Is the expanded BRICS truly a new international institution or just the Nonaligned Bloc 2.0?
In the week since the 15th Summit meeting of BRICS in Johannesburg closed, there has been a lot of commentary in Western media directed at quashing the notion that something substantial occurred there which will further the emergence of a multipolar world, which had been the message of the five member states in their closing Declaration.
Some analysts have said that the addition of six new members taking effect on 1 January 2024 and plans for still greater enlargement next year to take in more of the 23 nations which had expressed an interest in joining amounts to little more than the recreation of the Bloc of Nonaligned Nations, which was a talking shop among Global South countries and little more during the Cold War. Other critics point out that there are serious contradictions between the national interests of the founding members India and China, and that this problem will arise between the new members, as for example between Iran and Saudi Arabia, so that the chances of BRICS arriving at consensus in policy matters and geopolitics in particular will be slim; its weight on the world stage will be correspondingly small, they say.
As for the first line of attack on BRICS, it overlooks the changes in weighting of the economies and political stature of Global South countries since the 1970s and 1980s when the nonaligned movement was in its heyday. BRICS countries presently account for 37% of global GDP by purchasing power parity versus 30% for the G7. If and when all the countries now in line to join are admitted, it will account for more than 50% of global GDP and a still greater share of global population. The strength of any policies it recommends to the international community will go far beyond mere moral force, and must be reckoned with.
As for the second line of attack on BRICS, the commentators have not understood the logic of its expansion, which is precisely to bring together countries which have been in conflict in regions of major importance and to reconcile them with the assistance of global peers. The reconciliation of Iran and Saudi Arabia that was brokered this spring by China can be consolidated with the support of fellow BRICS members in confidential regular meetings at the working level as well as at the periodic summits behind closed doors. This is the peace mission of BRICS which will be acting in an ad hoc manner as adjunct to the United Nations.
The lesson here is one that the United States has not begun to learn: that inclusion of fractious nations is a far better way of arriving at policy moderation and coexistence than exclusion and creation of ‘pariah states’ through sanctions.
*****
Several political observers in the West have remarked upon the decision announced a couple of days ago by Chinese authorities that President Xi will not be attending the next G20 gathering in India. Like Vladimir Putin, Xi appears to have found no room in his busy agenda for an institution that had been promoted since 2009 as a more effective and widely accepted board of global economic and political governance than the G7.
Western observers have not yet put this downgrading of the G20 into the context of the newly purposed BRICS. Let us do that now.
First, let us take a step back to the decision taken in March 2014 by G7 members not to attend the planned G8 gathering in Sochi and to suspend Russia’s membership in their group. That was to punish Russia for its move to take control of and annex Crimea following the February 2014 US-engineered coup d’état in Kiev.
Punishment? I believe that for Vladimir Putin it was pure relief not to be obliged to join the seven other members of that Collective West club. At every turn, Russia was in the humiliating minority of one during the G8 deliberations in the years since G8 membership was thrown to Boris Yeltsin as a sop for not being admitted to NATO. The suspension spared Putin the need to be the first to end what had become deeply unpleasant and unproductive sessions.
The latest meeting of the G20 in Indonesia in November 2022 demonstrated that this club suffered greatly from geopolitical fracture lines between Russia-China on one side and the Collective West members on the other side. The acrimony and politicization of every issue on the agenda compromised the utility of such gatherings. Is it any surprise, then, that both Russia and China have chosen demonstratively not to send their number one officials to the summit and that this decision came in the wake of the very successful BRICS gathering in South Africa?
BRICS is precisely the institution in formation where the Global South can meet on its own without wasting time and effort defending itself from the pressures that the United States and its allies bring to every international gathering in which they take part.
*****
As one of the two superpowers in the bipolar world of the Cold War days, Russia was, of course, not a member of the Nonaligned Bloc, though it sought friends there. The USSR gave substantial financial and military assistance to independence movements in European colonies, especially in Africa. And the newly liberated states sent their talented youth to study in Moscow. Their leaders often had strong ideological affinity with Soviet Marxism.
Moscow’s leading role in the creation and expansion of BRICS has a lot more to explain it than its loss of superpower status and its imperative need to cultivate friends in the Global South.
I mentioned in an article published several days ago that I occasionally pick up novel perspectives on Russia and global politics from one or another panelist on Russia’s talk shows on state television. That is the source for what I am about to say as I expand upon the foregoing point, namely that Russia’s approach to the Global South is dramatically different today from the USSR’s approach to the Nonaligned Bloc and to Developing Nations more broadly.
The profound difference can be seen in the speeches of Vladimir Putin to the visiting African delegations which held top level talks in Moscow before most traveled to South Africa for the BRICS gathering. You see it again in the speech Putin delivered to the BRICS Business Forum. And you see it in the language of the Declaration which closed the BRICS Summit.
To understand this difference you have to look closely and put on your thinking cap. It is not only Western media commentators who miss the point. I believe that the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov also does not get it. When surrounded by all the guests from the Third World descending on Moscow, he seems to think that the good old days of the Soviet Union have returned.
They haven’t. Something very new is afoot.
The USSR’s ideology came from the West. Marxism, with or without the additions or distortions of Leninism, was deeply embedded in Western thinking about humankind and human society. The common denominator here is that all people are the same, that societal development over time follows the same course everywhere on earth.
This concept fits in nicely with globalism and economic Neo-Liberalism. It also fits in nicely with Neo-Conservative geopolitical ideology, which should not surprise anyone since the original Neocon thinkers in New York were former Communist sympathizers, as Francis Fukuyama tells us in his history of the movement.
Under pressure from the sanctions regimes first put in place in 2014 in the name of “the international community” and drastically increased since the start of the Special Military Operation in 2022, the Kremlin now flatly rejects the globalism of that U.S. dominated international community. The decision about to be taken to leave the WTO is confirmation of this.
Russia today flatly rejects the notion of a single path of development for all of mankind. Instead Russia is saying that each country should develop in keeping with its national traditions and values. Each must find its own path to realization of its economic and human potential. This is a new and more comprehensive version of the concept of each state having its own religion that neighbors may not interfere with as enshrined in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. As we know, Russia and China have long championed on the world stage the principle of noninterference in the affairs of sovereign states.. NB: Westphalia assumed a world of sovereign states, whereas Europe swept this aside when the European Community became the European Union.
Russia expects that this new approach to the Global South as defender of the sovereignty and distinctive character of each nation makes it and BRICS a much more attractive partner for the Global South than the USSR was in its time, or than the Collective West, with its arrogance and neocolonial prejudices, can be today.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023