BRICS: Global Leadership in an Era of Shifting Geopolitics

BRICS is neither merely a beacon of hope for countries of the global majority subjected to Western dominance in the past, nor is it a counterweight to the West. It represents a whole new philosophy of global cooperation, one that aspires for true equality and justice.  Its combined  GDP PPP is over US$63 trillion or  38.19 percent of the total share (or 39.4 percent together with its partner countries), compared r to 29.49 percent for the G7. Yet this would invite critiques, quite reasonably. saying that a big chunk of the total figure would be China, or that growth momentum is largely driven by India. The pace of growth and development has altered over a period of time, but there were at least three constant parameters that need to be taken into account: each BRICS country share in the world continued to grow; inter-BRICS cooperation always had positive dynamics, even if from rather low base; it has retained a horizontal structure, thus ensuring no domination of neither of stronger actors, in constrast to how the G7 is organised. NBRICS is about 49 percent of the global population (or over 55% with partner countries). Despite all the differences in culture, history and interest, they do deserve to have their voice heard and more agency to determine their way of life themselves, not by the other 10 percent of the rich and well-off former metropolises.

Against this backdrop, remarks by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, at the Munich Security Conference, calling for Europe to re-unite in order to revisit and preserve the earlier status quo of Western civilisation, were particularly telling. It reflects a broader reluctance to embrace the new world driven by emerging economies, less defined by the dominance of established powers, despite the obvious fact that the process of change is irreversible, even if the outcome is yet unknown.

Similarly, earlier this year, at the Oslo Security Conference, Kaja Kallas recognised that the rules-based international order, so cherished by the West, is “largely an illusion” and that “the law of the strong has always prevailed”. Echoing, albeit in a more tempered form, earlier formulations by J. Borrell, she invoked the “jungle” metaphor, though without drawing a stark binary between a European “garden” and the rest of the world. Instead, her emphasis shifted toward the need for cooperation even within a competitive and uneven international environment. 

But this transition is a difficult process, indeed. Trump keeps threatening BRICS and whoever dares to challenge American supremacy, especially the core of it, the dollar and the financial system architecture based on it. Europe is already far behind in many aspects– industrial development, technological advancement, social protection– and has trouble accepting that it is no longer the sole arbiter of universal norms and values.

At the same time, none of the West can, or even is willing to suggest a new form of cooperative arrangements, the ones having UN Charter principles not as ideal, but as a manual for action. The Bretton Woods institutions are rigid and not able to adapt to meet current challenges; international regimes are supposed to work with one or a few countries willing to take a significant cost burden and apply fair sharing. Informal groupings like the G7, once seen as a way to mend whatever fault lines of the formal organisations and keep the unity of the three centres of power of the West, become irrelevant when they only serve the narrow interest of keeping the status quo and the preferable conditions for the members themselves only. BRICS, meanwhile, despite having similar features, does function on different principles, which are incompatible with the hierarchical nature of the West. 

As Russian foreign policy experts, Feodor Lukyanov argues, BRICS now stands at a historical turning point, as it needs to find a way to deal with the current aggressive policies. There is no doubt that while certain countries, like China with its economic and industrial weight and Russia with its military posture, do present a comparable potential to that of the US. Yet, the American administration, as has long been a defining feature of its strategic outlook, has ensured that no equal rival might rise to challenge American dominance. The rise of the Global South, per se, is not so much of a problem. What proves far more consequential is the ability of the global majority to stick together and pursue their interests.

It would be fair to note that the US isn’t the first or only country to use this tactic of encouraging bilateral engagement while discouraging cohesive group negotiations. So it is not about the US, but rather reflects a classic  “Prisoner’s Dilemma” faced by its counterparts. 

For BRICS, to be able to withstand this challenge, it would require much mutual trust within the group, firm and well-calculated understanding of each country’s long-term national interest and ability to rise over the self intereststo benefit at the expense of the partner. 

Another major challenge for the BRICS lies in its readiness to act as a group, moving beyond declarations on global issues and finding solutions. The National Development Bank (NDB) is often cited as a prime example of BRICS success as it is the only bank with no Western stakeholders and no political conditionalities imposed on the borrowers.  At the same time, it is now obvious that it is no longer enough, as it acts strictly in accordance with Western-imposed international rules and is highly over-compliant with those. There should be more independence in decision-making, and that is why it is necessary to offer the new BRICS ranking system, which would exclude political blackmail from the West, but also offer more authority for the BRICS. The same applies to the long-awaited Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) or the elaboration and implementation of the BRICS payment system and infrastructure. 

This position by no means negates the pragmatic interests of any of the BRICS countries willing to cooperate with the West. There’s a long history of dependence and interdependence, and unfortunately, as of now, BRICS as a group cannot match the technological advancement or financial investments of the  West. However, BRICS does need to state itself more as a group and not shy away from deeper cooperation. This does not imply positioning the group in opposition to the West. It is simply time for the BRICS countries to assess how far each member is willing to advance its sovereignty and independence. Partial solutions and rushing wouldn’t give enough resolve to formulate the framework of the globe that ensures equality. This is about strategic autonomy, and also the ability to secure a world where this strategic autonomy wouldn’t be challenged by the bully.

Victoria V. Panova, head, BRICS Expert-Council, Russia; vice-rector, HSE-University; W20, Russia

• International Affairs
• China
• Pakistan
• Russia and Eurasia
• south Asia

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT