At their most recent meeting in South Africa, the countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – committed themselves to an expansion. They announced that a diverse group of countries composed of Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been invited to join as new members. Notably, three of these countries are energy-rich Middle Eastern states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE). They are energy-rich in the traditional, hydrocarbon sense, but at least Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also trying to build out their sustainable energy capacities and modernize their energy infrastructure. In the meantime, they aim to sell as much gas and oil as possible. In that sense, this enlargement is certainly a strengthening of the BRICS – at least as long as oil and gas play an important role in the world’s energy supply. Nonetheless, the BRICS states have underlined their commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals and active climate policies. In order to achieve these goals, they will require the sustained support and cooperation of the West.
For many commentators, the announced expansion of the BRICS has been interpreted as a major challenge to the West. From its very beginnings, the founders of the BRICS sought to reduce or eliminate the disproportionate influence of the West – especially the US – in an increasingly globalized world. International financial institutions were and remain a special target of these efforts. However, the bloc has not accomplished altogether that much so far. Still, the reluctance of European countries and the US to make way for representatives of the Global South and China in particular has been an affront to these countries. China has been especially active in expanding its global reach through its Belt and Road Initiative and its many investments in Africa. It is true that the balance in international relations and multilateral institutions has been lopsided for a long time. The post-war global order must be updated, and – given the reluctance of the West to make changes in a timely manner – the countries of the Global South have grown impatient and begun to put pressure on the West.
However, there is no clear unified program among the BRICS countries. Its five current members are very diverse in their structures and policies. The main question is to what degree a new expanded BRICS bloc – if it comes to fruition – would pose a challenge to multilateralism. The division of the world into new blocs could be a danger for multilateral organizations such as the UN, especially if the BRICS countries support authoritarian forms of governance – either nationally or internationally. Even India – the world’s largest democracy by population – is increasingly governed in an authoritarian manner, especially in the government’s treatment of the country’s sizable Muslim minority.
It is interesting that China and India – countries that are both conducting campaigns of discrimination against their Muslim populations – have accepted three Muslim-majority countries to join the BRICS. However, none of these countries are inclined to criticize China or India. All three have developed transactional foreign policies, and neither religion nor ideology dominate or even influence their national interests. Religion and ideology are instrumentalized to control their domestic populations – or at least some minorities – but are largely irrelevant in their foreign relations.
Without overemphasizing or exaggerating their moral dimensions, one can at least say that Western foreign policies do not separate or strongly differentiate between human rights and democratic values on the one side and national interests on the other. In particular, pro-democracy and human rights groups in Western countries scrutinize the foreign policies of their countries and thereby indirectly influence them. To repeat, the foreign policies of Western countries are far from being guided by moral principles, but they are frequently challenged by domestic audiences in regards to their contribution to human rights and democracy.
The trend toward transactional foreign policies that neglect moral, ideological, or religious considerations limit the West’s potential for coalition building. The cases of India and Saudi Arabia in particular clearly show these limitations. US President Joe Biden has been forced to change his attitude towards the Saudi government, and the US government has repeatedly had to adapt its critical positions towards India in the case of its nuclear armament and undermining of democratic principles. The US views strong alliances against China as its most important strategic goal in Asia. As a result, it will continue to criticize China for its human rights policy while remaining muted about human rights in India. Human rights do play a role in Western foreign policies, but they can also be overshadowed by political interests.
The West still has some advantages, for example in the fields of economics and technology. The economic gap between some of the BRICS countries, especially China, and Western economies is shrinking, but the West still has many advantages in research and technology. It could offer cooperation on technology and research sharing with the Global South, especially concerning green technologies. In addition, the exchange of students could serve as an important contribution to a stronger alliance between Western countries and the Global South. However, it is obvious that the official aims of the BRICS countries cannot be implemented without the support of the West.
The Global South in general and the BRICS countries in particular will continue to shift the global power balance to their advantage. This will concern many aspects of political, economic, and cultural life. Even football is part of that rebalancing, as can be seen with the efforts of Saudi Arabia to recruit the best players worldwide. Saudi Arabia seeks to challenge Europe’s dominance of the Champions League – or possibly even destroy it – and they are willing to spend a lot of money to do so. Thus, the West and the EU in particular must come to terms with the new realities of a multipolar world.
There is no single strategy to prevent that rebalancing, and prevention would be the wrong approach anyways. A pragmatic policy of forming different global alliances to address the most critical global challenges – from poverty to climate change – is the only constructive way to remain an important global player. Indeed, the West should take on the role as the fiercest advocate for multilateralism. Even if right-wing parties within the West plead for nationalism, such a position is the least effective way to combat or slow down the rebalancing of international relations. The best strategy is to pursue a rebalancing within existing multilateral organizations and agreements.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 and then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.