After his global teleconference fell apart on September 11, 2001, a top economist at a US investment bank started thinking about what the attacks on the United States could indicate about the future of the world. Not focusing on Al Qaeda, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs, who had been at a meeting in the World Trade Center just two days earlier, returned to London shortly before the planes hit the twin towers. On the verge of taking over as head of the bank's global economics team, he wanted to come up with a significant idea to mark his leadership. He soon realized that the period following September 11 would be characterized by the emergence of the four largest developing economies - China, Russia, India, and Brazil - rather than by the dominant superpower or the war on terror. O'Neill coined the term "BRICs" after the first letter of the countries' names. He recalled the moment he came up with the idea and how it was inspired by the aftermath of 9/11. O'Neill, now the head of Goldman's global asset management business, introduced the term in a pamphlet in November 2001, and the trend he identified has proven to have a greater impact on world history than the events of 9/11. When O'Neill first coined the term BRIC, the four major emerging economies accounted for 8% of the global economy. The top five economies at the time were the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, and France. However, a decade later, the BRIC countries have exceeded expectations and now make up almost 20% of the world economy. China has become the second largest economy in the world, while Britain has fallen out of the top five, replaced by Brazil. India and Russia are also rapidly catching up. Shortly after the attacks on New York and Washington, the US initiated a costly and all-consuming global "war on terror" and began planning retaliation against not only Al Qaeda but also other members of a broader "axis of evil", such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Initially, it seemed that the US and its allies were successful in their war, as the Al-Qaeda network suffered significant losses, key leaders were eliminated, and major terror attacks in the West were thwarted. However, the true cost of this victory, both financially and diplomatically, is not immediately apparent. According to Joseph Nye, a former US government official and current Harvard professor, the US was focused on a misguided Middle East war while the world economy was shifting towards Asia during the early 2000s. He claims that the actions taken by the US significantly diminished its "soft power" in diplomacy, values, and culture, while also diverting and ultimately weakening its military and economic "hard power". The cost of the overreaction can be seen in the significant increase in the US national debt, which was just under $5.8 trillion the day before the attacks and has now climbed to $14.7 trillion a decade later. Unfunded tax cuts, post-financial crisis stimulus, and other increased domestic spending are largely responsible for this increase. America's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan after 9/11 significantly increased the financial burden. According to a recent estimate by Brown University, the cost of these conflicts could be as high as $4.4 trillion, which is nearly one-third of the total cost. Nigel Inkster, a former deputy head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service and now head of transnational threats and political risk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, believes that the American reaction to 9/11 was an overreaction. He also suggests that in the long run, the impact of 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda may be viewed as minor. Other Western powers also took drastic measures in response to the attacks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, like then-US president George W Bush, viewed the September 11 attacks as a pivotal moment in history. In an upcoming television interview to be featured on www.reuters.com, Blair expressed that he believed the attacks were not just a large terrorist incident, but a event that would alter global politics. Although he admits uncertainty about the necessary actions to take, Blair felt that the risks involved had shifted significantly. This perspective led to Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which ultimately may not have had as much impact on the country as the changing world economic order and internal financial struggles. The Iraq war damaged Blair's reputation and premiership when it was revealed that Britain went to war based on faulty information about weapons of mass destruction. Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the US, believes that September 11 shattered the illusion of one superpower ruling the world. He suggests that the rise of the BRICs will have a more lasting impact on global power and governance. Ischinger argues that it took nearly a decade to understand the consequences of 9/11 and the mistakes made by some countries. He questions whether 9/11 was as significant a turning point as the financial crisis. During a flight to Houston, Texas for a meeting between Jordan's King Abdullah and Bush, Al Qaeda attacked. Jordan's ambassador to Washington, Marwan Muasher, initially feared an anti-Muslim backlash in the United States. He believes Washington handled that well, but misjudged its broader reaction and regrets the decision to launch the Iraq war. Muasher, who later became foreign minister and is now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US think-tank, believes that developments such as the financial crisis have overshadowed much of 9/11. He argues that the era of US dominance was short-lived due to the emergence of other powers. Ian Bremmer, the head of a political risk consultancy called Eurasia Group, believes that the global focus has shifted away from September 11. Bremmer stated to Reuters that in hindsight, the year 2008 was a significant turning point. He pointed out that during that year, the world faced a financial crisis and witnessed the Beijing Olympics. Before this, China was perceived as just an emerging market with little importance. However, the events of 2008 showed the world China's growing influence and capabilities. China displayed a bold sense of confidence during the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, showcasing new impressive buildings in its capital and disregarding Western concerns about human rights abuses. The country's increasing financial and economic power, including holding $1.2 trillion of US government debt, makes it difficult for the West to criticize. When a government debt crisis hit Europe, China was asked to help by purchasing euro-zone securities, a situation that would have been unthinkable in the past. In August 2008, Russia, part of the BRIC group, successfully won a war against US-supported Georgia, marking the first time Moscow had deployed troops outside its borders since the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. This assertive behavior by emerging powers could potentially be adopted by countries like China or India in the future. Stephen Jennings, CEO of Moscow-based investment bank Renaissance Capital, believes that there is a shift in investment patterns, with more big "south-south" business deals being made in developing nations. These deals are funded by BRIC banks on behalf of emerging market investors, and do not involve any representatives from London or New York. Jennings stated in a speech to investors in Moscow that traditional financial centers and the Western economic model are losing their dominance, with a shift of business, capital, and ideas towards emerging market economies. He believes that fast-growing economies like Russia are becoming the new leaders of the economic order, and the diplomatic order has also changed as a result. In 2009, during the Copenhagen climate summit, US President Barack Obama opted to negotiate with the leaders of emerging countries such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa rather than the other G8 developed nations. South Africa was particularly interested in aligning itself with the "BRICS" group to balance out older powers. The unexpected uprisings of the "Arab Spring" in the Middle East and North Africa caught both regional leaders and Western intelligence agencies off guard, including Al Qaeda. Some viewed these uprisings as a warning for authoritarian countries like China within the BRICS group. Critics argued that the US and its allies demonstrated double standards by supporting authoritarian Arab leaders for business or counterterrorism purposes, only to abandon them when their rule became unsustainable. Recent discoveries in Libya have exposed close cooperation between British and American intelligence services and Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime, causing embarrassment for both countries. Jan Egeland, Europe head of Human Rights Watch and former United Nations global humanitarian chief, criticized the approach that suggested embracing the dark side was necessary to defeat terror, which he believed exposed the hypocrisy of Western actions. This occurred at a time when emerging economies were already making progress in other areas. The aftermath of September 11, 2001 defied conventional expectations, with a decrease in global conflicts despite the US and its allies being heavily involved in wars in the Middle East. Development economists like Jeffrey Sachs argue that the billions spent on Western wars could have been better used to address poverty in the poorest countries. Despite a growing wealth gap in many states, the economic growth of countries like BRIC has lifted millions out of poverty. Currently, the BRICs are experiencing a shift in which their increasing economic power is leading to a rise in military strength, while the West is facing a decline in financial stability resulting in significant cuts to defense spending. The International Institute for Strategic Studies highlighted in its annual survey that while Western countries are reducing military budgets, Asian and Middle Eastern countries are increasing theirs at a rapid rate. This suggests that there is a global redistribution of military power taking place. This year, the UK became the only member of the UN Security Council without an aircraft carrier after decommissioning the Royal Navy's flagship "Ark Royal," while China launched its first aircraft carrier. Economist Goldman's O'Neill predicts that the economic growth of the BRICs will have a greater long-term impact than the events of September 11. His bank is currently promoting the benefits of what they refer to as the "N-11," consisting of the next 11 major emerging market economies after the BRICs, such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey. He also believes that the terrorist attack and its aftermath may have influenced the newly assertive stance of the BRICs in the global arena. "It may have caused some doubt about America's power and therefore a greater inclination for them to be more self-reliant," he explains. With the West's focus on the Middle East and terrorism, some are concerned that the traditional powers missed an opportunity to shape the evolving world order. However, even if they had been more attentive, it may not have made much of a difference. According to former British spy Inkster, the unexpected shift to emerging powers caught us off guard due to the emphasis on the Islamic world, although it likely would have surprised us regardless.