Constructing Institutions, 'BRIC' by 'BRIC'
The 2024 BRICS Summit released the Kazan Declaration, which outlined the BRICS nations' stance on various global issues. It also emphasized the importance of organizational consolidation and institutional development, setting the groundwork for sustainable progress.
TroibNews 
Editor's note: Warwick Powell is an adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology and a senior fellow at Taihe Institute. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CN.
The recent BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia, has concluded, with participation from over 30 nations. A comprehensive Kazan Declaration, consisting of 134 clauses, was released, addressing a range of contemporary global challenges.
Western mainstream media has grappled with its perspective on BRICS. Initially, the summit was largely ignored, but there followed attempts to depict it as merely a "Putin event," suggesting it lacked significant international influence. However, the participation of over 30 countries made it difficult to maintain this narrative. The focus has now shifted to downplaying the importance of BRICS itself and the outcomes from the summit.
In contrast, the summit highlighted the persistent emergence of a multimodal world. Four key aspects are particularly noteworthy.
Firstly, the BRICS 2024 meeting is anticipated to be a consolidation effort aimed at establishing a sustainable organizational structure as membership interest continues to grow. The 2024 summit rolled out a variety of institutions, including sub-committees and formal mechanisms, to ensure critical issues are addressed moving forward. Notably, BRICS maintained a distributed ethos, consciously avoiding the formation of a permanent secretariat or administrative structure.
Secondly, the gathering reaffirmed a pragmatic "feet on the ground" approach for BRICS. This was marked by a focus on actionable reform in global institutions, steering clear of grandstanding or media spectacles. The declaration indicated a shared dissatisfaction among BRICS nations regarding the existing institutional framework, which they see as disproportionately affecting developing economies. While the declaration did not explicitly challenge established post-World War II institutions, it often mentioned the creation of complementary mechanisms, suggesting that BRICS is preparing an alternative if reforms to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund do not materialize.
Thirdly, the summit illustrated a commitment to establish new financial institutions aimed at addressing the needs of member states, particularly facilitating cross-border payments for trade in national currencies.
Leading up to BRICS, there was significant excitement around initiatives like BRICS Pay and the proposed "unit." However, claims positioning these projects as part of a new BRICS financial system were inaccurate, as they are independently run ventures and are not connected to BRICS state structures or their financial authorities. There is no introduction of a new BRICS currency.
Fourthly, the summit considered the issue of expanding BRICS membership, with over 40 nations expressing interest in joining. A decision was made to invite 13 countries to become "partner states": Türkiye, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda.
The inclusion of four ASEAN nations holds particular significance for the Asia region. The invited countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam—represent a collective population exceeding 500 million and are central to one of the world's most rapidly developing areas. With overlapping memberships, there are enhanced prospects for economic collaboration, emphasizing the dual goals of security and prosperity.
ASEAN's initiatives to expand cross-border payment systems to facilitate intra-regional trade using national currencies have been ongoing for years, driven by lessons learned from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. As BRICS focuses on similar payment systems, this opens doors for better synergy between the ASEAN framework and the emerging BRICS infrastructure.
The enlargement of BRICS not only enhances its global influence in terms of population and GDP but also fosters greater economic interdependencies, supporting a network of bilateral trade relationships. Increasingly diverse economic foundations among member states can facilitate trade and help address liquidity challenges, which BRICS Clear institutions are likely to tackle.
BRICS is solidifying its presence on the global stage. The institutional developments from the Kazan Summit are set to promote long-term viability. With its structure based on a rotating chairmanship, the newly established institutions can ensure the continuity necessary for member states to actively engage with and benefit from opportunities within the BRICS network.
Although the BRICS Declaration did not explicitly call for a replacement of current post-World War II institutions unless reform is achievable, it clearly indicated a readiness among the expanding membership to pursue the establishment of a "Plan B."
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
The recent BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia, has concluded, with participation from over 30 nations. A comprehensive Kazan Declaration, consisting of 134 clauses, was released, addressing a range of contemporary global challenges.
Western mainstream media has grappled with its perspective on BRICS. Initially, the summit was largely ignored, but there followed attempts to depict it as merely a "Putin event," suggesting it lacked significant international influence. However, the participation of over 30 countries made it difficult to maintain this narrative. The focus has now shifted to downplaying the importance of BRICS itself and the outcomes from the summit.
In contrast, the summit highlighted the persistent emergence of a multimodal world. Four key aspects are particularly noteworthy.
Firstly, the BRICS 2024 meeting is anticipated to be a consolidation effort aimed at establishing a sustainable organizational structure as membership interest continues to grow. The 2024 summit rolled out a variety of institutions, including sub-committees and formal mechanisms, to ensure critical issues are addressed moving forward. Notably, BRICS maintained a distributed ethos, consciously avoiding the formation of a permanent secretariat or administrative structure.
Secondly, the gathering reaffirmed a pragmatic "feet on the ground" approach for BRICS. This was marked by a focus on actionable reform in global institutions, steering clear of grandstanding or media spectacles. The declaration indicated a shared dissatisfaction among BRICS nations regarding the existing institutional framework, which they see as disproportionately affecting developing economies. While the declaration did not explicitly challenge established post-World War II institutions, it often mentioned the creation of complementary mechanisms, suggesting that BRICS is preparing an alternative if reforms to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund do not materialize.
Thirdly, the summit illustrated a commitment to establish new financial institutions aimed at addressing the needs of member states, particularly facilitating cross-border payments for trade in national currencies.
Leading up to BRICS, there was significant excitement around initiatives like BRICS Pay and the proposed "unit." However, claims positioning these projects as part of a new BRICS financial system were inaccurate, as they are independently run ventures and are not connected to BRICS state structures or their financial authorities. There is no introduction of a new BRICS currency.
Fourthly, the summit considered the issue of expanding BRICS membership, with over 40 nations expressing interest in joining. A decision was made to invite 13 countries to become "partner states": Türkiye, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda.
The inclusion of four ASEAN nations holds particular significance for the Asia region. The invited countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam—represent a collective population exceeding 500 million and are central to one of the world's most rapidly developing areas. With overlapping memberships, there are enhanced prospects for economic collaboration, emphasizing the dual goals of security and prosperity.
ASEAN's initiatives to expand cross-border payment systems to facilitate intra-regional trade using national currencies have been ongoing for years, driven by lessons learned from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. As BRICS focuses on similar payment systems, this opens doors for better synergy between the ASEAN framework and the emerging BRICS infrastructure.
The enlargement of BRICS not only enhances its global influence in terms of population and GDP but also fosters greater economic interdependencies, supporting a network of bilateral trade relationships. Increasingly diverse economic foundations among member states can facilitate trade and help address liquidity challenges, which BRICS Clear institutions are likely to tackle.
BRICS is solidifying its presence on the global stage. The institutional developments from the Kazan Summit are set to promote long-term viability. With its structure based on a rotating chairmanship, the newly established institutions can ensure the continuity necessary for member states to actively engage with and benefit from opportunities within the BRICS network.
Although the BRICS Declaration did not explicitly call for a replacement of current post-World War II institutions unless reform is achievable, it clearly indicated a readiness among the expanding membership to pursue the establishment of a "Plan B."
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
