New Delhi: When Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill coined the acronym “BRIC” in his 2001 research paper, he spent a good part discussing whether the G7 should include emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, India, and China. South Africa joined the grouping in 2010.
“Should the G7 be replaced by a G9? Would the BRICs want to be in?” the economist asked. Today, such questions aren’t just outdated; they reflect the kind of Western thinking that BRICS has tried to defy in the past two decades.
The bloc has sought to become a ‘club’ of its own — although O’Neill has often argued that “they have accomplished very little”. Following the announcement in South Africa this week about BRICS’ expansion – a watershed moment – claims have emerged that the grouping is officially shaping up to be a geopolitical bloc against the West.
The 15th BRICS summit in Johannesburg has dominated headlines for a myriad of reasons. These include the admittance of six new members, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged “tantrum” over not being received on the tarmac by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (who extended a warm personal welcome to Chinese President Xi Jinping), and the informal conversation between Modi and Xi about the ongoing tensions at the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Modi is now in Greece, but the drama over the bilateral meet in Johannesburg continues, particularly over who requested whom for talks.
Most Western media opted for phrases like “anti-Western alliance” or “anti-Western bloc” in their headlines when talking about BRICS expansion. A common argument is that BRICS members have veered from criticising Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, a report in the South China Morning Post predicted that India may have to choose between BRICS and the West one day.
Some Indian experts like Anil Trigunayat, a former ambassador and current senior adviser with the BRICS Chamber of Commerce, told ThePrint that the expansion doesn’t make BRICS an anti-Western grouping, just a “non-Western one”. But then there’s voices like Happymon Jacob, associate professor of diplomacy and disarmament studies at JNU, who argue that no matter how you see it, BRICS expansion is a “win” for China.
A debate continues to rage over what the admittance of Argentina, UAE, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia into BRICS means for the world. Does it serve China and Russia’s interests for a bloc against the West or is it a step toward inclusive multilateralism, something India has repeatedly called for during its G20 presidency?
This is why the BRICS summit is ThePrint’s Newsmaker of the Week. To hazard a guess, the debate around the bloc’s role in geopolitics is likely to continue. After all, a whopping 23 countries have expressed their intent to join BRICS and the queue is only growing.
Also read: BRICS has expanded, can’t continue being anti-US. It’s up to India to balance
What India’s stance on BRICS expansion reveals
In the lead–up to the BRICS summit, discerning India’s stance on the group’s expansion has been difficult.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) twice refuted reports suggesting India’s cautious approach towards expansion, which was seemingly at odds with its fellow BRICS partners China and Russia being in favour of a “swift” admittance of new member countries. MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi dismissed such reports as “baseless”, reaffirming India’s openness to the idea of BRICS expansion. On Monday, foreign secretary Vinay Kawatra emphasised India’s “positive intent and an open mind” on the issue.
Nevertheless, New Delhi’s level of excitement was clearly different from that of say Brazil, whose president publicly expressed eagerness for Argentina to join BRICS just days before the summit.
It’s possible that New Delhi leaned towards admitting new members with a degree of caution, likely because the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation—another grouping that India is a part of—is often perceived as China-centric. Given the existing tensions between India and Beijing, exacerbated by an ongoing border standoff that has seen no progress towards peace despite 19 rounds of commander-level talks in the past three years, India has sought to uphold its time-tested policy of “strategic autonomy” even as the US and China contest for power in New Delhi’s backyard.
As Rajesh Rajagopolan, a professor of international politics at JNU, has observed: ‘India is at the frontline in US-China bipolar contest and can’t afford to choose wrong partners.’ Is India’s participation in Quad, BRICS, and SCO simply an attempt to have a seat at various international tables without the pressure of having to commit and choose? If so, that’s a tightrope to a sweet spot.
Even if India harboured reservations about BRICS expansion, it couldn’t afford to disclose them. Not after spending a large chunk of its G20 presidency talking about being the voice of the emerging economies. Certainly not after PM Modi’s assertion that “multilateralism was in crisis” with the world in need of greater inclusivity. And certainly not as India eyes a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Why new members won’t be just bricks in the wall
The inclusion of new members into BRICS has clearly given us a lot to think about the bloc’s overall dynamics. Was the Lowy Institute onto something when it recently said the question of BRICS expansion exposed “fault lines” within the bloc?
We needn’t look further than the remarks from Modi, Xi, Ramaphosa, Vladimir Putin (Russia), and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Brazil) during the opening session of the 15th BRICS summit, which revealed that each member had a different perception of the bloc.
Putin, addressing virtually, and Xi made it abundantly clear that they see BRICS as a counterbalance to Western influence. Da Silva again pushed for a common BRICS currency, an idea that has been ridiculed by the West as an impossible feat due to the differing nature of the BRICS economies, among other reasons. Ramaphosa, meanwhile, focussed on advancing the African agenda.
This may not be all that surprising, given each country has its own agenda in any multilateral setting. But the differences in speeches were stark.
At the same time, it’s important to recognise that limited attention has been given to the potential contributions of the six new members as opposed to their collective impact on the bloc.
Indian experts that ThePrint spoke to pointed out the potential roles that oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the UAE could play in addressing the financial constraints of the New Development Bank, which has so far operated with a relatively modest outlay of around $100 billion. Ethiopia and Egypt will strengthen African representation within BRICS at a time when the African Union (AU) is pushing to establish a presence in other multilateral forums like the G20. This could be a step in the right direction for inclusive multilateralism after years of the door being shut on African nations.
Maybe, these four countries won’t be just bricks in a wall.
The jury is still out on what Argentina and Iran can contribute. If anything, they stand to gain from the bloc with economically beleaguered Argentina having access to expanded markets and Iran seeking to emerge from international isolation.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)