A renowned scholar of International Relations, Kenneth Waltz has said, in his paper ‘Man, State and War’ that a system of anarchy characterises International Politics and in this anarchical system balance of power is necessary to be able to survive, thus only one thing characterises the behaviour of states, and that is the national interest.
And the world has shown that despite considerable tension and enmity between countries they have come together at a multilateral economic forum to, in Churchill’s phrase, to “jaw-jaw” rather than “war-war” over their fundamental trade difference.
This was the reason that led to the formation of BRICS in the first place, National Interest. The major developing economies of the world came together to overthrow a western hegemonic world order and establish alternate multilateral economic institutions to the IMF and World Bank, and some have been successful in that regard like the National Development Bank, which although has an open membership criteria for all UNGA countries, but prioritises the share of BRICS, and has funded major development projects in the BRICS nations. Having said that, it is equally important to ask the question – Why did countries join BRICS in the first place and are their benefits still being meted out?
However, while making this question one must also understand that the outputs of diplomatic relations are not like a lottery ticket, that would lead to a great output in a single investment. Rather diplomacy is a process of continuous engagement and investment over a period of time, and most often it’s yields are not explicit. A lot also goes into the soft power diplomacy that yields implicit results, often that is not visible or quantifiable but their benefits are felt in the long term. This is precisely what can be said for the BRICS, there exist several areas of cooperation that can be explored deeper, like food security, transport, education, RnD, Culture and Tourism. But while bilateral relations among BRICS nations have mainly been conducted on the basis of non-interference, equality, and mutual benefit, it has been realised time and again that BRICS nations are not very sensitive to each other’s concerns. And there will always remain points of contention like in terms of developing an Intra BRICS Free Trade Agreement or India’s status in the Security Council.
Hence the idea that how much has been delivered remains debatable through it’s best practices and challenges, but the reason of BRICS countries staying a part of the forum and joining it in the first place can definitely be realised.
Systematic influences on international politics need not be systemic ones, domestic political factors can affect international politics in regular, predictable ways, which ultimately shape the international system, be it in terms of trade or economy or politics. Domestic Politics have always impacted a country’s stance in its International Politics, be it the US-Vietnam War or India’s present foreign policy of ‘with us or against us’ in regard to Pakistan. This was the case with Brazil when its worker’s party was in power, which employed a strong reformist agenda against the Western Hegemony. According to sociologist Marcelo Ridenti, Brazilian politics is divided between internationalist liberals and statist nationalists. The first group consists of politicians arguing that internationalization of the economy is essential for the development of the country, while the latter relies on interventionism and protection of state enterprises. According to Ridenti, who cites that Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration was an example of the first group and the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva administration was an example of the second, “we have it cyclically”. And the present Bolsonaro Administration is pro-US and has shown distrust towards China, and throughout his presidential campaign he claimed that they want to buy Brazil”. Bolsonaro said he wishes to continue to do business with the Chinese but he also said that Brazil should “make better [economic] deals” with other countries, with no “ideological agenda” behind it. And BRICS gives an ideal platform for the same. But his stance towards China has also been interpreted by some as an attempt to curry favour from the Trump administration to garner concessions from the US, which is completely in contrast to the 2006 Brazilian Administration which was a champion of developing nations.
Brazil stays today as part of the BRICS to continue to give it a leading edge among developing countries from Latin America and give legitimacy to its title of ‘champion of developing nations’ received after the Cancun talks, where it’s position had been seen as one of the reasons for the walkout of developing nations from farm subsidies.
Whereas in China, the idea behind joining BRICS was that it would help further its economic interest of overpowering the US Structural Power and gain political support amongst other developing economies. However, China has single-handedly managed to challenge the US because of its rapid rise. Thus the interests framed in 2006, seem less relevant today for China, but in light of the US-China Trade War, several nations like India including the BRICS are hopeful to benefit from the same. However India’s relationship with China is passing through a difficult moment is not hard to see, even amidst the usual hype that surrounds meetings between the leaders of the two countries. The rhetoric about BRICS changing the world has always masked the persistent structural problems that hobbled the ties between India and China. The frequency of the bilateral talks have not been able to resolve the boundary dispute, trade deficit and China’s growing support to Pakistan in Islamabad’s contestation with Delhi, and its effects have been seen in their disagreements at multilateral forums. Which also points towards the fact the major BRICS economies are not sensitive to each other’s point of contention and in fact choose to create challenges mutually.
Further, the problem is the widening gap in the comprehensive national power of China and other BRICS economies. China’s aggregate GDP, now at about $14 trillion, and annual defence spending at $250 billion. More than the size of the spending, China has outpaced the BRICS in the much-needed modernisation of its armed forces and higher defence organisation. This power imbalance translates into an unpleasant fact on the diplomatic front. Because China is under no pressure to please anyone. Or, more precisely, it can afford to displease some— whether it is the question of blocking India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group or opposing India’s Kashmir move and taking it to the UNSC.
Moreover, the persistent belief in Delhi that current tensions in US-China relations might encourage Beijing to make nice with other BRICS economies, has turned out to be wrong. The deepening crisis in US-China relations has made little difference to Beijing’s approach
Thus as of now the need for BRICS to China seems to be fading, however, China cannot refuse that BRICS gives a certain legitimacy to Chinese Actions in other international forums, by showing that it enjoys the support from the developing world that is through BRICS.
For South Africa, the need for BRICS came from the agenda of furthering its developmental potential, and to be seen among other African powers like Algeria, Botswana as the emerging leader and create a strategic economic alliance with the developing world. And even today, South Africa stands to benefit immensely from BRICS because of its developmental potential.
Russia and Putin, have always pledged on regaining Russia’s Position in the international order, especially in terms of US. In February 2007, Putin criticized what he called the United States’ monopolistic dominance in global relations, and “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations”. He said the result of it is that “no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. And hence Russia sought to take up an active role in creating an alternate international order through BRICS.
BRICS gave Russia the platform to pose a real challenge to the US, however, the success of it to Russia is a long drawn deliberation. But it does provide Russia with the ability to further its agenda in all multilateral forums, and even gain support for those agendas which the US wouldn’t normally support.
India’s standpoint for is developmental support, and India’s foreign policy has time and again been associated it as a leader of the developing world, be it NAM or Climate Talks or Security Council. Being a part of BRICS not only gives India a chance to support its claim but also smoothen its relations with China. It also significantly shapes India’s developmental aspirations and allows an environment of learning from the developmental experience of China and Russia. Furthermore, Indian Foreign Policy has always focused on maintaining good relations with those that matter, and a clearer example couldn’t have been given than Modi’s visit to Houston and Xi Jinping’s visit to Mahabalipuram, even amidst the trade war between the two. However one needs to realise at this juncture, whether a country necessarily has to be multi aligned to develop?
WILL THE ARRANGED MARRIAGE BETWEEN BRICS LAST?
BRICS countries bettered their positions in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, but they also struck a small blow against the Bretton Woods institutions, and the BRICS New Development Bank set up in 2015 has already given out about $6 billion in loans for 23 projects across BRICS countries. This is no mean feat given the vast differences in size and political systems and internal turmoil in BRICS countries.
For India beyond the bilateral issues over the boundary, Nuclear Suppliers Group membership for India, India’s trade deficit, the rift over China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and most importantly Kashmir now dominates discussions between the two nations and has significantly impacted discussions at several multilateral forums between the two nations, with Beijing siding with Islamabad. India’s relationship with China is passing through a difficult moment is not hard to see, even amidst the usual hype that surrounds meetings between the leaders of the two countries.
Thus despite all of these gains, the truth is that BRICS now faced its most challenging summit. It is important to see how the bilateral relationship and several other changes in geopolitics are now going to change the course of the BRICS engagement as well.