US comedian Groucho Marx famously said he wouldn’t want to join any club that would accept him as a member.
Perhaps the more than 40 countries that have expressed interest in joining Brics and the 23 that have asked formally to be admitted are following that Groucho dictum.
In many senses the keenness of more and more countries to seek some form of formal relationship is testimony to the kind of traction Brics is beginning to have, and the challenge it poses to global systems and arrangements.
With Iran and Venezuela being touted as emblematic of the kind of countries signing the membership application form, it would be tempting to see this in terms of big power rivalries, especially between China and the US. For example, Ramón Lobo, Venezuela’s former finance minister and central bank president, told Reuters: “Other integration frameworks that exist globally have been blinded by the hegemonic vision put forward by the US government.”
SA’s Brics guru, ambassador Anil Sooklal, explains that the surge in Brics’ popularity is due to the “very polarised world”, which has been further polarised by the Ukraine war, with countries now being forced to take sides.
Harsh Pant, an international relations expert at the Observer Research Foundation, spelt out the Indian view, saying it has “no interest in shaping India’s foreign policy in an anti-Western direction. Brics was conceived as a geo-economic platform, but is drifting into a geopolitical role and India is not likely to be comfortable with that.”
The World Economic Forum (WEF) report “Globalisation 4.0, Shaping a New Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” captured the spirit of the times when it argued for greater flexibility at various levels of governance to pursue plurilateral agreements in specific sectors — including the full phalanx of bilateral and multilateral relations in pursuit of a country’s national interest.
The programme director of Russia’s Valdai Club, Yaroslav Lissovolik, has argued that Brics+ should be based on a range of regional partnerships which he calls the “Beams”, an acronym (yes I know, another one) for the Bimstec (Bay of Bengal Initiative), EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), Asean-China FTA, Mercosur (Latin America-based) and our own Sadc/Sacu.
This will be complemented by platforms between regional development banks and regional financing arrangements and the New Development Bank and Brics’ Contingent Reserve Arrangement.
Critics of Brics have argued that it has not succeeded in its commitment to reforming existing institutions and arrangements for global economic governance, such as the IMF and UN. It requires increased co-ordination of their positions in other leading institutions of global governance, such as the Group of 20.
The five core Brics members could come up with a consolidated agenda on key issues using the experience of the Group of Seven, which they could socialise with the Brics+ nations to gain wider international support.
Brics countries will have to determine what criteria to use for admission, and the issues that need to be addressed when some members are admitted. For example, of the three Middle East countries mentioned — Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia — choosing any one of them will have major effects on Brics’ relationship with the rest of the region.
There is also the question of principle: is expansion desirable? It brings with it all kinds of issues such as the loss of focus and increased difficulty in achieving international co-ordination. And as we have witnessed in SA’s local coalitions, there is the potential creation of new veto wielders. Furthermore, once a member is allowed in it is almost impossible to kick it out.
Ultimately we will have to take the view of what is in SA’s interest. Our geopolitical specialist, Laurence Caromba, elegantly captured the extent to which we are playing according to the new rules spelt out in the WEF document when he recently wrote: “Overall, India has leveraged its nonaligned stance to extract benefits from all sides. By contrast, SA’s version of nonalignment has exposed itself to risks and displeasure from all sides.”
• Abba Omar is director of operations at the Mapungubwe Institute.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.