Brics+ could get the globe to work out a better-balanced world order

Brics+ is an eclectic grouping of countries. It owes its conception to a Wall Street report written a quarter of a century ago about the initial four ‘Bric’ countries and the promise of their economic prospects, mostly driven by demographics. What began as a clubbing  meant for global investors to focus on has since evolved into a formal alternative platform for countries to counter Western dominance of multilateral institutions. This makes it an important forum for a post Pax-Americana world, if you will.  

Also Read: Brics isn’t an anti-US forum, it’s a voice of the Global South

The group is as notable for its differences as for its common purpose. Its members make up 49% of the world’s population and 41% of global output (in purchasing power parity terms). In many ways, Brics+ is at par with the G-7 in economic importance. A few members are outright adversaries of the West, such as China, Russia and Iran. Others like India, Brazil, Indonesia and the UAE are keen to retain their flexibility to swing both ways. Only India recognizes China as a competitor; all others have sought to befriend China through this group or keep their relations with it and the West on an even keel. 

Until the latest meeting in Brazil, Beijing was gradually exerting greater influence on the group. Its dominance was clear in the group’s recent expansion. With Russia’s support, China overwhelmed Indian and Brazilian hesitation, which resulted in the addition of six countries and ‘non-voting partnerships’ with 10 other nations. Even though Beijing’s rhetoric is nuanced, its objective is clearly to push Brics towards a more stridently anti-Western stance. 

The goal of India (and Brazil) is to keep an alternate channel open, but not be seen as ‘anti-West.’ This jockeying for influence will continue within the group, with China assured an edge by its deep trade relationships with all other members. 

Also Read: Brics isn’t out to build a wall but serve the Global South

The Brics+ group of countries met in Rio de Janeiro at its 17th summit. All  11 members were represented at the meeting for the first time. However, the heads of state of Russia and China did not attend in person. Vladmir Putin, president of Russia, could only attend virtually because there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest for war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court. 

The absence of China’s President Xi Jinping was a bit puzzling, since this was the first time he has not attended a Brics summit meeting and had played a very visible role in the earlier summits held in Russia’s Kazan and South Africa’s Johannesburg. 

Now consider the positions taken by Brics. Group communiques have consistently supported a two-state solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict and an expansion of permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council to include India and Brazil. In the financial realm, the group has emphasized the need to increase quotas of the International Monetary Fund and the shareholding of emerging and developing countries in the World Bank.

Also Read: Brics wants to create an alternative financial infrastructure. Here’s why it matters

US President Donald Trump leaned into the current situation by threatening a 10% additional tariff on Brics+ countries for their supposedly ‘anti-American’ approach. Of course, the situation might change, but Trump’s words provided common cause to the 11 nations to strengthen their resolve. 

Trump seems to be playing a delicate game of trying to weaken the dollar so that America can export more, but doing so without losing the extraordinary privilege that issuing the world’s top reserve currency bestows upon the US. Trump’s choice of instrument to achieve such a balance is a policy of import tariffs, which is a blunt tool in this context and could create a lot of unintended collateral damage.

Pessimists argue that Brics+ only represents a platform for “transactional multilateralism.” In the absence of shared values, a grouping of diverse countries such as this will dilute their individual stands on sensitive issues and reinforce only whatever can achieve a group-wide consensus. 

There is already some evidence of this in the group’s careful wording on the Ukraine conflict, the non-reference to Pakistan on Pahalgam, a dilution of the two-state idea for Israel and Palestine in response to Iran’s objection and a soft-pedalling on South Africa’s permanent Security Council seat.

Also Read: Brics for India: A trade springboard, not an anti-West wall

Can Brics+ survive all the differences among member nations? Will it remain relevant in a world that has watched older post-World War II multilateral institutions turn dysfunctional? Paradoxically, the answer appears to be ‘yes.’ Even though member nations seem to have very different reasons for being part of this club, Brics+ still offers each country some value. For India, membership offers a way to align with other emerging economies, demonstrate leadership of the Global South, exert extra pressure on the UN for a permanent Security Council seat and retain strategic autonomy.

For many developing nations, particularly in Africa and Asia, very few means exist to voice themselves on the global stage (other than trade groups). Imperfect as it is, Brics+ is one of the few forums based neither on a military alliance nor trade ties. Its primary purpose is rooted in geopolitics, with geo-economics playing a secondary role. That’s why, Brics+ will keep playing a significant role—at least until the world figures out a new order. 

P.S. “Nothing endures but change,” said Greek Philosopher Heraclitus.

The author is chairman, InKlude Labs. Read Narayan’s Mint columns at www.livemint.com/avisiblehand