Can't read it? Listen now!
The BRICS summit, held in the southern Russian city of Kazan, provided a platform for Russia and China to emphasize their opposition to Western hegemony. Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking before delegations from BRICS member states and other nations, championed cooperation among the “Global South” while promoting shared values and respect for national interests.
China’s President Xi Jinping echoed Putin’s sentiments, praising the enduring partnership between Russia and China. Both leaders positioned the BRICS group as a counterbalance to Western influence, with Xi emphasizing the need for countries not to yield to external pressure. These remarks underscored their shared goal of challenging the U.S.-led global order.
However, despite the strong anti-Western rhetoric from Russia and China, the BRICS bloc remains far from united in this approach.
Internal Divisions Within BRICS
The BRICS, originally founded in 2001 as a grouping of major non-Western economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), has grown in membership but continues to face internal challenges. These divisions stem from the differing political systems, economic interests, and foreign policy approaches of its members.
While Russia and China push for a more confrontational stance against the West, other BRICS members such as India and Brazil maintain a more cautious approach. Both countries are wary of transforming the bloc into an overtly anti-Western alliance. Instead, they emphasize the importance of international cooperation and prefer to avoid antagonizing Western powers, especially given their economic ties to countries like the United States.
Kanwal Sibal, former Indian foreign secretary, articulated India’s concerns, stating that while India remains committed to BRICS, it is reluctant to escalate tensions with the West. Instead, India and Brazil see BRICS as a platform for reforming global governance while avoiding direct confrontation with Western countries.
Challenges to BRICS Unity
The growing differences in the bloc’s approach to major global issues, such as the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, further complicate its cohesion. While Russia seeks to leverage the bloc to counter Western sanctions, other members are not aligned with this agenda. This divergence in strategic priorities could weaken the group’s influence and hinder its broader goals.
Analysts argue that Russia’s attempt to position BRICS as a rival to the West risks undermining the bloc’s stability. Some believe that Russia’s focus on grievances against Western powers, particularly in Africa and other developing regions, is valid but can be overplayed when Moscow presents itself as a viable alternative to the West.
Gustavo de Carvalho, an analyst with the South African Institute of International Affairs, cautioned that Russia’s narrative could backfire, as it sometimes stretches the reality of its capabilities as a global leader. Despite this, the summit has fostered greater cooperation in areas such as trade, diplomacy, and financial sovereignty among member states.
Future of BRICS and Global Governance
While the BRICS bloc may struggle to maintain unity on all fronts, the summit highlighted the potential for smaller groupings within multilateral organizations to drive meaningful change. Some analysts suggest that the BRICS could serve as a necessary corrective to an increasingly fragmented global order, though it is unlikely to replace institutions like the United Nations.
For Western powers, the growth of BRICS represents a signal to take the bloc’s grievances more seriously. Some commentators, like Sarang Shidore of the Quincy Institute, argue that the West should address these concerns through measures such as democratizing global institutions and improving support for developing countries. Others highlight the need for Western nations to engage more constructively with emerging economies.
Despite its internal tensions, the BRICS bloc continues to reflect the broader desire of many nations for a multipolar world. Whether the group can reconcile its differences and forge a more cohesive agenda remains to be seen.
