The key to the BRICS' success lies in what they avoid, not what they are
Countries are eager to join BRICS despite its limited successes, possibly indicating that their motivations are driven more by what they are trying to escape than by what they wish to attain. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
BRICS is gaining momentum, with a significant increase in interest from other nations. At the start of the year, it expanded, and currently, approximately 40 countries have shown an interest in joining, with Russian Federation Council Chairwoman Valentina Matvienko noting that "24 countries are in line to actually become members."
Creating a successful alliance with such a wide-ranging diversity of countries is quite unusual. One might wonder what drives such varied countries to converge into this bloc.
Typically, it's recognized that BRICS doesn't coerce its members to follow a narrow set of interests or impose ideological tests. The bloc respects sovereignty and provides nations marginalized by Western-centric institutions a more robust platform. However, this point has often been reiterated.
A more intriguing inquiry might be about the draw of a coalition with seemingly few concrete achievements. James O’Neill, the former Goldman Sachs analyst who coined the acronym "BRICS," expressed skepticism about the bloc's effectiveness. “BRICS had never achieved anything since they first started meeting,” O’Neill stated, questioning the actual goals of its members. Despite this, the bloc's potential influence is significant, representing a considerable share of global GDP, population, oil production, and other economic metrics.
Among its tangible achievements is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2015, located in Shanghai, with an initial funding of $50 billion focused on infrastructure and sustainability projects. Alongside, the BRICS nations also set up the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) as an alternative to the IMF. Despite these efforts, Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista offered a candid assessment: “When we started out with the CRA and the NDB, there was considerable concern with what the BRICS were doing in this area in Washington, DC., in the IMF and World Bank... As time went by, however, people in Washington relaxed, sensing perhaps that we were going nowhere with the CRA and the NDB.”
Indeed, the NDB has only sanctioned $33 billion worth of projects overall. Compared to the World Bank's commitments of $128 billion in a single year, and given that around two-thirds of these BRICS projects were funded in dollars, some may find the lack of challenge to Western dominance unexpected.
There's also been considerable discussion about a potential BRICS-owned currency, yet this has led to more skepticism than action. Such a currency isn't actively planned as BRICS countries aren't keen on compromising their sovereign monetary policies. Alternative arrangements, like settling central bank imbalances with a neutral reserve asset, are considered more feasible. Moreover, an imminent alternative to the Western SWIFT financial messaging system is expected soon.
Despite these initiatives, a BRICS-wide free-trade agreement remains elusive, though intra-group trade is increasing, with transactions progressively settling in local currencies. The variation in national interests within the BRICS coalition underscores the complexities of such a diverse alliance.
Despite these challenges and slow progress in some areas, Alex Lo from the South China Morning Post views BRICS primarily as an alternative to the hegemonic financial practices emanating from the US, especially in light of America's aggressive use of sanctions and financial controls. The burgeoning influence and engagement of countries within the BRICS framework could indeed signify a shift in global power dynamics, aligning more with the interests and conditions of the Global South. This evolving landscape suggests a potential decline in Western economic dominance, marking a significant shift in global economic governance. BRICS, with all its challenges and limitations, remains a significant player on the world stage, representing a shift towards multipolarity in global affairs.With the increasing solidarity among BRICS nations, the group provides an essential counterbalance to Western influence, particularly as countries in the Global South seek to redefine their role in international politics. This response to shifting power dynamics reflects broader aspirations for greater equity in how global issues are addressed. The BRICS nations are navigating a landscape characterized by an urgent need for systemic solutions to challenges like climate change, economic inequality, and food security—problems that have long been sidelined or inadequately addressed by traditional Western-led frameworks.
The rise of BRICS represents more than just the mere accumulation of economic power; it signals a reevaluation of the global order. As these nations assert their interests, they contrast sharply with the American approach, which often prioritizes unilateralism over multilateral cooperation. As global trust in the U.S. leadership diminishes, many nations perceive the need for alternatives that respect their sovereignty while facilitating equitable development.
The atmosphere of cooperation within BRICS fosters an environment where member states can explore creative solutions to their collective problems without the constraints that often accompany Western interventions. There’s an implicit acknowledgment that each member, despite their diverse agendas and backgrounds, faces similar pressures from global governance structures that have historically catered to a select few. This shared experience of marginalization is a strong driver of unity among BRICS members.
Amid the flux of international relations, the prospect of expanding BRICS is more than an organizational consideration; it reflects a broader desire among nations to have representation that aligns with their values and interests. The potential inclusion of new members can amplify voices that have been sidelined, enhancing the bloc's negotiating power in global forums, such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization.
Additionally, the concept of creating new financial and trade systems and mechanisms stands as a bold statement against the establishment. The anticipated establishment of a BRICS messaging system to replace SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is not merely about technology; it represents a significant step toward financial independence from a Western-dominated system that has often been wielded as a geopolitical weapon. Such alternatives could usher in a new era of economic transactions that reflect the values of member nations while providing options for others disillusioned with existing structures.
Despite the various hurdles facing BRICS—such as internal differences, the complexities of forming cohesive policy frameworks, and the ongoing skepticism surrounding its actual output—there remains a palpable sense of momentum. Each meeting, every declaration, and potential collaboration is part of the larger narrative of seeking a multipolar world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a single entity but shared among many.
The path ahead for BRICS is undeniably nuanced. As the group navigates its ambitions and the challenges of diverse political landscapes, the need for pragmatism becomes ever more critical. Whether BRICS can leverage its collective weight to bring about meaningful change while managing the divergences of its members will determine its long-term relevance.
Ultimately, the developments within BRICS reflect a crucial chapter in the ongoing saga of global power. The alliance not only provides an avenue for cooperation among diverse nations but also embodies a response to perceived threats and pressures from the West. In this context, BRICS emerges not merely as an alliance of economies but as a symbol of collective agency for developing countries. As global economic power continues to shift, the future of BRICS will likely play a pivotal role in determining how best to address the shared challenges that lie ahead, offering a new perspective on the possibilities of international collaboration.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
Creating a successful alliance with such a wide-ranging diversity of countries is quite unusual. One might wonder what drives such varied countries to converge into this bloc.
Typically, it's recognized that BRICS doesn't coerce its members to follow a narrow set of interests or impose ideological tests. The bloc respects sovereignty and provides nations marginalized by Western-centric institutions a more robust platform. However, this point has often been reiterated.
A more intriguing inquiry might be about the draw of a coalition with seemingly few concrete achievements. James O’Neill, the former Goldman Sachs analyst who coined the acronym "BRICS," expressed skepticism about the bloc's effectiveness. “BRICS had never achieved anything since they first started meeting,” O’Neill stated, questioning the actual goals of its members. Despite this, the bloc's potential influence is significant, representing a considerable share of global GDP, population, oil production, and other economic metrics.
Among its tangible achievements is the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2015, located in Shanghai, with an initial funding of $50 billion focused on infrastructure and sustainability projects. Alongside, the BRICS nations also set up the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) as an alternative to the IMF. Despite these efforts, Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista offered a candid assessment: “When we started out with the CRA and the NDB, there was considerable concern with what the BRICS were doing in this area in Washington, DC., in the IMF and World Bank... As time went by, however, people in Washington relaxed, sensing perhaps that we were going nowhere with the CRA and the NDB.”
Indeed, the NDB has only sanctioned $33 billion worth of projects overall. Compared to the World Bank's commitments of $128 billion in a single year, and given that around two-thirds of these BRICS projects were funded in dollars, some may find the lack of challenge to Western dominance unexpected.
There's also been considerable discussion about a potential BRICS-owned currency, yet this has led to more skepticism than action. Such a currency isn't actively planned as BRICS countries aren't keen on compromising their sovereign monetary policies. Alternative arrangements, like settling central bank imbalances with a neutral reserve asset, are considered more feasible. Moreover, an imminent alternative to the Western SWIFT financial messaging system is expected soon.
Despite these initiatives, a BRICS-wide free-trade agreement remains elusive, though intra-group trade is increasing, with transactions progressively settling in local currencies. The variation in national interests within the BRICS coalition underscores the complexities of such a diverse alliance.
Despite these challenges and slow progress in some areas, Alex Lo from the South China Morning Post views BRICS primarily as an alternative to the hegemonic financial practices emanating from the US, especially in light of America's aggressive use of sanctions and financial controls. The burgeoning influence and engagement of countries within the BRICS framework could indeed signify a shift in global power dynamics, aligning more with the interests and conditions of the Global South. This evolving landscape suggests a potential decline in Western economic dominance, marking a significant shift in global economic governance. BRICS, with all its challenges and limitations, remains a significant player on the world stage, representing a shift towards multipolarity in global affairs.With the increasing solidarity among BRICS nations, the group provides an essential counterbalance to Western influence, particularly as countries in the Global South seek to redefine their role in international politics. This response to shifting power dynamics reflects broader aspirations for greater equity in how global issues are addressed. The BRICS nations are navigating a landscape characterized by an urgent need for systemic solutions to challenges like climate change, economic inequality, and food security—problems that have long been sidelined or inadequately addressed by traditional Western-led frameworks.
The rise of BRICS represents more than just the mere accumulation of economic power; it signals a reevaluation of the global order. As these nations assert their interests, they contrast sharply with the American approach, which often prioritizes unilateralism over multilateral cooperation. As global trust in the U.S. leadership diminishes, many nations perceive the need for alternatives that respect their sovereignty while facilitating equitable development.
The atmosphere of cooperation within BRICS fosters an environment where member states can explore creative solutions to their collective problems without the constraints that often accompany Western interventions. There’s an implicit acknowledgment that each member, despite their diverse agendas and backgrounds, faces similar pressures from global governance structures that have historically catered to a select few. This shared experience of marginalization is a strong driver of unity among BRICS members.
Amid the flux of international relations, the prospect of expanding BRICS is more than an organizational consideration; it reflects a broader desire among nations to have representation that aligns with their values and interests. The potential inclusion of new members can amplify voices that have been sidelined, enhancing the bloc's negotiating power in global forums, such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization.
Additionally, the concept of creating new financial and trade systems and mechanisms stands as a bold statement against the establishment. The anticipated establishment of a BRICS messaging system to replace SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is not merely about technology; it represents a significant step toward financial independence from a Western-dominated system that has often been wielded as a geopolitical weapon. Such alternatives could usher in a new era of economic transactions that reflect the values of member nations while providing options for others disillusioned with existing structures.
Despite the various hurdles facing BRICS—such as internal differences, the complexities of forming cohesive policy frameworks, and the ongoing skepticism surrounding its actual output—there remains a palpable sense of momentum. Each meeting, every declaration, and potential collaboration is part of the larger narrative of seeking a multipolar world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a single entity but shared among many.
The path ahead for BRICS is undeniably nuanced. As the group navigates its ambitions and the challenges of diverse political landscapes, the need for pragmatism becomes ever more critical. Whether BRICS can leverage its collective weight to bring about meaningful change while managing the divergences of its members will determine its long-term relevance.
Ultimately, the developments within BRICS reflect a crucial chapter in the ongoing saga of global power. The alliance not only provides an avenue for cooperation among diverse nations but also embodies a response to perceived threats and pressures from the West. In this context, BRICS emerges not merely as an alliance of economies but as a symbol of collective agency for developing countries. As global economic power continues to shift, the future of BRICS will likely play a pivotal role in determining how best to address the shared challenges that lie ahead, offering a new perspective on the possibilities of international collaboration.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
