After his global teleconference on September 11, 2001 ended in chaos, 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. Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs, who had been in the World Trade Center just two days prior to the attacks, concluded that the next decade would be shaped by the emergence of China, Russia, India, and Brazil as major global economies, rather than by Al Qaeda or the US as the sole superpower. O'Neill coined the term "BRICs" after the first letter of the countries' names and launched the phrase in a pamphlet in November 2001. He believes that the lasting consequence of 9/11 should be the end of American dominance in globalisation, which seems to have come true based on the trends from the past decade. O'Neill, who now heads Goldman's global asset management business, considers this trend to be more significant in world history than the 9/11 strikes and their aftermath. When O'Neill created the term BRIC, the four major emerging economies accounted for eight percent of the global economy. The top five economies at that time were the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, and France. A decade later, the BRICs have experienced even faster growth than O'Neill anticipated, now making up nearly 20 percent of the world economy. China has become the second largest economic power 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 quickly catching up. Shortly after the attacks on New York and Washington, the United States initiated an extensive and resource-draining global "war on terror" and began planning retaliation against not only Al Qaeda but also other perceived threats such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Initially, it seemed as though the US and its allies had achieved victory, with significant damage to the Al-Qaeda network, the deaths of key leaders like Osama Bin Laden, and a lack of major terrorist attacks in the West for several years. However, the true cost of this apparent success, both in terms of finances and diplomatic relations, is not as immediately apparent. Joseph Nye, a former US under-secretary of state and defense as well as a Harvard professor of international relations, noted that during the early 2000s, while the global economy was shifting towards Asia, the United States was preoccupied with a costly war in the Middle East that was ultimately unnecessary. According to him, the actions taken by the US 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 can be attributed to unfunded tax cuts, post-financial crisis stimulus measures, and other domestic spending increases. 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 total cost of these conflicts could be as high as $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 suggests that in the grand scheme of things, the impact of 9/11 and the rise of Al Qaeda may be considered insignificant. 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 viewed the September 11 attacks as a pivotal moment that needed to alter global politics. Blair expressed in a forthcoming television interview on www.reuters.com that he believed the terrorist attack was not just significant in scale but also required a shift in the world's political landscape. Despite uncertainty on what actions needed to be taken, Blair was certain that the risk assessment had changed. This conviction led to the UK's involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which proved to be costly 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 severely damaged Blair's leadership and reputation when it was revealed that Britain went to war based on incorrect information about weapons of mass destruction. Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German deputy foreign minister and US ambassador, believes that the events of September 11 shattered the idea of one superpower ruling the world. However, he argues that the rise of the BRICs will have a more lasting impact on global power dynamics and governance. Ischinger suggests that the confusion caused by 9/11 delayed the world from learning important lessons and led some countries down the wrong path. He questions whether the financial crisis may have had a more significant impact than 9/11. During a flight to Houston for a meeting between King Abdullah of Jordan and President Bush, Al Qaeda launched an attack. Jordan's ambassador to Washington, Marwan Muasher, initially feared an anti-Muslim backlash in the US. He believes that while the US successfully avoided this backlash, they misjudged their broader reaction and should not have started the Iraq war. Muasher, who later served as 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 since overshadowed the impact of 9/11. He argues that the era of US dominance was short-lived and unsustainable, as other powers are now emerging. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, believes that the world has shifted focus from the events of September 11. He argues that the year 2008 was a more significant turning point, marked by the financial crisis and the Beijing Olympics. This period also saw China transitioning from being viewed as an emerging market to a major player on the global stage. China displayed great confidence at the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, showcasing impressive new buildings in its capital and disregarding Western concerns about human rights violations. The country's significant financial and economic influence, including holding $1.2 trillion of US government debt, makes it difficult for the West to criticize. In the midst of a government debt crisis in Europe, leaders turned to China for help by purchasing euro-zone securities, a situation that would have been unthinkable in the past. In August 2008, Russia, a fellow BRIC country, quickly defeated US-supported Georgia in a war, marking the first time Moscow had deployed troops beyond its borders since the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. This more assertive approach from emerging powers in their regions, like China or India, could be seen in the future. Stephen Jennings, CEO of Renaissance Capital, believes that investment patterns are changing, with more big business deals now being made in developing nations by emerging market investors and funded by BRIC banks. Jennings stated that traditional financial centers like London and New York are losing their dominance, and emerging market economies like Russia are becoming leaders in the new economic order. The diplomatic order has also shifted accordingly. In 2009, US President Barack Obama chose to negotiate a deal at the Copenhagen climate summit with leaders from emerging nations like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa instead of the other G8 developed states. South Africa was particularly interested in aligning itself with the BRICS group to challenge traditional powers. The Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa caught both local and Western leaders off guard, including Al Qaeda. Some saw these events as a warning for authoritarian countries like China, while critics accused the US and its allies of hypocrisy for supporting oppressive Arab leaders for their own interests and then abandoning them when it became inconvenient. Recently, documents found in Libya have exposed close cooperation between Western intelligence services and Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime, causing embarrassment for Britain and the United States. Jan Egeland, who served as Europe head of Human Rights Watch and United Nations global humanitarian chief from 2003 to 2006, criticizes the approach that suggested embracing the dark side to defeat terror. He believes this approach damaged the reputation of the West, especially as emerging economies were already making progress. The world has changed significantly since September 11, 2001, with conflicts decreasing in many parts of the globe despite the US and its allies engaging 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 alleviate poverty in the poorest countries. Despite a growing wealth gap in many states, BRIC economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty. The increasing economic strength of the BRICs is now being reflected in their growing military power, while the West is experiencing a decline in both financial stability and defense spending. The International Institute for Strategic Studies noted in its recent survey that military budgets in Asia and the Middle East are rising significantly, while those in the West are being reduced. This shift indicates a global redistribution of military power. For example, Britain recently decommissioned its aircraft carrier while China launched its first one. Analyst Goldman's O'Neill predicts that the BRICs' economic growth will have a greater impact than the events of September 11 in the long term. His bank is promoting the benefits of the "N-11" group of emerging market economies, which includes countries like Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey. He also believes that the 9/11 attack and its aftermath may have influenced the BRICs' more assertive global approach. The attack may have caused these countries to doubt America's power and rely more on themselves. Some worry that the focus on the Middle East may have caused old powers to miss the opportunity to influence the new world order, but even if they had paid more attention, it may not have made much of a difference. Former British spy Inkster acknowledges that the attention on the Islamic world caused the shift to emerging powers to catch them off guard, although it likely would have been surprising regardless.