BRICS Faces a Reckoning - Foreign Policy - Online

BRICS Faces a Reckoning

Foreign Policy - Online

June 22, 2023, 1:21 PM

https://adb.empauta.com/e6/noticia/2306221687455889007?autolog=eJwzMDA1NzMzNDU2MTMwMjAyNjAzMgYAKh4D--2Fg--3D--3D%2F

In 2001, Goldman Sachs banker Jim O'Neill created the acronym "BRIC" to refer to Brazil, Russia, India, and China- countries he predicted would soon have a significant impact on the global economy. In 2006, Goldman Sachs opened a BRIC investment fund pegged to growth in these four nations. The moniker captured the global excitement about emerging powers at the time and transformed into a political grouping in 2009, when leaders of the four countries held their first summit. South Africa joined a year later.

In 2001, Goldman Sachs banker Jim O'Neill created the acronym "BRIC" to refer to Brazil, Russia, India, and China- countries he predicted would soon have a significant impact on the global economy. In 2006, Goldman Sachs opened a BRIC investment fund pegged to growth in these four nations. The moniker captured the global excitement about emerging powers at the time and transformed into a political grouping in 2009, when leaders of the four countries held their first summit. South Africa joined a year later.

BRICS as a political body has faced countless critics and doubters from the start. Analysts in the Western press largely described the outfit as nonsensical and predicted its imminent demise. In 2011, the Financial Times' Philip Stevens announced it was "time to bid farewell" to the "BRICS without mortar." A year later, another columnist at the paper, Martin Wolf, asserted that BRICS was "not a group" and that its members had "nothing in common whatsoever." BRICS has also been described as a "motley crew," "odd grouping," "random bunch," and "disparate quartet." In 2015, Goldman Sachs decided to close the BRIC fund (which never grew to include South Africa) due to its low returns.

BRICS member countries have numerous differences and disagreements. While Brazil and Russia are commodity exporters, China is a commodity importer. Brazil, India, and South Africa are democratic countries with vibrant civil societies, but China and Russia are autocratic regimes. Brazil and South Africa are nonnuclear powers, in contrast to China, India, and Russia, which boast nuclear arsenals. Perhaps most seriously, China and India face an ongoing border conflict.

And yet, despite their differences, not one BRICS leader has ever missed the group's annual summits. (Meetings took place virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic.) Instead of unraveling, diplomatic and economic ties have strengthened, and BRICS membership has become a central element to each member's foreign-policy identity. Even significant ideological shifts- including the election of right-wing populist leaders such as India's Narendra Modi in 2014 and Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro in 2018- have not significantly altered countries' commitment to the club.

Yet as BRICS approaches its 15th summit in Johannesburg this August, the grouping is experiencing an unprecedented disagreement over enlargement. The outcome will be a test of BRICS identity in the face of rising Chinese influence.

Despite the many disagreements and tensions among them, BRICS members have more in common than Western analysts often appreciate. The strategic benefits the outfit produces for its participants still far exceed its costs. Four aspects stand out.

First, all BRICS members see the emergence of multipolarity as both inevitable and generally desirable- and identify the bloc as a means to play a more active role in shaping the post-Western global order. Member states share a deep-seated skepticism of U.S.-led unipolarity and believe that the BRICS nations increase their strategic autonomy and bargaining power when negotiating with Washington. As Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in opening remarks at the BRICS foreign ministers' meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, on June 1, the concentration of economic power- presumably in the West- "leaves too many nations at the mercy of too few."

Second, the BRICS grouping also provides privileged access to China, a country that has become enormously relevant for all other members. Brazil and South Africa in particular, which had only limited ties to Beijing prior to the group's founding, have benefited from BRICS as they adapt to a more China-centric world. It's not just the summits attended by heads of state: Ministers and other officials frequently gather to discuss issues such as climate, defense, education, energy, and health. And, largely under the radar, the grouping has organized countless annual meetings- in some years more than 100- involving government officials, think tanks, universities, cultural entities, and legislators. BRICS membership also granted countries a founding stake in the Shanghai-based New Development Bank (NDB), created during the fifth BRICS summit in 2013.

Third, BRICS members have generally treated each other as all-weather friends. The group has created a powerful diplomatic life raft for member countries that temporarily face difficulties on the global stage: Fellow BRICS states protected Russian President Vladimir Putin from diplomatic isolation after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and stood by Bolsonaro when he found himself globally isolated after his close ally Donald Trump's failed reelection bid for the U.S. presidency. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Putin could again rely on the other BRICS countries to provide him explicit diplomatic and economic support (China), help circumvent sanctions (India), participate in military exercises (South Africa), or embrace his narratives about the war (Brazil). Without BRICS support, Russia would find itself in a far more difficult situation today.

Finally, being a member of the BRICS creates considerable prestige, status, and legitimacy for Brazil, Russia, and South Africa, which for years have stagnated economically and are now anything but emerging powers. Even as Brazil has fallen behind in its share of global GDP, analysts continue to describe it as an emerging power- which facilitates investment and allows the government in Brasília, the capital, to punch above its weight diplomatically. That some 20 countries are now seeking membership in the group only confirms the notion that the BRICS seal remains powerful.

It is precisely on this last issue that the grouping is facing its biggest disagreement since its inception 14 years ago. Beijing, which does not need to preserve the grouping's exclusivity to retain its global status, has for years aimed to integrate new members and slowly transform the bloc into a China-led alliance. Since 2017, when it presented the "BRICS Plus" concept- a mechanism to bring countries closer to the outfit before eventually granting them full membership- Beijing has sought to put expansion on the agenda. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, expansion has also been of interest to Moscow, as it could help create a Russia-sympathetic bloc to counter Western attempts to isolate the country.

Brazil and India, on the other hand, have long been wary of adding new members to BRICS, as they have less to gain from a diluted club that includes smaller powers. Both Brasília and New Delhi fear that expansion would entail a loss of Brazilian and Indian influence within the group. In their eyes, new members would join largely to gain easier access to Beijing, making BRICS positions more China-centric and potentially less moderate. This explains why Jaishankar recently cautioned that deliberations on expansion were still a "work in progress," and Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said that "BRICS is a brand and an asset, so we have to take care of it, because it means and represents a lot." South Africa, which traditionally has the least influence within BRICS, has sought to hedge its bets.

There is no formal application process- or specific criteria- to become a BRICS member. Some countries have simply been added to the list of potential future members after an informal expression of interest. But in last year's BRICS summit declaration, member countries vowed to promote "discussions among BRICS members on BRICS expansion process" and stressed "the need to clarify the guiding principles, the standards, criteria and procedures." The debate about BRICS expansion is not directly related to the NDB, which in 2021 added Bangladesh, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Uruguay as new members and announced that at least 30 percent of loans would be provided in the currencies of member states rather than the U.S. dollar.

In theory, each BRICS member has a veto over the group's decisions, which explains why yearly summit declarations have often been vague. In practice, the grouping's profound asymmetries- China's GDP is larger than that of all other members combined- creates informal hierarchies. South Africa's 2010 accession was led by China to bolster Beijing's engagement on the African continent. It also made the IBSA grouping (of India, Brazil, and South Africa) superfluous. If killing IBSA was a desired side effect of South Africa's BRICS membership- to show that three large democracies in the developing world discussing can't discuss the future of the global south without China- Beijing succeeded: The 10th IBSA leaders' summit, scheduled to take place in 2013, has been postponed indefinitely.

China and Russia may therefore succeed, despite Brazilian opposition and Indian skepticism, in adding new members to the club, particularly since Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva- to his advisors' chagrin- recently expressed support for inviting Venezuela to BRICS during improvised remarks.

Disagreements over whether to expand BRICS are about more than exclusivity and status. Several potential accession candidates- such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela- have largely pursued an anti-Western foreign policy. Their integration could complicate Brazil's and India's efforts to preserve a nonaligned strategy amid growing tensions between the West and the Beijing-Moscow axis.

The key to BRICS' success since 2009 has been its capacity to circumvent internal disagreements and focus on unifying themes, such as the desire to build a more multipolar world and strengthen south-south relations. India-China ties are notoriously fraught and, despite New Delhi's decision to help Moscow export its oil, India has systematically sought to reduce its dependence on Russian weapons and increased its arms purchases from Europe. The status quo may be the best BRICS can achieve without exposing its rifts. While Russia has long attempted to position the BRICS grouping as an anti-Western bloc, Brazil and India have steadily sought to prevent Moscow from doing so.

The uncertainty about how the South African government in Pretoria should handle hosting the upcoming BRICS summit in Johannesburg reflects the dilemmas it and Brasília currently face in the context of growing tensions between Moscow and the West. Since South Africa is a party to the Rome Statute, the founding charter of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it would be obligated to arrest Putin- whom the ICC has indicted- if he attends. For months, South Africans have debated how to handle the delicate situation. As former South African President Thabo Mbeki recently pointed out: "We can't say to President Putin, please come to South Africa, and then arrest him. At the same time, we can't say come to South Africa, and not arrest him- because we're defying our own law- we can't behave as a lawless government."

While hosting Putin without arresting him would strain South Africa's ties to the West, not hosting him- or organizing the summit elsewhere- would dilute BRICS' commitment to being all-weather friends. The most likely scenario is that South Africa finds a legal loophole to host Putin without detaining him- representing a diplomatic triumph for the Russian president.

Still, it is largely a lose-lose dilemma for South Africa, and means that being part of BRICS has started to have a tangible cost for the country by negatively affecting its ties to the United States and Europe. Pretoria has already had a taste of this: After South Africa drew closer to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine- including by allegedly supplying Moscow with weapons- the G-7 decided not to invite it as a guest to a recent summit, for the first time since South African President Cyril Ramaphosa took office in 2018. Unless the Russia-Ukraine war ends soon, Brazil- which has also signed the Rome Statute and is slated to host the G-20 summit in 2024 and the BRICS summit in 2025 - will soon face the same problem.

For all its ongoing challenges, BRICS generates many benefits for its members and is here to stay. Yet if the group announces the inclusion of new members during the upcoming summit in Johannesburg, it would be simplistic to interpret it as a sign of strength. Rather, expansion should be read as a sign of China's growing capacity to determine the bloc's overall strategy- and may reflect the emergence not of a multipolar order, but of a bipolar one.