BRICS cannot develop along the path of the West

By Elena Gorbacheva

After Argentina, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran officially join the BRICS next year, its combined GDP will be 37% of the world's. In addition, it will control almost 50% of world oil production and 40% of its exports. The control of energy resources is indeed a serious bid for multipolarity.

Surprisingly, just a few years ago, even in Russian analytical circles, the attitude towards this association of countries was often rather skeptical. What is BRICS and what role does it play in modern politics?

The Political scientist Timofei Bordachev , Academic Supervisor of the HSE Central Research Institute of Contemporary Arts, Program Director of the Valdai International Discussion Club, and a member of the RIAC, answered these and other questions for Expert magazine .

— Timofey Vyacheslavovich, it is noteworthy that BRICS does not call itself an organization. The BRICS do not have structures similar to those that, say, the EU or NATO have. So what is it?

— BRICS in general emerged in an amazing way. Usually, states create some kind of associations and then come up with names for them. But in this group of countries, the opposite happened.

The acronym BRIC was coined by the political consultant Jim O'Neill to define a certain group of countries. What emerged as a creative image has become a political reality. BRIC - then it was only 4 countries, Brazil, Russia, India and China (South Africa - South Africa, hence the "S" - ed.) was added later - and there was no thoughts or ideas to fight with the United States.

All they wanted was to benefit from globalization and gradually increase their influence within the international order that the West had created after 1945.

But the abbreviation arose, and the leaders of these countries realized that the expansion of their rights can be carried out jointly, by coordinating their efforts.

What is BRICS? Formally, it is not even an organization, it is not the EU, not NATO, and not even the G7. This is a unique story: a club of strategic interests, let's say. And I would call its main idea the desire to preserve globalization, but to make it more fair for the participating countries.

— If BRICS does not argue with globalization, then what are the irreconcilable contradictions between Western countries and this club?

• Western civilization is a civilization of struggle, where contradictions are resolved through conflicts. Any alternative for the West is the basis for a clash. The pyramidal structure of thinking inherent in Western political philosophy since the time of the ancient Greek historian Thucydides? does not involve the cooperation of alternatives, only a vertical relationship.

The ability of the United States and, first of all, Europe to be leaders in solving global problems is beginning to weaken. They find less and less strength to take into account the interests of others, as they did back in the days of the Cold War. And the lack of competition from the collapsed Soviet Union made the West more selfish.

As the West loses the ability to be a leader whose decisions generally suited the rest, naturally the BRIC countries, and then the BRICS, began to try this ability on themselves. They began to discuss among themselves solutions, the achievement of some goals that meet not only their narrow national interests, but also broader interests within the international community.

A year ago, the world was shocked that the dollar could be used as a weapon. And then, if you remember, everyone was worried about the question: how to make sure that globalization is not used as a weapon.

But pay attention - even Putin does not say that we want to completely exclude the dollar from all international payments. No: it is about making the international order in this particular area less vulnerable to shocks related to the decisions of those countries that print dollars or euros.

This is not a struggle: this is an alternative aimed at increasing the sustainability of the international world order in which we all live. Increasing sustainability through internal changes in this world order, which can no longer be cosmetic. And at this moment a conflict arises, because the countries of the West perceive any change in the world order that they created and to which Russia and China joyfully joined at one time, as aggression, as a challenge to their interests. As a fundamental basis for conflict and struggle.

• The leaders of the BRICS, speaking about the new world order, which will not be built under compulsion, will they be ready to give in on something?

— The BRICS countries are ready for confrontation, and will not concede, but they do not set themselves offensive, aggressive goals, despite the fact that China has an arsenal for such actions.

— Do the mechanisms for the implementation of the new world order already exist? Is there a risk that BRICS will simply copy Western institutions?

• An international order that will not be vertical will be formed in any case, whether someone is interested in it or not, including, by the way, BRICS. This is the natural development of life.

BRICS cannot develop along the path of the West, because all the institutions of the West are vertically integrated, they are all about leadership, all are based on the principle of a“leader and a tribe”. The alternative is unknown to us, there is no understanding, and there are no examples in the last 100 years either.

Besides, I do not see the possibility of the functioning of Western institutions outside the countries of the liberal West. We cannot describe the new world order until it has taken shape. But we can understand what is important for shaping the future.

• Countries that plan to join the BRICS - there are numbers of 30 and even 40 countries - what exactly do they need from this structure?

— 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 Kazakhstan is negotiating with 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 who are already relying on some kind of alternative structure, this makes them less vulnerable. This is a very important point.

— What is the most acute challenge for BRICS?

— From my point of view, the issue of expansion is the most difficult for BRICS. On the other hand, we are simple people, and we do not know on the basis of what logic those who are responsible for millions and billions of states operate. Perhaps, from their point of view on the logic and expediency of ensuring the national interests of states, such an expansion is appropriate.

— The BRICS includes many different countries. And those states that plan to join are also in difficult relations with each other and with the current members of the association. How do you manage to keep balance?

• Remember how Russia promoted the admission of India and Pakistan to the SCO. Then our Chinese friends resisted very strongly. And we tried to convince them for a very long time that this should be done, because it was in our national interests.

As a result, Chinese friends agreed to meet us and nothing tragic happened to the SCO, the last summit in Samarkand had very good results. The organization went through an adaptation period, and they again reached out to it: Iran, Turkey, Egypt ...

The example of the SCO shows us that everything is possible. We will see how it will develop with BRICS.

The fundamental importance of the summit is that it is a fortunate coincidence that South Africa, as the smallest country, is holding it, especially in the wake of heightened attention to both the BRICS and Africa. It is good that the African theme is present - this is important, this is not such a conflict region as Europe, where Russia and Asia collide directly. In Africa, if their interests come into conflict, then this happens indirectly, and in this case, South Africa acts as a kind of shock absorber.

— Don't we ourselves expect too much from BRICS?

— Any initiative is faced with expectations and opportunities, especially in today's media world, when the media must constantly feed the society either success or tragedy.

You have to be prepared for failure as well. I myself do not expect achievements from BRICS that could become fundamental for the destruction of the current order, or for the creation of a new one. If the BRICS countries and partners manage to agree on serious decisions in the field of international finance, yes, this will be a real breakthrough.

So far, I don’t have such a feeling: BRICS doesn’t want to harm anyone, but wants to hedge itself in the new conditions.
This article originally appeared in Russian at expert.ru and was translated and edited by Rhod Mackenzie