On the second day of the Annual Meeting, Valdai Club experts discussed a variety of topics – from the increasing role of non-Western countries in the global system to the problems of information manipulation and artificial intelligence.
The second day of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club began with a session titled “Is There a World Majority? What Unites Countries Outside the ‘Collective West’?” The session was open, and a recording of the broadcast can be viewed on our website.
The question in the title of the session is very relevant, given the role that non-Western countries (the “global majority”) play for Russia today. These countries account for up to 90% of the world’s population, but they have long been on the periphery of global politics. Is there a positive agenda for them other than the desire to change their status in the international system? Experts representing three continents shared their views.
“We are no longer spectators on the global stage. We return our voice and our subjectivity,” said Ahmad Abdul Razak, founding director of the Malaysian think tank Bait Al Amanah. According to him, the global majority countries demand respect from the West and do not want to conform to Western standards. Their voice is becoming increasingly heard through associations such as BRICS, which accounts for 35 percent of the world’s GDP. By uniting, the global majority countries will be able to determine demand and build the global economy, Ahmad Abdul Razak believes.
The opinion that BRICS is the greatest practical success of the majority in creating an alternative to the Western-centric world order is shared by Fabiano Mielniczuk, Professor of Political Science at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). The majority is united by its diversity, Mielniczuk believes. Countries are uniting in initiatives that promote diversity through multipolarity, paving the way for a more democratic world.
The global majority countries are united in their desire to change the system and move away from Western hegemony, says David Monyae, Director of the Centre for China-Africa Studies at the University of Johannesburg (South Africa). They want to build a new, more democratic world and strive for true equality. At the same time, the African continent is actively involved in the formation of a new world order, Monyae emphasised. About 1.3 billion people live there, most of them are young, while other continents have aging populations. The world will depend on Africa as a large market, he is convinced.
Aliou Tounkara, President of the Russian House in Mali, spoke about a practical example of how the global majority countries gain subjectivity, using Africa as an example. The Confederation of Sahel States - Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger - is a regional association that seeks to pursue its own policies in the field of security and economic development without looking back at Western countries, he emphasised. The security issue is coming to the forefront for the Sahel states. Jihadist groups are supported by former colonisers, while Russia promotes security and education.
Ivan Safranchuk, professor of the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia at MGIMO, noted that the growing role of non-Western countries in world politics is a long-term trend that has acquired a new quality in recent years. The Ukrainian crisis and the position of Western powers on this issue helped it crystallise. In 2022, the countries of the world majority took a critical position regarding the special military operation, but categorically disagreed with the US call to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Most of the world adheres to a strategy of avoiding participation in the conflict between Russia and the West.
The great powers are trying to pull the world majority to their side, but they are not succeeding, Safranchuk noted. This is a new functional feature: it turned out that the world majority serves as a limiter for the great powers (previously it was believed that only international law or institutions could play such a role).
All subsequent sessions of the second day were closed-door. The sixth session was devoted to inequality, which hinders a harmonious world order. It was noted once again that the elites are increasingly disconnected from the masses, and inequality continues to grow. It is becoming increasingly difficult to combat it through social policy, even if it is possible to effectively combat poverty. Experts discussed new approaches that combine moving away from current imbalances, including the role of digital technology, increasing financial inclusivity, and rethinking the principles of global governance. It was suggested that the countries of the global majority have to develop a new reserve currency, since the current trade in national currencies has serious limitations.
During the seventh session, the situation in the Middle East was discussed with the participation of representatives from Egypt, Israel, Iran and Lebanon. The experts noted that no Israeli government has shown such cruelty towards the Palestinians as the Netanyahu government. The reason for this is the sense of impunity to which the Israelis have become accustomed through the long-term and unconditional support of the United States. The genocide in Gaza is unfolding against the backdrop of silence from America and other Western countries, which adhere to the thesis of Israel's right to self-defence without any recognition of the rights of others or condemnation of Israel's violations of international treaties, resolutions and laws.
The participants in the session agreed that the problem has no military solution. It is necessary, despite everything, to take a diplomatic path that will extinguish the flames of the war raging at present.
The eighth session was devoted to the role of information and its manipulation in the era of global shifts. It was noted that one of the reasons for the transition of the Ukrainian crisis to an acute phase was the loss of trust between Russia and the West. This would not have happened if not for the massive volume of Western propaganda that has influenced the political science community, businesses and ordinary people. In the West, Russia and the situation around Ukraine are not observed directly, but through a huge number of filters and screens. Meanwhile, in the context of the demonisation of Russia by the West, Russia consciously refuses to demonise its opponents. Moreover, while the West blocks official Russian views on various issues, Russian citizens have the opportunity to hear the point of view of both Western and Ukrainian officials, and form a more objective picture of the world.
The issue of manipulation of information in social networks was also touched upon. If at the dawn of their appearance there was enthusiasm for citizen journalism, today it is obvious that they create the same opportunities for manipulation that traditional media does. Of particular concern is the fact that digital platforms are in the hands of eight to ten corporations with a specific political agenda, which are capable of weaponising information. According to one of the speakers, there has been a transition from public to private good in the field of information technology.
The topic of the ninth session was artificial intelligence. Speakers representing various fields – from academic science to the creation of applied solutions in the field of AI – shared their views on the opportunities it opens up, as well as the dangers.
If we formulate the task of artificial intelligence as helping a person think faster and more efficiently, then existing solutions – chatbots, cognitive assistants – generally cope with it. But, as university professors know very well, this leads to the fact that end-of-year student papers are now written by ChatGPT, which is hardly welcome.
One of the presentations was devoted to the topic of artificial intelligence and terrorism. At the moment, AI is more likely to be on the side of those who fight terrorism: it allows for the profiling of potential terrorists and the breaking up of terrorist cells, identifying the most dangerous ones based on data analysis. However, these same technologies can be used to increase control over society and strengthen surveillance over citizens.
An interesting case is modern social networks, which offer users selected content based on special algorithms. When a user develops a dopamine addiction to a constantly updated "feed", the question arises: does he make decisions about content consumption himself or does an algorithm think for him? Can we talk about maintaining critical thinking under these conditions?
In other words, the undeniable advantages of artificial intelligence are balanced by disadvantages. AI can lead to both human development and degradation: it is important to remember that everything - or almost everything - is in our hands.
