Clumsily, SA hosted a reasonably successful 15th Brics summit from August 22-24 in Johannesburg. After fudging the expansion of the bloc, Pretoria now faces a bigger challenge: its new direction and potential beyond being just an anti-West lobby group.
There are many exciting and risky possibilities ahead of Pretoria’s chairing of the bloc. As expected, last week Brics summit agreed to admit new members. The lucky six that made the cut are the United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The bloc’s leaders — Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Vladimir Putin of Russia, India’s Narendra Modi, China’s Xi Jinping and host Cyril Ramaphosa — admitted the six with effect from next January. Little light was shed on the other applicants.
The bloc, which now represents the bulk of the world’s population and a third of the globe’s GDP, is emerging as a potential rival to the Group of Seven (G7), the club of rich and industrialised nations.
On the positive side of the balance sheet, these possibilities include expanding the bloc to include more Global South and African countries, especially Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation. SA’s claim to speak for the African continent lacks credibility. The admission of more African nations would enhance the bloc’s credibility.
Inviting UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres to attend and address the Johannesburg summit elevated its stature. The continued success of the New Development Bank, or Brics bank, is a commendable plus for the group and a value proposition for the bloc to attract prospective members. During the Covid-19 pandemic the bank advanced concessionary financial relief measures to members. Its credit rating is investment grade.
Until now, the group has operated almost like the G7. It doesn’t have a charter or constitution, only a broad set of principles that guide its development and political, trade and investment co-operation. For 15 years this minimalist programme of co-operation has worked, as it has for the West.
However, it is doubtful that it could be sustained in a turbulent and uncertain world. After kicking out the Russian federation under Putin, who they now regard as a dictator, the G7 has been sustained by its free market and democratic values. This glue is missing from the Brics.
For example Egypt, a new Brics+ member, doesn’t allow journalists to freely do their work. Saudi Arabia has a dodgy track record on human rights, including media freedom. The killing of columnist Jamal Khashoggi remains a big stain on the kingdom’s claim to be a democracy. And the theocracy than runs Iran is in stark contrast to principles the founding members of the Brics claim to support.
Ahead of the Johannesburg summit attempts were made to position the bloc as far more than an intergovernmental platform. There were conferences for business, civil society, political parties and youth groups. However, the pretence to be something other than it is didn’t work.
SA’s hurried preparations were decent enough. However, the lack of a formal role for its former presidents — Thabo Mbeki, Kgalema Motlanthe and Jacob Zuma — stood out like a sore thumb and shrunk the stature of the incumbent, who seemed awkward throughout the proceedings.
Now that the summit is done and dusted, the real work and heavy lifting begin. On the to-do list are the following issues: dedollarisation; criteria for admission of new members; values of the bloc; a charter for the bloc beyond being a counterpoint to the West; the name of the new expanded bloc; and what deeper co-operation might look like.
First up, of course, is the name of the expanded group. Former Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill came up with the Bric acronym, which was adopted by the bloc, even though that wasn’t his intention, and it’s now up to the Brics founders to coin a new name. But that cannot happen with an credibility without two things: the set of values that guide the group other than occasional, but sometimes warranted, anti-west rants; and a binding charter for the group.
The charter should spell out in detail the criteria for membership and the dismissal of members on the basis of misconduct or deviation from the minimum programme of co-operation. For example, Russia was kicked out of the Group of Eight (G8) on the basis of an individual — Putin — not principle. If the new Brics is to be taken seriously it has to be grounded on principles rather than the whims of serving leaders.
As for dedollarisation, the bloc should focus on facilitating intra-Brics trade and elaborating what it stands for rather than what it is against. On new areas of co-operation, Brics needs to deepen people-to-people co-operation, and investigate co-operation on military and defence (beyond tactical anti-West military exercises) and a proper free trade area.
Statements to address the China-based trade imbalance are good. But on their own they will not correct the imbalance. Only a properly negotiated free trade area can address this bugbear, even if the process is likely to be tortuous. Political speeches won’t cut it.
Unlike the G7, which is bound by values and anti-China suspicion, the Brics has an opportunity to formalise the bloc with proper permanent structures beyond summits and hurried conferences.
• Dludlu, a former Sowetan editor, is CEO of the Small Business 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.