India
Source: thediplomat.com


Member nations are unhappy with the systemic bias against the Global South and want to reform the current order such that mutually agreed upon norms are applied equally to all nations.

BRICS began as an excellent investment opportunity since it comprised some of the world’s fastest growing economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They belonged to four continents and the fact that all of them were non-Western economies gave them a geopolitical identity as the leading lights of the developing world.

Even after its expansion in January 2024 with the addition of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Iran (Argentina expressed initial interest in joining but subsequently opted to withdraw), the core purpose of what BRICS seeks to achieve lacks clarity.

BRICS’ statements critical of the governance of multilateral institutions and groupings like G-7 and the UNSC P-5 indicated that the grouping was seeking changes in global governance. With the establishment of the BRICS bank, New Development Bank, it appeared that these rising powers from the Global South were perhaps seeking to create an alternate global order.

A joint statement of the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations issued in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia on June 10, 2024, offers more substantial insights into BRICS’ vision not for an alternate but a reformed global order. The 54 carefully articulated points address issues ranging from international security, sustainability and climate change, human rights, the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the position of Africa in the world, among many others. The joint declaration constitutes, so far, the clearest statement produced by BRICS showcasing their shared vision and worldview beyond economic cooperation. We now have a much better idea of what BRICS wants.

However, there seems to be a fil rouge running through the language of the joint statement: a persistent exceptionalism toward developing countries and the need to consider the structural inequalities of the global order in the BRICS’ perception of the world. This idea is clearly manifest in the proposal of “a more agile, effective, efficient, responsive, representative, legitimate, democratic and accountable international and multilateral system,” which is supposed to lead to a “greater and more meaningful participation of developing and least developed countries, especially in Africa, in global decision-making processes and structures, and making them better attuned to contemporary realities” (point 4 of the statement).

BRICS nations are united in their perception that despite changing geoeconomic and geopolitical realities their voices remain marginalized and real power in multilateral institutions is in the hands of the Global North. Today in purchasing power terms BRICS has a greater share of the global GDP (32 percent) than the G-7 nations (31 percent). The balance of economic power is moving away from the Trans-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific region.

However, the power over institutions of global governance remains centralized in the Global North. This ensures that rules that govern the global economy are skewed in favor of the north at the expense of the Global South.

BRICS appear to be committed to a multilateral order in which institutions play a central role in the decision-making process. The statement rejected unilateralism and unilateral actions as outside the UN Charter and in breach of international law (point 15). The statement blamed unilateral sanctions for having a negative effect on trade, health, energy supplies and food security of the developing world.

The legality of unilateral sanctions by a state or a group of states without U.N. authorization is a contested issue. The joint declaration of the BRICS ministers opens the door to brand sanctions by the United States, the European Union and allies as incompatible with international law. The joint declaration in the same vein also condemned unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures that disrupt the global supply chains and distort competition (point 16).

The key to the success of the BRICS is the rapid decline of the current global order. As the system and its rules are challenged by wars, pandemics and economic shifts, the system becomes unstable and allows emerging powers to act independently of the will of dominant powers and enables change. We are currently witnessing two wars, one in Europe and another in the Middle East, and both are directly challenging the U.S.-led order. Leading members of BRICS are directly or indirectly helping the challengers. India and China are shoring up the Russian economy by circumventing the NATO-imposed anti-Russia sanctions. And China with its diplomatic outreach to Hamas and South Africa with its legal actions against Israel are working hard not only to upset the status quo but also to enforce the rules of the rule-based order in such a way that for once it helps the Global South.
But the joint statement on these two wars (see points 32-35) is a hodge-podge of standing for principle while also making compromises in the interests of member countries. It may also be an attempt to gloss over the fact that BRICS members do not have a unified stance on the Russia-Ukraine war. But the comprehensive statement on the Israel-Hamas war, while clarifying the BRICS unity on the issue, also highlights the absence of consensus on the Russia-Ukraine war.

BRICS have taken what can be described as a copybook Global South perspective on Palestine. They criticize Israel’s conduct of the war, call for a Palestinian state, support the two-state solution and support the measures taken by the International Court of Justice. Indeed, the longest statement in the entire declaration is on the Palestine issue. But on the Ukraine issue, one can sense a double standard as they make a rather vague reference to the national positions taken by members in other international fora. But they do not refer to the judicial proceedings before the World Court concerning Russia or the International Criminal Court’s investigations on Russian nationals. However, they do appreciate proposals for peace and mediation like the joint proposal by Brazil and China.

Our reading of the statement suggests that BRICS are unhappy with the systemic bias against the Global South in the current global order, but we also sense that they are not seeking to establish an alternate order but strengthen and reform the current one such that mutually agreed upon norms are applied equally and justly to all nations. An example of this posture can be seen in the statement about the G-20 forum (see points 6 and 7). All the founding members of the BRIC nations are part of G-20 and now even the African Union. It allows nations of the Global South to set the agenda and the fact that it has in recent years been led by Indonesia (2022), India (2023), Brazil (2024), and South Africa (2025) makes it more appealing to BRICS. Unlike the UN Security Council and IMF where power is unevenly distributed, at the G-20, decision-making is based on equality and consensus building.

We believe that the BRICS forum promises a new multipolar world order where the Global South truly matters. It seeks to achieve that goal through reform not replacement of the existing order. Forums such as G-20 can be the vehicle for the reforms that BRICS seek. But there are internal conflicts such as those between India and China and Saudi Arabia and Iran and to a lesser extent Egypt and Ethiopia, which reduces the forum’s ability to act more decisively. BRICS will have to either limit its membership to nations that are not hostile to each other or develop a robust internal system of conflict resolution. But the fact that BRICS has emerged and is being taken seriously clearly indicates that there is a need and an active demand for change and for the moment there is no better hope than BRICS to bring about that change.

Russia
Source: russiancouncil.ru

Kin Phea, Director General of the International Relations Institute of the Royal Academy of Cambodia, spoke in an interview for RIAC about the prospects for Russian-Cambodian relations and developing cooperation on international platforms. The interview was prepared on the margins of the Gorchakov Fund Conference “Asian Dialogue 2024”.

What successful economic, political and humanitarian bilateral projects have Russia and Cambodia implemented in recent years? What new initiatives and which sectors could make our interaction more productive?

Our bilateral relations share a long history of cooperation, which is an important legacy from the Soviet Union. If asked to assess the implementation of successful projects, I would say that the first involves human resource development. There are over 8,000 Cambodian people who have received an education in former Soviet Union states, including the Russian Federation. Now these individuals are very successful, as they hold many important positions in the government, including Deputy Prime Minister, Minister and other senior governmental positions, as well as in private companies. Many also become famous architects, engineers, medical staff, etc. This is the most important success. In terms of investment and the economic sector, our cooperation is more limited. So, I would suggest that Russia should consider investing in the agricultural sector, as well as in energy, technology and smart cities, and digitalization. Afterall, Russia is very good at agricultural development, in addition to energy, technology and digitalization. So, I would strongly recommend that Russia should invest in this sector in Cambodia.

How do you assess our cooperation in multilateral formats, mainly the United Nations?
I think that the two countries fruitfully, productively and effectively cooperate in multilateral platforms, like under the UN framework. The two countries always support each other on pressing international issues, and we highly value the principle of multilateralism. So, I think we share views on many international and pressing global issues of common interest. Particularly the five principles of peaceful coexistence and multilateralism is very important. I can highlight one other important view that we share: Cambodia recently decided not to join the peace summit in Switzerland because this summit was organized with the intention to mobilize international support to fight against Russia. For this reason, Cambodia did not attend this summit. We believe we need to approach this crisis using the UN platform.

Looking at Cambodia and BRICS, will Cambodia join this association and how do you, your elites and citizens perceive this opportunity?

I think BRICS is a very important alternative for us. I believe BRICS is the backbone of the global economy, especially for the Global South. So, in my perspective, I think Cambodia should consider becoming a member—if it is possible—or at least be an observer to the organization, as I believe that BRICS can be alternative to the G7 in the future. BRICS is broader, more inclusive. BRICS does not intend to block any country or any group of countries. It's different from the G7, who often mobilize only to block a country, or do something to harm or punish other countries. For example, they treat many countries unfairly. BRICS on the other hand can provide an alternative here, especially with the process of de-dollarization. This is very important because the world currently seems to be overly dependent on dollars. So, if BRICS can create a type of BRIC currency in the future, I think the world would be more balanced. Afterall, balance is very important right now.

Our last question involves the legacy of the Soviet heritage in Cambodia. In what way has it been preserved?

If we talk about heritage, it's most visible with our human capital; this is the heritage and it is everywhere. Take my own brother, for example. He is an achievement that was made during the Soviet Union. We also still have much of the physical infrastructure that was built during the Soviet Union. As for our older generation, we have very fond memories of the Soviet Union, including myself. I grew up during that time, so I remember the many things that the Soviet Union did for us during the hard period following our liberation in 1979 and during the 1980s. So, this is a very good memory that I can note. Another important moment is that if you are in Cambodia, you can see that the Russian market is very well known to all foreigners who visit the country. Initially, this market sold many things from Russia. Russians who lived and worked in Cambodia at that time often enjoyed going to this market, so the eventually the market became known as the “Russian” or “Soviet market”. As for the political legacy—as I think it's also very important—even though now we are a multi-party liberal democracy, the system itself resembles the Soviet Union. I think this system is the best for us; it is good for our general situation, if to consider our current political, social and economic conditions.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Deputy Foreign Minister and Presidential Special Envoy for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov met in Addis Ababa with Foreign Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Taye Atske Selassie on July 15, and held consultations with State Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ethiopia’s BRICS Sous-Sherpa Mesganu Arega on July 14.

The officials discussed the current aspects of progressive development of the traditionally friendly Russia-Ethiopia relationship, including strengthening trade, economic, scientific, technical and humanitarian cooperation. They reaffirmed their countries’ commitment to promoting political dialogue and effective coordination on the international stage, in particular at the UN, BRICS and other multilateral organisations. The sides also talked about Ethiopia’s preparation for the upcoming BRICS summit to be held in Kazan in October 2024, and the first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, which will convene in Sochi in November 2024.

A confidential exchange of views on the key international and regional issues focused on crisis situations in Africa, in particular in the Sahel-Sahara region, Sudan and the Horn of Africa. The sides reaffirmed the consistent and fundamental positions of Moscow and Addis Ababa in favour of political and diplomatic methods of crisis management in Africa based on the pivotal role of Africans in accordance with the African solutions to African problems principle.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: You say that there must be new world order that is multipolar. You say it is already happening. What role do you see for the United States in the new world order?

Sergey Lavrov: The United States should simply accept the reality and stop claiming it will be in charge of everything everywhere.

Michael Bohm is a freelance journalist who is working in Russia. He gets invited to different talk shows. He is fluent in Russian. In a recent interview, he was asked the same question: what is the United States’ role in a multipolar world? He answered that whenever the United States went into self-isolation, devastating wars and conflicts broke out, and when it entered the world stage as a leader, there were fewer wars. I respect journalism, but not enough to accept this point of view. Not because he can’t say what is better or worse, but because this is not true.

The United States accessed the world stage in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. How did that end? Did they see any peaceful changes for the better? Now, the Americans repeat like a mantra that they will “support Ukraine for as long as it takes.” How long is that? Twenty years, as it was in Afghanistan, before they realised they had lost? Or, in Iraq, which they supposedly left, but are now trying to hold on in defiance of the Iraqi parliament’s decision to the effect that the United States should withdraw its troops? Or, will they approach Ukraine the same way they approached Libya? How long did it take them to devastate Libya? Now, everyone is “piecing the pots together” for them.

Multipolar world is real. Nobody made it up. Look at the share of the United States and the West in global GDP 50 or 20 years ago and now. Two years ago, the five BRICS countries outdid the G7 countries in terms of GNP and purchasing power parity. Now, with five more nations joining BRICS, that gap will widen. However, the United States is doing everything to ensure that this real weight of the global economy and finance in the new growth centres does not get reflected in the activities of the IMF and the World Bank.

The United States is holding on to its voting bloc (about 15 percent) which, according to the IMF rules, allows it to veto decisions. To be fair, these quotas and votes should have been redistributed a long time ago. This is what the BRICS countries are insisting upon. This will be one of the main economic and financial issues at the BRICS summit in Kazan this October.

The WTO was presented to us as the best available regulator of fair world trade. As soon as China, which grew its economy on the principles of globalisation invented by the Americans, started overtaking the United States in terms of competition and beat them economically, the Americans simply closed the WTO dispute settlement body. They used technical tricks. There is no more quorum there. For many years, all fair complaints filed by the PRC against the protectionist policy of the United States have been lying unanswered. The WTO reform is on the BRICS agenda as well. We will pursue it.

These subjects will certainly dominate the G20 summit agenda in Rio de Janeiro. This is precisely the entity that should consider the realities of the global economy without bias and take steps to grow it to make sure that mutual benefit matches the countries’ contribution to the global economy.
In Eurasia, there is the SCO, the EAEU and ASEAN. These associations have agreements with China to harmonise integration projects with China’s Belt and Road project. There is also the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. All of these organisations have established contacts among themselves, thus creating a fabric of future material interaction on the Eurasian continent that is based on the comparative advantages of a single space, which possesses untold riches in terms of natural resources and offers the most important global maritime communications. We are encouraging these processes.

After the United States and its allies imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China and other countries, African and Latin American countries began to think about ways to protect themselves against such tantrums. After all, no one can be sure who the Americans will get angry at next.

At last year’s BRICS summit, Brazilian President Lula da Silva strongly promoted the idea of creating alternative payment platforms and settlement mechanisms within BRICS. Finance ministers and central bank governors of the association are working on this and will draft recommendations for the summit in Kazan. The President of Brazil proposed to consider moving towards creating a common currency within CELAC. Everyone is trying to safeguard themselves.

Reportedly, Saudi Arabia is thinking about reducing its dependence on the dollar against the backdrop of the United States and the collective West’s attempts to steal Russian money. The process of dedollarisation is underway and cannot be stopped. Donald Trump’s name came up today. He said that it was suicidal for the United States. But they set this process off themselves.

Groups of regional associations such as the African Union, CELAC, and Asian organisations that I mentioned maintain contacts. At the global level, BRICS is well placed to serve as a harmoniser of processes among the Global Majority countries.

The G20, where the Global Majority countries will continue to communicate with the West, if it is willing to do so in a fair manner, and the UN, where everyone is represented and should talk to each other remain in place. Yesterday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó said that he always knew the UN had been created for the countries to communicate with each other. However, this is not the case now: the West decided that the world organisation exists to back up its outlandish ambitions to play the role of a hegemon on the world stage.

I believe that at some point the United States will realise that it is better to be part of a constructive process than to run around with a sanctions or military baton and make everyone dance to its tune. The tune changes every four years. And everyone is trying to adapt. But given the specifics of the domestic political processes in the United States, they realise that this is not an easy thing to do.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: In the run-up to the BRICS summit in Kazan, scheduled for this autumn, more and more is being said about the need to create a common information space for the BRICS member states. In particular, following the BRICS Parliamentary Forum held in St Petersburg a week ago, there has been increasing advocacy for expanding practical interaction between the media in the BRICS Plus format. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry plan to promote the integration of this issue into the autumn summit agenda, or to initiate relevant talks at the high and highest levels in Kazan?

Maria Zakharova: In the context of the aggressive hybrid war and information attacks on Russia and other countries on the part of the collective West, which have become a system-wide phenomenon, expanding media cooperation among the global majority, including through the national media, is becoming more relevant than ever. In fact, such interaction is in place now, including bilateral projects as well as various collective formats, such as BRICS, the SCO and other international platforms.

It is clear to everyone that such threats are best addressed together. Combining individual capabilities is always more effective. The relevant possibilities are being discussed at various levels and in various formats, including during the events held as part of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship, themed “Strengthening multilateralism for equitable global development and security.” The key highlights include creating the BRICS information space, which would provide the audiences in our countries with access to unbiased high-quality information and protect them from misinformation. It should be noted that this is not an artificial attempt to juxtapose us and them, but an objective process that stems from the new realities and reflects the ongoing profound transformation of the global politics and economy.

Incidentally, the common BRICS information space issue was among the subjects of an extensive discussion during the consultations between heads of information agencies of the BRICS countries’ foreign policy departments, which took place in Moscow on July 12. The ten partners are extremely interested in closer coordination to create a secure BRICS media landscape. This will definitely facilitate the development of reliable collective mechanisms to counter Western attempts to discredit the activities of BRICS and its members in the eyes of the world.