How does BRICS challenge the prevailing international order?
Jagannath P. Panda
BRICS as a grouping of emerging economies that represent more than 40% of the world’s population by its very existence challenges economic and political governance systems led by Western nations. As the existing order lacks diverse representation, BRICS serves as an alternative economic and governance platform that seeks to create momentum toward a more equitable multipolar order.
Yet, this powerful political symbolism has not translated into achievements commensurate with the group’s ambitions. Though establishing a multilateral development financial institution (namely the New Development Bank (NDB)), coalescing the emerging world into a distinct political identity, and looking to develop alternative ways of economic cooperation are certainly laudable results.
As the battle lines between the US, its allies and partners, and the PRC/Russia have hardened as a result of Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine, there has been increasing interest from outsiders wanting to join the PRC-dominated Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS. When more than 40 countries express interest in joining a forum like BRICS, the world needs to take notice. Worryingly, however, in these forums, due to Russia’s current pariah status, the PRC’s clout has grown. Yet internal dissonance, especially due to the PRC’s clear aim of expanding its geopolitical influence in the non-Western world and India’s rejection of a PRC-dominated BRICS, will make expansion difficult – especially the indiscriminate kind.
Nonetheless, the proposed expansion of BRICS will not lose its shine just yet. Firstly, this is because the geo-economic might of a well-thought-out expansion would be significant, even as plans to create a fairer monetary system may not be feasible right now. Secondly, the political implications of BRICS as a multipolar, better-represented, consensus-based forum cannot be cast aside easily.
This expert’s take on BRICS is published in a special compendium at the Council on Geostrategy, London.
Related Publications
-
South Korea’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, Atmanirbhar Bharat, and the IPEF: Convergence and Commonality
For some time now, the existing multilateral networks such as those of the United Nations (UN) system have been largely ineffective in providing good global governance and helping create resilience, […]
-
The Global South Scaled in Japan’s New Outreach
The “Global South” is no longer just a growing buzzword confined to academic publications but has found increasing resonance in strategic circles. Even as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine consolidated the […]
-
Awaiting a Pivotal Partnership? The Case of India and South Korea
The shift toward showcasing South Korea as a proactive stakeholder in the global arena—beyond its foreign policy limitations that have thus far centered on Northeast Asian security—has unlocked the potential […]
-
Quad Plus EU: A Viable Option for the Times?
Today, the primary Indo-Pacific contest is not just about the China-US hegemony. It also involves a range of so-called “middle powers” – including Australia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, […]
-
The Dalai Lama’s Succession: Strategic Realities of the Tibet Question
Executive Summary The 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso remains one of the most recognized and beloved spiritual leaders of contemporary times. By China, he is viewed in unflattering terms, ranging […]
-
Engaging The Indo-Pacific: Some Pointers For Europe
The regional dynamics of the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR), especially maritime security-related, are distinctly different from other regions, especially Europe. There are existential sub-regional dynamics that vary across the IPR, which […]