Main Edition
US
FR
October 21, 2024 - 2:30pm
This week’s Brics summit in Kazan, Russia, will attract significant attention, but whether it yields any meaningful results is uncertain. The summit will host leaders from 24 countries, along with delegations from a total of 32 nations, marking it as one of the most significant multilateral foreign policy events Russia has organised since the 1945 Yalta Conference. The event is taking place against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, further highlighting its significance.
Currently, the Brics grouping includes nine member states: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, and the UAE. Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that 34 additional countries are interested in joining the bloc, although initial statements regarding Saudi Arabia becoming the 10th member have since been retracted. It’s unclear whether Saudi Arabia will participate, which may suggest a decline in the group’s overall appeal and influence.
While the summit can enhance Russia’s global standing among a certain crowd, equating Brics to Nato, as some have done, is an exaggeration. The cohesion among the nations stems from their collective commitment to national sovereignty rather than a shared purpose. Instead of transferring power to a supranational body, these countries are likely to reinforce their autonomy. Even the anticipated goal of establishing an alternative payment system to challenge the US dollar reflects a desire to safeguard national sovereignty from external pressures, including from each other. However, as member states of the EU understand, creating a unified currency is impossible without some concessions of sovereignty.
The relationships between Brics member states, such as the rivalry between China and India, or the perception of Iran as a threat by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, complicate any collaboration. This dynamic is evident when looking at Riyadh which — privately, at least — supports Israel against Iran. India and China also face unresolved territorial disputes along their Himalayan border, particularly around the Aksai Chin plateau and Arunachal Pradesh. Recent escalations raise concerns about potential military confrontations, as control over these resource-rich areas could provide a strategic edge to either nation, especially given their shared challenges related to water scarcity. What’s more, the Himalayan region is a critical trade route for Beijing, adding to India’s security concerns over potential Chinese military encirclement. Despite the recent announcement of de-escalation, it still remains to be seen how the countries will carve up the contested territory and distribute the resources.
These complex dynamics diminish the likelihood of a new currency replacing the dollar, and a shift away from Western economic dominance is far off. India and other countries have already rejected proposals for a new currency, realising that it fulfils anti-American sentiment more than it would practically undermine the dollar.
Despite strong ideological motivations to replace the dollar, economic realities tell a different story. No single country or coalition currently possesses the economic capacity to absorb the trading surpluses essential for the growth of many developing nations, which often rely on weak domestic consumption. Brics nations may commit to using alternative commercial payment systems, such as the newly introduced Brics Pay app, and will likely explore mechanisms for trade in local currencies instead of dollars.
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.
SubscribeBRICS is an economic union, not military.
Update- don’t underestimate the high resentment most of India has against the US now for stoking Islamist jihadis in Bangladesh, pogroms against Hindus and other minorities there as well as grossly interfering in internal affairs and taking Trudeau’s side against Indian diplomats on dubious charges.
India and China won’t go to war as the US has brought a temporary truce through its ill thought out actions. Just now a major breakthrough is underway in the Line of Control between India and China.
BRICS will succeed more as a trading bloc which will trade among itself. It is a challenge to the American world order as dreamt up by the Neo Cons.
I’m very troubled by the anti-India sentiment gripping Canada and the U.S. right now. India is the largest democracy in the world, with tremendous economic growth potential. Why the hell are we antagonizing it? You don’t have to agree with all of its internal politics, but we need friendly relations. Progressives like Trudeau are morons – they think every damn democracy should look exactly like Canada or the U.S.
Most of us feel that way too. It’s startling how crude Trudeau can be.
So NATO /USA are whistling in the dark then.
I still think they should add Kazakhstan to BRICS; that would make it into BRICKS.
All joking aside, BRICS is a grouping of singularly unimpressive nations (India excluded). Their common policy is brief to non-existent; the states of their polity run from Communist-Capitalist (China) to Socialist-Democratic (Brazil) to Dictatorial-Democratic (Russia) to Anarchic-Democratic (South Africa).
I don’t say there is no possibility of some common policy emerging, but the second coming of the Three Musketeers this is not (“All for one, and one for all!”).
It should be pointed out that NATO doesn’t transfer power to a supranational body. The parties may agree…and usually do…but are not bound to agree.
In particular Article 5 doesn’t commit the members to take any action other than that which that member deems necessary.
It is certain that no US President will EVER deem it necessary to put the USA at risk of serious damage to protect any other member or country. They are elected to look after the USA…precisely as it should be.
They will, of course, put other members and countries at risk to protect the USA and any useful member or country…but never the USA. De Gaulle was absolutely right about this.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example. Other NATO countries were most at risk, not the USA, to remove a potential threat to the USA. And this will always be the case.
“Brics summit is not a threat to Nato”
Please don’t tell Philip Pilkington, he was be devastated that the Brics won’t be posing a threat to NATO.