What’s Driving a Bigger BRICS and What Does it Mean for the U.S.?

What’s behind so many countries’ interest in joining BRICS?

Gallagher: Over 30 countries have either formally applied or expressed interest in joining BRICS. These include Southeast Asian states Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam; NATO member Turkey; major oil and gas producers like Algeria; the world’s biggest Muslim country, Indonesia; Nigeria, which has the largest population in Africa; and the world’s eighth most populous country, Bangladesh.

There are clear economic benefits to joining this burgeoning group of emerging economies. The 10 countries that now make up BRICS represent 45 percent of the world’s population, 28 percent of the world’s economic output and 47 percent of global crude oil.

Intra-BRICS trade is one area that the group has found its footing. A joint statement coming out of the June 2024 BRICS foreign minister’s meeting encouraged “enhanced use of local currencies in trade and financial transactions” among BRICS members. This was a trend that was already on the upswing between 2017-2022, with a 56 percent increase in intra-BRICS trade in that timeframe. Western sanctions on Russia led to a further surge.

“Trade in goods among BRICS economies has considerably outpaced trade between the BRICS and G7 nations, leading to greater intra-BRICS trade intensity,” notes a report from the Boston Consulting Group. Those interested in joining BRICS believe membership will lead to increased trade and investment.

Western sanctions and the U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency are also part of the story. The dollar’s dominance as a reserve currency and in trade for commodities like oil gives Washington immense influence over the global financial system. Countries impacted by U.S. sanctions and export controls — like BRICS leaders Russia and China, new members like Iran and wannabes like Venezuela — want to weaken the dollar’s power in order to evade sanctions and tamp down U.S. influence.

Unsurprisingly, China has been at the forefront of this de-dollarization effort. China’s renminbi has overtaken the U.S. dollar as the primary currency for Chinese-Russian trade and Beijing is coordinating with several major Middle East oil producers to ramp up the use of yuan to settle oil transactions. Using local currencies for intra-BRICS trade, however, is often viewed as an interim step to a loftier goal: a common BRICS currency. For now, most analysts see this effort as either unfeasible or a distant prospect. At this year’s summit, Russia is expected to propose new measures for an “alternative payment system” that would further sidestep the U.S. dollar.

For China and Russia, attenuating U.S. influence over the global financial system is part and parcel with building an alternative to the broader U.S.-led international order. It’s no surprise that U.S. adversaries like Russia and China want an alternative international system.

But many Global South countries also believe the current order disadvantages their interests and privileges wealthy Western countries’. They saw inequities in the COVID response, and believed rich countries hoarded lifesaving vaccines. Global South countries have also accused the U.S. of hypocrisy over its positions on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and suggest that the West only applies international law and norms when it suites their interests, rendering the need for what they perceive as a more fair international order.

While dissatisfaction with the current international order is the dominant narrative surrounding BRICS expansion, there are other prospective members, like Malaysia, and current members, like India, that want to maintain balanced relations across the globe and are looking to cement their strategic autonomy. For these countries, it’s not about taking sides. Some countries also believe BRICS membership will give them a greater voice and representation in international politics. It’s not all about anti-Western ideology.

How is BRICS intersecting with global trends?

Cheatham: The BRICS summit comes at a pivotal moment as the United States sees its decades-long dominating share of global leadership on the decline. The world is experiencing a significant paradigm shift in the distribution of global power, which will have extensive consequences for international peace and security.

Amid Russian revanchism and a rising China, terms like “great power competition” or “the new Cold War” are often used to describe the current global dynamic. Yet, this framing is increasingly inadequate. The rise of middle powers is reshaping global politics. We are witnessing not just the rise of a few challengers to the U.S. and its Western allies, but a broader “rise of the rest.”

Multipolarity is the first trend that must be considered when thinking about BRICS’ growing relevance. From the perspective of leaders across the Global South, multipolarity offers the most secure means of limiting hegemony, which, if unchecked, poses a threat to their vision for international norms and global security. In this multipolar world, the majority of states will work to encourage fluid alignments and discrete partnerships to help ensure power remains diffuse. For now, this trend signals a period of upheaval in the current world order, with uncertain outcomes as to how the balance of power will ultimately settle.

A stable and peaceful multipolar world will require a functioning multilateral system that is fit to tackle the unique challenges of the 21st century. Unfortunately, we are seeing another trend of an increasingly dysfunctional and inept multilateral institutions, centered around the United Nations system. The U.N. Security Council, a relic of the post-World War II power structure, no longer reflects contemporary global dynamics. Calls for reform, while progressing, go largely unheeded as the great powers cling to their vetoes.

Meanwhile, peacekeeping missions are underfunded and politically stalled, leaving conflict-affected countries mired in violence, lawlessness and human suffering. The international development system is similarly broken, with many countries trapped in debt crises and unable to leap into the digital and green economies. Peacemaking and U.N. mediation efforts have also floundered, with protracted conflicts persisting. Accountability for war crimes has similarly eroded since the lofty visions of the 1990s and the creation of International Criminal Court in 2002. Humanitarian systems are overwhelmed and underfunded, as aid workers face increasing violence and insecurity.

Finally, the rise of authoritarianism and the resurgence of “civilization states” — which prioritize civilizational identity over Western political norms, favoring sovereignty and cultural continuity over international rules — reflect a global shift toward centralized governance that undermines adherence to Western notions of the rule of law.

Much has been written of the democracies in decline and the rise of authoritarianism. The World Justice Project’s 2023 Rule of Law Index shows that more than 6 billion people live in countries where the rule of law is declining. However, this data should be considered alongside the rise of civilization states like China.

Other BRICS countries like Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran embody the concept of civilization states by emphasizing cultural and historical legacies over modern political models. One constant throughout the history of ancient civilizations was the dominance of rulers over subjugated populations, with little regard for the rule of law as we understand it today. At the “international” level, civilizations like this harken back to an era when territorial conquest was the norm. Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine is a stark reminder of this.

The resurgence of civilization states and authoritarianism contributes to a further breakdown in the rule of law at both national and international levels, where norms that should transcend individual leaders are increasingly eroded. This revival should be particularly alarming, as it signals not only a retreat from democratic values but also a weakening of global legal structures that maintain peace and accountability.

The trends discussed in this year’s BRICS meeting highlight a world grappling with the rise of multipolarity, declining multilateral institutions and the growing dominance of authoritarian civilization states, signaling a profound shift away from the democratic and legal norms that have long underpinned the international order.

What does this mean for the U.S.?

Gallagher: Washington should take these trends and developments seriously, but without alarmism. An expanded BRICS could be a more formidable player on the international scene — or it could paralyze the group’s decision making, as more countries with their own interests push their own agendas. While de-dollarization would reduce U.S. influence, a BRICS currency or any other alternative is unlikely to emerge anytime soon, even as trends point to diminishing reliance on the dollar.

A new multipolar era requires a revamped multilateral system to tackle today’s thorniest challenges, from war and climate change to pandemics and disruptive technologies like AI.

There is widespread agreement that such reform is needed. At this year’s U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. expressed its support for Security Council reform, including the addition of two permanent seats for African countries. Taking seriously Global South countries’ concerns over their lack of voice and representation at the head of the international table is a good start.

source : usip