Published by AstroAwani, TheStar, MYSinChew & BusinessToday, image by AstroAwani.
Efforts to discredit BRICS are intensifying, mirroring the group’s own momentum. While constructive criticism is valuable, subjecting critique to critical analysis is equally vital, as it helps us separate valid points from mere noise and better understand the underlying issues.
One key contention is that BRICS is seen as a force that “antagonises the West’s hegemony”.
The formulation of this argument seems peculiar. Do the critics inadvertently reveal that a “hegemony” exists and should remain “unchallenged”? It sounds somewhat feudal but merits further deconstruction. Perhaps that’s not what they meant.
Unfathomably, certain quarters actively frame the decision to work with BRICS as an “either-or” choice versus Western platforms—a matter of “taking sides” or geopolitical/strategic alignment.
Some experts argue that those willing to join BRICS “must convince” the international community—particularly the United States and its allies—that this participation aligns with the non-alignment principle: foreign policy driven solely by national interests”. However, this demand for “explanations” de facto violates the very essence of non-alignment.
Essentially, BRICS is a dialogue forum for mutually accelerated economic growth and development. Joining entails no real obligations or “alignment” conditions; it’s rooted in mutual interest (free to join or exit at will). The sole requirement is non-engagement in unilateral sanctions, sending a powerful message: here, trade and economic cooperation are not a political tool!
Nevertheless, Western observers perceive BRICS’ institutionalisation as an effort to “destabilise and challenge the established financial order” with the original purpose of “counterbalancing” Western-led economic institutions.
As per its summit declarations and vision, BRICS was created not to “counterbalance” but to complement Western efforts toward development goals by giving very focused and tailored attention to the needs of developing economies, empowering them to participate more meaningfully in international economic affairs.
This vision recognises that any country’s economic success is intertwined with that of its neighbours and the global community! Therefore, if the West is genuine about its “development goals,” it should welcome BRICS’ economic growth, as it need not undermine its own prosperity (unless Western institutions essentially prey on developing nations).
Moreover, BRICS member states actively participate in various multilateral platforms such as the UN and G20, consistently express support for these institutions, and demonstrate readiness to collaborate with the IMF and World Bank.
As BRICS expanded, “regional leaders” were expected to take precedence. However, the inclusion of Ethiopia—with its untapped natural resources and thriving agricultural industry—reiterated the group’s emphasis on economic co-development over mere geopolitical influence or alignment, just like the fact that other countries with notable political support to Russia in its confrontation with the West, like Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and Belarus are still not in BRICS.
BRICS’ disproportionate focus on socio-economic matters—trade, finance, agriculture, health, education, science, technology, innovation, environment, and people-to-people initiatives, is very glaring based on the systematic analysis of BRICS summit documents (Kirton, 2015; Kirton & Larionova, 2022).
Furthermore, the perceived “shared reservation against the West” varies among BRICS members, underscoring its apolitical nature. Russia, China, and Iran stand as countries firmly ready to challenge the West, while the majority, including Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, and the UAE, prefer hedging between both sides. India, despite participating in many US-led alliances, collaborates with BRICS primarily for economic gains.
So, why can’t other countries do the same without “taking sides”?
Also, why is there renewed fearmongering about BRICS cooperation adversely affecting a country’s foreign direct investments (FDIs)? In contrast, critics contend that onboarding Western platforms can improve a country’s governance—by standardising taxation, labour legislation, environmental protection, and other aspects—and attract greater FDIs.
However, the Western notion of “governance standardisation” effectively means imposing strict conditionalities, often severely curtailing a country’s ability to independently chart its national path or uphold ethical principles globally.
The aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis revealed this starkly, yet some countries haven’t learned.
FDIs vary: some foster co-development, while others trap local economies—either by tying them to raw materials in the global supply chain or relegating them to basic assembly. Indonesia’s ban on raw mineral exports (perfectly aligned with its national vision to ascend the global supply chain) clashing with Western interests is a prime example.
Alternatively, are the fearmongers subtly suggesting that BRICS membership would turn Western FDIs into economic weapons again? Then, it becomes even more prudent to diversify promptly. As for the West, given its current precarious situation, it would be wiser to demonstrate that it can be a reliable, trustworthy partner!
Speaking of trust and considering the potential impact of de-dollarization on the collective West, wouldn’t savvy investors currently steer clear of Western economies and seek alternative markets—particularly those with greater growth potential and some insulation from the dollar, like BRICS?!
Indeed, BRICS is a huge market with the capacity to absorb exports from any economy, not to mention the abundant investment opportunities it offers. After all, technologies and knowledge are created by people! In BRICS countries, there is abundant human potential for advancing science, technology, and education.
Market size, growth rate, and the opportunity to export both raw materials and higher-value goods are always important strategic considerations.
While developed countries face ageing populations, BRICS economies boast younger populations and a rapidly growing middle class with a higher propensity to consume. And they are still at varying levels of technological development. Conversely, in mature Western markets, already very high development and innovation present limited opportunities to absorb high-value exports by developing countries.
Thus, while Western market access is crucial, it shouldn’t impede our ability to deepen relationships with BRICS and explore their untapped segments. Again, balance and diversification are the key.
Striking a balance and prioritising diversification are also essential to prevent overreliance on Western knowledge and technology transfers. The world now knows that Western technologies can be as toxic as their currencies—both wielded as economic weapons—and should be subject to diversification as a matter of national security!
Additionally, there are already signs that the centre of technology innovation leadership and power is shifting to East Asia and the Pacific, while BRICS collaborates extensively on science, technology, and innovation without imposing “conditionalities” or succumbing to sanction pressure.
The critics of BRICS also never miss to make a point that the BRICS common currency will remain a daunting challenge for BRICS and de-dollarisation is a myth.
But who said they even need one? Bilateral trade in local currencies or even bilateral credit clearance is still possible!
Moreover, it’s entirely conceivable to envision soon a BRICS multilateral mutual credit clearance (MCC) system—a mechanism that would render the BRICS trade (and, by extension, their economies) remarkably resilient to financial crises, thus driving even more FDIs and membership requests to BRICS.
The MCC is a natural progression of increasing BRICS intra-block trade, which has recently significantly expanded (Morgan Stanley, 2023). MCCs thrive in communities with high trade interdependencies, particularly when members extensively trade different types of commodities demanded by everyone in the system. This explains the choice of new BRICS members.
Importantly, under the MCC arrangement, countries trading raw resources would at least receive something valuable in return rather than mere papers destined to become literal “wastepaper” soon.
Also, successful MCCs self-reinforce trade within their circle.
Such prospects alone can render critics’ assertions about BRICS’ heterogeneity (culturally, politically, strategically, economically) and, therefore, “perceived instability” rather pale.
It simply baffles Western observers how such a diverse group can even achieve mutual consensus—the key founding principle of BRICS, where all the decisions are made only if all members agree.
However, BRICS demonstrates that despite challenges in achieving consensus on sensitive geopolitical issues (and the group has already withstood such tests), mutual interests alone can drive effective cooperation!
Perhaps, Western observers are too influenced by their accustomed canonical paradigm, which harkens to Huntington’s “clash of civilisation.” They also customarily see no future for BRICS unless a “single clear leader” emerges within this group (or maybe a “hegemon”).
However, in all of this, they forget to mention their own institutions’ fragility. Consider how a single (clear) leader’s antics essentially paralysed the international trading system, rendering the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding thoroughly ineffective. Also, Turkey’s seeming loyalty as a NATO member hasn’t secured its acceptance into the EU until now.
Not to mention that Western platforms completely hinder morality and ethics, underscoring the need for BRICS proponents to accelerate efforts toward a multipolar world. Recent catastrophic events highlight this urgency. More than 50,000 Palestinians, including babies, children, women, men, and the elderly, have been killed during the 294 days of ongoing genocide, further displacing 2,000,000 internally. This is a total catastrophe, yet an extended standing ovation was given at the joint session of the US Congress to the chief architect of it, Benjamin Netanyahu. Such blatant monumental hypocrisy!
The audacious celebration of genocide and a person found guilty by the International Criminal Court to have committed the act of genocide shouldn’t surprise us. After all, the US itself came into being through the native red Indian genocide!
While BRICS expansion undoubtedly presents new challenges, they can be navigated effectively with due consideration. Notably, the greatest challenges do not stem from differing political or geopolitical views.
It would be more sensible to hear constructive suggestions from critics on how to address, say, transportation challenges, particularly considering that some of the BRICS countries are geographically isolated. Perhaps the group could benefit from additional members? Alternatively, what steps can be taken to strengthen BRICS’ institutional foundation?
In the end, overwhelming BRICS membership requests simply reflect global recognition of two contrasting models: a seemingly “monolithic” block with restrictions and manipulation under a single hegemon versus a diverse and perceived as “unstable” yet moving in a graceful cohesion voluntary group driven by mutual interests and governed by consensus and shared sovereignty.
Proving that joining the latter is not only not beneficial but also associated with some risks/consequences might be as tough as selling the proven globally to be a failure Single Wholesale Network as innovative and viable—unless it represents a direct threat, which would then make even more sense for wider diversification in diplomatic policies!
Some may argue that there is no economics without politics. Perhaps we haven’t tried hard enough to differentiate between the two, as BRICS does. Ceasing to wield trade, financing, investment, knowledge sharing, and technology transfer as economic weapons could indeed lead us toward a more peaceful and prosperous globe.
Dr Rais Hussin is the Founder of EMIR Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.
