Features
Expansion of BRICS reflective of rising power rivalries
At its recent summit in Johannesburg, BRICS opted to induct into its fold Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE as full members. Announcing this historic development South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, current chair of BRICS said, among other things: ‘We value the interests of other countries in building partnerships with BRICS and have tasked our foreign ministers to further develop the BRICS partnership model and draw a list of prospective countries, which want to join the grouping.’
Most Southern countries, regardless of economic status, are likely to see much merit in joining the BRICS grouping, considering that some of the foremost global economic powers are members of the bloc. In fact they figure as the principal drivers of the world economy. The world’s poorest countries in particular, therefore, should find the prospect of joining BRICS rather tempting.
Of special importance to the developing world is BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB), which has emerged as an attractive lending alternative for the South, to the IMF and the World Bank, whose stiff loan conditions have, more often than not, contributed towards the economic detriment of the Southern countries concerned rather than brought the latter debtor nations any substantive relief. Sri Lanka has just begun to taste of this bitter fruit.
The NDB has put in place a liquidity mechanism, referred to as the ‘Contingent Reserve Mechanism’, which promises financial support to economically weak countries of the South on comparatively favourable terms, as they struggle to meet their external financial commitments.
Given this backdrop, President Biden’s concern to ‘restructure’ Western financial institutions, such as the World Bank, to ‘reassure’ the South ought to be understandable, from a Western perspective. From the West’s viewpoint, a South that is increasingly obliged and beholden to the likes of China, could be worrisome. Hence, from the US and Western point of view distancing the South in particular from BRICS is the thing to do urgently.
Accordingly, the world is just witnessing an uptick in global power rivalries in the wake of the BRICS’ decision to expand its membership. For the poorest in particular of the global South, these are extremely trying situations from a foreign policy formulation point of view. They face the difficult challenge of maintaining an equidistance between the world’s foremost power blocs; that is, honestly practising Non-alignment.
It needs to be reiterated that from the perspective of the poor, Non-alignment, or ‘dynamic neutrality’, is the policy path to traverse. They are in dire need of the goodwill and largesse of the entirety of the international community and Non-alignment, therefore, could serve their legitimate needs best. For example, in Sri Lanka’s case, Non-alignment, understood essentially as amity towards all countries, is the only way to go.
To be sure, some of the most dynamic and growth-oriented countries are currently prime members of BRICS. They are said to account for more than one third of the world’s GDP. For example, China’s GDP grew from $6 trillion in 2010 to nearly $18 trillion in 2021, while India’s GDP grew from $ 1.7 trillion to $3.1 trillion over the same period. In the not too distant future they will be at the pinnacle of global economic power.
The foremost powers within BRICS are part of what has been described by commentators as the Asian Economic Zone (AEZ) and it goes without saying that future global economic growth hinges crucially on this region. The vast area represents 50 percent of global GDP and two-thirds of world economic growth. Besides, Asia accounts for 60 percent of the world’s population. The AEZ spreads from the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey in the west to Japan and New Zealand in the east and from Russia in the north to Australia in the South. (See, ‘The Future is Asian’ by Parag Khanna, publisher- WEIDENFELD & NICHOLSON).
Considering the above phenomenal strengths of the Asian region, which is home to some principal BRICS countries, it should not come as a surprise to the observer if the majority of Southern countries choose to integrate their economies increasingly closely with the BRICS bloc and be politically aligned to the grouping in a major way.
However, considering that the West will continue to remain powerful and influential for the foreseeable future, the South would be acting injudiciously by precipitously writing-off the West as a spent-force, so to speak, in international politics. The better course to follow would be to interact positively, in equal measure, with both East and West. That is, Non-alignment remains the most suitable foreign policy principle for the South.
Moreover, it is difficult to see powers such as India, acquiescing tamely to be part of a bloc that would be dominated by the likes of China and Russia. Currently, India is capable of squaring-off on equal terms in any conceivable field, with any of the principal world powers. It is likely to be her endeavour to ensure that BRICS would, more or less, follow a policy of neutrality in dealing with the foremost international economic, political and military powers.
Ironically, the mind-boggling complexities of the present world political order are likely to compel most bourgeoning powers of the South to follow a policy of Non-alignment in the area of foreign policy formulation and implementation. Over the past two decades world politics, besides becoming increasingly multi-polar, has cast on states the responsibility of following highly nuanced foreign policy trajectories. No longer is it possible to view international politics in stark black-and-white, simplistic terms.
While a country’s national interest will remain the foremost good, so to speak, for it, it will require states to engage in quite a lot of ‘out of the box’ thinking to come within reach of this principal good. The complex realities introduced to the world system by BRICS, for instance, constitute some of the evidence of these new challenges.