Igor FedykFrom October 22 to 24, Kazan, Russia hosted annual summit of the BRICS — an organization that was created in 2006 by the largest developing countries as an alternative to the union of the leading developed Western economies. However, like the previous meetings, this year’s meeting in Kazan showed that despite wide representation and strong statements, the different economic potential of BRICS members, internal disagreements and contradictions between them still do not allow this organization to become what it was intended for.
The summit in Kazan is the largest meeting of foreign leaders in Russia since Russia launched a large-scale military aggression against Ukraine in 2022. The Kremlin calls it one of the ‘largest foreign policy events ever held’ in Russia. Indeed, the foreign representation at it is quite wide — 36 delegations from different countries are participating in this year’s meeting. Almost all BRICS members were represented by their heads of state, with the exception of Brazil and Iran, which were represented by their foreign minister and president, respectively. Dilma Rousseff, head of the New Development Bank, also participated in the summit. In addition, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres arrived in Kazan on October 23, which caused strong criticism from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. “The UN Secretary General declined Ukraine’s invitation to the first Global Peace Summit in Switzerland. He did, however, accept the invitation to Kazan from war criminal Putin. This is a wrong choice that does not advance the cause of peace. It only damages the UN’s reputation,” the statement of the Ukrainian MFA reads.
If we look at all previous high-level meetings within the framework of BRICS, it is obvious that they are organized not so much as a platform for deepening mutually beneficial economic cooperation between its members, but as a platform where they can jointly express dissatisfaction with the modern model of the world order, and offer their own vision of it. This year’s summit in Kazan was no exception.
At the summit it was once again emphasized that the organization represents the main part of the international community — the so-called the world majority — which, however, is disproportionately represented in key international institutions. Also, the summit participants once again imposed the idea of forming a new, multipolar world order, in which the collective West does not dominate. In addition, the summit in Kazan was used to demonstrate the collective economic power of the BRICS and its superiority over the same G-7.
It should be noted separately what significance the summit in Kazan has for Russia and its president. First, the very fact of holding such an event and the wide international representation at it should have shown that the West’s attempts to isolate his country and him personally did not bring any results. Second, Russia wanted to create for itself more opportunities for bypassing the Western financial system, in particular, to approve an alternative system of international settlements that is not dominated by the US dollar.
Despite many strong statements during the summit and the presentation of ‘evidence’ that BIRICS is almost today a serious alternative to the group of leading developed Western economies, differences in visions of international affairs, contradictions in bilateral relations between its participants, as well as the reluctance of some of them to burn down bridges with the West, say that this is so far a wishful thinking.
Efforts to challenge the global monetary system based on the US dollar will remain so until key BRICS members—primarily China—get serious about opening their own capital accounts and financial markets.
The introduction of a common currency for BRICS members, proposed in 2023 by Brazilian President Lula da Silva, remains at the level of an idea for now. Not only do experts warn that any new BRICS currency will not be stable enough to be trusted in cross-border transactions, but there is also skepticism among the participating countries themselves.
The established and widely publicized New Development Bank, co-founded by Russia, refused new projects in the Russian Federation due to the effect of sanctions against it.
The BRICS countries constantly declare their intention to become independent from the West and its ‘controlled’ financial and other institutions. However, one of the main partners of the most powerful BRICS economy — China — is still the United States, with trade turnover between them averaging 600-700 billion US dollars per year in recent years. Other members also have valuable trade and not only relations with the West. Therefore, in reality, one may not be talking about the independence of BRICS, but rather about finding a favorable balance for its members in their relations with each other, and against whom they united.
As for boasting that the economic potential of BRICS has already exceeded the potential of the G-7, it should be noted that the economy of the leading members of the organization largely depends on exports to countries from the same G-7. And Russia itself continues to receive a considerable amount of oil and gas dollars from the export of its energy sources to the countries of the Western world.
The large number of the summit participants, as well as applications for joining BRICS, which the Kremlin is trying to present as one of the indicators of the success of the organization, should not be taken too seriously either. After all, what is important is not the number of participants, but their potential and contribution to the ‘common cause’. Moreover, the further expansion of BRICS can, on the contrary, weaken the organization, since it can only increase the diversity, heterogeneity and contradictions between its members and make it even more difficult for BRICS to form and conduct a joint international policy.
In addition to disagreements, there are also serious contradictions between the main members of BRICS, which prevent the organization not only from competing with leading Western economies, but also from becoming a serious geopolitical union. The partnership between India and China is still wishful thinking and until they reach an agreement on the key issues of bilateral relations, all the big ambitions of BRICS will remain at the level of declarations.