Vladimir Putin visits Cape Town (GIANLUIGI GUERCIA/AFP via Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210714_152s817-100x100.jpg)
When the 15th annual Brics summit gathers in Johannesburg next week, the vaunting hope of the five invested countries will be that the group finally begins to show some of its initial promise. The host, South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, will have even more limited ambitions: that the summit burnishes his relations with a globally isolated Russia, and diverts attention from the faltering state in which the three-day event is to be held.
The Brics acronym was coined more than two decades ago by Lord Jim O’Neill, formerly Goldman Sachs’s head of global economic research, and it has stuck — unlike the initial expectations for the group. Only this week, O’Neill himself suggested that the collective of emerging economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — has not “achieved anything since they first started meeting”.
Yet the aggregate numbers remain impressive. Jointly, the group holds $4.4 trillion in reserves. Its New Development Bank (NDB), a counterpart to the World Bank, is capitalised at $100 billion, and the Brics Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), equivalent to the IMF, also stands at $100 billion. Between them, Brics countries are home to more than two-fifths of the world’s population.
Despite this success, Brics members disavow any competitive or confrontational aspirations against the developed world in general, or the G7 in particular. Sotto voce, they make it clear they regard themselves as the new kids on the block, emphasise their common purpose and extol their bountiful resources. Look deeper, however, and one finds more conflicting sub-agendas in Brics than the group lets on.
First, the two biggest players, China and India, are prickly neighbours. Apart from the ongoing 60-year border dispute that has claimed hundreds of lives, the two are highly competitive in developing world countries, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, and are certain to clash at this year’s summit over China’s ambitions to expand the group to bring in more “non-aligned” members. Twenty-two states have formally applied to join, among them Iran, Argentina, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India — which, in terms of GDP, would beat France, Italy and Canada to a seat at the G7 — wants to keep things reasonably tight.
Second, embattled Russia hopes to use the Summit to push its own agendas, primarily garnering developing-world support for its imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe and driving a de-dollarisation of the international financial markets, possibly through some form of Brics currency. This might seem a forlorn hope in the short term, but it’s perhaps obliquely attainable in the distant future, through the strengthening of the Chinese renminbi against a weakening dollar. Again, India, alarmed by Russia’s putschists methods in Africa and locked into deep market relations with the US and the Middle East, is unlikely to be convinced. The absence from the meeting of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, because of the possibility of arrest under an International Criminal Court warrant (he is expected to appear by video link), indicates exactly how embattled his country’s position is.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDumb as brics is what I think of the leaders of the global south, particularly South Africa which has squandered its inheritance of natural resources, large beautiful country and rule of law.
Dumb as brics is what I think of the leaders of the global south, particularly South Africa which has squandered its inheritance of natural resources, large beautiful country and rule of law.
As Douglas Murray says; yes, the West has lots of problems but where would you rather live ? Are people smuggling themselves into these countries ? Of course not. India is becoming a one-party state and China’s economic model is now tottering with another round of property development defaults. It’ll be a miracle if SA can keep the lights on.
It’s surprising how small South Africa’s GDP is. But I think the article’s claim that it is only 1.62% of BRICS total GDP is misleading – China is 75% of BRICS GDP, so everyone else is a minnow in comparison.
Given the comparative starting points, SA has not done very well:
India : $3738bn ; $2.5K/head
Canada : $1731bn ; $45K/head
Australia : $1376bn ; $56K/head
Singapore : $324bn ; $58K/head
South Africa : $349bn ; $6.2K/head
New Zealand : $201bn ; $42K/head
2017 GDP data, in US$.
Singapore’s done that from nothing with no natural resources or agriculture (quite possibly because it doesn’t and that really focuses the mind).
Why is Canada on the list?
Why is Canada on the list?
The West has lots of problems “BUT”. Er.,.exactly.
Sigh…the usual names in this thread, with the usual low-resolution analysis and sprinkled with the usual inductively reasoned sanctimony. A combination that is ubiquitous throughout the strata in the West and NATO, and which goes a long way towards explaining why the predictive powers of the much-vaunted Epistocracies of the “democratic” West have been so poor of late in economics, socio-politics, geo-politics – I could go on… That “the great unwashed” (personal membership confirmed) don’t do any better is hardly the point. It is not “we” who claim to be all-knowing and/or are destined to rule over the rest of humanity because, well, History, you dummies!.
Pottinger repeats the same old mistake in his framing of an emerging, complexity-driven and tectonic trend in human affairs – i.e. the slow but now irreversible end of Western hegemony over the globe – in binary terms. I paraphrase: “The BRICS can’t replace Washington/NATO (read: Anglo Saxon) rule, therefore Anglo Saxon rule will (must!) continue”. It is a category error. The BRICS group is just one part of a nascent and still loosely formulated IDEA – the idea that 70% of the world’s population has a) seen and had enough of what the “moral West” has to offer (of late, in its decline) and b) would like to try something else, thank you very much. To focus on BRICS is to fall for the Availability Heuristic; the ambitions and interests of BRICS, SCO, EAEU etc all overlap strongly on a Venn-diagram basis. It is the West, which produces only 20% of what it consumes, that is the outlier here.
Will “we” succeed? The short to medium term will be messy and, sure, there will be many moments for the armchair cognoscenti of the West to snigger and preen; to fiddle as the smoke bellows ever thicker. That We – and here I mean humanity as a whole – will ultimately ALL be losers because of how the global system was mismanaged since the end of WW2 is something only toxically parochial fools would harrumph about.
So, rather than wringing his hands about “Russians under the African bed!”, the selectively ahistorical Mr. Pottinger should reflect on who it was that effectively “owned and ran” Africa (and the rest) for the past 300 years (and mostly still do), and what exactly they did with their “Darwin-ordained” opportunity. Maybe it’s time to try another model. What’s to lose?
Hmm, the ‘likes’ suggest that Mr. Buchan’s piece has not gone down well. Still and all, he has a point.
America/Europe bad, therefore throw your lot in with Russia and China? Good luck with that.
Hmm, the ‘likes’ suggest that Mr. Buchan’s piece has not gone down well. Still and all, he has a point.
America/Europe bad, therefore throw your lot in with Russia and China? Good luck with that.
It’s surprising how small South Africa’s GDP is. But I think the article’s claim that it is only 1.62% of BRICS total GDP is misleading – China is 75% of BRICS GDP, so everyone else is a minnow in comparison.
Given the comparative starting points, SA has not done very well:
India : $3738bn ; $2.5K/head
Canada : $1731bn ; $45K/head
Australia : $1376bn ; $56K/head
Singapore : $324bn ; $58K/head
South Africa : $349bn ; $6.2K/head
New Zealand : $201bn ; $42K/head
2017 GDP data, in US$.
Singapore’s done that from nothing with no natural resources or agriculture (quite possibly because it doesn’t and that really focuses the mind).
The West has lots of problems “BUT”. Er.,.exactly.
Sigh…the usual names in this thread, with the usual low-resolution analysis and sprinkled with the usual inductively reasoned sanctimony. A combination that is ubiquitous throughout the strata in the West and NATO, and which goes a long way towards explaining why the predictive powers of the much-vaunted Epistocracies of the “democratic” West have been so poor of late in economics, socio-politics, geo-politics – I could go on… That “the great unwashed” (personal membership confirmed) don’t do any better is hardly the point. It is not “we” who claim to be all-knowing and/or are destined to rule over the rest of humanity because, well, History, you dummies!.
Pottinger repeats the same old mistake in his framing of an emerging, complexity-driven and tectonic trend in human affairs – i.e. the slow but now irreversible end of Western hegemony over the globe – in binary terms. I paraphrase: “The BRICS can’t replace Washington/NATO (read: Anglo Saxon) rule, therefore Anglo Saxon rule will (must!) continue”. It is a category error. The BRICS group is just one part of a nascent and still loosely formulated IDEA – the idea that 70% of the world’s population has a) seen and had enough of what the “moral West” has to offer (of late, in its decline) and b) would like to try something else, thank you very much. To focus on BRICS is to fall for the Availability Heuristic; the ambitions and interests of BRICS, SCO, EAEU etc all overlap strongly on a Venn-diagram basis. It is the West, which produces only 20% of what it consumes, that is the outlier here.
Will “we” succeed? The short to medium term will be messy and, sure, there will be many moments for the armchair cognoscenti of the West to snigger and preen; to fiddle as the smoke bellows ever thicker. That We – and here I mean humanity as a whole – will ultimately ALL be losers because of how the global system was mismanaged since the end of WW2 is something only toxically parochial fools would harrumph about.
So, rather than wringing his hands about “Russians under the African bed!”, the selectively ahistorical Mr. Pottinger should reflect on who it was that effectively “owned and ran” Africa (and the rest) for the past 300 years (and mostly still do), and what exactly they did with their “Darwin-ordained” opportunity. Maybe it’s time to try another model. What’s to lose?
As Douglas Murray says; yes, the West has lots of problems but where would you rather live ? Are people smuggling themselves into these countries ? Of course not. India is becoming a one-party state and China’s economic model is now tottering with another round of property development defaults. It’ll be a miracle if SA can keep the lights on.
I keep saying this: If you add Kazakhstan to the BRICS, you get BRICKS! It’s sure to be a winner!
Enforced with mortars?
Mexico, Oman, Rumania, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia?
Mexico, Oman, Rumania, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia?
Enforced with mortars?
I keep saying this: If you add Kazakhstan to the BRICS, you get BRICKS! It’s sure to be a winner!
The only thing that ties the BRICS together is their mutual corruption and greed–and the fact that the first letters in each nation’s name just happen to misspell “bricks.”
That Putin and Xi dream of somehow making it a counterweight to democratic countries in NATO, the EU, etc. is laughable.
A herd of cats has more unity.
The only thing that ties the BRICS together is their mutual corruption and greed–and the fact that the first letters in each nation’s name just happen to misspell “bricks.”
That Putin and Xi dream of somehow making it a counterweight to democratic countries in NATO, the EU, etc. is laughable.
A herd of cats has more unity.
The reality is that the three most powerful members of BRICS, Russia, China, and India, have diverging interests that will almost certainly keep the group from having much real influence or impact, assuming the divergence doesn’t split them entirely. China and Russia clearly have designs on turning BRICS into an anti-American economic alliance, which is not something India is likely to support, given their growing rivalry with China and involvement in the QUAD alliance. That combined with the anti-american slant of the governments of two of the other members is likely to leave India the odd man out as the only member still pursuing true neutrality. The deeper the Russo-Chinese axis goes and the more they succeed in bringing in other members (such as Iran), the harder it will be for India to remain neutral. Ultimately, geopolitical forces are pushing us all towards a Russo-Chinese axis opposed by an India/Australia/US/Japan alliance in the Asian sphere. Given India’s participation in the QUAD and their shifting military expenditures toward American rather than Russian weapons, I expect they already know which way the wind is blowing and which side will further their national interests, but they will hang on to neutrality as long as possible for economic reasons.
The reality is that the three most powerful members of BRICS, Russia, China, and India, have diverging interests that will almost certainly keep the group from having much real influence or impact, assuming the divergence doesn’t split them entirely. China and Russia clearly have designs on turning BRICS into an anti-American economic alliance, which is not something India is likely to support, given their growing rivalry with China and involvement in the QUAD alliance. That combined with the anti-american slant of the governments of two of the other members is likely to leave India the odd man out as the only member still pursuing true neutrality. The deeper the Russo-Chinese axis goes and the more they succeed in bringing in other members (such as Iran), the harder it will be for India to remain neutral. Ultimately, geopolitical forces are pushing us all towards a Russo-Chinese axis opposed by an India/Australia/US/Japan alliance in the Asian sphere. Given India’s participation in the QUAD and their shifting military expenditures toward American rather than Russian weapons, I expect they already know which way the wind is blowing and which side will further their national interests, but they will hang on to neutrality as long as possible for economic reasons.
South Africa hosting the BRICS conference? It’s going to be a fun week looking at news footage of delegates getting mugged and carjacked.
South Africa hosting the BRICS conference? It’s going to be a fun week looking at news footage of delegates getting mugged and carjacked.
I hope the writer of this article as well as some post -modern iterations of racist ignoramuses in ” comments” are eating their hearts out with foolish analysis/ assumptions after the BRICS summit ended on a successful note.