After his global teleconference fell apart on September 11, 2001, a senior economist at a US investment bank started thinking about the implications of the attacks on the United States for the future global landscape. Despite his recent experience at the World Trade Center and close call with the tragedy, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs was not focused on Al Qaeda. Instead, he believed that the aftermath of September 11 would be characterized by the emergence of China, Russia, India, and Brazil as significant players on the world stage, rather than by the actions of the US as a superpower or the ongoing war on terror. O'Neill coined the term "BRICs" after the first letter of the countries' names and believes it marked a significant shift in global dominance. He launched the term in a pamphlet in November 2001, and the trend he identified has had a lasting impact on world history. When O'Neill first came up with the BRIC acronym, the four major emerging powers accounted for eight percent of the global economy. At that time, the top five economies in the world were the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, and France. Over the past decade, the BRIC countries have experienced even faster growth than O'Neill had anticipated, now making up nearly 20 percent of the world economy. China has risen to become the second largest economic power globally, while Britain, a key ally of the US in the war on terror, has been surpassed by Brazil and dropped out of the top five. India and Russia are also close behind in economic growth. Shortly after the attacks on New York and Washington, the US initiated a global "war on terror" which was costly and consuming of attention. The US also planned retaliation against not only Al Qaeda but also other perceived members of an "axis of evil", including Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Initially, it appeared that the US and its allies had emerged victorious in this war, with the Al-Qaeda network weakened, key leaders eliminated, and a lack of major terror attacks in the West for years. However, the true cost of this victory, both financially and diplomatically, is not as evident. Joseph Nye, a former US under-secretary of state and defense, as well as ex-chair of the National Intelligence Council and current Harvard professor of international relations, noted that during the early 2000s, the US was preoccupied with a misguided war in the Middle East as the global economy shifted towards Asia. He argues that the actions taken by the US have significantly weakened its influence in diplomacy, values, and culture, while also diminishing its military and economic power. The increase in the national debt from $5.8 trillion to $14.7 trillion over the past decade is largely attributed to unfunded tax cuts, post-financial crisis stimulus measures, and other domestic spending increases. The conflicts that America engaged in after 9/11 significantly increased the financial burden. According to a recent estimate by Brown University, the cost of America's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan 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 (MI6) and current head of transnational threats and political risk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), believes that the Americans were quick to retaliate and likely overreacted. He also suggests that in the grand scheme of things, the impact of 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda may be seen as just a minor setback. Other Western powers also took drastic measures in response to the attacks. Similar to former US president George W Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair viewed the September 11 attacks as a pivotal moment. Blair expressed in an upcoming television interview on www.reuters.com that he believed the attacks were not just a large-scale act of terrorism, but something that would alter global politics. While the exact course of action was not entirely clear at the time, Blair maintained that the level of risk had shifted. This belief led Blair and Britain to engage in military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, endeavors that may not have had as significant an impact on Britain as the challenges posed by a rapidly changing global economy and internal financial issues. The Iraq war significantly damaged Blair's leadership and reputation when it was revealed that Britain entered the war based on inaccurate information about weapons of mass destruction. According to Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German deputy foreign minister and US ambassador, the September 11 attacks shattered the belief that one superpower could dominate the world. However, the rise of the BRICs countries will have a more lasting impact on global power and governance. Ischinger believes that the confusion caused by 9/11 delayed the process of drawing conclusions and correcting 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 US. He believes Washington handled that well, but regrets the misjudgment in launching 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, points out 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, emphasizing that the unipolar power of the United States was ultimately unsustainable. Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, believes that the world has shifted its focus away from September 11. Bremmer stated to Reuters that in retrospect, 2008 was a defining moment. He noted that the financial crisis and the Beijing Olympics marked a turning point, where China transitioned from being viewed as an emerging market to a major player on the global stage. China showed off its confidence at the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony by displaying new buildings in its capital and ignoring Western concerns about human rights violations. The country's significant financial power, including holding $1.2 trillion of US government debt, makes it difficult for the West to criticize. In 2008, European leaders asked China for help during a government debt crisis, a situation that would have been unthinkable in the past. Russia also demonstrated its strength by quickly winning a conflict with Georgia, with the possibility of other emerging powers like China and India adopting a similar assertive approach in the future. Stephen Jennings, CEO of Moscow-based investment bank Renaissance Capital, believes that there is a shift in investment patterns with more major business deals being made in developing nations, funded by BRIC banks for emerging market investors. Jennings suggests that traditional financial centers and the Western economic model are losing their dominance, with emerging market economies like Russia becoming leaders in the new economic order. This shift is also reflected in the changing diplomatic order. In 2009, US President Barack Obama took a different approach during the Copenhagen climate summit by meeting with leaders from emerging countries such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa instead of the G8 developed states. South Africa was particularly interested in aligning itself with the "BRICS" group to counterbalance older powers. The "Arab Spring" uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa caught regional leaders, Western intelligence agencies, and even Al Qaeda off guard, prompting some to view it as a warning for authoritarian countries like China. Critics accused the US and its allies of having double standards, supporting authoritarian Arab rulers when it suited their interests in the "war on terror" but abandoning them when their positions became unstable. Recent discoveries of documents in Libya have exposed the 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. He believed this approach damaged the reputation of the West and occurred while emerging economies were already making progress. The world has changed significantly since September 11, 2001, with conflicts decreasing in many regions despite the US and allies engaging in wars in the Middle East. Development economists like Jeffrey Sachs argue that the billions spent on Western wars could have been used to alleviate poverty in the poorest countries. Meanwhile, BRIC economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty, although there is a growing wealth gap within many states. Now, as has been the case throughout history, the increasing economic strength of the BRIC countries is leading to a boost in their military capabilities, while the West is experiencing a decline in its financial power which is resulting in significant cuts to defense spending. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London noted in its annual report on global military power that while Western nations are reducing their military budgets, countries in Asia and the Middle East are increasing theirs, often at double-digit rates. This shift is seen as evidence of a global redistribution of military power. For example, this year, Britain became the only member of the UN Security Council without an aircraft carrier after decommissioning the Royal Navy's flagship "Ark Royal," just as China launched its first aircraft carrier. According to Goldman Sachs' O'Neill, the remarkable economic growth of the BRIC countries will have a greater long-term impact than the events of September 11th. His bank is currently promoting the benefits of what they refer to as the "N-11" - the next 11 major emerging market economies after the BRICs, which include countries like Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey. He also suggests that the recent attack and its aftermath may have influenced the BRICs' more assertive stance in global affairs. He believes that the attack may have instilled doubts about America's power and therefore encouraged these countries to be more self-reliant. Some are concerned that the focus on the Middle East and terrorism may have caused the traditional powers to miss the opportunity to shape the new world order. However, even if they had been more attentive, it may not have made much of a difference. Former British spy Inkster stated that the unexpected shift to emerging powers caught us off guard due to the focus on the Islamic world, although it likely would have surprised us regardless.