The recent BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, finally led to the birth of the BRICS+, which includes new members rigorously selected from a pool of 40 interests. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are the lucky new members this time who will officially join the BRICS in four months, bringing the total membership to 11. This article asks the crucial question of whether or not an expanding BRICS will widen the existing fault lines in the BRICS bloc.
The BRICS and BRICS+ potential
Undoubtedly, the BRICS or BRICS+ bloc has huge development potential that could disrupt the global economy and social and political affairs. With the original BRICS, we are talking about nearly 31.5% of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and at least 41% of the global population. According to analysts, the current BRICS membership outperforms the “Group of Seven” (G7) countries in terms of GDP. The G7 countries are responsible for about 30% of the global GDP. Through its New Development Bank (NDB), whose membership is open to all members of the UN, BRICS has provided over $34 billion in infrastructure finance, going into more than 100 projects across its member countries. The NDB challenges traditional infrastructure financiers such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
However, while the current BRICS has done well, the bloc also nurses numerous wounds. For instance, the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to mixed feelings among the bloc members, forcing them to try the hard task of convincing President Putin to find a diplomatic solution. Although China failed to call the “invasion” an invasion and abstained from the UN vote that condemned Putin’s act, it prepared the 12-point position paper on the peaceful settlement of the war in Ukraine. Beijing also tried its best to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine. China’s Xi Jinping spoke with the warring sides in an attempt to resolve the conflict amicably.
On the same note, while BRICS unites China and India, the two countries are caught in a longstanding border conflict. In 1962, although the Sino-Indian War drew the Line of Actual Control (LAC) for most of the India-China border, quite a large part was left un-demarcated. In September 2021, a disturbing video revealed Chinese and Indian soldiers fighting with sticks and bricks after an alleged “trespass” by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into the LAC, an attempt to change the status quo. In June 2020, 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers (analysts put Chinese fatalities nine times higher than they officially announced) died in the Galwan Valley clash between the Indian Armed Forces and the PLA. At the 15th BRICS summit in Johannesburg this time, the world was watching what the two leaders would have to say about their countries’ border disputes.
Although both Xi and Modi agreed to direct their relevant officers to de-escalate, the success of this is yet to be seen. We know the two countries have had a series of high-level talks for the past three years without success.
It might be hard for President Xi to change his stance on the China-India border crisis. To prove this, Xi might not have been interested in meeting Modi this time. According to the BBC, Xi said the meeting was “at the request” of Modi. This, to me, shows that he was not willing to initiate any talks. At least 19 previous corps commander-level talks between the Indian and Chinese sides, the latest just ahead of the BRICS summit, had failed anyway.
"We cannot lose even one inch of the territory left behind by our ancestors," Mr Xi said, according to Chinese state media. "What is other people's we do not want at all," President Xi told the former US Defence Secretary James Mattis during his visit to Beijing in June 2018.
The other point of difference between India and China is the growing China-Pakistan relationship. Remember, India and Pakistan are long-time enemies, and India views Beijing’s warm ties with Islamabad as threatening its security.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of China and India to the success of the BRICS. The two largest members in terms of population and GDP will mostly determine the bloc's fate. They are the heavyweights against any Western formation at the moment, and if both countries unite and agree to resolve their differences, the bloc might stand stronger. Their disunity would be significantly consequential for the success of the block, too.
Even deeper is another fault line between the newcomers, Egypt and Ethiopia, who have both grown tensions over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Egypt depends on the Nile River for at least 90% of its domestic water use and has since opposed any human actions on the Nile, regardless of where they happen. The Nile River is the longest in Africa. It passes through 10 other countries, including Burundi, Tanzania, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and South Sudan, before reaching Egypt. In 2020, Egypt vowed to “use all available means” to defend the interests of its people after Ethiopia skipped a U.S.-brokered mediation talk in Washington.
In my opinion, Egypt and Ethiopia remain divided, and if such division continues, the bloc's success might be jeopardized. One can also argue that the BRICS bloc might allow the two countries to resolve their differences and unite in solidarity against the West.
Again, just as we saw in the cases of Egypt and Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, long-time enemies who have only mended ties lately, are among the list of new BRICS members. It is hard to trust the durability of the peace Beijing brokered between the Saudis and Iran. Time will tell if they will remain peaceful or disintegrate again. The bilateral relations between these countries will affect the performance of the new block.
While the BRICS+ is a viable counter-Western force, in my view, a larger BRICS bloc could slow down decision-making processes. Moreover, the existing tensions between and among members (new and old) could only work against the formation. I normally joke that countering the West with emerging economies is a hard nut to crack that only unity and solidarity can crack. On the other hand, the BRICS bloc might also help mend relationships between and among its members. Still, admitting all 40 applicants does not make sense. At worst, the 11 nations should be sufficient. It would be interesting to see how the bloc progresses.
Comments