The 15th summit of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), held recently in Johannesburg, resulted in the expansion of the membership of the group from 5 to 11. Four countries from the Gulf and West Asia, namely Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Additionally, Ethiopia and Argentina from Africa and South America, respectively, were inducted. There has long been a discussion about the cohesiveness and relevance of this group comprising democratic and autocratic nations which vary in levels of development. Is BRICS or its expansion relevant? Argument 1: BRICS serves as a bridge between the Global North and Global South "BRICS has successfully navigated through various challenges and is now seen as a potential counter-narrative to the G-7, which is predominantly by Western countries" The concept of this group was initially formulated by Jim O'Neill, who was Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management at the time, in 2001. In 2006, the four expanding economies of that period - Brazil, China, India, and Russia - convened in an informal manner during the G-8 Outreach Summit in St. Petersburg. This convergence was marked by the adoption of a striking acronym. The formation of BRICS can be traced back to a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2006. This initiative gained momentum through further regular summits starting in 2009, leading to the expansion of the group in 2010 with the inclusion of South Africa, thereby transforming it into BRICS. The collective has seen a somewhat fruitful trajectory. According to some geopolitical experts, BRICS has successfully navigated through various challenges and is now seen as a potential counter-narrative to the G-7, which is predominantly by Western countries. The group has taken stances on a range of issues including climate change commitments, United Nations reform, and opposition to unilateral Western sanctions imposed on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. In addition to establishing the New Development Bank, which has financed approximately 100 projects to date, implementing a Contingent Reserve Arrangement, and introducing various institutional frameworks, BRICS nations have demonstrated their capacity to engage in pragmatic endeavours. Although the current grouping may not possess a comparable level of affluence as the G-7, it has achieved parity in terms of its proportionate contribution to the global gross domestic product (about 30% each). Moreover, this grouping encompasses a more balanced representation over 40% of the global population, in contrast to the G-7 countries which constitute a mere 10%. Upon the inclusion of new members, BRICS countries will account for six out of the top 10 largest global oil suppliers, hence augmenting the influence of BRICS in the energy sector. The 15th BRICS summit of BRICS has garnered significant global attention. Since its establishment as a coalition of emerging economies, the aforementioned grouping has shown its willingness to accept new members. Consequently, over 40 nations from the Global South have expressed their interest in joining, with a minimum of 22 formal applications. The decision to significantly increase its membership from 5 to 11 by including four prominent Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), along with Ethiopia and Argentina, has great importance. Sanjaya Baru points that the three prominent rising market democracies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America - India, Brazil, and South Africa - have formed the IBSA alliance. These countries have also collaborated with China and Russia in the BRICS partnership, with the aim of safeguarding their own global economic interests. When detractors of BRICS raise questions regarding the necessity and significance of the organisation in present times, the counter question is: What relevance do other groupings, such as the G7, possess? The occurrences within the preceding eighteen-month period, commencing with the incursion of Russia into Ukraine in February 2022 and the subsequent implementation of economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union, have unequivocally demonstrated the persistent internal divisions within the G-20, a global consortium, between the G-7 and the BRICS nations. The support of European nations for the United States' imposition of sanctions on Russia, as well as Japan's efforts to establish closer ties with NATO, indicate that advanced industrial economies are inclined to unite and consolidate their resources whenever confronted with any form of challenge, be it economic or military, to their prevailing position within the global order. The current state of relations between China and India is characterised by significant challenges. It is worth noting that the international community, for the most part, does not endorse Russia's incursion into Ukraine. However, it is important to acknowledge that several emerging nations, like as India, have adopted an independent stance and have thus far refrained from aligning themselves with the United States, Europe, and NATO member states. Nevertheless, BRICS nations and the prospective members perceive a necessity for a counterbalancing entity to counteract the influence of other alliances such as the G-7 when it comes to tackling various global issues, including but not limited to climate change, sustainable development, trade and finance, intellectual property rights, and the reformation of multilateral institutions. Argument 2: BRICS has made very little tangible difference "The entity displayed a lack of dedication towards shared political principles" Pratap Bhanu Mehta asserts that the BRICS alliance inherently faced significant obstacles due to the absence of any intrinsic cohesive element. It lacked a shared adversary, save for a general inclination to counterbalance the Western powers. The entity displayed a lack of dedication towards shared political principles. The organisation positioned itself as a collective focused on fostering development, although it failed to provide concrete alternatives to the existing global system. The inaugural summit took place in 2009, during a period when global economies were perceived to be on the brink of collapse. BRICS countries functioned as a means of socialisation, involving both leaders and the general public, by offering an alternative framework that did not prioritise Western interests, as long as these countries did not possess significant internal conflicts. However, in the current historical context, the absence of an inherent purpose is beginning to pose challenges for BRICS. Pratap Bhanu Mehta further adds that BRICS' developmental vision lacks progress. Originally, the focus was aimed at addressing the unequal negotiating strength between the Western countries, namely within the realm of development. The aforementioned explanation continues to possess a degree of coherence. The West's pronounced exhibition of narcissism during the Covid crisis, coupled with its unilateral manipulation of the global economy following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, may have contributed to a heightened sense of urgency. Therefore, it is advisable for individuals and institutions worldwide to consider engaging in currency hedging and exploring other institutional possibilities. If this argument serves as the justification for BRICS, then there is a compelling basis for advocating its enlargement. Praveer Purohit, former IAF Officer, asserts that BRICS has been more about hype and has collectively made very little tangible difference to the world, both economically and geopolitically. Although the combined economic strength of the group has increased substantially, it is mainly to China’s credit, and to some extent India’s. In 2023, global GDP amounted to $112.6 trillion, of which the share of the G7 was $45.915 trillion (40.7 per cent). In contrast, BRICS’ share was $27.653 trillion (24.55 per cent). China with a GDP of $19,373 trillion accounts for 70 per cent of the BRICS GDP and 17.2 per cent of the global GDP. The fact is that although the G7 is often criticised for being elitist, it still commands substantial influence in the world economy and its recent course correction measures have instilled hope and confidence. In contrast, BRICS is characterised by a highly unequal and skewed spread of economic wealth amongst its constituents. Worse, it has two countries that have diluted, degraded and destroyed both geopolitical and economic stability in the world. The expansion of BRICS may however change the economic dynamics. The six new nations have a combined GDP of $3.113 trillion. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia and the UAE could bring new investment and trade opportunities. Egypt’s strategic location and newly discovered gas fields could be potentially lucrative for BRICS in the economic and geopolitical arena. Argument 3: BRICS Expansion—is a game being played by Russia and China "By expanding BRICS, Russia and China hope to project an effective counterweight to the US" Praveer Purohit says that beneath the seemingly benign economic merits of BRICS expansion lies a larger geopolitical game being played by Russia and China. By expanding BRICS, they hope to project an effective counterweight to the US. China has made no bones about the need for a new world order and is working to position itself as its leader. Under the garb of multipolarity, Beijing and Moscow are attempting to undermine the liberal international order. Russian interest in expanding BRICS stems from reducing its isolation due to sanctions, diluting opposition to its illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory and co-opting the Global South to help keep its beleaguered economy afloat. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest crude oil exporter in a group with the world’s largest crude oil importer (China), has deep ramifications on the geopolitics of the global oil market. The inclusion of Iran will add to the anti-US axis in BRICS. Chinese mediation helped Saudi Arabia and Iran end their mutual hostility paving the way for both to join BRICS. They will be beholden to China. In return, China will extract its pound of flesh — at the cost of the US and India. Four of the six new members are in West Asia where China has expanded its economic, military, and political ties. According to Danny Bradlow, a professor affiliated with the Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship at the University of Pretoria, identifying shared characteristics among the six countries invited to join BRICS is a challenging task, as the only apparent commonality is their individual status as influential governments within their own regions. According to Sanusha Naidu, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Global Dialogue, a South African think tank specialising in China and Africa, one may contend that the participation of Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, and Egypt in the aforementioned group renders it heavily focused on the Middle East region. Naidu asserted that the recent additions have significant geo-economic, geostrategic, and geopolitical ramifications. He suggested that these developments may prompt certain BRICS states to reevaluate their Middle East policies, while also urging China and India to strengthen their current policies in the region. In accordance with the views expressed by Jim O'Neill, the potential effectiveness of the group may be enhanced to a certain extent if its major members were genuinely committed to the pursuit of common objectives. China and India exhibit a limited history of consensus, and considering their existing bilateral dynamics, it is improbable for either country to exhibit enthusiasm for the other's increased power in significant global institutions. However, it is worth noting that in the event that China and India are able to successfully address their border conflicts and foster a more harmonious and cooperative relationship, there would be significant advantages for both nations, as well as for international trade, global economic expansion, and the overall efficacy of the BRICS alliance. China and India possess significant potential for collaboration across various domains, hence exerting a substantial influence on other BRICS nations and numerous countries within the Global South. A significant concern pertains to the prevailing hegemony of the United States dollar. The global reliance on the United States dollar and its accompanying monetary policy, as a consequence, is deemed to have adverse implications for overall global health. The potential erosion of the dollar's hegemony could have been influenced by the adoption of the euro, contingent upon the willingness of eurozone member states to authorise the liquidity and scale of their financial instruments, thereby rendering them attractive to global markets. In a similar vein, it is quite probable that the currencies of the BRICS nations, particularly China and India, would experience increased global adoption if substantial financial reforms were implemented to attain this objective. However, if individuals persist in confining their efforts to expressing dissatisfaction with the dollar and engaging in speculative discussions over the hypothetical concept of a collective BRICS currency, it is improbable that they will make much progress. For any queries and feedback, contact priya.shukla@indianexpress.com The Indian Express UPSC Hub is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Updates. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
