After his global teleconference fell apart in confusion on September 11, 2001, a top economist at a US investment bank started considering what the attacks on the United States could reveal about the future of the world. Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs, who had been in a meeting at the World Trade Center just two days before the attacks, flew back to London shortly before the planes hit the twin towers. As he was about to take on the role of head of the bank's global economics team, he wanted to come up with a significant idea to make his mark in leadership. He soon realized that the decade following September 11 would be characterized not by the dominance of the US or the war on terror, but by the emergence of the four largest developing economies - China, Russia, India, and Brazil. O'Neill came up with the nickname "BRICs" for Brazil, Russia, India, and China after realizing the lasting impact of 9/11 on American dominance in globalization. He launched the term in a pamphlet in November 2001 and believes that these countries will play a significant role in world history. When O'Neill first coined the term BRIC, the four major emerging economies 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. However, ten years later, the BRIC countries have experienced even faster growth than O'Neill anticipated, now making up nearly 20 percent of the world economy. China has now become the second largest economy globally, while Britain, a close US ally in the war on terror, has dropped out of the top five, being surpassed by Brazil. India and Russia are also quickly advancing in the global economic ranking. In the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, the US quickly initiated a global "war on terror" and began planning retaliation against not only Al Qaeda, but also other countries it deemed as part of a broader "axis of evil", including Iraq under Saddam Hussein. While the US and its allies may seem to have emerged victorious in this war, with Al-Qaeda weakened and key leaders eliminated, the true cost of this victory, both financially and diplomatically, is not immediately apparent. Joseph Nye, a former US under-secretary of state and defence and current Harvard professor of international relations, noted that the US was consumed by a misguided war in the Middle East while the global economy was shifting towards Asia in the early 2000s. He states that the actions of the US significantly harmed its reputation in diplomacy, values, and culture, while also diverting and weakening its military and economic strength. The cost of the US response to the attacks has been high, with the national debt increasing from $5.8 trillion to $14.7 trillion in a decade due to unfunded tax cuts, post-financial crisis stimulus, and increased domestic spending. However, America's conflicts following the events of 9/11 significantly added to the financial burden. According to a recent estimate by Brown University in the US, the cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for America totaled up to $4.4 trillion, which is almost 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 American response to 9/11 was an overreaction. He also predicts that in the grand scheme of things, the impact of 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda may be considered a minor event. Other Western powers also took drastic measures in response to the attacks. Similar to then-US president George W Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair considered the September 11 attacks to be a pivotal moment. In an upcoming television interview to be featured on www.reuters.com, Blair stated, "I was very, very clear from the outset that this was not just a terrorist attack of extraordinary magnitude but one that had to change global politics." Blair acknowledged that although there was uncertainty about the necessary actions to take, there was a consensus that the level of risk had shifted. This belief ultimately led to Blair's decision to engage in military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, endeavors that proved to be costly to the UK and may not have had as significant of an impact as the challenges posed by global economic changes and domestic financial issues. The Iraq war severely damaged Blair's leadership and reputation when it was revealed that Britain had gone to war based on faulty information about weapons of mass destruction. According to Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German deputy foreign minister who became ambassador to the US in 2001, the events of September 11 shattered the illusion of one superpower dominating the world. However, he believes that the rise of the BRICs will have a more lasting impact on global power dynamics and governance. Ischinger suggests that it took nearly a decade to understand the implications of 9/11 and the mistakes made by some countries. He questions whether the financial crisis was more of a turning point than the September 11 attacks. During a flight to Houston, Texas for a meeting between King Abdullah of Jordan and President Bush, Al Qaeda attacked. Jordan's ambassador to Washington, Marwan Muasher, was initially concerned about an anti-Muslim backlash in the US. He believes the US handled that well, but misjudged its broader reaction and should not have started the Iraq war. Muasher, who later served as foreign minister and now works at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes that events like the financial crisis have overshadowed 9/11. He argues that the era of US dominance was short-lived and unsustainable, as other powers have emerged. Ian Bremmer, who is the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, believes that the world has surpassed the impact of September 11. According to Bremmer, the year 2008 was a pivotal moment, marked by the financial crisis and Beijing Olympics. Prior to this, China was viewed as an emerging market and insignificant player, but during this time, they emerged as a significant global power. In 2008, China displayed bold confidence at the Olympics opening ceremony, showcasing impressive new buildings in its capital and disregarding Western concerns about human rights abuses. China's increasing financial and economic influence, highlighted by its significant holdings of US government debt, has made the West hesitant to criticize it. When a debt crisis struck Europe and China was asked to help by purchasing euro-zone securities, it marked a significant shift in global dynamics. Additionally, in August 2008, Russia successfully engaged in a conflict with US-supported Georgia, marking a departure from its previous foreign policy stance. This more assertive approach by emerging powers, particularly in their own regions, could potentially be adopted by other countries like China or India in the future. According to Stephen Jennings, CEO of Moscow-based investment bank Renaissance Capital, the traditional financial centers and Western economic model are losing their dominance as more big "south-south" business deals are being made in developing nations, funded by BRIC banks for emerging market investors. Jennings believes there is a shift of business, capital, and ideas towards emerging market economies, with fast-growing economies like Russia becoming leaders in the new economic order. The diplomatic order has also shifted as a result of these changes. In 2009, during the Copenhagen climate summit, US President Barack Obama chose to negotiate not with the other G8 developed countries, but with leaders of emerging nations like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. South Africa was particularly interested in aligning itself with the BRICS group to challenge the influence of 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 had double standards, supporting authoritarian Arab leaders when it suited their interests, only to abandon them when their rule became unsustainable. Recently, documents found in Libya have exposed close cooperation between British and American intelligence services with Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime, causing embarrassment for both countries. "In many ways, it demonstrates the complete hypocrisy of the belief that one must embrace the dark side in order to defeat terrorism," expressed Jan Egeland, who served as the Europe head of Human Rights Watch and United Nations global humanitarian chief from 2003 to 2006, during which time he frequently criticized US Policy. "This significantly damaged the reputation of the West, especially as emerging economies were already making advancements in other areas." The world has changed significantly since September 11, 2001, with many unexpected outcomes. While the US and its allies were engaged in prolonged conflicts in the Middle East, the number of conflicts in other parts of the world decreased. Some economists, like Jeffrey Sachs, argue that the billions spent on Western wars could have been better utilized to alleviate poverty and suffering in the poorest nations. Despite a growing wealth gap within many countries, the economic growth of BRIC nations has lifted millions out of poverty. Currently, as has been seen throughout history, the increasing economic strength of the BRIC countries is leading to an increase in their military power. At the same time, the financial decline of the West is resulting in significant cuts to defense spending. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London noted in its annual survey that while Western military budgets are decreasing, those in Asia and the Middle East are growing rapidly, sometimes at double-digit rates. This indicates a global shift in military power. This year, Britain became the only member of the UN Security Council without an aircraft carrier after scrapping the Royal Navy's flagship "Ark Royal," just as China launched its own aircraft carrier. According to Goldman's O'Neill, the economic growth of the BRIC countries will have a greater long-term impact than the events of September 11th. His bank is now 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 recent attack and its consequences may have influenced the more assertive approach of the BRICs on the global stage. The events may have caused doubts about America's power and encouraged these countries to rely more on themselves. Some fear that the focus on the Middle East and terrorism may have caused the old powers to miss the opportunity to shape the new world order. However, even if they had been more attentive, it may not have made a significant difference. Former British spy Inkster states that the unexpected shift to emerging powers caught us off guard because of the previous focus on the Islamic world. However, he believes that it would have been surprising regardless.