.

Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Anuradha Mitra Chenoy is a renowned Indian academic, professor, and researcher in the fields of social sciences and international relations. She taught for 39 years at the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi, where she served as Dean and Professor at the School of International Studies before retiring. Since 2022, she has been an Adjunct Professor at the Jindal School of International Affairs (O.P. Jindal Global University). She is also an Honorary Research Associate at the Transnational Institute in the Netherlands.

She earned her PhD from the School of International Studies at JNU in 1986. During her studies, she was awarded ICSSR and Fulbright research fellowships, which allowed her to study at Columbia University in New York between 1983 and 1985.

Her research primarily focuses on international relations, India’s foreign policy, global security, armed conflicts (particularly the Maoist movement in India), and the geopolitics of BRICS and Russia. Beyond research, she is deeply engaged in peace activism, collaborating actively with organizations such as the Asia Europe Peoples Forum and the International Peace Bureau. She also served as the President of the Forum for Indian Development Cooperation from 2013 to 2020.

Anuradha Mitra Chenoy is a prolific author who regularly contributes to the leading academic journal Economic and Political Weekly (EPW). Among her major works are:

Human Security: Concept and Implications (2006, co-authored with Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, Routledge); Maoist and Other Armed Conflicts (2010, co-authored, Penguin); The BRICS in International Development (2016, Palgrave Macmillan); Re-emerging Russia, Institutions, Structures, Processes (2017, co-authored with Rajan Kumar); Hundred Years of the Russian Revolution: Its Legacies in Perspective (co-edited with Archana Upadhyay)

Published in French in Algeriepatriotique and La Nouvelle République