At the beginning of the 21st century, new economic powers emerged on the international stage. This led to discussions in academic and political circles about the position and role of these powers in the global arena. Jim O’Neill, a prominent British economist who later became the British finance minister, explored the idea of influence and the role of emerging economic powers at the Goldman Sachs Institute. He came up with the name BRIC, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China – the first letters of the names of these emerging economic powers. Later, South Africa also joined, and the name was changed to BRICS. Over the years, there have been many discussions and analyses about BRICS in scientific and political circles. These discussions caught the attention of the emerging powers, and in 2006, the foreign ministers of these countries discussed and exchanged opinions on establishing this institution for the first time.
On June 16, 2009, four emerging world powers officially established the BRIC organization in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In 2011, South Africa joined this group and it changed its name to BRICS. BRICS was able to quickly strengthen its internal institutions, which was noticed by external observers who either appreciated or expressed concerns. Over the years, BRICS has become an important and well-known organization internationally, leading to many misconceptions. Some view BRICS as a serious competitor to the West, particularly the United States, while others see it as an illusion. The opponents of this idea emphasize the differences in values and politics among its members and do not take it seriously. This article explores and analyzes the position of the BRICS organization in the upcoming multipolar international system.
BRICS Relationship with the West; Interaction or Confrontation?
The 21st century is characterized by the globalization of the economy and trade. Currently, trade between countries is so interconnected that any economic instability in one part of the world affects the financial situation in other parts. Essentially, no country can sustain political and economic growth without extensive commercial and economic interaction with other countries. China experienced accelerated economic growth when it joined the global free market and adopted its principles. Currently, the West, particularly the United States, is considered the largest trade and economic partner of BRICS. Any conflict or separation from the West would result in trade friction and potentially the disruption of trade relations, with the West being the main loser. The United States and the European Union are the largest trading partners of the BRICS member states, which highlights the importance of maintaining relationships and interactions with the West. The West possesses a large financial market, heavy and advanced industries, and highly developed technology that cannot be easily disregarded. It is true that China, India, and other BRICS members are among the top economies in the world, but it is the West that purchases and consumes the goods produced in these countries, and advanced technology remains predominantly controlled by the West.
The trade war between the US and China, which began in 2018, had a severe impact on the Chinese economy before affecting the US economy. While it did not halt China’s economic growth, it significantly hindered its progress. All member countries of BRICS recognize that engaging with the West serves their economic interests, and any conflict can have significant and painful consequences. Moreover, Brazil and India are strategic allies of the United States and the West, with deep commercial, political, and even security relationships. Their inclusion in BRICS is a strategic move, and if they had to choose between the West and BRICS, they would choose the West. The differing goals among BRICS members have caused confusion within the institution, and it does not appear that BRICS can become a coherent and serious competitor to the West in the short term.
BRICS; Convergent or Divergent Organization?
BRICS is an organization composed of countries with conflicting goals. These contradictory goals and priorities among BRICS members often lead to disagreements. BRICS members have not yet been able to achieve shared strategic goals, which occasionally become evident from within the organization. For instance, China and Russia aim to abandon the dollar and reduce the United States’ influence in the global economy, but Brazil and India do not support this idea. Another clear example of differing priorities among BRICS member states is their inability to agree on a common stance regarding international issues. In the Syrian war, BRICS failed to reach a unified position. Russia and China supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime, while India and Brazil expressed concern over human rights violations by the Syrian government. Currently, Russia, a key BRICS member, is involved in the Ukraine conflict, but the BRICS members have been unable or unwilling to play a role in this matter.
If we consider BRICS solely as an economic and commercial institution, it has not achieved significant success in this area either, which would clearly define its role. The BRICS trade agreement, intended to facilitate trade among its members and increase trade volume, has not been signed by China and South Africa yet because they believe it would harm their industrial sector. China and India, two important members of BRICS, have unresolved issues between them, including border tensions. Additionally, India is a key ally of the United States and has signed a security agreement with them. Brazil, on the other hand, has a strong trade and friendship relationship with the West and the United States. Russia has a strained relationship with Western countries, and both Russia and China are major rivals of the West in the international arena. Apart from a few exceptions, BRICS has not been able to achieve its common and strategic goals, and the individual interests of its members continue to overshadow its collective interests.
Ideological and Strategic Loss
Having a common ideology and strategy ensures the long-lasting and stable nature of coalitions and institutions, fostering unity among members. Without a shared strategy and ideology, alliances between countries and people may form temporarily, but they will be weak, vulnerable, and driven by short-term goals. Furthermore, future events can alter the fundamental nature of such alliances.
Unlike the G7 group, which shares common values and strategic goals, BRICS lacks this characteristic. The G7 countries have already established a foundation for cooperation. The common values of the G7 include liberal democracy, human rights, pluralism, and a market-oriented economy, among others. However, BRICS does not endorse such common values and ideology. Politically, unlike the G7 group, all members of which have a liberal democracy, there is a political incompatibility among BRICS members from an institutional perspective. China has a one-party system, while India is the world’s largest democracy with strong democratic institutions. Common ideology provides a basis for cooperation to achieve goals, which becomes difficult, if not impossible, in its absence. Previously, BRICS had a more tactical approach to important global issues, with each member seeking to achieve their own desired goals. The lack of a common ideology hinders BRICS from making decisive decisions and adopting a unified position. In contrast to the G7, which shares a single ideology and strategic perspective, BRICS has not been very successful in global affairs. It has not been able to reduce the divergence of opinions and the fragmentation of its objectives. The main obstacle to this trade alliance is the lack of shared values and political alignment. The diverse and inconsistent values and norms of its members have prevented them from playing a deserving role in the international arena.
BRICS Objectives; Idealistic or Pragmatic?
The emerging economic powers, dissatisfied with the new order led by the United States, initially collaborated to reform the international economic and trade system. However, since the establishment of BRICS over fifteen years ago, its members have not been successful in implementing the necessary reforms in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The United States remains the dominant power on the global stage, and BRICS has not introduced any alternatives or substitutes to challenge the Western-influenced institutions. The only significant action taken by BRICS was the creation of a bank called the New Development Bank in 2014. China aims to utilize BRICS as a platform to exert more influence on the world, a goal that India and even Russia do not agree with.
Some members of BRICS, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa, are interested in reforming the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and becoming members of it. However, there is no agreement on this matter. For instance, China opposes India becoming a permanent member of the UNSC. BRICS has not been able to respond in a unified and coherent manner to important international issues, which highlights the differences among its members and gives the impression that the BRICS countries are not truly determined to join this alliance. While BRICS has made progress in trade and economy, no concrete actions have been taken yet in the political, security, and military domains.
BRICS and the Power Transfer Equation
The rise of new economic powers in the world prompted some countries to seek greater influence on the global stage. After 2017, with the economic growth of China, India, and other countries, the United States, which was previously the dominant power, was pushed to the sidelines. This led to the introduction of the term “multi-polarization” in the world’s political and economic literature, gaining popularity. The emergence of new powers resulted in a decrease in the economic dominance of the Western countries, particularly the United States, and the formation of new centers of regional power. Apart from the West, regions such as South and Southeast Asia, as well as Latin America, became new economic hubs.
Economic development is considered the foundation of power and leads to the growth and evolution of military and political power. In the 1990s and early 21st century, the United States was seen as a dominant superpower. However, new centers of power are now emerging globally, and they should not be disregarded.
Conclusion
In the midst of the world transitioning to a multipolar order, institutions like BRICS can play a crucial role. Despite the challenges ahead, BRICS can restructure itself by drawing from the experiences of the European Union and the G7 group, and solve its problems with wisdom and foresight. Economic convergence will eventually lead to political and military convergence. However, overcoming the challenges faced by this institution will be a difficult task that cannot be achieved easily.
The addition of more BRICS members will result in increased divisions within this organization. The political structure of BRICS members is not uniform, there is no common ideology, and there is a lack of specific strategic goals. Additionally, there is competition among the members within the institution. These challenges are significant and could potentially lead to the collapse of this institution if not addressed with insight and foresight. Only time will tell if BRICS members can understand the importance of timing and make use of it.
Read this article in Farsi here.