The emergence of BRICS, an acronym representing Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has stirred the international stage with its potential to reshape global dynamics. Born in the early 2000s, this coalition of diverse nations has attracted considerable attention due to its capacity to influence international trade, politics, and economics. BRICS began as a response to the perceived dominance of Western powers, with its founding members sharing a desire to exert their presence on the global platform and establish a new paradigm for cooperation among emerging economies.
Starting as an informal dialogue in 2006, BRICS rapidly transformed into a full-fledged mechanism for diplomatic engagements, economic partnerships, and strategic dialogues. These five member states, spanning continents and encompassing a wide array of cultural, economic, and political contexts, collectively represent a substantial share of the world's populace, geography, and economic output. This distinctive convergence has empowered the group to actively shape global conversations, covering issues as diverse as sustainable development and geopolitical recalibrations.
As BRICS undergoes further evolution, expanding its membership, inviting new economies, and adapting to shifting global dynamics, it confronts an array of prospects and obstacles. From its early days as an informal exchange to its present stature as a multifaceted partnership, BRICS serves as an engaging example of international diplomacy, spotlighting the intricate interplay between national interests, collective ambitions, and the ever-changing dynamics of global power.
The BRICS coalition has reached an accord to enlarge its membership by incorporating six additional countries starting in January 2024. The inclusion of these six new members, which encompasses Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, will more than double the size of the informal coalition.
This decision was made during the recent BRICS Leaders' Summit held in South Africa. Chinese President Xi Jinping lauded this expansion as a historic milestone and a fresh commencing point for enhanced collaboration among BRICS nations. Over twenty nations have expressed interest in joining the coalition, which implies that the inclusion of these six new members might pave the way for subsequent rounds of expansion.
However, this week's summit has brought into focus certain divisions within the existing coalition concerning matters like expansion and the coalition's precise objectives. China and Russia have shown keen interest in extending beyond the original five BRICS members with the aim of establishing the coalition as a geopolitical counterbalance to the Western alliance led by the United States. While this broadening of membership theoretically augments the coalition's influence, it can also potentially hinder unified action, particularly when considering the dynamics among the current and upcoming members.
Tensions between India and China, marked by an undefined and conflict-prone border, have been growing. Egypt and Ethiopia are engaged in a dispute regarding water resources from the Nile River. Furthermore, Iran and Saudi Arabia are entangled in their own regional rivalry, notably exemplified by their proxy conflict in Yemen.
The six new nations were selected after the current members arrived at a consensus on the guiding principles, standards, criteria, and procedures for the BRICS expansion process. Although specific details about these principles were not disclosed in the statement, it's been observed that the expansion has a notable focus on energy, given the inclusion of the UAE, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
While China and Russia have shown enthusiasm for expansion, Brazil and India have displayed some reservations, possibly due to concerns about diluting their influence within the coalition. In fact, Brazilian President Lula openly dismissed the notion of BRICS becoming an anti-US alliance, emphasizing that he envisions it as a platform for developing and emerging nations, collectively referred to as the "Global South," to organize themselves.
The South African summit has indeed provided an opportunity for this vision to materialize. Representatives from non-BRICS "Global South" nations have raised important matters, including suffocating debt, equitable international economic structures, mutually beneficial multilateral cooperation, and more.
Stating that this coalition of countries could potentially “tip the scale” of shift the balance of power in the world would be an overstatement. Any coalition or alliance is strengthened only by unwavering unity among its member states. That is clearly not the case when it comes to BRICS, since most of the countries involved have different and conflicting geopolitical goals. India and China are in an economic rat race of their own. Serious border issues, contrasting ideals and different economic goals are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the mess that is Indo-China relations.
Despite Russia being a mutual ally and a moderator of sorts between the two nations, no drastic improvement has been seen in the two countries’ relations. Moreover, India is pursuing its own geopolitical agenda, having spent much of its effort over the past years in being in the good books of both sides. BRICS proposing an alternate common currency, to combat the dollar supremacy is equally unrealistic, since the thought of India and China sharing the same currency is ludicrous at best. Add to that, the economic and political instability of South Africa makes the idea look worse. Expecting cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the future is equally foolish.
Overall, the main obstacle BRICS faces is members having their own agenda and not working towards a collective goal. BRICS gives a safe space for countries to limit western domination and to have a voice of their own, but in the present, their collective ability to combat American and western domination is something to be questioned. If these countries solve their issues and set a firm goal for the near future, they could pose a serious threat to the western hegemony. Whether this is something desirable or not is completely dependent on perspective.
Comentários