BRICS expands in search of meaning ( In depth analysis of BRICS 2023)

By Peter Skorobogaty,Alexander Smirnov and Elena Gorbacheva

The intrigue on the eve of the BRICS summit in South Africa was fundamental. The 23 states from all parts of the world that stood on the threshold of BRICS, by the very fact of being interested in an alternative platform for resolving issues of world relations, demonstrated that multipolarity is moving towards institutionalization - or at least the desire and readiness for such a development of events.

At the same time, taking into account the interests of such fundamentally different players, with their own value, religious, political attitudes, could provoke violent conflicts and multiple contradictions - and already in the top five. It is the Western coalition that wins in efficiency due to the unconditional dominance of the United States, but, let's say, a much more democratic EU is stalling in the speed of decision-making.

No matter what they say about the dominant role of China in the development of BRICS, especially in terms of the economic weight of the Celestial Empire, the partners obviously do not agree with the monopolization of the agenda by the Chinese comrades, and the future of the organization, of course, is in constant compromises and agreements. This is both an opportunity and a risk.

Therefore, on the eve of the summit, observers had fair questions about the future of BRICS. Will the bloc remain a free trade union or become a new international platform to develop and promote its own interests? An informal club or a more conceptual geopolitical organization, an alternative to the G7 or G20? Will an ideological core of the BRICS be formed, which in different interpretations meant the desire for justice, anti-colonialism and even anti-Westernism, or even the Chinese, but completely herbivorous concept of a “community with a common destiny for mankind”?

Finally, two basic questions: will the BRICS expand and under what conditions, and also will the participants have the courage to establish an alternative to the West's currency trading platform.

Any of these points promised serious debate, and that, according to diplomats, was exactly what took place in Johannesburg. The historical moment set rigid limits for the organization. If at the end of the summit no concrete decisions could be reached and everything would have ended with a declaration with a reserve for the future, observers would have to record the unwillingness of the developing world to apply for subjectivity. In the future, this would be fraught with the spread of the participants to the existing pro-American institutions.

In the end, a compromise was made. Conceptual questions were postponed, and the choice was made in favor of a phased expansion of the participants. Their consolidation is ensured by the recognition of the key role of traditional world institutions, such as the UN and the G20, although a desire was expressed to increase the representation of developing countries in the Security Council, "international organizations and multilateral forums."

It seems that little was said about the new currency and an alternative financial system, but the BRICS leaders advocated the use of national currencies in international trade and financial transactions between the countries of the association, the fight against trade barriers and unilateral sanctions.

“One way or another, BRICS will face a dilemma: to preserve itself only as a white and fluffy organization of economic interaction or to try to take on some political, and hence military-political functions. This is the main dilemma from which the current BRICS locomotives - China and, to a lesser extent, India - are trying to get away, but this dilemma of the BRICS will definitely catch up, - says Dmitry Evstafiev, candidate of political sciences, professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Will BRICS offer an alternative to the world order? We underestimate how far the United States has come in making sense of a decentralized world. There, these ideas have been discussed for a long time, and they are more ready for it than the rest. In the United States, the issues of managing chaos in the regime of a polycentric world are well developed. You have to be ready for this."

“BRICS is one of the slowest global institutions,” says Ivan Loshkarev, a Ph.D. in Political Science, a researcher at the Center for Middle East and African Studies at the Institute for International Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Russian Foreign Ministry, and a RIAC analyst. - There important things can be discussed for a very long time. Yes, the West has done all the hard work, and now an alternative is needed. The West will sometimes do something with Taiwan, then arrange a coup in Pakistan - so that all BRICS members and their neighbors get it. But, I think, even if somewhere the organization lingers, this will not change the structure of relationships. Countries will have an alternative in which union to choose. It is clear that there are internal contradictions in the bloc. There are countries that are not so critical of the Western world order, such as Brazil, and India, perhaps. Still, BRICS is a serious resource for the developing world.”

Moscow believes that it is unlikely that it will be possible to reach an agreement with the West on fair economic cooperation. “The countries of the so-called golden billion are doing everything to preserve the former unipolar world. In fact, this is also colonialism, only in a new package,” Putin said.

Expansion Surprises
The official theme of the 15th Johannesburg Summit was "BRICS and Africa: A Partnership for Mutual Acceleration of Growth, Sustainable Development and Inclusive Multilateralism". But the main issue, of course, was the expansion of the organization.

The main supporter of the expansion of the club was China, which sees the BRICS as a platform for promoting its rapidly growing political and economic interests. By the way, Beijing put forward the idea of ​​expanding the BRICS ten years ago, which coincided with the launch of its economic expansion program - the Belt and Road Initiative.

The skeptics include India and Brazil, who fear the gradual erosion of their influence in the organization. Russia took a neutral position regarding the admission of new members.

However, something had to be done about the queue of states that applied for accession. As a result, at the summit it was decided from June 1, 2024 to accept Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, thereby doubling the number of participants. At the same time, the organization has so far retained its former name, consonant in pronunciation in English with the word "bricks" (BRICS - bricks).

New "bricks" strengthen the bloc's position in the Middle East, Africa and South America. If earlier the BRICS countries accounted for more than a quarter of world GDP, after the expansion this figure increased to 37%. Moreover, at the next BRICS summit, which will be held in 2024 under the chairmanship of Russia in Kazan, the next applications for the accession of a number of countries may be satisfied, among which there are Algeria, Turkey, Mexico and Indonesia that are significant from the point of view of the global economy.

A few more raw numbers. After the expansion, the BRICS will conditionally be four times larger than the G7 in terms of population. BRICS now occupies 36% of the globe, which is home to 45% of the planet's abodes. And the states of the organization will control up to 45% of the world's oil reserves. However, how these resources will be converted into political weight or concrete decisions is still a question.

“The main threat to the BRICS is the coming to power in the participating countries of too pro-Western governments. And in this regard, Brazil and India are the most alarming. The choice of new members puzzled me,” says Ivan Loshkarev. - First of all, Argentina: the country is extremely dependent on Western capital. The United Arab Emirates is also a kind of Trojan horse. In addition, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE do not provide themselves in terms of security, they are helped by the West. I am very glad that Egypt and Iran are on the list of new members. But it turned out that two groups of states were admitted to BRICS at once, forming a kind of axis in the Middle East, which at the same time conflict with each other: the axis of the UAE - Saudi Arabia - Egypt and Iran. And the Turkish-Qatari axis was ignored. Ethiopia is independent, but Western positions are traditionally strong there, and the positions of openly unfriendly countries. It is not yet clear how much the new BRICS states will help in building an alternative order.”

Union of different
It is worth recalling that the proposal of Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov on the creation of a “strategic triangle” Russia-India-China, expressed in Delhi in December 1998, became the prototype of the idea of ​​​​creating BRICS. According to Primakov, this alliance could become not only a military-political alliance of the three largest non-Western powers, but also the "cornerstone" of a new multipolar world, while each of the parties to the triumvirate would develop bilateral relations with other countries of the world.

Interaction between Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi (even with Brasilia and Pretoria that joined them) could do without formal agreements and be based on mutual understanding of the parties, just as the coordination of the G7 countries takes place. However, Primakov's idea of ​​a military-political union between Russia, India and China was not destined to come true, and the current expansion of the BRICS leaves no chance for behind-the-scenes solutions.

The critics of the scenario for the development of the organization “not in depth, but in breadth”, without articulating clear goals and objectives, point out that BRICS runs the risk of becoming some kind of analogue of the UN General Assembly for developing countries: this will satisfy their ambitions in terms of “weight” in world politics, but fact will have no effect on its development.

Perhaps in the future we will see the creation of some analogue of the UN Security Council from the most powerful countries in military-political and economic terms, which will be able to implement individual decisions of the community, bypassing long discussions and agreements. Moreover, the five founders of the BRICS, who retained the status and name of the organization, can probably claim such a role. But it is unlikely that the other participants are ready to recognize its right to make collective judgments. Especially when it comes to fundamental issues - military operations, confrontation, revolutionary financial and economic measures.

At the same time, the development of the BRICS, left to chance, with further expansion, can lead to the formation of groups and clans in the organization (for example, "oil" or "regional"). In this case, the community is threatened with either disorganization or the strengthening of China. China, however, in every possible way rejects the prospect of leadership in the BRICS, and Chinese President Xi Jinping even said that "the Chinese nation does not have hegemonic traits in its genes" and "a craving for great-power games."

“If we compare China with the United States, then it does not seek such hegemony, there is a different culture,” says Ekaterina Zaklyazminskaya, senior researcher at the Center for World Politics and Strategic Analysis at the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - The leadership that China offers to the world is soft, it is based on cooperation, and not on the only correct view of the world order. This is exactly what the developing countries like about the Chinese idea, because it is carried out without hard pressure. But the risks should not be underestimated either: there is a lot of talk about the “yuanization” of everything and everyone, but so far statistics show that this is a very, very distant prospect. As a sinologist, I can say that for the PRC the idea of ​​clashes, confrontation is alien, in their political culture it is customary to take into account all the nuances and controversial points.

Be that as it may, having decided seventeen years after its founding to transform from an informal club of five countries into a large international and intercontinental organization, BRICS will be forced to find answers to fundamental questions about the meaning of its existence.

Dream of Justice
The leaders of the BRICS countries have often stated the need to create a more just world order, which can be considered in the future as the ideological foundation of the organization. At the same time, some countries first of all want to change the political reality, others want to change the trade and economic rules of the game, and all are interested in guaranteeing their own security.

Naturally, all this contradictory bouquet of desires is addressed either to the existing world hegemon - the United States, or to the collective West, including its political military and financial institutions.

At the same time, the BRICS countries have absolutely no intention of waging a war of annihilation with the West in the literal and figurative sense of the word. Demanding from the United States respect for their national interests, Russia, China and partners only want a dialogue with the Americans on an equal footing. In the economy, the demands of the BRICS countries, as a rule, boil down to the removal of barriers erected by the West in the form of unilateral sanctions and trade restrictions. Thus, the "anti-Western ideology" of the BRICS merely reflects the desire for normalization of relations with the Western world, and it can be considered a constructive platform.

The problem is that Washington does not accept an equal dialogue, and in general, Western politicians, despite the mantras about inclusiveness and equality, continue the policy of neo-colonialism towards developing countries.

For example, the US State Department, even trying to draw India into the anti-Chinese bloc and promising investments in aircraft and shipbuilding, allows itself to condemn the religious and national policies of New Delhi, as well as point to "repressions against journalists and dissidents." With equal treatment, India could raise the issue of US repression against school and university teachers who are unwilling to repeat the heresy about the existence of several dozen genders or the right of five-year-olds to change their sex.

Russia's demand for NATO to halt its eastward advance, China's demand for the US to lift trade restrictions and stop arming Taiwan, and India's tacit desire to see respect for its national identity, in fact, have a common ground - the demand for justice.

“We all stand for the formation of a new multipolar world order that would be truly balanced and take into account the sovereign interests of the widest possible range of states, open up opportunities for the implementation of various development models, helping to preserve the diversity of national cultures and traditions. I want to note that BRICS does not compete with anyone, does not oppose itself to anyone. But it is also obvious that this objective process — the process of creating a new world order — still has irreconcilable opponents who seek to slow down this process, to restrain the emergence of new, independent centers of development and influence in the world,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said, addressing via video link to the summit participants.

“The modern world is undergoing global, epochal and historical changes of unprecedented scale, humanity is at a fateful crossroads. Where to go next? Continue the path of cooperation and integration or turn towards division and confrontation? Continue the path of peace or slide into the abyss of a new cold war? Continue the path of openness in the name of prosperity, or plunge into the swamp of recession due to hegemony and bullying? Strengthen mutual trust in the course of contacts or allow the soul to be corrupted by pride and prejudice? In which direction the pendulum of history will swing, it all depends on our own choice,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping at the closing ceremony of the BRICS forum.

The countries that want to join the BRICS share this, if you like, value pathos. The difference lies in what a country is willing to sacrifice in order to achieve its own ideas of justice. And to what extent the achievement of these values ​​can compensate for the outflow of Western loans, investments, and innovations in the event of a conflict with the “world policeman”.

At the same time, the political or economic goals of the BRICS members may conflict with the interests of other member countries. And some states may try to join the organization only in order to raise their importance in the eyes of the United States and in the hope of receiving a generous reward for returning to the fold of the West. It is likely that these risks were calculated by the founders of the BRICS all this year.

China in every possible way rejects the prospect of leadership in the BRICS, and Xi Jinping even said that “the Chinese nation does not have hegemonic traits in its genes” and “a craving for great power games”

BRICS and the West
It is no secret that the BRICS includes countries that have bilateral contradictions and even territorial conflicts. A striking example of this is China and India, which have disagreements regarding the ownership of the Aksai Chin region on the Tibetan plateau. Fortunately, permanent border conflicts do not escalate into a war between two nuclear powers, perhaps largely due to the common goals that countries are trying to achieve by participating in the BRICS.

When on one side of the scale is the question of establishing control over several square kilometers of rocky soil, and on the other - the desire to make countries world leaders, the second is more weighty. Thus, BRICS can act as a safeguard against military conflicts of the participating countries.

Brazil and Argentina joining the BRICS also have certain contradictions, since each of the countries seeks to become a regional leader. The partnership of these countries within the framework of the BRICS guarantees them this leadership, but both at once.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and potential Turkey joining the BRICS also have claims not only to regional leadership, but also strive to become the head of part of the Muslim world. If the efforts of these countries are not directed against each other, no one will be able to challenge their joint dominance in the Middle East.

However, as far as the large geopolitical space is concerned, the BRICS is still hardly ready to play a prominent role in the world, and even more so to threaten to resist the collective West.

During the acute political conflict between Russia and the Western coalition, the BRICS countries took, in fact, a neutral position (which, however, is not bad). According to the US State Department, China, like the rest of the BRICS countries, does not violate Western anti-Russian sanctions.

At the same time, Beijing sharply criticizes the American restrictions imposed against the Chinese economy, calling them illegal. Thus, China risks getting a mirror situation with a possible sharp aggravation of relations with the United States, when the rest of the BRICS countries decide it is beneficial for themselves to adhere to new anti-Chinese sanctions. Understanding the need for collective protection has not yet matured.

Brazil and India are trying to refrain from political statements altogether, preferring to focus on economic cooperation. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva previously spoke of the need to discuss the status of Crimea in order to end the military conflict in Ukraine and called on the United States to "stop encouraging war" in Ukraine. While these statements have drawn ire in Kyiv and Washington, they are far from allied with Russia, which would like to hear an argument in favor of recognizing all new Russian territories.

Another unpleasant incident was the discussion that unfolded on the eve of the summit in South Africa on the issue of ensuring the immunity of Vladimir Putin and recognizing the verdict of the International Criminal Court on the arrest of the Russian president. It is hard to imagine that any of the G7 countries would have such a debate regarding the visit of the US President or the British Prime Minister.

The collective foreign policy position of the BRICS countries in this case is more reminiscent of the Non-Aligned Movement, maneuvering between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries.

The Ukrainian conflict was discussed at the summit, but in the most general terms. "We note proposals for mediation and good offices for the peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy, including the African Leaders' Peace Mission and its proposed path to peace," the final declaration said.

Thus, participation in the BRICS may contribute to the normalization of relations between its participants, but does not guarantee the political support of its members in the conflict with the West.

In this case, there is no need to talk about the influence of BRICS on world politics, since the organization is trying to avoid foreign policy positions that would sharply contradict the Western platform. And even more so to assume that the organization in the near future will offer a new world order. However, the mere fact of a geopolitical alternative in the confusion of multipolarity is no small matter.

“BRICS cannot develop along the path of the West, because all the institutions of the West are vertically integrated, they are all leadership, all are based on the principle of “leader and tribe”. We do not know the alternative, there is no understanding, and there are no examples for the last hundred years either. We cannot describe the new world order until it has taken shape. Of course, those countries that look with hope at the BRICS want to live better than they live now. But, probably, it's not so much about money, but about political relations. In Russia, they like to talk about the fact that conditional Kazakhstan is negotiating with conditional China on issues of cooperation. At the same time, everyone is well aware that Kazakhstan will not go anywhere from Russia. But everyone wants alternatives. And rapprochement with the BRICS increases the degree of freedom of these countries. To conduct a dialogue with the same West, being in the position of those

Economics anti-pro-West
The BRICS countries also do not set themselves the task of isolating themselves from the world economy and building their own independent economic contour following the example of the Soviet bloc.

Mutual trade of the BRICS countries (with the exception of Russia) is inferior to trade with the Western world. And the sharp reorientation of Russian exports from West to East over the past year is associated with sanctions, and not with economic interests.

Mutual trade of the BRICS countries is devoid of any preferences within the bloc and is based on the principles of the WTO and a number of bilateral agreements. Moreover, the countries of the organization often become competitors in the struggle for Western investment and markets. For example, there is a process of transferring Western production from China (due to rising labor costs) to India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

The economic claims of most of the BRICS countries to the West are based on criticism of inequality in trade and economic partnership and calls to abandon protectionism and artificial barriers to trade erected by Western countries. These states do not leave hope to beat the Western countries, playing on their field, according to their rules and under their own refereeing.

In his speech at the closing of the BRICS Business Forum, Xi Jinping actually demanded that the West continue the process of globalization. “Emerging economies and developing countries have come under unabashed pressure from those who clearly do not accept the loss of their dominance. Success or overtaking in development - all this is a reason for all sorts of obstacles and containment, which will not lead to anything good, ”he said.

The "clamp" probably meant restrictions on the export of Chinese high-tech electronics, and US sanctions that fell under advanced processors and equipment for their production, as well as the recent decree of US President Joe Biden banning American investment in China in the production of semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and artificial intelligence systems.

Moscow takes a different position and believes that it is unlikely that it will be possible to reach an agreement with the West on fair economic cooperation.

“The countries of the so-called golden billion are doing everything to preserve the former, unipolar world. He suits them, he is beneficial to them. They are trying to replace the system of international law with their own so-called order, based on rules that no one has seen, rules used, it must be said, for selfish purposes and changing to suit the current political situation at any time and in any way in accordance with the interests of individual countries. In fact, this is also colonialism, only in a new package, by the way, not so good looking, and modern colonialists, hiding behind the good slogans of democracy, human rights, seek to solve their problems at someone else's expense, continuing to shamelessly pump out resources from developing countries, ”- Putin said in an address to the summit participants.

Beijing’s position is understandable, but it would still be strange to assume that Washington will one day say: “OK, I was wrong, get ahead of us in the field of advanced technologies, and we, for our part, will help you by providing our investments and our domestic market.”

Russia's demand for NATO to halt its eastward advance, China's demand for the US to lift trade restrictions and stop arming Taiwan, and India's tacit desire to see respect for its national identity, in fact, have a common ground - a demand for justice.

How to break with the dollar
One of the topics of the summit was the de-dollarization of trade between countries. Back during the 14th BRICS summit, which was held online in June last year, Vladimir Putin suggested thinking about creating a single club currency, stating that “this is a difficult issue, but we will move towards this solution one way or another.”

However, following the results of the summit in South Africa, the countries only stated that they intended to contribute to "strengthening correspondent networks of banking relations between the BRICS countries and the possibility of settlements in local currencies."

The lack of settlements in national currencies was clearly manifested in Russia's trade with India. With a trade surplus, Moscow has accumulated a large amount of rupees in bank accounts, which are difficult to spend due to the lack of an Indian product offer that interests Russia. If the settlements were made in a common currency for the BRICS, this money could be spent on Chinese or Brazilian goods. While the use of exclusively national currencies turns complex international trade into bilateral, comparable to barter.

One of the reasons for the stalled issue of creating a BRICS currency may be China's desire to turn the yuan into a competitor to the US dollar. In October 2016, the IMF recognized the yuan as a reserve currency along with the dollar, euro, British pound and Japanese yen. Although the share of foreign exchange reserves of the yuan in the world is negligible, it can be assumed that Beijing is counting on its gradual increase. In this case, the issuance of the yuan will not cause inflation in China, while bringing seigniorage to the Chinese treasury.

But other BRICS countries, such as India, Brazil or Saudi Arabia, still prefer the more stable and convenient in international settlements the US dollar or the euro when it comes to storing their gold reserves, which creates a vicious circle.

In 2015, the BRICS countries created the New Development Bank (NDB) to finance various projects of the member states. Over the past eight years, the NDB has financed 96 projects in the founding countries for a total of $33 billion. At the same time, only one of the Western financial institutions, the World Bank, allocated more than $100 billion for various projects in 2022 alone. And China's investments in the US public debt today amount to 835.4 billion dollars, which is about a quarter of the country's gold reserves.

In July of this year, the head of the NDB, Dilma Rousseff, announced that it would stop financing new projects in Russia, as the bank fully complies with international sanctions. From Russia's point of view, the difference between the Western financial system, which froze Russian funds, and such a "friendly partnership" is incomprehensible.

The decision of the BRICS bank to comply with the anti-Russian sanctions of the West was not so much an economic as a political victory for the United States. Of course, one can say in defense of the NDB that it, they say, lends in US dollars and therefore could not ignore US sanctions. But who prevented the NDB, at least in the case of Russia, from replacing the dollar with a surrogate like the IMF SDR or the Chinese yuan, or, in the end, listening to Moscow's opinion and lobbying for the creation of the BRICS currency?

At the same time, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the last summit noted the success of the NDB and announced the establishment of a representative office of the bank in the country to finance development projects in India and Bangladesh. “We have created a financial safety net,” Modi said. Apparently, India believes that it is immune from US sanctions.

Remaining within the economic system of the West, the BRICS countries can, following the example of India, be content with little, but it is almost impossible to find drivers for their advanced development. But in this case, it becomes unclear why the BRICS itself is needed.

Western economic logic is simple: if you don't like something, look for flaws in yourself, not in the current system. And if one dollar is given for your product or labor on the world market, it means that it costs exactly one dollar, and if this does not suit you, then you do not adequately assess reality. But if a country unexpectedly manages to succeed in advanced technologies, then the attempt to overtake the West will be stopped by non-economic methods - sanctions or military force.

A situation in which breaking economic ties with the West is impossible, and continuing interaction with it according to the old rules has no prospects, requires non-trivial solutions.

Moreover, history knows an example of how a number of countries that have a lot of mutual political, economic and religious contradictions, but united by the idea of ​​injustice, were able to change the rules of the game imposed by the West. We are talking about the OAPEC oil embargo of 1973, triggered by the Yom Kippur War, and the result of which was a fourfold increase in world oil prices.

This risky anti-Western step ultimately only strengthened the economic ties of the Arab countries with the West and largely ensured the current level of well-being of the oil-producing countries of the Middle East (with the exception of Iraq and Syria, which were defeated by Western armies).

The current expansion of the BRICS potentially gives the organization much more serious economic leverage against the West than Arab oil did in 1973. But the countries are clearly not ready to put forward such ultimatums.

At the same time, any global economic shock, such as the Asian crisis of 1997 or the financial crisis of 2007, that will lead to a sharp drop in the incomes of developing countries, can become a catalyst for the process of BRICS rallying. Social problems will force the countries of the organization to look for a joint way out. Unlike in 1997 or 2007, this time developing countries are unlikely to sit idly by waiting for the resuscitation of the Western economy. And BRICS in this case may turn out to be the best platform for making effective decisions.

It cannot be said that BRICS already today brings its participants, including Russia, any tangible political or economic dividends. It's more of a vision for the future. But as the past shows, the future should be prepared in advance.