The World The BRICS Want
October saw two major international summits meet at the same time: the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa. Two countries (South Africa and India) are members of both the BRICS and the Commonwealth of Nations. Both countries choose to send their head of government to Kazan, sending a deputy to meet with the new British Prime Minister and King Charles in Samoa.
In the United Kingdom, this led to consternation in some quarters about the declining relevance of the Commonwealth (and, by extension, the UK). Elsewhere, the decision of South Africa and India to prioritize the BRICS summit was seen as symbolic of the increasing shift away from the Global North towards Global South institutions, with one Russian outlet declaring it the “Twilight of US Hegemony.”
Meanwhile, in America, the Republican Party has also come out against the BRICS, with the new president, Donald Trump, threatening to use tariffs as a weapon to preserve American hegemony and key Republican policy leaders planning to tempt countries like India and Russia away from BRICS as a way to undermine the rising Global South.
The BRICS clearly has the potential to reshape the global order in the coming decades, but what kind of world do the BRICS want?
The World the BRICS Want
The opening paragraphs of the Kazan Declaration, published by the BRICS leaders near the end of their recent summit in Russia, clearly outlines the “BRICS spirit,” which is defined as one of “mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusiveness, collaboration, and consensus.” (p1) These are values that no right thinking person could disagree with, but what does the BRICS spirit mean in practical, material terms?
Well, the first thing we should understand is that the BRICS is not a particularly radical organization. In the Kazan Declaration (as elsewhere - see, for example, the joint deceleration of BRICS foreign ministers), the BRICS countries affirm their support for international institutions such as the United Nations (p2), World Trade Organization (p3), Intentional Monetary Fund (p4), G20 (pp5 and 16), the African Union (p10), and the World Health Organization (p24) as well as for the principle of international law mediated through such institutions as the International Criminal Court, the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. What the BRICS do want, however, is reform of these institutions so as to be more representative of groups who had historically been excluded: for example, there are repeated calls in the Kazan Declaration for international institutions of all types to include more citizens of the Global South and women in the decision-making process and in leadership roles.
The BRICS also want to further enhance the workings of the international community with institutions of their own. For example, we are told the WHO has “the central coordinating role...in the implementation of multilateral international efforts to protect public health” (p24), but that the BRICS will support and supplement the work of the WHO with their own institutions, organizations and groupings such as the BRICS Medical Association, BRICS Nuclear Medicine Forum, and the BRICS R&D Vaccine Centre (pp24-5). The mission of the BRICS is clear: not to challenge the fundamental structure of the international system set up after the Second World War, but to strengthen and democratize that international system.
The most controversial and widely reported part of the Kazan Declaration comes near the middle of the document and is related to the process of de-dollarization (which we have covered in this blog before - see our article HERE). On page 17 we are told the BRICS “welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners.” This may seem like quite a small matter, but since the establishment of the US dollar as the global reserve currency after the Second World War, this kind of international trade has routinely been done in dollars.
Switching to local currencies and establishing mechanisms to facilitate the use of this kind of trade (pp17-8) will undermine the US's ability to impose sanctions independently of the United Nations (a practice repeatedly condemned in BRICS documents and by individual BRICS members). This is because the effectiveness of US sanctions often comes from the ability of the US to cut off or diminish trade between the targeted sanctioned country and third countries due to the American control of the international trading currency. For example, despite the vast majority of the international community (including most of America’s allies) condemning the decades-long illegal US blockade on Cuba, most countries limit their trade with Cuba for fear of running foul of US sanctions. Opening up a route to trade internationally independent of the SWIFT network and the US dollar blunts the impact of US sanctions on countries like Cuba.
However, it is important to note that the BRICS are not setting up a reserve currency of their own. The US dollar remains the unchallenged global reserve currency. The economic mechanisms outlined in the Kazan Deceleration would merely limit the scope of abuse that the US government can deal out from its position as manager of the global reserve currency.
And this, I think, should be the main takeaway as we near the end of Russia’s year in the presidency of the BRICS group: that the BRICS are not seeking to overthrow the international system or even unseat the US from its position as a most important actor within that system. Instead, the BRICS are laying out an incremental reform package which, if successfully implemented, would give the global majority more of a voice in world affairs, and limit the scope by which Global North countries can use their privileged position within the global economy and politics to dictate terms to poorer countries in the Global South.
Should We Be Disappointed?
Democratization of the international system is obviously a good thing, but sometimes you will hear disappointment from some about the slow pace of change. For those who see US hegemony as a disaster for the global majority, it is perhaps understandable that there should be some impatience at the soft approach taken by the BRICS, the first organization in decades to offer a real alternative to the West. However, these critics must bear in mind two factors that limit how far and how fast the BRICS can move.
First, the BRICS are not an ideological bloc. Some members, such as Russia and Iran, are avowed opponents of the United States and the West, while others, such as the United Arab Emirates or Egypt, take a much more consolatory line. The Brazilian veto of Venezuelan participation in BRICS also highlights the geopolitical tension that exists between individual nations aligned with the bloc. Given the varied ideological and material interests of the individual members and partners of the BRICS, it was always unlikely that the leadership would emerge from Kazan with an overtly aggressive posture towards the US.
Secondly, the United States is not only the most powerful country of our own time, it is the most powerful country of any time. No previous superpower has had the same global reach as the United States, and, since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago, America has had no challengers. The BRICS countries may now include more than half the global population, but the US continues to exert considerable control over many aspects of the global economy and international politics. Democratizing global governance, especially facing stiff US opposition, will take time.
However, what is clear from the Kazan Deceleration is that the BRICS are opening up space for a new, fairer, more democratic global system to develop. For decades, Western nations have been able to more or less dictate terms to poorer nations in the Global South, and if these nations did not accept these terms, then sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and even invasion were a distinct possibility. The developing order around BRICS means that the West will no longer be able to ride roughshod over international law and impose its will. This is why so many countries that have been on the receiving end of Western imperialism (Cuba, Vietnam, Algeria, etc) are so interested in working with the BRICS bloc.
Further Reading
Li Jingjing and Daniel Dumbrill Talk Geopolitics and the Global South
Overview of Kazan Summit from Ben Norton
Discussion of Russia’s Role In BRICS
President Xi’s Remarks at Kazan
Page Editor: Jin Yulin
Call for Contributors!
I’ve added an “ Op-Ed” section to China Up Close. It’s an open platform I specifically designed to let everyone share their own perspectives with the world. Articles can be related to any topic as long as you’re highly passionate about it! Article length is recommended to be within 700 - 900 words.
If you have an idea for an Op-Ed, contact jjnewsletter@hotmail.com with a brief description of the article's focus.
Jingjing’s Social Media Links
X: @Jingjing_Li YouTube: @Jingjing_Li Facebook: Talk it Out with Li Jingjing
TikTok: @iamlijingjing Reddit: r/NewsWithJingjing Instagram: @jj_ontheroad
The world that BRICS want is the world that any rational, caring, intelligent person would want for themselves and their children. Personally I think BRICS is the last best hope for human survival and I applaud it.
I also reckon Australia should toss out ANZUS, NATO, AUKUS and the rest of the alphabet soup, and seek to join BRICS. Be nice to be on the right side of history for once.
Great read Doug! Your article brings a lot more nuance to BRICS than those claiming it is merely a club for those opposed to the US. Many of the BRICS goals are very rational. Who can argue that a nation shouldn't have the right to pay or receive payments for imports/exports in its own currency if requested?