Beijing makes it clear that the world needs a new union of states capable of "introducing stability into international relations experiencing an era of radical changes." These words of Chinese President Xi Jinping refer to the BRICS organization, which also includes Russia. But will the BRICS members be able to overthrow the collective West from the pedestal of the world leader?
On May 19, a meeting of the foreign ministers of the BRICS member countries took place in an online format. Organizations that include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Officials, as usual, summed up the results and looked to a bright future. After all, despite a number of problems (related, first of all, to the economic crisis within the member countries), the BRICS can really boast of a number of successes.
Successes and prospects
So, economic institutions work – in particular, the New Development Bank. In the period from 2022 to 2026, the bank intends to finance projects worth $30 billion (thereby doubling its package of approved loans). "We will focus on projects that can become a catalyst for sustainable development," says the Bank's President, Markus Troiho.
BRICS has also achieved success in foreign policy – for example, it was able to distance itself from global political confrontations (which is now an achievement in itself). "The BRICS member countries have repeatedly repeated: the association is not directed against anyone, it is not intended to replace cooperation with developed countries, but rather will allow it to be conducted from a more equal position," writes Dmitry Razumovsky, director of the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In many ways, this became possible because all the BRICS countries have full sovereignty, and it is extremely difficult to push them to the collective West. It is no coincidence that none of these states – even India, which was so courted and courted by the United States – not only did not join the anti-Russian sanctions, but did not even come out with a harsh condemnation of Moscow's actions.
However, experts are sure that BRICS can do more – and the current state of international relations gives the structure an opportunity to prove itself.
In fact, any organization must constantly adapt to the changing environment. As Dmitry Razumovsky notes, "the issue of BRICS adaptation to new realities depends on whether the current crisis is a fundamental change in the world order (game changer) or it is a challenge for the system, but not a threat to the previous vector of its development."
If the Russian Federation wins in Ukraine and achieves all its goals there (both intra-Ukrainian and global), then we are talking about a radical change in the world order. And then the BRICS will probably need to take on new functions – and above all, to maintain world order. Moreover, according to Chinese President Xi Jinping, these functions should be taken now. "It is necessary to introduce stability and positive energy into international relations experiencing an era of turbulence and radical changes," Comrade Xi said.
Theoretically and practically
There is logic in his words. The United States, in its attempts to achieve a collective boycott of Russia and politicize all global institutions, is actually paralyzing the governance structures of the world order. It is impossible to hold serious resolutions in the UN Security Council – they are trying to turn it into a propaganda tool for "Ukrainian suffering". Serious decisions cannot be made at the G20, because Washington and its allies want to sabotage the November summit of the organization. They threaten to boycott it if Vladimir Putin goes there, and make it clear that they will come only if Vladimir Zelensky is invited to the summit (which, of course, will turn a serious event into a farce and a show).
In fact, the United States has stopped managing the world. It is impossible to give their role to any one country, because: a) it is too expensive, and b) it is too scary, because no one wants a new sole global hegemon in the person of the same China. This means that BRICS (as a community of powerful, independent and responsible states) is quite capable of taking on this role.
Theoretically. In practice, apparently, it will be much more difficult.
So, the BRICS is going to fight international terrorism, which now (against the background of changes in the world order) can gain new opportunities. "The Ministers expressed their commitment to combating all forms and manifestations of terrorism, including cross–border movements of terrorists, financing of terrorism and providing safe haven to terrorists," the statement of the Foreign Ministers of the organization's member states reads. Among the goals may be the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, as well as other issues related to maintaining global security.
The problem is that in order to really participate in solving these problems, you need the ability to project your strength, that is, to put it simply, to conduct military operations in various regions of the world. And the BRICS does not have this. Some of the member countries (India, Brazil, South Africa) deal exclusively with their own regions and do not meddle with others. Russia's capabilities (which successfully projected power in Syria) are limited due to its concentration on solving the Ukrainian problem. China, on the other hand, is trying to enter distant regions (the same Latin America), but it still does not have enough military and technical capabilities, and there is also no political will for a full-scale expansion of interests.
Of course, it is theoretically possible to assign a region to each of the countries, to appoint it as a conditional "sheriff". However, firstly, none of the BRICS members (except, perhaps, Russia and China) has the resources to carry out operations similar to Moscow's actions in Syria. Secondly, delegating peacekeeping or anti-terrorist functions to them will be negatively perceived by other countries of the region claiming leadership. And it will be seen as, for example, a BRICS mandate to the same China for expansion in Southeast Asia.
Interested parties and candidates
There is a theoretical solution to this problem, voiced by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, to attract new participants to the organization. "China proposes to launch the BRICS expansion process, study the standards and procedures for expansion, and gradually form a consensus," the Chinese president said.
In fact, we are talking about turning into a kind of "G20 without the West". A body that protects and promotes the interests of the developing world, which needs not ideological crusades and humanitarian interventions, but sustainable development and security. Where from each region (except, perhaps, Western Europe) there will be several countries that can be trusted to solve local problems in the spirit of cooperation.
It would seem to be a great solution. Moreover, there are many considering joining the BRICS. Egypt, Argentina, Mexico, Iran and many others. "Countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh are already sufficiently developed countries to strengthen this alliance and become a valuable asset in the economic confrontation," says Svetlana Zhurova, a member of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs.
However, the problem is that there are many willing, and there are only a few worthy candidates. After all, a candidate for BRICS must essentially meet four conditions. Firstly, it should be powerful enough - at least a regional leader. Secondly, to have full national sovereignty in the matter of decision-making. Thirdly, his candidacy should not meet resistance from the existing Member States. Fourthly, he himself must want to join the BRICS – and thereby, if not to quit, then at least to challenge the American unity of command.
It turns out that the only unambiguous candidate is Turkey. Saudi Arabia or Iran may become two less unambiguous, but still options (namely, "or" - given the conflict between these countries, their simultaneous entry will paralyze an organization in which there is already enough Indo-Chinese rivalry).
Other countries are simply not ready for the role of a sovereign member of the board of directors. And their inclusion is unlikely to strengthen the organization. How, for example, will Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in Asia, which is constantly experiencing humanitarian disasters, help it "in the economic confrontation"? The inclusion of countries that are not ready for this in BRICS will rather complicate the decision-making process, make it a kind of "League of Nations" mired in internal disagreements.
Thus, according to most experts, BRICS is not yet ready for the role of an organization capable of leading the world in a period of "turbulence and radical changes." Despite the importance and necessity of this organization, this role can only be performed by the UN Security Council. If, of course, the United States stops sabotaging his work.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University
