After his global teleconference fell apart on September 11, 2001, a top economist at a US investment bank began to consider the implications of the attacks on the United States for the future of the world. Rather than focusing on Al Qaeda, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs reflected on his recent meeting at the World Trade Center and his timely return to London before the terrorist attacks. As he prepared to take on a new role leading the bank's global economics team, O'Neill sought a significant concept to define his tenure. He ultimately determined that the period following September 11 would be characterized not by the dominance of the US or the war on terror, but by the growing influence of China, Russia, India, and Brazil as emerging market economies. 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 signified the end of American dominance in globalization after 9/11. O'Neill, now in charge of Goldman's global asset management business, introduced the term in a pamphlet in November 2001. The data from the past decade shows that his prediction will have a significant impact on world history. When O'Neill first coined the BRIC acronym, the four major emerging economies accounted for just eight percent of the global economy. At that time, the top five economies were the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, and France. A decade later, the BRICs have exceeded O'Neill's expectations by growing faster than anticipated, now making up nearly 20 percent of the world economy. China has become the second largest economy globally, while Britain, a key ally of the US in the war on terror, has fallen out of the top five, replaced by Brazil. India and Russia are also close behind in economic growth. Following the attacks on New York and Washington, the United States quickly initiated an expensive and all-consuming global "war on terror" aimed not only at Al Qaeda but also at other perceived threats in what was termed an "axis of evil", which included Iraq under Saddam Hussein. While it may seem that the US and its allies emerged victorious in this war, with significant damage to the Al-Qaeda network, the death of key leaders, and a lack of major terror attacks in the West for several years, the true cost of this apparent success, both in terms of finances and international relations, is not immediately clear. Joseph Nye, a former US government official and current Harvard professor, pointed out that during the first decade of the 21st century, while the world economy was shifting towards Asia, the United States was heavily focused on a controversial war in the Middle East. He suggests that the actions of the United States significantly damaged its influence in diplomacy, values, and culture, while also diminishing its military and economic strength. The increase in national debt from $5.8 trillion to $14.7 trillion over the past decade is largely due to unfunded tax cuts, post-financial crisis stimulus, and increased domestic spending. America's post-9/11 conflicts significantly increased the burden, with one estimate suggesting that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan cost up to $4.4 trillion. 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 American response to 9/11 was an overreaction. 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. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, like then-US president George W Bush, viewed the September 11 attacks as a pivotal moment that required a shift in global politics. Blair expressed in a television interview that although the exact actions needed were unclear, the perception of risk had changed significantly. This belief led to costly military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may have had less impact on Britain than the challenges posed by a rapidly changing global economy and internal financial issues. The Iraq war damaged Blair's reputation and leadership due to Britain's decision to go to war based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. According to Wolfgang Ischinger, the events of September 11 shattered the belief in one superpower dominating the world, but the rise of the BRICs countries will have a more lasting impact on global power and governance. Ischinger suggests that the confusion caused by 9/11 delayed the understanding of its consequences and led some countries down the wrong path, making it less of a turning point than 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 managed to avoid that, but miscalculated its broader reaction and should not have started 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 other events such as the financial crisis have overshadowed the impact of 9/11. He argues that the era of US dominance was brief and unsustainable, as other powers have emerged on the global stage. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, believes that the world has shifted its focus away from the events of September 11. Bremmer argues that the year 2008 was a more significant turning point, marked by the financial crisis and the Beijing Olympics. He highlights how China's perception changed from being viewed as an emerging market to a global player during this time. In the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, China displayed a bold sense of self-assurance by showcasing its new buildings in Beijing and disregarding Western concerns about human rights violations. With its significant financial influence, holding $1.2 trillion of US government debt, the West cannot afford to challenge China. When a government debt crisis struck Europe, leaders turned to China for help by purchasing euro-zone securities, a situation that would have been unthinkable in the past. In the same year, Russia, another BRIC country, successfully fought and defeated US-supported Georgia, marking the first time since 1991 that Moscow had deployed troops outside its borders. This more assertive approach by emerging powers in their own regions could potentially be adopted by countries like China or India in the future. The CEO of Moscow-based investment bank Renaissance Capital, Stephen Jennings, believes that there is a noticeable shift in investment patterns towards developing nations, with more big business deals being funded by BRIC banks and involving emerging market investors. Jennings suggests that traditional financial centers and the Western economic model are losing their dominance, as emerging market economies like Russia are becoming leaders in the new economic order. The diplomatic order has also undergone changes in response to these shifts. In 2009, during the Copenhagen climate summit, US President Barack Obama chose to negotiate a deal not with the other G8 developed countries, but with emerging powers like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. The latter was trying to establish itself as part of the BRICS group to counterbalance older powers. The Arab Spring uprisings 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 to authoritarian BRICS countries like China. Critics argued that the US and its allies had double standards, supporting authoritarian Arab rulers for business or counterterrorism purposes, then abandoning them when their positions became unsustainable. Recently, documents found in Libya have embarrassed Britain and the US, revealing close cooperation between their intelligence services and Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime. "In many ways, it highlights the hypocrisy of the belief that embracing the dark side was necessary to combat terrorism," said Jan Egeland, who served as Europe head of Human Rights Watch and United Nations global humanitarian chief from 2003 to 2006 and often criticized US Policy. "This damaged the reputation of the West, especially as emerging economies were already making progress in other areas." Since September 11, 2001, the world has changed in unexpected ways. While the US and its allies were engaged in wars in the Middle East, conflict decreased significantly in other parts of the world. Despite criticism from development economists like Jeffrey Sachs, who argue that the money spent on Western wars could have been used to alleviate poverty in the poorest countries, BRIC economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty, although many states still struggle with internal wealth disparities. The BRICs' increasing economic power is now being reflected in their growing military strength, while the West is experiencing financial decline leading to significant cuts in defense spending. The International Institute for Strategic Studies noted in its annual survey that while Western military budgets are being reduced, those in Asia and the Middle East are increasing rapidly, sometimes by double digits annually. This indicates a global shift in military power. For example, Britain no longer has an aircraft carrier, while China has launched its first one. Analysts like Goldman's O'Neill believe that the BRICs' economic growth will have a greater long-term impact than events like September 11. His bank is promoting the benefits of 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 attack and its aftermath might have influenced the BRICs' more assertive approach on the global stage. Some believe that the Western focus on the Middle East and terrorism may have caused them to overlook opportunities to influence the emerging new world order. However, even if they had been more attentive, it may not have made a significant 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.