BRICS has gained a lot of attention recently. The Kazan meeting is being seen as a representation of alternative club of nation-states by many, while others are not convinced that the idea of BRICS is to create an alternate world order. Instead, it is more towards ensuring multi-polarity. The authors discuss a few such questions floating in the popular discourse.
The 16th BRICS summit has just ended, with four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) joining as its new members, alongside Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and 13 new ‘partner states’ added to the list (Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda). The approval of these 13 states is still to be finalized according to several sources, but if we look at the list of all participants including the UN head and the Palestinian President Abbas, an alternative to the established Liberal International Order is starting to form. Many issues such as common currency, mutual trade, and border disputes were raised alongside the summit in Kazan, Russia. This article looks into some of these issues in an attempt to answer a few questions emerging in the popular discourse.
The BRICS enlargement formalized in Kazan, Russia on 22-24 October 2024 brought to light new initiatives of a global scale. The possibility of an alternative banking system and BRICS currency fueled Western fears that the BRICS alliance could undermine the existing world order. But do the demands of the united so-called “Global East” and “Global South” create a new World Order or just reshape the old one? Do BRICS countries really post a threat to the West? And what can explain the attractiveness of BRICS to non-Western international community?
The diversity of BRICS made it difficult to categorize its members through the lenses of a binary democracy vs. autocracy typology. South Africa and Brazil score high on democratic freedoms while China, Iran and Russia do not. BRICS members and partners belong to competing strategic alliances. Russia and China have been notoriously labelled as the “alliance of autocracies”, meanwhile India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are also partnering with America at different levels. Some BRICS countries even have historically strained relations, for example, Turkey and Egypt, India and China among others. The common denominator of their unity is that all these countries tend to hold collectivistic and traditional values or are in transition, the fact that stand in stark opposition to egocentric Western individualism and modernity, which recently have been associated with LGBTQ+ rights and transgender policies.
BRICS started as a platform for multilateral cooperation which now is offering ways for collective problem-solving rooted in pragmatism and consensus. Counter to Western institutions, BRICS does not impose political conditionality on members nor makes demands for meeting particular requirements or adopting democratic values. Rather, there is an appeal to the underlying commonly shared and universal principles. Without denying democratic aspirations or human rights, BRICS community stands for elimination of monopoly barriers, unilateral sanctions and coercive measures imposed by the West. What BRICS offers is sovereign equality, respect for a country’s chosen path of development combined with fairer global financial and trade system. Overall, it promotes a discourse of inclusiveness and non-intervention into domestic politics.
The agenda of cooperation is built on the three pillars: 1. politics and security, 2. economics and finance, and 3. cultural and people-to-people cooperation. BRICS official communiques avoid name-calling and do not confront any specific enemy. Security cooperation is set around transnational terrorism as well as cyber and environmental challenges. In addition, BRICS has initiated a symbolic transformation by launching its own cultural and sporting events.
This BRICS summit is also considered important as two major Asian countries and BRICS founding members—India and China—sat together. India and China have been more or less hostile towards each other since the recent border clashes took places in the Himalayas in 2020. Both Indian prime-minister Narendra Modi and general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping highlighted the ‘importance of properly handling differences and disputes’, while Xi emphasized on ‘more communication and cooperation’. China-India experts (including some Scandinavian academics) have eagerly waited for such a meeting to take place. It requires further inquiry to check what results these talks would bring in. BRICS certainly gave both countries an opportunity to talk about their issues.
For BRICS countries, the most ambitious goal is to lay the ground for the future international financial system which could overshadow the existing institutions. At the BRICS Summit in Kazan, a symbolic BRICS banknote was revealed that stirred discussions about rivaling the international dominance of dollar. There have been questions about its functionality as well.
The BRICS New Development Bank which has been functioning since 2015 is expanding its financing in local currencies. The Russian initiative to establish a grain trading platform (the BRICS Grain Exchange) is another breakthrough in this direction. These could pave the way to alternative system of international finance that would challenge the unilateral power of the Bretton Woods institutions.
However, even though BRICS challenges the Western dominance, it does not create a new World Order, rather it intends to more equally redistribute the power among the various economic and political poles. Except for reshuffling financial flows, BRICS does not plan to establish new political institutions and remains the platform for multilateral cooperation. Its members unilaterally support the institutions of global governance established after the WWII, such as the UN, WTO and WHO.
Given the size and scope of the BRICS countries, which represent around 50% of the world population, building alternative ways for international cooperation is a significant step with potential deep repercussions for outsiders. However, involvement and interest in BRICS initiatives may vary. For countries under Western sanctions, such as Russia and Iran, the BRICS financial initiatives are the way to break through the economic blockade. Other partners may use BRICS as a strategy of balancing between the new poles, which empowers them in negotiations with the West. Therefore, following the logic of the market, BRICS offers alternative supply for a large international demand of financial freedom.
Challenging the financial dominance of the West seems to be a revolutionary idea. However, it is an overstatement to label it anti-Western. BRICS and partners are just eager to get a fair share in the existing world order.