BRICS in a New World / Timofey Bordachev

Timofey Bordachev - Programme Director of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Member of the BRICS Russia Expert Council


Фото: из личного архива 

The BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is, perhaps, the main international format, reflecting large-scale changes which have been taking place in the world over the last few years. These changes have been caused by a failed attempt to build a unipolar model of international governance after the end of the “Cold War” and, on the other hand, by a rapid “political globalization”, i.e. growing real influence and autonomy in the international affairs of the states, situated not only in the traditional Euro-Atlantic space, but worldwide. This new globalization became the inevitable result of growing political influence of the states, whose opinion had been of little significance for global policy just a few decades earlier.

Russia’s role in BRICS is unique. The New Russia does not stake on the competition of imperial ambitions, but on closer international cooperation and creation of such really effective formats of interaction, which can provide an alternative to the growing chaos in the global politics and economy. It is largely due to this fact that BRICS is gradually shifting from its original mission of serving as a means of expressing a consolidated opinion of new, growing economies in the world dominated by the US and its allies to the agenda which offers the world new solutions, reflecting the changes in the international environment.

At present BRICS represents efforts to create a just polycentric world order, to overcome the domination of the collective West in the international relationships and global governance. The group allows non-Western member-states of the G20 to coordinate their approaches on multiple issues of world politics, and global economic and political governance, to express similar stances and agendas at multilateral institutions and forums, engage in multilateral and bilateral cooperation. The BRICS nations pursue a common goal of building a just polycentric world order that will give every country an opportunity to design an independent model of its social, economic and political development and to pursue an independent foreign policy as well as to establish a more representative and effective system of global governance, enhancing the clout and role of developing countries in the key regulatory institutions, with the US dollar playing a reduced role in the international finance.

Despite its rather short history the BRICS unique format has already become a subject for close study by international academic and expert communities. Namely, most authors point to the contribution of the group to the organization of the world economic order, as well as to the discussion of new approaches to economic governance as a whole. The discussion has always been more emotional at the expert level focusing not so much on the interests, common for the BRICS countries, but on their individual approaches, things which divide rather than unite them. For instance, contradictions between China and India, the desire of Beijing to use its participation in the group only to advance its own agenda, the dependence of BRICS on the change of the political cycle in Brazil or in the Republic of South Africa after its accession have become a commonplace.

There is no doubt that such important countries as the BRICS participants formulate their own foreign policy priorities, depending on the development tasks and national culture of strategy. For Russia it in volves strengthening legislation and building institutions of cooperation. For China it’s the realization of a largescale strategy of a more just world order in the Chinese perception. For India it’s building such an international environment, both at the regional levels and at the global ones which will allow the country to have a rightful place, corresponding to its size and potential. The main political priorities for Brazil and South Africa which they advance through BRICS are asserting their status as leading countries in Latin America and Africa. It is absolutely normal that these strategic targets are different, and it would be strange to demand that the BRICS countries should demonstrate the kind of discipline in their ideas and actions common, for example, to the western community. In fact, BRICS emerged as an alternative to the lack of freedom apparently dominating in the international relations in the 1990s and in the early 2000s. The value of BRICS consists in the fact that national leaders do not get any “instructions” at its meetings or argue about the best way to implement them, as it often happens to the G-7, but speak to each other as equals. If the participants are equal and are not going to limit their sovereignty, decisions made by them become more important in the long run.

Despite many doubts, BRICS group has established itself as an important phenomenon of international life. These discussions, like any discussion of the international organizations issue, though formally BRICS is not one of them, make it relevant raising at least two questions. The first question is whether the BRICS can and must become a unifier of non-Western global political players while the USA and its allies are so far not ready to put forward a truly multilateral agenda, going beyond their own interests. It’s a question of geography and scope of the BRICS group membership. To what extent should it try to become more representative as regards its member-states? In other words, can we, at least only in theory, raise the question of enlarging the group’s membership and uniting within its framework all or almost all the G20, i.e. nations which do not make part of the G-7, the main exclusive informal institution of the West?

The second question is whether BRICS can pivot towards becoming an institution which sets new rules of the game in global politics and economy, rules which could effectively correct distortions emerging as a result of eroding efficiency of the institutions currently in place. The two questions require a large-scale discussion and study both from the perspective of the countries currently in the group and the expectations of the international community related to it. On the whole, it is important for the BRICS countries to see something which at the moment is beyond the scope of the group’s former function, that is, serving as a tool of expressing a special opinion of its participants, albeit important for the world. An alternative to the enlargement and growing international importance of BRICS is deeper, i.e. closer ties between the member-countries in the areas of cooperation already defined.

Let us start with the second issue. For now BRICS does not claim and can hardly claim to have the features of an international regime, i.e. a group of states which establishes norms of communication and its own foreign policy practices. The states of the group have a shared opinion on a number of issues of global economic and political agenda. Moreover, experience has shown that they are quite capable of presenting a concerted frame work stance on these issues . However, there’s a long way to go from expressing a shared stance to being ready to set rules. In a way, the BRICS group will have to walk this path, because the modern world is too disorderly for such important countries as its participants not to offer it new rules of conduct. It looks like the countries of the group will now have to examine carefully the areas where they can realize their potential to strengthen the institutional and legal environment of global politics and economy. For the group’s contribution to be of practical significance in a world, where hegemony, by definition, is impossible, they should maintain a regulatory dialogue with other international organizations, such as ASEAN, EAEU, African Union and a host of others.

A discussion in the framework of the dichotomy “enlargement and more intense cooperation” is being held by experts and officials of the BRICS group. Countries belonging to the group have different views on this issue, which is also absolutely normal and even productive. The problem is different. In the long run no BRICS country and, logically, nobody in the world can aspire to replace the USA as a contender for the global leadership. Such ambitions even if triggered by good intentions will immediately oppose the contender to the rest of the international community. That’s why growing economies’ perception both of BRICS and other international institutions in which they actively participate, should evolve into an understanding that those bodies help them limit their power on their own accord for the benefit of universal security and development. That’s why in certain circumstances the BRICS nations will apparently have to embark on a discussion as to how far they can increase their clout by expanding formal cooperation with third countries.

The very acronym BRICS (former BRIC) appeared as a result of intellectual search in a situation of rapid growth of new global economic players in the first half of the 2000s. And the fact that it has become a reality of international politics reflects the objective demand which had by then taken shape. The future of the group which has already become the main platform for a new, more democratic policy depends on its ability to meet this evolving demand.

Source: Special issue of the International Affairs magazine devoted to the Russian BRICS Chairmanship in 2020