Will BRICS Remain an Economic Group?
Al-Ahram, Egypt, October 31
The BRICS consortium has made significant strides since its inception in 2009, both in expanding its membership, which originally included four economies—China, Russia, Brazil, and India—and later welcomed South Africa in 2010. In a pivotal development, January 2024 marked the inclusion of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Ethiopia into the group. This expansion has bolstered the group’s influence on the global economic arena, as demonstrated by its increasing share in global output and its pivotal role in international transactions encompassing trade, investment, and tourism. BRICS has consistently underscored its economic essence by focusing on an economic and financial agenda, mirroring the trajectory of other international economic groups and forums that have emerged over the last three decades. This path began with the formation of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1989, the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) in 1997, and later, the G20 in 1999. These organizations share a common foundation: they were established to address economic goals and challenges. APEC’s mission is to foster economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, a process initiated voluntarily that has subsequently led to the creation of a regulatory framework to sustain and deepen this integration. Similarly, the IORA was set up to enhance economic collaboration among countries bordering the Indian Ocean, while the G20 emerged as a bridge connecting the Group of Seven industrialized nations with emerging markets, particularly during the financial turmoil that impacted Asian economies in the late 1990s. While economic factors played a central role in the creation of these groups and continue to do so, their political influence has grown as they gradually began to address political and security issues to varying degrees. Although this evolution has been limited in APEC, the IORA, and the G20, BRICS might follow a different trajectory for several reasons that set it apart. Chief among these is its embodiment of a distinct international movement comprising emerging markets and middle powers—an aspect that separates it from other frameworks, which include a mix of developed and emerging economies. The presence of advanced industrialized economies within these groups influences their agendas and discussions, whereas BRICS aligns more closely with the interests of its member economies. BRICS’s focus on emerging markets within the global economy enhances internal harmony, making consensus on policy positions more achievable. This could demarcate emerging markets from industrialized economies, echoing the formation of the Group of Seven industrial nations in 1975, which was aimed at representing the economic, political, and security interests of developed countries and managing international crises. This potential shift is underscored by the current geopolitical climate characterized by tensions between the United States and its allies, as well as China and Russia. These tensions extend beyond political and military dimensions to include economic and financial domains, prompting China and Russia to establish new economic structures that reflect their interests. Concerns over stalled IMF reforms due to US resistance have amplified the resolve to create an economic framework that encapsulates these interests, leading to the establishment of initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with China as a major stakeholder, and the New Development Bank, BRICS’s financial arm. Evaluating this evolution requires considering the time necessary for its completion and the political ramifications involved despite its economic veneer. This scenario does not guarantee that BRICS will inevitably engage in severe or military confrontations with developed economies or institutions led by the United States, like those born out of the Bretton Woods system. However, the nature of this conflict is likely to be primarily economic and financial, focusing on the institutions and philosophies that steer the global economy. This conflict has crystallized from hypothetical to actual, challenging the Western-centric dominance over crucial international prerogatives like equitable development, unbiased access to financing, fair market entry, and inclusion in key decision-making processes affecting emerging markets. While developed economies have achieved growth without imposing stringent conditions, often at the expense of other nations, BRICS’s rising economic weight and influence, especially through its burgeoning new economic frameworks, will undeniably accelerate a power shift that necessitates discussions on political and security matters within the group. This shift in focus is not contradicted by the group’s leaders, who continue to emphasize its economic mission, as such transformations naturally evolve. Nonetheless, separating economic and financial roles from political and security considerations is increasingly impractical, and balancing global relations demands an equitable economic and financial environment—a balance that burgeoning and middle powers within BRICS are poised to influence at this crucial juncture. —Mohammed Fayez Farhat (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
