The momentum of multipolarity: the results of the BRICS summit in South Africa

By Viktoria Panova

On August 24, 2023, the BRICS summit in Johannesburg ended, its overall significance will be realized later - currently there are too many variables at stake - but nevertheless, it is already possible to put aside the first emotions and evaluate the obvious consequences of the summit.

The first and most important thing that only that was not talked about is the fait accompli of the expansion of the BRICS. The topic was really discussed very actively, and the demand for membership increased exponentially, directly to the summit creating the effect of a certain hype. Moreover, this excitement arose not only on the basis of the growth of official graduate students for membership - according to various estimates, in addition to the official 23 countries, about the same number of states of the world majority expressed informal interest. We should also keep in mind the reaction of the "golden billion", this time not limited to expert discussions of the worthlessness of BRICS in the media, but reached a new level of response - from attempts to get an invitation to a summit, like Macron, to pressure on candidate countries, such as Argentina.

The intensity of passions and emotions was observed in the analyst, as well as pseudo-analyst environment, which has not previously honored the BRICS meetings with such close attention. These decisions were given diametrically opposed assessments, literally "by the ears" of external events not related to BRICS were attracted. It is noteworthy that the Group of Seven, which has had quite a monopoly on its existence as a “club” mechanism for more than a quarter of a century, has never received such a level of attention and diversity of attitude. So why did the BRICS become the hero of the day, while the G7 remained in the background? that the Group of Seven, which has had a monopoly on existence as the “club” mechanism for more than a quarter of a century, has never received such a level of attention and diversity of attitude. So why did the BRICS become the hero of the day, while the G7 remained in the background? that the Group of Seven, which has had a monopoly on existence as a “club” mechanism for more than a quarter of a century, has never received such a level of attention and diversity of attitude. So why did the BRICS become the hero of the day, while the G7 remained in the background?

What is the "Group of Seven"? This is an elite club, which was originally seen as something like the Bilderberg Club, only with the participation of the current leaders of the developed countries of the West, and its closed nature provoked public discontent primarily in those countries themselves. Suffice it is to recall the mass anti-globalization protests timed to coincide with the meetings of the G7, and at least once, in Genoa in 2001, not without human casualties. Interaction with other countries outside the elite club was approached from above, and within the framework of the outreach format, the standard colonial discourse of providing assistance was promoted in exchange for fulfilling the conditions favorable to the “seven” for receiving it. By the way, do not forget that Russia, which rose from its knees after the collapse of the USSR, went through a similar outreach, at first, obediently reporting on progress in the development of democracy and economic progress to Western mentors, and then, as it turned out, only conditionally limited, as a "homestay", included in the bosom of an elite family. However, hope in Russia always dies last, so at least from 2002 (after the inclusion in the document following the summit in Canada of Russia in the queue for the chairmanship, which eventually took place in 2006) until the “suspension” of its membership in 2014.

It seemed to many, including the author of this article, that we can really interact with all members of the "seven" on an equal footing, achieve the global good, and such circumstances are objective and mutual. Time has shown the futility of such hopes. At least since the Okinawa summit in 2000. The G7 has made approaches to China in an attempt to offer a similar alternative to the Asian giant, but Beijing far-sightedly did not fall for this bait and refused to change its status of a developing country to a limited membership in an elite club. That is, the “seven” was seen by society more negatively, as a club of the “rich”, and interaction with guests took place according to the standard neo-colonial formula, which also did not give positive features to the image of the “group”. And the agenda of the latest summits has completely slid into confrontationalism, which further alienates even the loyal countries of the world majority. and the implementation of interaction with guests took place according to the standard neo-colonial formula, which also did not give positive features to the image of the “group”. And the agenda of the latest summits has completely slid into confrontationalism, which further alienates even the loyal countries of the world majority. and the implementation of interaction with guests took place according to the standard neo-colonial formula, which also did not give positive features to the image of the “group”. And the agenda of the latest summits has completely slid into confrontationalism, which further alienates even the loyal countries of the world majority.

Unlike the elites,the BRICS initially built interaction both within the group and the group itself with the outside world on the principles of equality, mutual respect and involvement. If in the G7 a full-fledged civil process (rather than limited consultations with individual representatives of mostly transnational NGOs) was launched only three decades after the emergence of the group (by the way, this happened in 2006, during the period of the only Russia’s chairmanship), then in BRICS interaction with civil society began as early as the “second” cycle, during the Russian chairmanship in 2015. The academic track in BRICS generally became the forerunner of the launch of the top-level format, and the institutionalization of consultations with the business and expert community took place already in the first cycle,

It would seem, why even compare these two "clubs"? The point is to understand what is the difference in the perception of these groups by different societies. Understand the origins of additional opportunities through the constructive involvement of both our own societies and other countries in our work instead of dictate and voluntary-compulsory accountability inherent in our non-partners in the West. And also to assess the prospects that have arisen for the BRICS as a result of the accomplished expansion.

But let's get back to the last summit and its visible results. The devil, as they say, is always in the detail. Indeed, the past expansion exceeded all, even cautious, expectations and in some cases raised certain questions both in terms of the approved composition and in the more than doubling of the number of member countries. There is no doubt that each of the new members can bring added value to the subsequent work of the association, but at the same time the specifics of each will add more than one sleepless night to those responsible for the work of the renewed group.

On the one hand, there were a lot of comments about the fact that the US allies, the KSA and the UAE, entered the BRICS, but at the same time, these observers at least did not notice the active steps of the latter regarding the implementation of an independent foreign policy. Again, not against the US or the West in general, but simply a pragmatic foreign policy, taking into account their own interests. Others focused on the fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia, although they recently announced the establishment of relations, nevertheless have a number of unresolved contradictions. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the admission of new members of Argentina. However, this call can rather be interpreted as additional features.

The BRICS experience has shown that even in the presence of bilateral conflicts, the need to meet regularly in a common format provides additional incentives and opportunities for dialogue for overcoming existing contradictions. Continuing the conversation about Argentina, it can be noted that, on the one hand, along with Brazil, it is really one of the only contenders for leadership in the region, on the other hand, the presence of serious economic and domestic political problems makes the upcoming elections there in October 2023 a kind of “black swan” for the BRICS, since there remains the possibility of a fairly radical change of course in the event of the arrival of the most popular extreme right-wing candidate to date. If Egypt, which is part of the BRICS, is the third largest economy in Africa (after Nigeria and South Africa), then there is the situation with Ethiopia, where, by the way, the headquarters of the African Union is located,About more uncertainty - after all, the per capita indicator in this state is about a thousand dollars, which puts it in the group of countries with a low per capita income. However, the advantage of such a candidate may be the opportunity to directly address the problems that are important for the poorest developing countries, and, using the example of interaction within the BRICS framework, to achieve an acceleration of their socio-economic development. Although there are some "buts" here too - the result should be obvious, and the speed of its visible achievement should fit into the medium term.

Therefore, yes, indeed, new members and the expansion of the composition is an increase in the authority of the association, a wider base for interaction, the possession of significant reserves of hydrocarbons, precious, semi-precious, rare earth metals and other mineral resources, more than 45% of the world's population plus more than a third of the territory of the planet, these are new significant financial centers and up to half of the production of a number of grains, but at the same time all these bonuses cannot lead to the automatic addition of the listed parameters for unconditional leadership. BRICS leadership can only be ensured through the painstaking work of each participant in the mindset to achieve consensus and concrete results even on complex issues, through the awareness and acceptance by new BRICS members of the principles and spirit of unification, the consent to work in depth,

Also, as we remember, the queue of those wishing to join the BRICS is much longer, which also determines the importance of further reaching consensus already in the new composition regarding the countries - partners in the dialogue.

Another trendy topic of the last summit was the introduction of a new common BRICS currency. However, it was from this perspective that external observers approached the problem, and within the framework of the association itself, the conversation was about something else. Someone is trying to present the absence of a result they themselves invented as a failure of the current summit, but the situation is quite different. As we remember, back in Fortaleza in 2014, the leaders signed framework agreements on the use of national currencies, as well as on a pool of foreign exchange reserves. Today, given the aggravation of the international situation and the unreliability of the payment systems offered by the West, the use of SWIFT and the dollar as a weapon has led to the need to agree on the principles of maintaining the stability and independence of mutual trade and investment, which, in turn, requires the introduction of alternative payment instruments. This is exactly the order that the financial departments of the BRICS countries will receive by next year. Moreover, the stability of such an instrument can be guaranteed by quite tangible resources, including precious metals or other mineral reserves available to the BRICS countries, especially in their new composition.

The rest of the results, although they turned out to be less noticeable against the background of the two flagship issues, nevertheless deserve a separate analysis.

It would seem that discussions about the reform of global governance institutions, in particular the UN Security Council, that have not taken place have long been set on edge, and the document of the current meeting only once again confirmed the commitment of the two permanent members to strengthen the voice of the other three. However, if you carefully read the declaration, you can see that BRICS not only agreed with the need to make the UN, including the Security Council, “more democratic, representative, efficient and effective”, but emphasized the importance of increasing the representation of precisely developing countries in all categories of membership, of course with with a special focus on Brazil, India and South Africa. By the way, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasized this point in his press conference,

In this context, it was no less interesting to watch the speeches at the enlarged BRICS meeting, in particular, the speech of the UN Secretary General, who in the first half of his speech could not withstand the neutrality required for an international official of the universal organization and advanced theses in the spirit of Western discourse, and the remaining speech was actually devoted to persuading the participants of the summit to preserve the significance and uniqueness of the organization. A number of observers could not even resist sarcasm and regarded this speech as a request from Mr. Guterres "not to fire" him.

No less important was the approval of the BRICS position on the issues of "unilateral illegal measures, such as sanctions" in the refraction of world trade and especially "trade in agricultural products", which can also be considered as indirect support for Russia's position on the situation with the grain deal.

The part of the document concerning the assessment of regional conflicts is also interesting, with extremely vague wording on difficult situations affecting the interests of someone from the BRICS, or within the framework of the anti-colonial agenda, but with more stringent wordingexpressing "deep concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories as a result of the escalation of violence under the ongoing Israeli occupation and illegal settlements." In fact, special positions were expressed in the declaration document, often differing from the standard Western discourse. Therefore, in the face of growing criticism from, first of all, Russia and China of the illegal activities of American biological laboratories, one should not underestimate the designation of the position of the BRICS on strengthening the BTWC regime and the position of the “five” on maintaining the JCPOA with respect to Iran, as well as a slightly adapted, but traditional passage on preventing placement of weapons in space.

The results of the BRICS summit were summed up at a round table in Izvestia
Similarly, it is worth paying attention to the energy part of the declaration. In fact, BRICS is making a claim for its own energy transition ideology, which is different from Western discourse. In the BRICS vision, “energy security, access to energy and energy transitions are important and must be balanced”, therefore, the document found a place not only for standard renewable energy sources, but also for nuclear energy and hydrogen, hydropower, as well as fossil fuels - all based on national opportunities for a “just transition to more resilient, sustainable and sustainable energy systems”.

These are just a few examples, but they allow us to see the growth of the BRICS self-awareness as the core of a new world order. On the one hand, no one in BRICS even thinks about opposing their group to the G7, the West as a whole, or anyone else. The BRICS agenda remains constructive. On the other hand, BRICS is definitely making more and more confident claims for its own opinion, sometimes very different from the generally accepted and formulated according to Western patterns.

The increase in the number of members, the introduction of an even greater diversity of positions and opinions will certainly make the work of BRICS even more complex, interesting and exceptionally intense. However, maintaining the effectiveness of the association and the possibility of deepening the partnership do not automatically go hand in hand with expansion and euphoria about this event. Negotiating and reaching consensus within the group will certainly prove to be more time consuming. But at the same time, the presence of political will, awareness of one's new global status and interest in more serious negotiating positions both with partners and enemies outside the BRICS contour should contribute to the solution of this very non-trivial and difficult task.
Viktoria Panova has a PhD in History, Vice-Rector of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Sherpa of the Russian Federation in the Women's Twenty (W20), RIAC Member.
This article originally appeared at https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/impuls-mnogopolyarnosti-itogi-sammita-briks-v-yuar/
This article was translated and edited by Rhod Mackenzie