The turn of the year is a time of reflections, resolutions and transformations. These apply not just to individuals but to nations and their foreign affairs.
The expansion of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa’s economic coalition — is one such transition.
The new year has come with new alliances. On Jan. 1, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia were added to the grouping. Argentina, which was invited to join the grouping under the recently elected President Javier Milei, withdrew its application.
Nonetheless, the addition of five nations is a significant development in light of more than 60 countries attending BRICS’s August summit — a clear sign it is transforming into an association representing the nations of the Global South.
Over the last few years, there has been a large void in global leadership. The rise of populism in the Western world, coupled with America’s aversion to multilateral free trade agreements since the Trump years, has created a notable absence in the economic and the broader global leadership spheres. While China continues to make inroads in critical technologies and its economic clout remains formidable, nations are not wholeheartedly jumping on its bandwagon to replace the U.S. as the leader of the world.
The world’s transition from bilateral to unilateral global relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union is finally coming to an end. However, it is not a return to bilateral competition as many analysts in Washington insist. There’s a trust deficit among nations of the Global South in any one nation to take the lead or represent its interests. This has created an environment wherein multiple regional powers represent their national, and occasionally regional, interests.
The lack of leadership, coupled with the increased representation of voices from nations across the Global South thanks to social media, has made nations at the bottom of the proverbial pyramid patently aware of the shifting world order. Regional powers stepping up to deliver public goods and voicing popular local views on international platforms have substantiated the realization.
The COVID-19 pandemic was one such issue. Nations big and small were caught off guard in the scramble to access the required human capital and resources such as masks, personal protective equipment and oxygen cylinders, in addition to much-needed medicines.
Leaders of Russia, China and India were quick to deliver vaccines and medical supplies to nations of the Global South, while many Western governments had largely restricted the export. Subsequently, the Western world rushing to support Ukraine both militarily and economically in response to Russia’s invasion sheds light on its priorities.
The perceived partiality toward nations in Europe versus those in Sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East has reignited sentiments from the colonial era and tightened bonds among the victims of Western imperialism. A case in point is South Africa’s recent move to file a complaint against the Israeli government at the International Criminal Court for its actions in Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 attacks.
Furthermore, what is perceived as an act of aggression worthy of condemnation in the Global South is not necessarily validated in the Western world and vice versa. The Israel-Gaza conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war are examples of these irreconcilable differences. Voting patterns at the United Nations suggest a stark difference in attitudes regarding the conflicts.
Another difference is the asymmetry in intervention in domestic politics. Until the 2016 elections, talk of foreign interference in American domestic politics was largely unheard of. However, the same cannot be said of the world’s southern nations. From Saudi Arabia to China to India, nations of the south have unanimously opposed such interventions.
That said, countries in the Global South or even in the BRICS are not without differences and disputes.
China and India continue to clash at their borders. While Iran and Saudi Arabia have made inroads in their peace talks with the help of Beijing, the historical dispute persists. Nonetheless, China is listening to India’s yearning for change, as witnessed by a recent article in China’s state-controlled Global Times in support of its “Atmanirbhar Bharat,” or “self-reliant India,” initiative.
India, for its part, in the words of its external affairs minister, champions a policy of “maximum goodwill and minimum adversaries,” keeping doors open for talks with adversarial nations.
The BRICS grouping is, above all, a movement for self-determination on the global stage. The Western world’s messages about its values — evangelism that often comes with a patronizing tone, reeking of moral superiority — do not resonate with nations trying to break from the proverbial shackles of the past.
There has been ridicule and mockery of the BRICS by some in the West, including quips about the acronym with new nations joining the grouping. It may not have a catchy name yet, but analysts should be taking note of the group transforming into a body representing an increasingly large portion of the Global South.
Based on recent events, the chances of the group transforming into a formal association short of an alliance are significantly higher than when the BRICS was conceived.
Akhil Ramesh is the director of the India Program and Economic Statecraft Initiative at Pacific Forum. Follow him on Twitter: Akhil_oldsoul.