China
Source: www.globaltimes.cn

It was quite cold in Kazan in October. Yet this did not dampen the participants' enthusiasm for BRICS as they gathered in the "Istanbul of the Volga River" for the first grand reunion of the BRICS family following its historic expansion.

Over the past 18 years, BRICS has evolved from a concept into a vibrant grouping for the Global South and grown ever stronger. It has become an essential player on the international stage.

Notably, BRICS successfully expanded its membership last year, with about 30 countries having shown a strong interest in joining the group. BRICS has emerged as a pivotal platform for unity and cooperation among emerging market and developing countries (EMDCs) in today's world.

What has brought BRICS countries together and made it ever more attractive to other Global South countries?

Independence and unity. Committed to mutual respect for each other's development paths and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, BRICS embodies the Global South's efforts to safeguard their right to development and to explore pathways to modernization, demonstrating the power of the collective awakening of developing countries keen to realize progress and development.

In response to acts of bullying and coercion by certain world powers, who, driven by their own geopolitical agenda, have attempted to hold back EMDCs' development and stoke bloc confrontation, BRICS has acted as a unifying force in defending the common interests of Global South countries.

Win-win and mutual benefit. This is the hallmark of BRICS cooperation. Committed to advancing common development in the Global South and beyond, BRICS countries have put in place such mechanisms as the New Development Bank, BRICS Partnership on New Industrial Revolution and BRICS Digital Economy Partnership Framework. These mechanisms are all aimed at helping and supporting each other and fellow developing countries in realizing their development aspirations.

Prior to the expansion, BRICS countries already contributed over 50 percent of the global growth. Now BRICS represents 45 percent of the world's population, nearly 35 percent of the global economic output, and 20 percent of global trade. Its role to further drive global development cannot be overlooked.

Peace and justice. BRICS is a leading voice for peace and justice in this world of turbulence and transformation. It actively practices true multilateralism and strives for a just and equitable global governance system to ensure that Global South countries can equally participate in and play an active role in international affairs. It has worked proactively to facilitate peaceful settlement of international and regional hotspot issues. For instance, it held an extraordinary virtual summit on the Palestine-Israel issue; China and Brazil, two BRICS members, jointly issued a six-point consensus on the peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis, and launched, together with other Global South countries, the group of Friends for Peace on the issue. Both are gaining increasing international support.

Inclusiveness and amity. BRICS is founded on ancient wisdom across continents, from Asia's philosophy of harmony in diversity and inclusiveness, Mesopotamia's pursuit of peace and tolerance, to the Ubuntu spirit of collectivism in Africa, and the concept of "Sumak Kawsay" or seeking a better life in Latin America. They all reflect the broadly shared wisdom of treating each other as equals and seeking common ground while reserving differences.

With new partner countries, BRICS represents even greater civilizational diversity, and is in a better position to promote all-round and multi-tiered people-to-people and cultural exchanges for deeper understanding, thereby setting a fine example of harmonious coexistence among countries with different histories, cultures and social systems.

Many hands make light work. Committed to high-quality development of greater BRICS cooperation, BRICS countries will continue to work for the common good of humanity and build, BRICS by BRICS, a community with a shared future for mankind.

Belgium
Source: www.egmontinstitute.be

This policy brief examines the growing influence of the BRICS in a multipolar world, as highlighted by their recent summit in Kazan, Russia, and the challenges to effective global multilateralism. Originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and later South Africa, the BRICS have recently expanded to include Ethiopia, Egypt, the UAE, and Iran. All BRICS members seek to reshape global governance to provide a greater voice for the Global South and strengthen South-South cooperation. However, internal divisions persist: China, Russia, and Iran view the BRICS as a platform to counter Western influence, while India, Brazil, and South Africa pursue ‘multi-alignment’ to diversify their global partnerships. This brief argues that, given the urgency of pressing global challenges, the EU should take the Kazan Summit as a wake-up call to develop and implement a strategy for engaging the Global South in the much-needed reform of global multilateralism. This effort is essential despite the reelection of Donald Trump as US President.

Pakistan
Source: tribune.com.pk

KARACHI: When the winds of change blow, goes the old Chinese proverb, some build walls, others build windmills. As the delayed defiance of the peripheries begins to breach the gates of the “rules-based” world order, the West appears to be caught in a waking nightmare, sleepwalking into a full-blown clash with BRICS.

If the international economic order was crafted in an era when most developing nations hadn’t even come into their own and only awakened to find themselves shackled to an unequal architecture, then as history circles back to the West with a vengeance, it seems many powers have been caught napping at the wheel.

As the old Western guard appears to fade and the birth pains of a new world grow louder with ever-increasing force in the form of BRICS, the status quo seems to be clinging to the belief that the monolithic history sealed at the end of the Cold War still holds sway and no new future can appear under the proverbial sun.

The hand-wringing was palpable last month when the group of countries, including sanctions-battered nations, met in Russia for its annual summit. The meeting was the largest held by BRICS since its creation in 2009.

Initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and later South Africa, the bloc welcomed four new members this year: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.

After the alliance of emerging economies widened its circle last year, the nine-member BRICS now holds a larger slice of global wealth than the G7, the economic stronghold led by the United States and its junior partners. As major agricultural players, BRICS nations produce a third of the world’s food.

Population-wise, BRICS dwarfs the G7, representing nearly five times the number of people, and with 40 nations knocking on its door, the bloc has become a beacon for those seeking a shift in the world order.

China, the heavyweight within BRICS, posted a GDP of $17-$18 trillion last year, dwarfed by the United States. However, it is closing the gap steadily. At the current pace, most experts predict China will surpass the US by the end of this decade.

While they cannot be called a monolith, the BRICS countries share a common priority: breaking free from the chains of underdevelopment. They argue that the United States, along with its G7 allies—Canada, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, and Germany—first stifled them as colonies and now controlled them through economic restrictions.

Why de-dollarise?

At the heart of these grievances lies the US dollar, whose reign as the global currency has held emerging economies hostage. But how can a mere piece of green paper, established as the world’s ruling currency in the aftermath of World War II, exert such power over others?

The answer lies in its role as an international currency and how it operates.

Imagine this: foreign nations send the US the fruits of their labour — French wine, Japanese electronics, African copper — and in return, the US sends little green pieces of paper, which cost nothing to produce.

This paper, the dollar, is accepted globally because it’s needed for currency reserves and international transactions. While most countries must trade goods of equivalent value, the US essentially gets something for nothing – a privilege unmatched in the modern world.

Similarly, the drive for de-dollarisation gained momentum after the use of economic sanctions in the wake of the Ukraine conflict.

‘Not a crusade against the order’

As BRICS expands its footprint, Western analysts have grown increasingly uneasy about its growing reach.
Critics allege that the bloc is stoking anti-Western sentiment in the Global South, with China and Russia positioning it as a rival to the postwar global order anchored in institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank.

However, the Western rhetoric misses the mark. While BRICS does seek an alternative, the alternative is not a “motley group of authoritarians” breaking free from the historical time, launching a violent pause in the wheels of the system.
Instead, it seeks to recalibrate the balance of power within it. While carefully authoring its economic fate, it has scant interest in toppling the order.

The bloc’s recent declaration leaves little room for doubt. “We reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and upholding international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone,” the Kazan declaration states. Rather than tearing down the pillars of the existing order, BRICS proposes using them to address pressing global challenges.

The solutions outlined in its 32-page document channel nearly every issue—from peace and security to climate action and financial reforms—through existing institutions. Trade disputes should go through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), financial matters through the IMF and World Bank, and pandemic preparedness under World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance.

Similarly, UN-led efforts like climate change conferences and resolutions of the General Assembly receive strong endorsements. Even the G20, often seen as a bastion of Western influence, is described as “the premier global forum for multilateral economic and financial cooperation”.

Far from rejecting democratic principles, the group explicitly reaffirms its commitment to democracy and human rights, advocating for “a brighter shared future for the international community based on mutually beneficial cooperation”.
That said, BRICS does aim to fortify its own institutions, such as the New Development Bank and a proposed payment system to ‘de-dollarise’ trade among its members. While these initiatives hint at a gradual shift in economic dynamics, they are framed as complementary rather than combative.

While Western media largely portrayed the Kazan summit as a political triumph for Putin, the summit facilitated progress in resolving the long-standing border dispute between India and China, breaking years of stalemate.
Although some in the West may prefer to stoke divisions between these two Asian powers, easing tensions between nuclear-armed states is undeniably in favour of global stability.

Moreover, in an unexpected turn of events, both Armenia and Azerbaijan participated, despite their ongoing territorial dispute. Earlier this year, Azerbaijan applied for formal BRICS membership, while Armenia, attending for the first time, sought to attract foreign investment to bolster its economy.

Many observers stress that rather than fixating on perceived anti-Western undertones, it might be time to view BRICS as a platform advocating fairer representation in a world order historically dominated by an elite few.

Long overdue reform

Writing in Foreign Policy, Nicholas Bequelin, a senior fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Centre and the former Asia-Pacific director of Amnesty International, notes that characterising efforts by non-Western groups to seek greater influence in international relations as a breakdown of multilateralism “sidesteps the West’s own responsibility and unwillingness to take steps toward long overdue reform”.

He went on to list the needed reforms, including "the need to fix the global financial architecture, respect climate pledges and assume responsibilities for climate impacts in developing countries, curb double standards in the invocation of international humanitarian law, fulfil aid and development commitments, or lessen drastic intellectual property rules that prevent poorer countries from producing lifesaving medicine."

He cautioned that when the West equates calls for a fairer international system with an intent to dismantle it—resorting to the familiar “me or chaos” narrative—it erodes the legitimacy of principles that urgently require global protection: "adherence to international law, the prohibition of wars of aggression, recognition that individuals and civilians have both a legal status and rights, and the necessity of global governance beyond mere multilateralism."
"If the West refuses to lead on these, it can hardly complain about the rise of groups such as BRICS."

‘The Long Revolution’

Samir Amin, in his The Long Revolution of the Global South, argues that for all regions of the capitalist Third World, constructing an auto-centred economy is an unavoidable precondition for further progress. This necessitates that the external relations be subordinated to the priorities of internal development, rather than adjusting the internal economy to external constraints.

It can be safely asserted that the BRICS and similar movements echo the historic Conference of Bandung, which declared the will of Asian and African nations to reclaim their sovereignty and complete their independence through authentic, consistent development benefiting all labouring classes.

However, for certain countries, particularly China, achieving social and economic gains meant partially "de-linking" from the global system to carve out their own paths with agency and autonomy before “linking” again, fully participating in the global economy.

This could only be achieved by shedding the restrictive forces of the world system. In this sense, BRICS’ call for a fairer international financial system is not anti-Western but pro-South, pro-development.

In 1955, most Asian and Middle Eastern countries had already reclaimed their sovereignty in the wake of World War II, while liberation movements in Africa, in particular, continued their struggles to achieve the same goal.

The conference was the first international gathering of "non-European" (or "coloured") nations, whose rights had been denied by the colonial and imperial powers of Europe, the United States, and Japan.

Despite differences in size, culture, religion, and historical trajectories, these nations united in their rejection of the colonial and semi-colonial globalisation pattern constructed by Western powers for their exclusive benefit.
Bandung also declared the resolve of Asian and African nations to complete their sovereignty by engaging in authentic, accelerated inward-looking development—this being the condition for their participation in shaping the world system on equal footing with the historic imperialist powers.

As President Soekarno stated in his address, the conference represented countries that had made varied choices about how to achieve their development goals. Some, like China, North Vietnam, and North Korea, followed "the socialist road" inspired by Marxism. Others, such as Soekarno’s Indonesia, Nehru’s India, and Nasser’s Egypt, pursued national/popular projects combining social reforms with specific national paths.

All these nations prioritised the diversification and industrialisation of their economies, aiming to break free from their roles as mere producers and exporters of agricultural and mining commodities.

Similarly, at its heart, the BRICS agenda revolves around economics, not ideology.

“We note the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order,” the Kazan declaration stated.
“Multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to unlock their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalisation and cooperation.”

This geoeconomics approach was more evident in India’s pragmatic approach as it continues to walk the line of neutrality and non-alignment. While keeping its friendship with Russia intact, Delhi also remains a key player in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

However, it also sits at the table of the Quad, resisting US pressure to transform this grouping into a full-blown alliance aimed at containing China. At the same time, India has made it clear that it wants no part in the AUKUS pact, designed with China in the crosshairs.

Furthermore, at the 16th summit, members also committed to establishing a grain trading platform, the “BRICS Grain Exchange” proposed by Russia, which aims to support food and commodity trade within the bloc.

“Once implemented, this initiative would help protect national markets from adverse external interference, speculation, and attempts to create artificial food shortages,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a summit meeting, accidentally echoing the legacy of the Bandung Conference.

Over time, Putin added, the group could also consider transforming the grain exchange into a fully operational commodity exchange.
Russia is also in talks with its BRICS counterparts about setting up an international precious metals exchange. “The mechanism will include the creation of price indicators for metals, standards for the production and trade of bullion, and instruments for accrediting market participants, clearing, and auditing within BRICS,” as Russian Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov put it.

This proposed platform could very well step on the toes of existing Western metals exchanges like the London Metal Exchange (LME), while offering a shield against financial sanctions the West has imposed on Russia and other BRICS nations, such as Iran.

The Kazan Declaration also pointed out the growing concerns within BRICS over the way sanctions strangle the economic growth of nations across the globe. The declaration highlights how sanctions are disrupting the global economy, international trade, and efforts to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Unlawful and coercive unilateral measures, including illegal sanctions, the declaration states, “undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.”
They also “negatively impact economic growth, energy, health and food security, exacerbating poverty and environmental challenges.”

BRICS, which now represents 37 per cent of global economic output, has firmly united in calling for the cessation of such punitive economic actions.

“We reiterate that the unilateral coercive measures, inter alia in the form of unilateral economic sanctions and secondary sanctions that are contrary to international law, have far-reaching implications for the human rights, including the right to development, of the general population of targeted states, disproportionally affecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations,” the declaration added. “Therefore, we call for their elimination.”

Elsewhere, BRICS members reaffirmed their support for the New Development Bank (NDB), their jointly funded development-finance institution, which is emerging as a key alternative to the Western-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

“We support the NDB in continuously expanding local currency financing and strengthening innovation in investment and financing tools,” the declaration stated, adding that members are encouraging the institution to pursue “innovative financing mechanisms to mobilise financing from diversified sources.”

In line with this, BRICS confirmed the creation of a new investment platform, designed to leverage the NDB’s existing infrastructure to boost investment flows “into the countries of BRICS and the Global South mechanisms.”

The innovative drive extends into cross-border financial infrastructure, with BRICS members recognising the need to explore the feasibility of connecting their financial market systems.

“We agree to discuss and study the feasibility of [the] establishment of an independent cross-border settlement and depositary infrastructure, BRICS Clear, an initiative to complement the existing financial market infrastructure, as well as BRICS independent reinsurance capacity, including BRICS (Re)Insurance Company, with participation on a voluntary basis,” the declaration confirmed.

Cracks in the ‘Crystal Palace’

To understand the essence of modern capitalism and the global system, German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk suggests exploring Dostoevsky's metaphor of the Crystal Palace, which the latter encountered in London.
In his magnum opus, ‘In the World Interior of Capital: Towards a Philosophical Theory of Globalisation’, Peter notes, “He recognised the monstrous edifice as a man-eating structure," Sloterdijs. “A cult container in which humans pay homage to the demons of the west: the power of money and pure movement."

Sloterdijk argues that Paxton's creation has left an indelible mark, evident in the glass palaces of today that house the one-and-a-half billion beneficiaries of globalisation. Meanwhile, three times that number remain on the outside, some pressing their noses against the glass until security forces them away.

"Who can deny," he writes, "that in its primary aspects, the western world – especially the European Union – embodies such a great interior today?"

In 1863, Dostoevsky's disdain for what he saw in London deepened after reading Nikolai Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? The novel envisioned the rise of a new kind of human, living in eternal peace within a palace of glass and steel. Dostoevsky lashed out at this vision of enclosure, claiming it would sap human vitality.
Drawing on this critique, Sloterdijk argued that Fukuyama's notion of the "end of history" finds its roots here. Real history, according to Sloterdijk, unfolded in the open air, through exploration, conflict, and expansion.
If such struggles were to culminate in eternal peace, all of social life would need to be sheltered within controlled environments.

"No more historic events could take place under such conditions … only mood competitions between parties and the fluctuations among their consumers," he writes, likening this stagnation to a ship becalmed at sea.

This vision of the Crystal Palace bears striking similarities to the globalisation of the West and the principles of neoliberalism. Much like the Palace, these systems project an illusion of openness, promising boundless opportunities and interconnectedness. In reality, however, they impose invisible walls.

The glossy facade obscures the barriers dividing winners and losers, insiders and outsiders, while perpetuating the illusion of equality. Those excluded can glimpse the privileges within but cannot cross the threshold – a world separated by glass, not steel, making the divide all the more insidious.

With BRICS rising and expanding, the walls of the stifling walls of glass are shattering, allowing in the much-needed fresh air of accessibility and equality.

Turkey
Source: www.aa.com.tr

Belarusian top diplomat hands letter by President Alexander Lukashenko on Minsk's readiness to join BRICS as a partner country to Russia's ambassador, says Foreign Ministry

ISTANBUL

Belarus announced on Monday that it has officially been granted BRICS partner country status.
A statement from the Belarusian Foreign Ministry said a letter by President Alexander Lukashenko addressed to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin was handed over by Foreign Minister Maxim Ryzhenkov to Moscow’s Ambassador to Minsk Boris Gryzlov.

Indicating that the letter on Minsk's readiness to join BRICS as a partner country is dated Nov. 5, the statement said the document was handed over to Gryzlov during a personal meeting with the Belarusian top diplomat.

“An official response to a written invitation is a mandatory element of the procedure agreed upon by member states to obtain partner status. It is from this moment that the country is officially considered a BRICS partner,” the statement said.

The statement further revealed the text of Lukashenko’s letter, in which he stated that BRICS has been steadily strengthening multilateral cooperation, becoming a pillar of multipolarity, since its formation.

“The spirit of mutual respect and equality, the attractiveness of its goals with inexorable logic lead to the expansion of BRICS,” the statement said, indicating that Lukashenko thanked Putin for his support and noted the formalization of Minsk’s participation in BRICS as a partner state during Russia’s presidency.

Among other things, the status of a BRICS partner country provides for permanent participation in special sessions of the bloc’s summits and foreign ministers’ meetings, it added.

The statement said partners can join the final documents of BRICS, thereby “expanding their geographical coverage and strengthening the voice of the association in international affairs.”
Initially founded in 2009 with Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the group formally welcomed South Africa in 2011, expanding its name to BRICS, reflecting the initials of its five members.

Last December, the bloc invited six more nations — Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

USA
Source: www.cfr.org

The sixteenth annual BRICS (whose membership has grown from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to also include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates) summit was held in Kazan, Russia, on October 22-October 24. 2024. We asked what was new and innovative at the summit this year, and how the bloc is changing the geopolitical context. Six Council of Councils (CoC) experts from BRICS member countries and beyond reflect on the future of the group and what expansion means for global governance.

Fyodor Lukyanov
Chair, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (Russia)
BRICS as Diversification of the World Order

Global politics is a paradox. The acronym “BRIC,” coined by Goldman Sachs for its own marketing purposes, has evolved over twenty years into a community of the most influential non-Western states. The 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, was an unqualified success for the Kremlin, and a clear indication that Russia's isolation only works from one side: the West. The rest of the world sees no point in joining in the policy of pressuring Russia, whether they endorse Russian behavior in particular cases or not.

But this is not the main significance of the summit. The BRICS (whose membership has grown from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to also include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates) is an unusual community that does not bear the hallmarks of a traditional international institution. So far, it is a rather amorphous club with a single unifying principle: creating a space for interaction that bypasses Western states and institutions. An overtly anti-Western policy will not prevail in the BRICS, as the overwhelming majority of states there are not interested in aggravating relations with the West. But they are eager to have different options for building political and economic ties, free of U.S. and EU guidance and mechanisms.

This aspiration reflects objective changes on the world stage. First, the redistribution of potential—demographic, economic, military, and to some extent, technological—is creating the conditions for a shift away from the Western-centric system of world order. Non-Western countries have become much more confident in demanding change.
Second, the policies of the United States and the European Union, which insist on following their own visions and persecuting dissenters, are provoking rejection almost everywhere outside the Western community. This is not because of attitudes toward Russia, which vary widely outside the West, but because of the principle itself. Ideologically and politically motivated restrictions are perceived by the majority of international actors as an obstacle to normal development.

The further development of the BRICS will depend on many circumstances. Not all member states consider their participation in the bloc a priority. However, the general movement toward diversification of the world order and away from any one group’s domination will continue, and the BRICS will play an increasing role in this.

Soumya Bhowmick
Fellow and Lead, World Economies and Sustainability at the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy (CNED), Observer Research Foundation (India)
BRICS Reloaded: Economics, Oil, and Geopolitics at Kazan 2024

The October BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia marked a pivotal moment in the bloc’s evolution, showcasing key innovations, expanded energy trade, and greater global influence. The summit formally welcomed the new BRICS members: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Notably, Argentina, expected to join, opted out in late 2023 due to a policy shift under President Javier Milei, reflecting a significant geopolitical development in Latin America, while Saudi Arabia is still considering its formal invitation.

A core focus of the 2024 summit was modernising security and economic cooperation, with key discussions ranging from counterterrorism to carbon-unit trading. The summit also addressed critical security challenges including cybersecurity, terrorism, and regional stability. Historically, the BRICS have been more successful in opposing the Western dominance of global governance structures than articulating a clear, cohesive vision for reform. The increased diversity within the expanded BRICS bloc could complicate efforts to reach unified policy positions, particularly in multilateral forums such as the Group of Twenty (G20).

While the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (OPEC+) will continue to manage the international oil market, the expanded BRICS energy profile could influence the sector in the long term. The inclusion of the UAE and Iran significantly boosts the BRICS energy profile, and if Saudi Arabia formally accepts BRICS membership, the bloc will represent 42 per cent of the global oil supply. The presence of major oil exporters alongside key importers China and India—both of whom did not favour Western sanctions on Russia—highlights the bloc’s potential to establish alternative trade mechanisms that bypass the dominance of the U.S. dollar and the financial influence of the Group of Seven (G7).

India reiterated its commitment to a balanced multipolar world and a reformed global order, advocating for resolving conflicts through diplomacy. Discussions with Russia centered on the Ukraine crisis, where Prime Minister Modi emphasized diplomatic solutions and offered assistance for the safe return of Indian nationals. In the first India-Iran talks since President Masoud Pezeshkian's election, priorities included regional stability and boosting trade through the Chabahar Port. Modi’s meeting with President Xi Jinping signaled a warming of India-China relations, with both sides agreeing to resume border patrols in Ladakh.

Finally, as a critical player in the BRICS and a leading voice for the Global South, India aims to expand its diplomatic influence, positioning itself as a bridge between Western powers and emerging economies. India advocated for greater cooperation in information and communication technologies and security, emphasising real-time geospatial data sharing for border security and the fight against transnational terrorism.

Additionally, the summit offered India an opportunity to further its strategic interests while managing the difficulties posed by China. India must carefully navigate this space going forward to avoid the bloc being dominated by Sino-Russian interests, which could strain its relations with the West.

The 2024 BRICS summit represented a significant moment for the bloc, with India playing a pivotal role in shaping its future. By championing innovation in security, economic cooperation, and multilateral diplomacy, India seeks to enhance its standing in an increasingly multipolar world.

Gustavo de Carvalho
Senior Researcher, African Governance and Diplomacy Programme, South African Institute of International Affairs (South Africa)

The sixteenth BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, marked a significant moment for the group’s evolution, as it was the first since the inclusion of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). With Russia chairing the summit this year, Western media portrayed the event as dominated by Russian influence, speculating that the BRICS bloc was becoming a tool for its ambitions. However, instead of pushing for dramatic changes, the summit prioritised continuity.
It is crucial to distinguish between the BRICS as a collective and Russia’s individual goals. Decisions within the BRICS are based on consensus, which often moderates the positions of individual members. While Russia pushed for a more assertive agenda, it faced scepticism from other members, leading to a more balanced outcome.

Moreover, viewing the BRICS through an “anti-Western” lens overlooks the broader motivations of its Global South constituents. For many, like South Africa, the BRICS is not about moving away from the West but about diversification, especially in finance and trade. In the Kazan declaration, the BRICS positioned itself as a complementary entity to existing institutions like the Group of Twenty (G20), emphasising greater coordination led by India, Brazil, and South Africa, which currently hold consecutive G20 presidencies.

The summit’s discussions focused on contemporary global challenges, including supply chain issues and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. Ukraine was mentioned only indirectly. The bloc remains committed to addressing broader structural challenges, such as reforming international financial institutions to make them more effective. Those issues took precedence over contentious geopolitical matters, reflecting a pragmatic approach to decision-making.

One such pragmatic mechanism being discussed is the BRICS Cross-Border Payment System, which aims to facilitate trade in local currencies. This is partly due to perceptions of increasing risk associated with the U.S. dollar. However, the move to local currencies is not only about de-dollarisation but rather a step towards cheaper, more efficient transactions. Russia, cut off from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), sees it as a financial lifeline. In contrast, Egypt sees it as easing pressure on foreign reserves. Meanwhile, South Africa, Brazil, and India prefer cautious diversification without completely divesting from the dollar.

Another significant development was the effort to strengthen the New Development Bank (NDB), focusing on expanding loans in local currencies. The bank aims to provide 30 percent of financing in the local currency of borrowing members. The NDB’s growing role is crucial for countries seeking flexibility beyond the often-restrictive terms of traditional institutions.

The summit introduced a new “partner countries” modality, providing a participation tier below full membership but more involved than the BRICS+ outreach initiative, established in 2017 for informal engagement with Global South countries. This new partner status will grant access to BRICS initiatives without requiring the complex negotiations of full membership. The specific countries to be included in this new partner tier have yet to be announced, avoiding the confusion from 2023, when Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina were invited but later declined or did not respond to the invitations.

Patryk Kugiel
Chief Analyst, Asia-Pacific Program, Polish Institute of International Affairs (Poland)
BRICS Summit Is a Wake-Up Call for the West

The BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, provided a stage for Russian President Vladimir Putin to show that he is not isolated internationally. The worst mistake the West can make is to underestimate its importance as a mere theatre.
The sixteenth BRICS Summit was historic for two main reasons. First, as expected, it provided an easy diplomatic victory for Vladimir Putin. The Russian president was able to show that he has not been isolated by trading an extra place in the Group of Seven (G7) for a central role in the “B9,” and possibly “B-more” in the future. Moreover, by progressing discussions on the prioritization of transactions in national currencies, he is further loosening the grip of sanctions. He could also claim the role of mediator by facilitating talks between the leaders of China and India for the first time in five years.

Second, and more importantly, is the first expansion of the group since South Africa joined in 2010. Not only did the summit add four new members, but more than thirty countries reportedly expressed interest in future membership. In fact, thirteen states have already been admitted to the newly created category of partner countries. While expansion may widen internal differences with negative implications for cohesion, it also demonstrates the growing appeal of the BRICS in the Global South.

Indeed, while all of the original BRICS members have long claimed leadership roles in the developing world, the expanded BRICS is emerging as the most consequential collective voice of the Global South. It should be read as a sign of growing discontent with the current Western-led global order. Rather than seeing it as a Russian propaganda plot or a Chinese tool, the West needs to see it as a wake-up call to listen carefully to the resentments, frustrations, and demands of the developing world.

The United States and Europe need to counter the new global narrative about divisions between the Global North and the Global South. To mitigate the appeal of the BRICS, the West should adopt a proactive strategy for the reform of established global institutions. It is indeed ridiculous that it is two permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China, who are calling for a more representative global order. Similarly, it is not the West but China that is blocking the expansion of the Security Council to include India, its fellow BRICS member.

The West should exploit those contradictions and engage emerging powers in discussions on managed reform of the global system. Countries such as Poland—with fresh memories of poverty and autocracy—can play a helpful role in bridging the Global North and South and framing a new narrative that would weaken the appeal of the BRICS.

Yasushi Kudo
President, The Genron NPO (Japan)
BRICS Gaining Momentum

There is a tendency to view the BRICS geopolitical bloc as a growing counterweight to Western influence. But as this year’s summit offered no proposals on how to reshape the current order, this does not seem to be the case. Russian President Vladimir Putin has lauded the fact that the BRICS has now surpassed the Group of Seven (G7) in the combined GDP, but in reality, it only serves as a means to conceal Russia’s isolation.

Russia, a nuclear power that is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council, continues to violate the sovereignty and territory of another country and has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal. However, that does not mean that the BRICS countries are aiming to build a new order that condones Russia's actions.

While the number of BRICS member states has expanded, so have the group’s objectives. Even between China and Russia—core members of the BRICS—fractures exist. A 2023 poll conducted by the Genron NPO shows that only 27 percent of Chinese citizens believe that Russia’s behavior against Ukraine is appropriate. Moreover, Russia and North Korea have entered into a military partnership. Plans are underway for Russia to support North Korea’s nuclear weapon development program, and North Korea has dispatched soldiers to fight in Ukraine alongside Russian forces. Now that Beijing is within range of Pyongyang’s missiles, it is easy to imagine just how concerned China might be.
Still, the BRICS now seems to be gaining momentum. This is due to the destabilization of the rules-based order and cooperative mechanisms established by the West that have been in place since the end of the Second World War. The partner countries announced at this year’s BRICS summit include Indonesia and Malaysia—both countries with large Muslim populations and growing opposition to the West’s position on Gaza.

The power of emerging countries and the Global South continues to grow. It is time for the West to determine how to rebuild the rules-based global order, not just oppose the BRICS.

Haibin Niu
Director of Institute for Foreign Policy Studies, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China)
BRICS as a Primary Channel for Global South

The BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, saw the consolidation of the bloc as a primary channel for the Global South in dealing with world affairs. After its significant expansion in the last summit, the enlarged group of nine full members decided to adopt a BRICS partner country category. Though the Kazan declaration did not list the invitees by name, it was widely reported that thirteen countries were approved as BRICS partner countries. In keeping with the motto “BRICS and Global South: Building a Better World” for the BRICS dialogue at Kazan, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva declared the motto for next year’s BRICS summit in Brazil as “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance."

The puzzle for the West is why the BRICS is so attractive to countries in the Global South. The first reason is that the BRICS is an emerging major multilateral forum that is open to emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs)(EMDCs). BRICS has welcomed EMDCs by developing an institutional expansion and partnership approach to engage with those countries, which is quite different from the exclusive club model of the Group of Seven (G7). The influence of the G7 makes it difficult for the Group of Twenty (G20) to engage with smaller EMDCs in an institutional way.

Secondly, BRICS countries support a shared vision by championing international cooperation and focusing on sustainable development. One main motivation for countries applying for membership to the BRICS is the diversification of their diplomatic and economic relationships.

It is impressive that Chinese President Xi Jinping identified the BRICS as a primary channel for strengthening solidarity and cooperation among Global South countries. Besides the strategic consensus among BRICS members and institutional developments such as the New Development Bank, it will be imperative for the most capable members of the group to keep this channel open for the Global South. Considering the active role that China, Brazil, and India have played in supporting the Global South in world affairs, closer ties are likely to develop between BRICS member states and the Global South in the future.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

We have quite a few partners, and their number has been growing beyond Eurasia. This is where our action within BRICS comes into play. But this is a separate topic.

Question: BRICS has again become a popular issue online. Young people are looking at it, trying to understand what it is and how it will develop. It is even said that “everything will be BRICS,” meaning that everything will be good. It is an image of the new world order. You have mentioned certain structures that can ensure Eurasian security. Can such a structure be created within BRICS, or is BRICS not about security but mostly about the economy?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS is about the new world order that is based on the main principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states. The group was formed naturally when the most rapidly rising economies recognised the expediency of coming together to see if they can use their economic achievements to work more effectively on the global scale by employing their contacts and influence.

Unlike the G7 and other institutions controlled by the West, such as the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, BRICS has seen that everything the Americans control now was created many years ago and promoted as the global good, namely their concepts of globalisation, the inviolability of property, fair competition, the presumption of innocence and so on – all those principles collapsed overnight when they decided to “punish” Russia.

Incidentally, sanctions have been imposed on over half of the world’s countries, even if they are not as drastic as those that have been adopted against Russia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran and Venezuela. The real reason behind the West’s current rage is that China is rapidly and confidently surging ahead of the United States. Moreover, it is doing this on the basis of the norms the Americans have used to create such institutions as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. Moreover, China is moving ahead despite America’s abuse of these institutions and mechanisms.

The task of containing China was articulated by the Biden administration. I believe that it will remain a priority for the Trump administration too. We are a current threat to them. Washington can’t allow Russia to prove that it is a strong player and undermine the West’s reputation. They don’t care about Ukraine. They only care about their reputation. They decided that Ukraine should have a government they like and didn’t expect anyone to protest. Russia? It’s a big country but it must be brought down a peg. That is what this is about rather than the future of the Ukrainian people. They don’t care about people.

When he saw that the West didn’t care about the people, Vladimir Zelensky presented a “victory plan” offering the West to take over Ukraine’s natural resources, while Ukraine would provide the police and military to ensure law and order in Europe because the Americans were sick and tired of that chore. It is proposed that a number of Americans would remain in Europe, with Gauleiters and overseers doing the dirty jobs, like they did during the Great Patriotic War and WWII, putting down protests and suppressing those who abandon the Brussels (that is, neo-liberal and dictatorial) dogmas and uphold their national interests. It is a comprehensive process.

BRICS is associated with Eurasia, of course, because it includes China, India, Russia and Pakistan. This is obvious.
The SCO is operating on the Eurasian continent, including in terms of its development and the plans it makes and implements in the economy and the military-political sphere. It conducts anti-terrorist exercises. There are close ties between their law enforcement agencies at the level of the member states’ security councils. The humanitarian aspect includes the exchange of best practices in education, cultural programmes and sports events. It is a regional process which we are stimulating and encouraging. We are watching with sympathy and are ready to help promote integration within the African Union and CELAC.

These associations have become more active recently. They are increasingly aware of the unreliability of global economic mechanisms and the system of relations which the world has accepted at the West’s prompting. The Western countries are now using these associations to their own advantage. Nobody wants to become their new victim. Nobody knows on which side someone in Washington will get out of bed, who they will dislike, and who they will use the language of dictate against tomorrow.

The countries of the Global South and East, the Global Majority don’t demand that the existing institutions, like the World Bank or the WTO, be dissolved, but they call for a just reform. Meanwhile, they are creating parallel mechanisms of settlement and insurance, as well as logistic chains, to avoid dependence on them.

During the latest BRICS Summit in Kazan, we proposed creating a BRICS grain exchange, which received a positive response from all parties. We are doing this to be able to trade calmly and normally, using various routes and bank connections protected from dictate and possible damage by those who control the classical institutions of the global economy.

I have mentioned regional integration associations which maintain contacts with each other, such as the SCO, the EAEU and ASEAN in Eurasia, the African Union in Africa and CELAC in Latin America. At the global level, BRICS is regarded as a flexible and non-bureaucratic structure that could harmonise these regional processes. The leading countries of the SCO, ASEAN, the African Union and Latin America, as well as the Arab world, which is important, are involved in BRICS in one way or another, including as traditional cooperation partners in the BRICS Plus/Outreach format.

We have created a category of partner countries. Over 30 countries are interested in developing closer ties with BRICS. This is a significant trend that allows us to discuss ways to harmonise the activities of the Global Majority in the economy, politics, finance and the humanitarian sphere at this level during the group’s summits.

Question: Would it be fair to say that in today’s world BRICS operates as an integration platform which is ready to bring together the organisations you have just mentioned? Are we talking about some kind of institutionalised framework? Will BRICS have its own headquarters? Will it be located in a neutral country? Or is this not on the agenda so far?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS is not a platform. It represents a natural grouping, with regional and integration platforms viewing it as an ally and a way to harmonise and coordinate their plans at a global level.

There have been no discussions of transforming BRICS into a formal bureaucratic institution. Its agility is what makes it so appealing. The chairmanship rotates annually in alphabetical order, and the country assuming the chairmanship performs the functions that secretariats normally have, holds various events, etc. And everyone is satisfied with this approach. I am certain that this is the best option and will remain the best option for quite some time.

Question: The BRICS Summit in Kazan was a truly historic event. Almost 30 heads of state attended it. Can it be compared to any other historical events, such as Tehran or Vienna, in terms of its scale? President Vladimir Putin mentioned the Westphalian system of international relations, and the Yalta system too. But this summit marked a new stage. How would you call it?

Sergey Lavrov: Call it the BRICS Stage. But all the examples you have just mentioned had a different purpose. Those meetings were essentially about carving up the world, as we say. Every country wanted to have a bigger say in the emerging systems, including the one resulting from the Yalta Conference. The Soviet Union succeeded in its efforts, but that amounted to splitting and carving up the world.

However, BRICS has no intention of dividing the world. It wants to bring together countries that desire closer relations so that they can live on the land they got from God and their ancestors just as they used to, as great civilisations. This includes China, India, Iran, Russia and many other countries. They do not want anyone telling them how they must trade, or preventing them from processing their natural resources, which is the case in Africa.

Only recently, we held a meeting in Sochi. It was the First Ministerial Conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. Most of the participants said that they can no longer tolerate a situation where they cannot extract on their own everything nature has given them – the rich reserves, including rare earth minerals, uranium and many other resources – without the assistance from Western companies. But these Western companies take all these commodities to their processing plants and keep all the added value. This is neo-colonialism at its finest.

United Russia has been proactively working on this agenda with like-minded parties across the Global South. In February 2024, it convened the founding congress of the For the Freedom of Nations! interparty movement. Its goal is to fight neo-colonial practices in their present-day iterations. In June 2024, United Russia held an interparty event in Vladivostok on the same topic. There is already a special permanent platform for working on this agenda, called For the Freedom of Nations! Many African parties and other structures have joined it. Africans want to take ownership of their riches and their destiny. This is what matters to them.

In 2023, I had the privilege of representing President Vladimir Putin at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg. Getting fuel for the plane for our trip back home was quite a challenge, by the way. It turned out that almost all companies offering aviation fuel It was impossible for us to get fuel for the plane. This was quite irritating, of course.

When the United States imposes sanctions of this kind, what they fail to understand is that they have an intimidating effect on others trying to avoid what they call secondary sanctions. It is inevitable for reasonable people to take offence when someone tramples upon their sovereignty. Donald Trump had the intuition to raise this issue when he said that weaponising the dollar was the biggest mistake of the Joe Biden administration, since this policy encouraged many to stop using the dollar.

There was a time when BRICS countries traded almost exclusively in dollars, but now this currency accounts for less than 30 percent. This is quite a serious result.

Question: Can Russia assume leadership and head a movement to liberate all states still experiencing the vestiges of colonialism? Is it perhaps time to adopt a declaration against modern forms of colonialism? Can BRICS undertake this effort? Is it not time to make it clear to the modern world that colonialism is history?

Sergey Lavrov: Firstly, colonialism is not “history,” not yet. Unfortunately, not all the colonial possessions of Western countries have been liberated yet. As far back as 1960, the UN General Assembly demanded that they be liberated. However, France, Britain and a number of other Western states violated its resolutions and refused to liberate the territories they seized through colonial wars.

There is no need to create a new movement or association today. I have just mentioned that the United Russia party initiated a movement, For the Freedom of Nations, precisely to fight the modern practices of neo-colonialism, as stated in its charter.

Colonialism is still seeing occasional relapses in small island states, above all in and around Africa. Decolonisation has taken place as a global process. However, when Africa gained independence, it became clear that they had little more than political independence. A simple example – they could not refuel their guest’s plane.

At the Russia-Africa summit in 2023, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke about the global coffee market. Most coffee is grown and harvested in Africa. The global coffee market is valued at about $450 billion, but Africa retains only 20 percent of that. President Museveni said that Germany alone generated more revenue from the coffee industry through processing, roasting, packaging, and marketing the end product than the whole continent of Africa. Seemingly free countries have their economies largely owned by the former parent states. When Zimbabwe decided to nationalise land from white farmers a few decades ago, it was punished with harsh sanctions.

Decolonisation has taken place, in a broad sense. But being able to actually manage one’s freedom and resources is a different story. This is where neo-colonialism comes to the fore.

The First Ministerial Conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi, and the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg in 2023 clearly put into perspective the trends that could be called Africa’s second awakening. Having thrown off the chains of colonialism (the crude subjugation of nations by Western countries), they realised that they still had to throw off the chains of economic dependence. This process will continue to unfold.

Unlike Western countries, Russia is investing in Africa in such a way as to stimulate the production of goods that Africans need. For example, we export fertilisers to African nations. A number of African countries have the resources to produce them locally, so we are helping them with that. There are many such examples of localising what they need and what we have. It is a different philosophy. It does not really matter if we raise a banner saying “Down with neo-colonialism” or just continue doing what we are doing. There is no stopping the movement in that direction.

Question: You have said that Trump’s accession to power will not change the US policy in Ukraine. Do you still think so, or should we take into account the new appointments in the Trump administration, some of them people who have been speaking about Ukraine fatigue and putting an end to funding? Donald Trump has even said that the United States might leave NATO. What do you think about the possibility of a settlement in Ukraine under the Trump administration?

Sergey Lavrov: Essentially, Washington’s position on Ukraine and Europe will not change in that the United States will always try to control everything in the region around NATO and NATO itself. The EU has become a kind of NATO in the military-political sense. I won’t try to guess how they would do this and how they would maintain control in the new conditions. Forms can vary. But I have no doubt whatsoever that they will try to control these processes.

Some people have taken a more reasonable view of the situation in Ukraine, saying that a great deal has been lost and this loss will never be recovered, and so a freeze would be a solution in this situation.

Question: Donald Trump has said that he will have it solved in 24 hours.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: What is the future trajectory of the Kazan Declaration? What initiatives are currently being pursued in this regard? How might the United Nations respond, and what global impact is anticipated? Are there avenues for organisations or individuals who align with the goals of BRICS to contribute to the implementation of these objectives? To whom should they direct their enquiries, and from where should they commence?

Maria Zakharova: The Declaration has already been disseminated as an official document within the United Nations. Secretary-General António Guterres participated in the BRICS Plus/Outreach session in Kazan, acknowledging the group’s significant contribution to strengthening multilateralism, crucial for global development and security.
The Kazan Declaration, adopted at the conclusion of the 16th BRICS summit, is, without a hint of hyperbole, a momentous document. It articulates, for the first time, the unified stance of BRICS nations following its expansion earlier this year. With the endorsement of our partners, we have succeeded in consolidating the principal outcomes of collaborative efforts under the Russian chairmanship across all major sectors – political and security affairs, economy and finance, as well as cultural and humanitarian cooperation. Objectives for the immediate future have been delineated, and pertinent agencies responsible for sectoral collaboration have already commenced formulating specific steps for their implementation. Our Brazilian colleagues, poised to assume the BRICS chairmanship in 2025, will be tasked with advancing this shared achievement.

BRICS is a distinctive platform that is always open to all who espouse its ideals and principles. The unique character of this format, deliberately devoid of the typical trappings of international organisations such as a charter or a secretariat, affords opportunities for extensive participation through official bodies, business, and civil society.

This inclusivity is encapsulated within the Kazan Declaration.

back to top

Question: Should citizens or organisations wish to engage with these objectives, how might they become involved in the process?

Maria Zakharova: Is this a general enquiry? There is a corresponding website. What specifically piques your interest? Identify an area, peruse the relevant sections and headings. Should you harbour a specific query to which you have found no answer, direct it to us. We shall assuredly respond and elucidate the mechanism through which your desire to participate can be actualised.

This initiative is still in its formative stage. It is not a structure that has been operational for decades, with a finely honed interaction mechanism, expanding every five years by one or two members. By historical standards, it is relatively nascent. Suddenly, it has nearly doubled in size. This expansion was illustrative of the capacity to function even under such circumstances, notwithstanding the machinations the West has contrived and continues to contrive against this group and its countries.

What does this indicate? We must still refine some formats, including through the active engagement of civil society. At a recent briefing, we discussed BRICS television. This was not a “top-down” proposal; it emerged as an initiative from civil society. It received the approval of the group’s countries and has been evolving over several years.
So, do send your query. I am confident we will be of assistance.

Australia
Source: www.lowyinstitute.org

Last month, the BRICS countries held their 16th summit in the Russian city of Kazan, this time featuring an expanding membership. Among the discussions, Russia repeatedly made calls to further develop an alternative international payment system. In its joint declaration at the end of the summit, BRICS members encouraged the “strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI).”

This initiative, also known as BRICS Pay, is a planned decentralised and independent payment messaging mechanism system for BRICS nations to trade with each other through their own currencies.

BRICS Pay was first proposed in 2018, as a way for the developing nations to better trade with each other. However, it was during the summit in 2022 that BRICS Pay became seen as a possibility to bypass the SWIFT network, the internationally recognised standard of global bank transactions and one of the main pillars of Western sanctions against Russia. Since its invasion of Ukraine, the resulting sanctions have made it difficult for Russia to trade with its allies, as it is barred from using SWIFT or the US dollar. This has resulted in Russia having to use local currencies to trade, and at some points even bartering with fruits and vegetables.

So, Russia is understandably keen to avoid SWIFT, and as a founding member has been the strongest proponent of BRICS Pay. But other members are deeply interested as well. They see BRICS Pay as a channel to one day achieve a goal of de-dollarisation, to free themselves from America’s financial hegemony. Brazil is all for the project, for example, with President Lula da Silva stating that it is time for a new payment system between BRICS nations as “we need to work so that the multipolar order we aim for is reflected in the international financial system.” In 2023, he even suggested a BRICS currency.

BRICS is well suited for such a new banking network. Not only do they have a strong motive for creating the network, avoiding Western sanctions, but they already have the infrastructure necessary to build it. Russia’s Mir network, India’s Unified Payment Interface, and China’s WePay and AliPay, serve as strong foundations to create BRICS Pay. The plan for BRICS Pay is that it would use the technology of UPI and WePay, including digital wallets, QR code payments, and a framework that would directly link to local banks. This would enable countries to trade in their own currency, avoiding the dollar.

There is also a strong possibility that it would use blockchain technology, using digital ledgers to create transparency and “ensure efficient payment systems.” This in turn could give a boost to BRICS member’s digital currency, such as the e-Yuan or the e-Rupee. The intention to use “advanced technology” would help differentiate BRICS pay from SWIFT, which only uses messaging software.

The developing nations of BRICS, particularly those that still heavily trade with Russia, are keen to break away from the Western led financial order, but they still have a long way to go.

If BRICS Pay becomes feasible, it could develop into a strong tool against the Western-led financial order. BRICS membership of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates currently represents 35.4% of the world economy and around 45% of the global population. Enabling BRICS nations to better trade in their own currencies, it would weaken the domination of the US dollar.

Although Russia is the most enthusiastic about this project, the other founding members of BRICS are still wary of such a system. India is one, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi wanting to focus on the spread of India’s own UPI across BRICS nations. China is similarly unsure on the idea, as President Xi Jinping’s remarked that BRICS should “promote the international financial system to better reflect changes in the world economic landscape.” Both China and India have their alternative to SWIFT – the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) and the Structured Financial Messaging System (SFMS) respectively.

As for now, BRICS Pay, much like many other BRICS proposals, is still ultimately just an idea. Officially, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said BRICS “have not built and are not” building a payment system beyond feasibility studies. However, it is an idea that has spooked the Western world. The IMF chief has called for more information from BRICS. Just after the BRICS summit, the Bank for International Settlements left the mBridge digital currency project, which aims to support cross border payments and transactions through digital currencies, handling it to the central banks of China, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the UAE.

The developing nations of BRICS, particularly those that still heavily trade with Russia, are keen to break away from the Western led financial order, but they still have a long way to go. The US dollar is still used in 80% of global trade settlements, and SWIFT handles $US150 trillion in transactions every year. BRICS members seem aware the surmountable difficulties in disrupting that order. The joint statement was lowkey and did not call out BRICS Pay by name, preferring the softer sounding “BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative”. However, if BRICS Pay can become a reality, it will reshape the global financial system, giving the BRICS bloc a powerful advantage.

USA
Source: www.project-syndicate.org

Expressions of dissatisfaction with the global dominance of the dollar go back at least to French finance minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in 1965. But even today, the euro is no challenger to the greenback, and no one should hold their breath waiting for the BRICS to unveil their own attempt at an alternative currency.

ATHENS – Last month’s BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, was, like all summits, heavy on photo ops. And it yielded a second act that was similarly heavier on symbolism than substance: the release of a report by the Russian finance ministry and central bank on “improvement of the international monetary and financial system,” by which Russian officials obviously meant “finding an alternative to the weaponized dollar.”

Expressions of dissatisfaction with the dominance of the dollar over global money and finance go back at least to French finance minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in 1965, who famously lamented the greenback’s “exorbitant privilege.” Indeed, the desire for an alternative played no small part in the creation of the euro 34 years later.

Herein lies the rub for the BRICS (named for its founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Creating the euro took 34 years. It necessarily built on a half-century of other steps that deepened European integration and established shared political institutions. And the euro, in any case, has shown no signs of challenging the dollar, or even of modestly denting its global supremacy.

Policymakers in emerging markets have in fact offered a long list of possible substitutes for the dollar. None of their proposals has borne fruit. In 2009, People’s Bank of China (PBOC) Governor Zhou Xiaochuan suggested replacing dollar reserves with the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights. It quickly became apparent that no one was particularly interested in holding, much less using, an artificial asset pegged to an arbitrary currency basket.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter, PS Economics

Every Thursday in PS Economics, we offer a concise selection of essential reading on the most important issues related to economics and finance.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.

Chinese officials then embarked on a campaign to promote use of the renminbi in international payments. In fact, Chinese firms now settle a majority of their cross-border transactions in renminbi. Globally, however, the renminbi accounts for less than 6% of trade settlements, while Chinese capital controls and governance issues limit the currency’s utility for financial transactions. Despite having built a Cross-Border Interbank Payments System, Chinese banks clear barely 3% of the daily transactions, by value, of US-based clearing houses.

Then came proposals for a BRICS currency, constituted as a weighted average of existing BRICS currencies, or perhaps backed by gold or other commodities. But a BRICS basket currency was not a natural fit for any of its member countries’ exporters. With no BRICS equivalent of the European Central Bank, which manages the euro, or of the European Parliament, to which the ECB answers, fundamental questions – like who would manage it – remained unanswered.

A gold-backed currency would have obvious appeal to major gold producers like Russia and South Africa. But payments would be expensive, insofar as they involved actual gold shipments. If “gold-backed” meant convertible into gold at the prevailing market price, then the unit would not be stable. If it meant convertible at a fixed price, this would be tantamount to donning the straitjacket of the gold standard.

There have since been discussions of local currency settlement, like those occupying Russia and India for much of 2023. But this could work only if bilateral trade were perfectly balanced, with neither country having much appetite for accumulating the currency of the other. The benefits of multilateral trade would be lost. Predictably, these Russia-India talks led nowhere – except to Kazan.

The Russian report to the BRICS summit recommended a common platform for cross-border payments using a set of BRICS central-bank digital currencies. This could avoid having to go through the dollar, the US banking system, and the SWIFT interbank payment service. The Bank for International Settlements has helped to develop such a platform, known as Project mBridge, with the participation of five central banks, including the PBOC, which is said to be privy to the technical details, having designed many of them. The accession of additional emerging markets could provide for own-currency settlement while preserving a modicum of multilateralism. Participants might be happy about holding one another’s currencies now that these were usable at low cost throughout the bloc.

But if the technological problem has been solved, the governance problem remains. Participants would have to agree on who to license as foreign-exchange dealers on the platform, or on the exchange rate at which to execute trades algorithmically. They would have to agree on who was responsible for providing liquidity, and under what conditions. They would have to agree on a dispute-settlement mechanism. They would have to agree on privacy and data-protection laws and practices, and how to guard against cyber threats. They would have to agree on the enforcement of anti-money-laundering rules. They would have to agree on which central banks could join over time. They would have to agree on ownership and voting shares, analogous to ownership and voting shares in SWIFT.

In their Kazan Declaration, summit participants limply “recognized” the role of the BRICS in improving the international monetary and financial system, and “took note” of the Russian report. No one should be surprised that they failed to do more.