Subject: International Relations

What’s the news?

• The recent BRICS summit held in South Africa introduced six new members to the grouping, drawing mixed reactions regarding its productivity.

“If things go right, in less than 40 years, the BRICS economies together could be larger than the G6 in U.S. dollar terms.” Goldman Sachs in 2003”

Central idea

• The recent BRICS summit held in South Africa may not have yielded immediate tangible results, but it’s essential to view BRICS through its evolving dynamics rather than a single meeting’s outcomes.

Background: Economic Compulsion

• BRICS, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, emerged primarily out of economic compulsion.
• Unlike military alliances or security coalitions, BRICS focuses on economic cooperation and mutual benefit.
• With a combined GDP representing 36% of the global GDP and a population projected to reach 47% of the world’s total by 2050, BRICS possesses immense long-term potential.
• Furthermore, expanding its membership could challenge the dominance of the G7 countries.

The significance of BRICS as an economic powerhouse

• Economic Size: The BRICS, composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, collectively represent 36% of the global GDP. This substantial economic size gives the group considerable influence in global economic matters.
• Population: BRICS countries house nearly half of the world’s population, and this demographic advantage provides a significant consumer market and labor force, contributing to their economic significance.
• Rapid Growth: Two BRICS members, China and India, are among the fastest-growing economies globally. They are expected to rank among the world’s top three economies by 2030, further enhancing the economic clout of the BRICS.
• Investment Opportunities: BRICS nations are seen as attractive investment destinations, with governments encouraging both domestic and foreign investments. The growth prospects in these countries make them appealing to investors.
• Infrastructure Development: BRICS countries are investing heavily in infrastructure development, including transportation, energy, and technology projects. These investments create opportunities for businesses and stimulate economic growth.
• Collective Economic Initiatives: BRICS nations have established institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), aimed at enhancing financial cooperation and stability within the group.

China and India’s Role

• Two BRICS members, China and India, collectively account for one-third of the world’s population. Both nations are rapidly growing economies, poised to become top-three global economies by 2030.
• Despite occasional political tensions, their economic cooperation continues to flourish. Trade between India and China is evidence that economic interests often outweigh political differences, emphasizing the pivotal role of economics in international relations.

BRICS as an alternative to an increasingly polarized world

• Global polarization:

• Global polarization has led to concerns about the U.S.’s aggressive stance toward China. Many countries seek alternatives, including China.
• Within the BRICS, China is a member but not the dominant player, providing a counterbalance with democratic countries like India, South Africa, and Brazil.
• In an increasingly interconnected world, countries are looking for alternatives to mitigate their dependence on a single superpower.

• Dollar Dominance and Digital Currencies:

• The U.S. dollar has long been the dominant global currency, but the rise of digital platforms presents a shift toward digital currencies. India and China are leading in this transition, advocating for increased trade and investment in their own currencies.
• Through BRICS, they can collectively promote their currencies as alternatives to the dollar, further converging their interests.

• Diversified opportunities:

• The search for alternatives extends beyond BRICS to movements like the Non-Aligned Movement, which offers a new approach to global challenges.
• As BRICS expands, it will create numerous trade, business, and investment protocols, akin to other free trade arrangements and economic blocs, providing diversified opportunities for member nations.

Africa: The Continent of the Future

• Africa is poised for significant economic growth in the 21st century.
• The negative image of Europe, marked by interventions and migrant treatment, has driven Africans to explore China’s development more closely.
• African countries aspire to have the freedom to choose their investment and trade partners, and BRICS, especially India, seeks to strengthen its ties with the African Union, recognizing the continent’s potential.

Conclusion

• BRICS may not always make headlines, but each summit contributes to building a foundation for future networks and collaborations. As Goldman Sachs foresaw in 2003, “If things go right, in less than 40 years, the BRICS economies together could be larger than the G6 in U.S. dollar terms.” The future of BRICS lies in its ability to harness its economic might for the benefit of its members and the world.

Also read:

The implications of the expansion of BRICS

What’s the news?

• In a recent ASEAN meeting, Indonesia, under the leadership of President Joko Widodo, successfully injected fresh perspectives into long-standing ASEAN stances.

Central idea

• The recent ASEAN meet in Jakarta, under Indonesia’s chairmanship, showcased the country’s adept handling of regional dynamics and its diplomatic finesse. With the president set to step down in 2024, this summit marked a high point in his leadership. Notably, eight ASEAN nations convened, with Myanmar excluded at the political level and Thailand undergoing a governmental transition.

Indonesia’s nuanced approach towards the Indo-Pacific

• Expanding the Arc of Prosperity: President Joko Widodo emphasized the need to expand the arc of prosperity within ASEAN. This highlighted Indonesia’s commitment to regional development and recognized the growing economic importance of the Indo-Pacific.
• ASEAN Indo-Pacific Forum (AIPF): Indonesia’s leadership resulted in the creation of the AIPF. This forum brought together government leaders from ASEAN countries, partner nations, and prominent figures from the business sector to discuss peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.
• Functional Approach: Indonesia’s approach to the Indo-Pacific was notable for its functional orientation. It emphasized cooperation and collaboration over strategic rivalry, aligning with the Quad’s cooperative outlook.
• Balancing Act with China: While Indonesia’s stance did not explicitly confront China, the absence of China from the AIPF was noticeable. This raises questions about how Indonesia aims to balance its Indo-Pacific approach with its relationship with China.
• Inclusive Dialogue: Indonesia’s strategy sought to position ASEAN as a key player in shaping the Indo-Pacific’s future. It underscored the importance of inclusive dialogue and cooperation for regional stability and prosperity.
• Regional Stability and Prosperity: Indonesia’s approach acknowledges that regional stability and prosperity are best achieved through collaboration and engagement rather than through overt confrontation or rivalry.

Myanmar’s Conundrum

• Exclusion from Political Level: Myanmar’s absence from the political level at the recent ASEAN summit was consistent with the organization’s practice, highlighting the ongoing internal turmoil since the military coup in February 2021.
• Indonesia’s Pragmatic Approach: Indonesia, under its ASEAN Chairmanship, demonstrated a pragmatic stance toward the Myanmar issue, recognizing the limitations of the Five-Point Consensus (5PC) framework intended for dialogue and resolution in Myanmar.
• Office of Special Envoy: Indonesia took a distinctive approach by establishing an office of the special envoy rather than appointing an individual special envoy, allowing for discreet engagement with Myanmar, neighboring nations, India, and ASEAN members.
• Facilitating Dialogue: The 5PC, once seen as a binding decision, is now considered a facilitating initiative, emphasizing Indonesia’s and ASEAN’s acknowledgment of the complexity of the Myanmar situation. This initiative aims to promote dialogue among various segments within Myanmar.
• Hosting of the ASEAN Summit: Myanmar’s exclusion from hosting the 2026 ASEAN summit highlighted the growing disconnect between the nation and the regional bloc. Historically, ASEAN used hosting privileges as leverage to address issues within member states, but their effectiveness in the current context remains uncertain.

China’s Challenge

• Primary Challenge for ASEAN: China poses the foremost challenge to ASEAN, especially concerning the looming big-power rivalry in the region. The call for peace and prosperity in the region is essentially a plea to prevent the United States and China from displaying their rivalry within ASEAN.
• Slow Progress on the Code of Conduct: Progress on the South China Sea (SCS) code of conduct has been sluggish. A significant point of contention is the differing interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which creates obstacles to establishing a binding code of conduct.
• China’s Standard Map: China’s introduction of a new standard map that claims the territories of several countries, including those in the South China Sea, has added complexity to the situation. Notably, countries like India, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia raised their concerns about this map in bilateral discussions with China.
• Indonesia’s Cautious Approach: Indonesia, as the host of the ASEAN and East Asia Summit (EAS), maintained a cautious approach to the issue of China’s standard map during the summit, where the Chinese Premier was in attendance.
• Contradictions in Progress: The emphasis on UNCLOS and disputes over China’s map contradict the progress that ASEAN claims to have made on the code of conduct. The main purpose of the code is to govern the South China Sea as an international waterway, not as China’s domestic sea, as implied by the map.

Challenges to ASEAN Unity

• Myanmar’s Exclusion: A prominent challenge to ASEAN unity is the exclusion of Myanmar from political-level participation in the recent ASEAN summit. This exclusion stems from the ongoing political crisis in Myanmar, triggered by the military coup in February 2021.
• Thailand’s Transition: Thailand, another ASEAN member, is facing challenges due to its transitional government formed after an election. Consequently, it had official-level representation at the summit, raising concerns about the level of representation within ASEAN during crucial meetings.

India in the context of the ASEAN Indo-Pacific Forum (AIPF)

• Participation in AIPF: India, along with the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, conducted side events at the AIPF. This suggests that India is actively engaged in discussions at the forum.
• Concerns Over China’s New Map: Several countries, including India, raised bilateral concerns with China regarding its new standard map. This map claims territories that other countries consider their own, causing diplomatic tensions.
• Interest in the South China Sea: India has a vested interest in the South China Sea due to its trade and strategic considerations. India has been monitoring developments in the region, including China’s territorial claims and their impact on freedom of navigation.

Why India Needs ASEAN?

• Significant Trade & Commercial Relations: ASEAN is a major destination for India’s service sectors and a vital source of foreign investments.
• Development of North East India: ASEAN provides an alternate route for India’s access to North Eastern India, facilitating development and strategic interests.
• Countering Chinese Expansion: Strengthening ties with ASEAN countries helps India counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
• Maritime Freedom: Collaboration with ASEAN ensures a free and peaceful Indo-Pacific region based on a rules-based order.
• Support for Indian Initiatives: ASEAN’s support is crucial for India’s success in regional policies and initiatives.
• Emerging Market: India benefits from ASEAN’s agricultural and industrial products, while ASEAN relies on India’s demographic dividend.
• Global Reforms: ASEAN’s global influence aligns with India’s vision for reforms in international forums.
• Elevating India’s Global Status: Partnership with ASEAN enhances India’s geopolitical standing.

Strengthening ASEAN’s Position

• ASEAN Outlook on Indo-Pacific (AOIP): ASEAN is actively working to bolster its position by embracing the ASEAN Outlook on Indo-Pacific (AOIP). This strategic framework emphasizes ASEAN’s central role in the Indo-Pacific region, aiming to reinforce its influence and relevance.
• Enhanced Coast Guard Coordination: ASEAN is prioritizing improved coordination among its coast guards. This approach signifies a commitment to safeguarding maritime security and effectively managing potential conflicts in the region’s waters.
• Joint Defense Exercises: ASEAN is engaging in joint defense exercises as part of its efforts to strengthen its position. These exercises are viewed as a robust response to the sluggish progress on the South China Sea (SCS) code of conduct, with the goal of enhancing regional security.
• Addressing Code of Conduct Challenges: The slow progress on the South China Sea code of conduct is a significant concern for ASEAN. To tackle this issue, ASEAN is promoting the AOIP and intensifying security cooperation, reflecting its determination to address the challenges related to the code of conduct.

• Continuity through Troika Leadership: In a bid to maintain continuity and unity within ASEAN, Indonesia has formed a troika with the upcoming chairs, Laos and Malaysia. This arrangement aims to provide guidance and ensure ASEAN’s stability and coherence in the face of ongoing challenges and transitions.

Conclusion

• Indonesia’s leadership during the ASEAN summit deserves commendation for maintaining stability amidst the region’s complex challenges. In a rapidly changing world, ASEAN’s stability remains of paramount importance. Indonesia’s collaboration with the upcoming chairs, Laos and Malaysia, signals continuity in charting ASEAN’s course forward.

What’s the news?

• Indian and Canadian leaders and diplomats have a history of failing to engage constructively, often talking past each other. This disconnect persists today, fueled by differing perceptions and unresolved issues. The recent Nijjar case has brought these tensions to the forefront.

Central idea

• In the realm of international diplomacy, the relationship between India and Canada has often been marked by a lack of genuine engagement and mutual understanding. Both nations have harbored grievances, with India feeling that Canada has disregarded its concerns, particularly regarding the Khalistan issue, while Canada believes that India fails to grasp its legal and governance framework.

Canada’s Stance in the ongoing India-Canada diplomatic tensions

• Emphasis on the Rule of Law: Trudeau has emphasized that Canada is a nation founded on the rule of law. He underscores the importance of upholding a rules-based world order.
• Nijjar Case as a Test: Canada has made the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar a test case for upholding the rule of law and global order. It asserts that harming any of its nationals is unacceptable, irrespective of any grievances India may have.
• Support from Allies: Canada’s stance in the Nijjar case has garnered support from its allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These countries endorse Canada’s position and call on India to cooperate with Canada in the investigation.
• Demand for Specific Evidence: Canada has shared credible allegations with India regarding the Nijjar case. While India dismisses these allegations.

India’s Response

• Rejection of Allegations: The Indian government has rejected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s allegations regarding the Nijjar case as absurd and motivated. India disputes the claims made by Canada and seeks concrete evidence to substantiate these allegations.
• Offer to Address Concerns: Despite dismissing the allegations, India has expressed a willingness to examine Canadian concerns if specific evidence is provided. India maintains that it is ready to cooperate on any genuine issues related to its citizens.
• Assertion of National Laws: India insists that its national laws cannot serve as a shield for promoting secession or staging protests that glorify violence. It calls for Canada to take legal action against Khalistani propagandists and individuals involved in hate speech and violence on Canadian soil.
• Open to Diplomacy: India remains open to diplomatic engagement with Canada to address the Nijjar case and other ongoing issues, emphasizing the importance of resolving disputes through dialogue and cooperation.

Challenges to Constructive Engagement

• Perceived Racism in Governance: Some Indians view Canada’s approach to governance systems in countries like India as colored by racism. Intrusive questions posed to Indian visa seekers from security services are seen as unacceptable and warrant bilateral discussions.
• The Khalistan Issue: India’s frustration with Canada regarding the Khalistan issue dates back over four decades. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was established in 1984, yet Khalistani activities were not taken seriously, even after instances of terror emerged.
• Response to Recent Charges: Trudeau’s use of harsh language and the expulsion of a senior Indian diplomat strained the relationship further. A measured Indian response was replaced by a more confrontational approach.
• Evidence and Judicial Scrutiny: Canadian officials claim to possess intelligence implicating India in Nijjar’s murder but have not revealed details. For a meaningful resolution, this intelligence needs to be converted into evidence suitable for judicial scrutiny.

Challenges to Constructive Engagement

• Perceived Racism in Governance: Some Indians view Canada’s approach to governance systems in countries like India as colored by racism. Intrusive questions posed to Indian visa seekers from security services are seen as unacceptable and warrant bilateral discussions.
• The Khalistan Issue: India’s frustration with Canada regarding the Khalistan issue dates back over four decades. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was established in 1984, yet Khalistani activities were not taken seriously, even after instances of terror emerged.
• Canada’s Trust Issue: The Canadian law enforcement system appears to lack trust in the Indian legal system. This is evident in Canada’s reluctance to extradite individuals accused of violence and murder in India, especially those with ties to Khalistani activities.
• Response to Recent Charges: Trudeau’s use of harsh language and the expulsion of a senior Indian diplomat strained the relationship further. A measured Indian response was replaced by a more confrontational approach.
• Evidence and Judicial Scrutiny: Canadian officials claim to possess intelligence implicating India in Nijjar’s murder but have not revealed details. For a meaningful resolution, this intelligence needs to be converted into evidence suitable for judicial scrutiny.

Way Forward: Need for quiet and constructive diplomacy

• Private Dialogue: Both nations should prioritize private, behind-the-scenes dialogue to address their grievances and misunderstandings. Public posturing should be replaced with discreet diplomatic channels where concerns can be discussed openly and candidly.
• Evidence-Based Engagement: Canada should provide specific evidence regarding the Nijjar case to India, allowing for a fair and transparent examination of the allegations. India, in turn, should be open to reviewing this evidence objectively.
• Respect for Sovereignty: Respect for each other’s sovereignty should be paramount. Issues related to visa applications and extradition should be approached in a manner that aligns with international norms while respecting national sovereignty.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Both nations should exhibit cultural sensitivity in their interactions. Questions and actions that may be perceived as insensitive should be avoided to prevent further strain on relationships.
• Leadership Role: Leaders in both India and Canada should play a key role in setting a tone of constructive engagement. Diplomacy should be marked by measured language and a commitment to dialogue.

Conclusion

• To rebuild strained Indo-Canadian relations, both nations must shift towards a more constructive engagement that acknowledges their respective concerns and grievances. Quiet and mature diplomacy should replace confrontational tactics. In the pursuit of a harmonious relationship, mutual respect and understanding are essential, and only through constructive engagement can these goals be achieved.

What’s the news?

• A historic shift in Saudi policy and key global developments raise prospects for peace; Israel’s absence at the 2023 G-20 summit draws attention.

Central idea

• The 2023 G-20 summit, held under India’s presidency, demonstrated India’s ability to address complex global challenges despite the group’s limited economic focus. India’s success at the summit, marked by various outcomes, garnered global attention.

Key Outcomes

• Inclusion of the African Union: The G-20 welcomed the African Union, expanding its reach and global inclusivity.
• Clean Energy Initiative: India offered a tangible solution through a biofuel alliance, promoting clean energy globally.
• Substantial Aid for Asia-Africa: Increased aid for Asia-Africa cooperation was pledged, promoting development in the region.
• Economic Corridor Announcement: The most significant surprise was the announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, connecting India to Europe via the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel.
• The Delhi Declaration: A joint statement issued by all G-20 members emphasized the need for global cooperation in a fractured international order.

What is the Delhi Declaration?

• The Delhi Declaration is a joint statement issued during the 2023 G-20 Summit held under India’s presidency.
• It serves as a summary of the key agreements, commitments, and principles that member nations of the G-20, a group of major economies, endorse during the summit.
• The declaration typically addresses various global challenges, including economic issues, climate change, geopolitical concerns, and social development.

What makes the Delhi Declaration a diplomatic triumph?

• Inclusivity:

• It is notable because it manages to garner the agreement of major world leaders, even in the context of international power struggles.
• Despite the absence of China’s President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the summit, India succeeded in obtaining their agreement for the declaration.
• This reflects India’s diplomatic acumen in bridging divides and fostering consensus among diverse nations.

• Unity Amidst Differences:

• The declaration manages to bring together countries with differing perspectives and interests. It is often challenging to find common ground on complex issues such as territorial disputes or geopolitical conflicts, but the Delhi Declaration demonstrates that the G-20 member nations can set aside differences to agree on a common agenda.
• This unity is seen as a diplomatic success in a world marked by division and discord.

• Balancing Act:

• The Delhi Declaration strikes a balance between addressing global issues and not directly naming certain nations for their actions. In this case, it avoids naming Russia for its aggression against Ukraine but emphasizes the importance of upholding the United Nations charter and principles of territorial sovereignty.
• This balanced approach allows each member to find something in the declaration that aligns with their interests, contributing to its success.

• Diplomatic Skill:

• India’s diplomats and leadership employed effective diplomatic strategies in crafting the Delhi Declaration. By creating a text that caters to the interests of each member, they ensured that all participating nations could claim a win.
• This diplomatic skill in negotiation and consensus-building is viewed as a triumph for India’s presidency.

What is IMEC?

• The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor is an economic initiative aimed at creating a strategic trade and transportation corridor that connects India with the Middle East and Europe.
• It was established through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the leaders of India, the United States, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Italy, and the EU on September 10 in New Delhi.
• IMEC envisions the development of a reliable and cost-effective transport network, including railways and ship-to-rail transit, to facilitate the movement of goods and services between India, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and the European Union (EU).
• It seeks to offer an alternative route for trade between Asia and Europe, reducing transit times and logistics costs compared to existing maritime routes like the Suez Canal.

What makes this initiative a game-changer?

• Geopolitical Significance: The corridor’s establishment is seen as a transformative move in the geopolitics of the region. It directly challenges China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has been a major driver of China’s influence globally. By offering an alternative route and infrastructure, it diversifies strategic options for countries in the region and potentially reduces their reliance on the BRI.
• Economic Benefits: The corridor has the potential to significantly boost trade and economic ties between India and Europe, two major economic regions. It’s expected to stimulate economic growth, create opportunities for investment, and contribute to prosperity along the corridor.
• Improved Connectivity: The project enhances connectivity between regions, not only economically but also culturally. Enhanced connectivity can foster stability and cooperation among participating countries.
• Diplomatic Significance: India’s success in securing the participation of Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, underscores its diplomatic influence and the importance of its strategic relationships in the region.
• Global Recognition: The corridor’s announcement received international recognition, with leaders like U.S. President Joe Biden acknowledging its significance. This recognition highlights its potential to have a far-reaching impact on the global economic and geopolitical landscape.
• Regional Development: The corridor has the potential to be a catalyst for regional development. It could encourage investment in infrastructure, technology, and industries along the route, leading to job creation and improved living standards for local populations.
• Security Considerations: The corridor’s success is closely tied to regional stability and cooperation. It could incentivize countries in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, to work towards diplomatic normalization and conflict resolution. Achieving peace in the region is crucial for the corridor’s successful realization.

Israel’s Absence from the G-20 and Possible Factors

• Israel’s absence from the 2023 G-20 summit, despite its involvement in the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor project, leads to questions about the reasons behind this decision.

• Diplomatic Normalization: Diplomatic normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia may have played a role. The economic corridor project might have been linked to diplomatic normalization efforts, delaying public recognition of Israel’s involvement until full normalization was achieved.
• Avoidance of Domestic Politics: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to publicly acknowledge Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s initiative for the economic corridor could be a result of domestic political considerations. Netanyahu might have wanted to avoid appearing too eager for diplomatic achievements, given his domestic political situation.
• U.S. Administration’s Preferences: The U.S. administration’s avoidance of Netanyahu for eight months due to domestic politics suggests that U.S. preferences or concerns might have influenced Israel’s role in the summit.
• Regional Sensitivities: The complexities of the Middle East and sensitivities surrounding Israel’s involvement with Middle Eastern countries might have influenced the host’s decision on the guest list for the summit.

Way Forward: A Push for Peace

• Saudi Arabia’s Diplomatic Shift: Saudi Arabia’s decision to end its diplomatic boycott of Israel signifies a historic opportunity for progress in the Middle East. This shift should be leveraged to promote peace and stability in the region.
• Influencing Other Nations: Saudi Arabia’s acceptance of Israel could serve as a positive example for other Muslim-majority nations. Efforts should be made to encourage countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia to engage in diplomatic relations with Israel, fostering broader regional cooperation.
• Conditional Diplomacy: Recognizing the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, diplomatic efforts should continue with a commitment to the two-state solution and the well-being of the Palestinian people as key conditions for acceptance. This approach acknowledges the need for a just and lasting resolution.
• Promoting Negotiations: The Peace Day Effort initiated by Saudi Arabia, supported by the Arab League and the European Union, offers a path to incentivize Israeli and Palestinian leaders to come to the negotiating table. International stakeholders should continue to support and facilitate these efforts.
• Addressing Extremism: While pursuing diplomacy, it is crucial to address extremism on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Counteracting extremism and promoting dialogue and reconciliation are essential components of any sustainable peace process.

Conclusion

• The 2023 G-20 summit under India’s presidency showcased India’s leadership in addressing global challenges. Israel’s absence raised questions, but the path to diplomatic normalization and peace in the Middle East may have played a role. As India continues to drive global cooperation, the world watches with anticipation.

Also read:

India-Middle East-Europe Corridor: The way to a new world order

What’s the news?

• The 15th BRICS summit held in Johannesburg recently made headlines with its announcement to expand its membership.

Central idea

• Originally comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, BRICS has now doubled its membership by welcoming Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. While some anticipated that this expansion would transform BRICS into an anti-Western platform, the reality appears to be different.

BRICS expansion and political compromises

• Expansion Initiated by China: China took the lead in pushing for the expansion of BRICS, which was originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This initiative was supported by Russia.

• Initial Reservations from India and Brazil: At the outset, India and Brazil expressed reservations about expanding BRICS. Their concerns revolved around the potential for BRICS to become an overtly anti-Western platform.
• Concerns About China’s Dominance: India, in particular, was cautious about further empowering China within the group. It was wary of an expanded membership that might add more clout to an already dominant China.
• Selection Reflects Political Compromises: The choice of new members, which includes Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, appears to be driven more by political compromise than by the application of specific, agreed-upon criteria.
• New Members’ Relationship with the West: Notably, the new members, with the exception of Iran, have significant stakes in their relationships with Western countries. This indicates that BRICS’ expansion may not have transformed it into an explicitly anti-Western alliance.
• Balancing Act: The expansion of BRICS seems to be a balancing act, seeking to accommodate the interests and concerns of both original and new members. It aims to maintain the group’s unity and relevance on the global stage.

Why are countries from the Global South interested in joining the BRICS?

• Hedging Against Uncertainty: Global South countries are joining BRICS as a means of hedging against an increasingly uncertain world marked by shifting political and security dynamics. They seek to strengthen their position in the face of unpredictable global events and challenges.
• Vulnerability to Sanctions: Many of these countries are concerned about their vulnerability to sanctions, particularly from the United States. For example, U.S. sanctions froze a significant part of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves, which raised anxieties among Global South countries about their own vulnerability to such measures.
• Expectation of an Alternative Global Currency: Some Global South countries may have expectations that BRICS, with China as a prominent member, could lead a shift toward an alternative global currency.
• Promotion of Local Currencies: BRICS has been actively promoting the use of local currencies for trade settlement and the raising of funds through local currency bonds. These efforts are seen as modest yet useful steps in reducing dependency on the U.S. dollar.
• Development Finance: BRICS has established the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), which has provided development finance for developing countries. Global South countries may see this as an opportunity to access financing for their development projects.
• Demand for Greater Global Governance Voice: There is growing frustration among Global South countries that their interests and aspirations continue to be ignored by dominant Western powers in international institutions like the UN, IMF, and World Bank.

BRICS’ role in a changing world

• Economic and Technological Advancements: BRICS, comprising major emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has witnessed significant economic growth, technological advancement, and military capabilities. This positions BRICS as substantial global players.
• Not a Gathering of the Weak: Unlike earlier groupings of weaker nations, BRICS represents countries with substantial global influence and capabilities.
• Energy Superpower: BRICS, with members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia, has the potential to become a significant energy superpower, dominating the global energy market.
• Diverse Ideologies: Unlike the G7, BRICS lacks a common ideological affinity, with member countries having diverse political systems, economic models, and foreign policy priorities.
• Shorter History: BRICS is a relatively young group compared to the G7, which means it is still evolving in terms of its objectives, mechanisms, and institutional frameworks.

Challenges and differences within the BRICS grouping

• Diverse Interests and Priorities: BRICS is composed of countries with varying geopolitical priorities, economic structures, and foreign policy objectives. These differences can pose challenges when trying to reach consensus on collective goals and initiatives.
• Internal Contestations: The existence of internal contestations and differences among BRICS member countries is evident. For example, the India-China rivalry is an example of such internal dynamics. These differences can impact the group’s cohesion and decision-making.
• Lack of Common Security Perspective: Unlike the G7, which is a tightly knit security grouping, BRICS countries do not share a common security perspective. They have varying security interests and priorities, which can make it challenging to coordinate on security-related matters.

A Way Forward: Towards Collaborative Global Governance

• Acknowledging Current Challenges: To move forward, it’s essential to acknowledge the existing challenges in the international order. Recognize that the world is facing significant global issues, from climate change to economic disparities, that require collective action.
• Equal Participation: Encourage equal participation and representation of all countries, including emerging powers, in discussions and decision-making processes. Recognize that the global landscape has evolved and that the voices of emerging powers are essential in shaping the future.
• Engagement and Dialogue: Promote open and constructive engagement between Western countries, such as those in the G7, and emerging powers, including BRICS nations. Foster dialogue that seeks common ground while respecting diverse perspectives.
• Reform Existing Institutions: Consider reforms in existing international institutions like the United Nations, the IMF, and the World Bank to better reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. Ensure that these institutions are more inclusive and responsive to the needs and concerns of all nations.
• Utilize Forums like the G20: Leverage platforms like the G20, which bring together both advanced and emerging economies, to facilitate discussions and negotiations on global governance. Use these forums as spaces for collaborative problem-solving.

Conclusion

• For India, participating in multiple groupings, including BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Quad, and regular engagement with the G7, offers a strategic approach to addressing its multifaceted interests and aspirations. As BRICS expands its influence, it is essential for India to continue pursuing this nuanced approach to global governance.

Also read:

The implications of the expansion of BRICS