Leaders of the Brics nations gathered in Brazil for a summit that has drawn attention not only for its agenda but for notable absences. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping both opted out of attending the meeting, raising questions about the future of the group and its coherence as an ideological alternative to Western capitalism, represented by the G7.
Brics—the geopolitical coalition—consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It is a counter weight to Western hegemony and domination, representing the interests of the developing world. The group has recently had a very successful period of growth, welcoming six new members in short succession. This growth has had the effect of splitting their unified front. The upcoming summit in Brazil will be a significant inflection point for Brics. It intends to position itself as a compelling ideological alternative to the current Western rules-based order.
Putin’s absence from the summit has been attributed to the international criminal court’s (ICC) arrest warrant against him. Instead he’s under a recently issued international warrant for allegedly leading an operation that abducted and deported thousands of Ukrainian children. This deeply troubling news comes against the backdrop of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Yet this legal quandary creates a politically toxic environment for him to appear. To make matters even worse, Brazil’s position as host country exacerbates the scenario.
“It seems that the ending of one international order does not necessarily beget the sudden arrival of another.” – Dr. Samir Puri
China’s Xi Jinping has skipped this summit, in a break from his 12-year rule of never missing one. His particular absence is certainly conspicuous. All this at a moment when so many think that the United States is retreating from its role as the world’s leader. Observers have noted that Xi’s decision could reflect internal Chinese politics or a strategic recalibration in response to shifting geopolitical dynamics.
Unfortunately, the context around this summit is filled with strife. Brazil, under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, faces challenges in aligning its environmental commitments with the interests of its fellow Brics members like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the UAE, whose economies are heavily reliant on oil and gas.
Brics members are far apart on the issue of a common currency. Others view it more positively as a sign of growing US dollar alternatives, but serious rifts remain. India has articulated its opposition to such a proposal, foreshadowing the schisms that would emerge between member states.
Mongolia’s legal controversy with the ICC over Putin’s previous visit has raised a lot of eyebrows. This creates a third layer of complexity to international relations within Brics. Because of safety issues, Putin has pulled out from multiple summits. This includes, most prominently, the new one established in South Africa.
“The vacuums created by the US’s sudden retreat from multilateralism and global governance will not be automatically filled by others.” – Dr. Samir Puri
Brics leadership took extraordinary chances, but they doubled down. Lula da Silva, Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, Narendra Modi of India and Sergei Lavrov of Russia met to plan how they can increase cooperation between the world’s emerging economies.
Dr. Christopher Sabatini, writing in Americas Quarterly, warned that Brazil would struggle to impose its agenda on Brics. These challenges come from internal fractures as well as outside forces. On top of that, calls for reforming multilateral institutions—often an empty political placeholder—have become more popular.
“Unless there is a strong movement towards reform now, we run the risk of reaching a tipping point.” – Antonio Patriota
As these dynamics play out at this year’s summit, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Brics is at a crossroads. The group’s prospects for showing a united front against the West’s policies are difficultened by the diverging interests of its members.
Antonio Patriota further elaborated on this situation by stating, “It’s difficult to argue today that Europe converges with the US policy on trade or on security or on sustaining democracy.” This sentiment is indicative of a larger discontent with traditional Western governance frameworks. It calls on Brics to recalibrate its purpose to a new multipolar environment.
“There is strong support for preserving multilateralism, but that does not mean that we need to preserve it as it stands.” – Antonio Patriota