This month, Russian President Vladimir Putin will host the 2024 BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) summit. It will be the first annual meeting to include the four new members – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates – that joined last year, and many other countries also reportedly will participate. But what will come of it?
The BRICs were originally an acronym that I used (in 2001) to describe what I saw as the world’s key emerging economies. But former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and his Brazilian counterpart, Celso Lafer, had the idea of building on my coinage, and the BRICs turned themselves into a political club, adding South Africa in 2009.
Putin undoubtedly will use this year’s summit to signal to the world that he is not as isolated as Western governments want him to be. It is an ideal occasion for him and other leaders to promote a vision of a world that the United States does not lead. But it is worth noting that two other countries that were expected to join the expanded BRICS have not done so. After originally accepting the invitation, Argentina reversed course following Javier Milei’s election as president in 2023; and Saudi Arabia still has not decided what it will do.
One can guess why the Kingdom would be reluctant to join. It still prizes its defense and security alliance with the US, and those ties will grow even stronger if it ever normalises relations with Israel. More to the point, it is not clear what the Saudis, or any others, stand to gain from BRICS membership.
To be sure, there are photo ops. BRICS+ leaders can stand alongside Putin and decry their countries’ underrepresentation in many of the big global governance organisations. They do this every year, and it appears to be one of the only real achievements that comes out of each meeting.
Meanwhile, the BRICS have done nothing to effect meaningful organisational or structural change within international institutions. In fact, they have done exactly the opposite. Owing to the evolving geopolitics around Ukraine and the rise of more nationalistic leaders in the West and within the BRICS, international institutions have been rendered even less effective.
The fact is that truly global challenges cannot be addressed through narrow groupings like the BRICS (or the G7 for the matter), and this will remain the case no matter how many members they add. What we really need is a rejuvenated G20, which proved highly effective in its earliest days, following the 2008 financial crisis. Despite being rather large (it includes all members of the G7 and the BRICS), it best reflects today’s world in all its complexities.
Moreover, it is not clear to me that the BRICS had ever shared a purpose beyond symbolism. There are many areas where it could pursue collective action to benefit its members and the rest of the world. These include, but are not limited to, advocating freer trade among themselves (and others), and making stronger commitments to fight climate change and infectious diseases. True, the launch of the New Development Bank – which was originally called the BRICS Bank – was a positive development; but the institution has never had a clear, powerful mandate linked to shared goals.
The 2024 summit will surely include plenty of lofty statements about creating an alternative to challenge the US dollar-based global monetary system. But until the key members – namely China – are serious about opening up their own capital accounts and financial markets, this is not going to happen.
Similarly, until the two most important members, China and India, can agree to cooperate on joint initiatives, the BRICS will have almost no chance of delivering on its stated ambitions. As matters stand, these two major powers remain historic rivals, and have been engaged for years in military skirmishes along the Himalayan border.
For all these reasons, BRICS+ will come to little. The hodge-podge of new members appear to have been selected not for any long-term strategic reasons, but because they can be cajoled. Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran may be among the 12 largest emerging economies in terms of population, but they are hardly the most dynamic; equally, the UAE is much wealthier than the others, but it is a very small country. Where are Mexico, Indonesia, and the other exciting Asian economies from the top 12?
The answer hardly matters. Even if they – along with Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam – did join, the result would be little more than larger summits. The G20 would still be the more appropriate and effective vehicle for multilateralism.
Jim O’Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former UK treasury minister, is a member of the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024, published here with permission.
26 Comments
"Moreover, it is not clear to me that the BRICS had ever shared a purpose beyond symbolism. There are many areas where it could pursue collective action to benefit its members and the rest of the world".
Clear to me that BRICS are moving towards the Gold standard and have likely been trading with each other via this standard already. Hard to understand any talk about improving world trade markets when you have countries that are subject to sanctions . It would be a dangerous move to under estimate the ability of BRICS nations to debase the US dollar . I see many areas where BRICS nations are in fact pursuing collective action and that action could ultimately weaken / disintegrate the stranglehold the West has on the globe... "For all these reasons, BRICS+ will come to little" is a huge under estimation .... the financial influence of the USD is under attack but carry on thinking BRICS is nothing to be concerned about.... at your own peril....lol
Comments from Ed Steer..
Looking overseas, we still await Israel's attack on Iran...which will be followed immediately by a counter-strike by Iran against Israel. The U.S. will get involved right away, with the Russians following suit soon after that, I'm sure.
Starting on Tuesday is the BRICS summit in Kazan...with Russia and Iran being key participants. The fact that this conflict in the Middle East is coming to a climax just as this meeting begins...or shortly after it starts, is no coincidence at all. It's a lead-pipe cinch that the criminal sociopathic/psychopathic U.S. power elite and their lackeys in the U.K. planned it exactly that way.
Significant changes are underway in the world order. The wests arrogance and ignorance to these changes will come back to bite them in the butt. BRICS countries now make up for close to 37% of global GDP growth which is higher than the G7. We should not be underestimating the potential of the BRICS.
Sounds like those India China border issues have just been resolved. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/21/india-says-it-reached-deal-wi…
But then there are those that think opposite and lull us into a smug sense of superiority. Both sides have good and bad and we need to have discernment to see the true virtues and flaws. Smug people easily trip and fall flat on their face. Look where we've been and where we are going and choose your views and your path wisely. Propaganda and bias blind us from all sides.
Russian economy did not collapse after the western countries imposed heavy sanctions against it, was that a proof for the power of BRICS? and the fact that Russian economy grow faster than the UK one should be another reminder.
another fun facts, the UK airlines closed their route to Beijing because they have to detour to middle east to avoid Russian airspace, while the Chinese airline don't have to. the European airlines now find it hard to compete on the Asian route because of this. US airlines too.
BRICS is not a apparent thing yet, and possible not for another decade. but when it does, the world is going to be very different.
Jim O’Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former UK treasury minister
Establishment figure.
Interesting to see the amount of self-flagellation by commenters here about the "West".
Many comments here read as if there's a level of contempt for Western nations and their influence, but I can't see how someone can in good faith hold the perspective that BRICS nations have acted in better manners than Western states.
Looking at these issues:
- Nine dash line, the disrespect for established ocean borders (Vietnam, Phillipines)
- Taiwan (Their right to self-govern and that they were never occupied by the CCP)
- Invasion of Ukraine (in 2014, and every subsequent attack)
- Xinjiang
- Chechnya (Invasion by Russia and placing Kadyrov in power to rule it as a personal fiefdom)
- Corruption and embezzlement (Including their allies such as Hungary, Serbia)
- Disrespect of neighbouring states and their sovereignty (All of the above and more)
- Wagner and their involvement in African states (Understanding that Africa is shifting from largely French influence)
I can't reason that the West is the relative bad actor when I compare to the traditional East.
Further, there appear to be solid reasons why the BRICS states suffer from poor quality neighbourly relations - China has no major political allies with military support near them for valid realpolitik reasons, and the United States has high quality close military and economic ties with states far beyond their borders. BRICS states rely on poor nations largely in Africa via propping up warlords and military dictators. I'm aware that Western states have done as well, such as in South America, but on the balance of things in recent history it washes up better for them.
I can't see how someone can in good faith hold the perspective that BRICS nations have acted in better manners than Western states.
Are you trying to call my bluff? I'm holding 'Iraq', 'Afghanistan', and 'Ongoing genocide' over here. Those cards alone cost millions of lives and easily trump that list. Never mind what I have up my sleeve.
Western moral hypocrisy has been exposed. We are literally driving nations into the arms of BRICS with all the unjustified wars and illegal sanctions.
Many of these comments on how the BRICS will defeat the US and the Dollar appear to ignore reality.
1. Currency manipulation: Let's say a BRICS currency comes to fruition. On which planet will India and Russia accept China's manipulation?
2. Returns: Let's say someone has some BRICS currency and wants a return? Where are they going to invest it? The US Dollar underpins the world's largest capital markets; larger by some distance than the rest of the world combined, underpinned by more economic profit (after-tax, after interest payments, and after dividends) than the rest of the world combined, and unsurprisingly, the highest return on assets.
3. Buying the good stuff: You BRICSters want to buy technology, food, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, defense equipment - Ukraine shows how 'excellent' Russian materiel is and the US is the world's largest oil producer - those BRIC rupees are going to have to be sold to get the global hard currency i.e. USD
4. China is drowning in debt: China is facing a Japan-esque multi decade reckoning and there's next to nothing they can do about it. Although other utter basket-case countries like Brazil, South Africa and Russia probably have nothing to lose aligning with the world's biggest basket case going, India would be given pause for thought. China has run out of money period. Just look at the precipitous drops in venture capital raises, R&D spending, Belt and Road projects, foreign direct investment etc.
Oh well, communists. Boohoo. And suck it up assholes.
Guess what BRICS buttercups - you want stuff, a decent rate of return, trustworthy corporate governance?
Well we accept US Dollars and nothing else. Certainly not your bullshit ruble/rial/rupee/rand/whatever other paper can be more useful in the toilet.
Sorry to burst your 'I hate the West' bubble.
No not really.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.