Multilateral groupings have always had an enigmatic nature, experiencing periods of prosperity and decline. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and G-77 were once influential during the Cold War, but over time, their relevance diminished. However, these organizations still exist, albeit in a different capacity. Similarly, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summits ceased in 2014, yet the Secretariat remains active. In contrast, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) perseveres despite policy divergences on China and Myanmar, issuing lengthy communiqués.
However, one grouping that exemplifies this phenomenon is BRICS. Although it has achieved notable milestones, it has gradually lost its luster. The challenges posed by COVID-19, the Galwan clash between India and China, and the Ukraine conflict have led to heightened global economic stress, strained India-China relations, and weakened Russia’s position on the global stage. As a result, BRICS appears to have lost its momentum. Yet paradoxically, many nations still aspire to join this group, highlighting its enduring allure.
BRICS, initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and later joined by South Africa, emerged as a symbol of rising powers and a counterbalance to Western dominance. The group showcased impressive economic growth, increased trade among its members, and established institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB) to finance infrastructure projects. However, recent events have tested the cohesion and relevance of BRICS.
The COVID-19 pandemic inflicted severe economic damage worldwide, affecting all BRICS nations. The resulting economic downturns, coupled with geopolitical tensions, strained the unity within the group. The Galwan clash in 2020, where Indian and Chinese troops clashed in a border dispute, heightened tensions between two of the most prominent BRICS members. The incident negatively impacted trust and cooperation between India and China, casting a shadow over the future of BRICS.
Furthermore, the conflict in Ukraine strained Russia’s relations with the West, leading to economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Russia, once considered a major power within BRICS, faced internal challenges and a diminishing global influence. The combination of these factors further dampened the prospects of the group.
Despite these setbacks, the paradox of BRICS lies in the continued interest of other nations to join the grouping. Countries like Indonesia, Turkey, and Mexico have expressed their desire to become members, emphasizing the enduring appeal of BRICS as a platform for emerging economies. These countries recognize the potential benefits of aligning themselves with a group that represents a significant portion of the world’s population and GDP.
The continued existence of BRICS, despite its diminishing mojo, can be attributed to various factors. Firstly, the establishment of the NDB has provided a tangible platform for cooperation and development funding. Additionally, the shared commitment to multipolarity and reforming global governance structures remains a unifying force. The member states recognize the importance of maintaining a collective voice on global issues, even as their individual interests diverge.
Multilateral groupings often experience fluctuations in their relevance and influence. The cases of NAM, G-77, SAARC, and ASEAN demonstrate the complex dynamics at play in these organizations. BRICS, too, has faced significant challenges that have diminished its shine. However, the paradox of nations seeking admission to the group underscores its enduring allure. Despite the setbacks caused by recent global events, BRICS continues to navigate the changing geopolitical landscape, albeit with a reevaluation of its priorities and strategies.