Key Takeaways

Ambitious Expansion and Global Influence: The 2024 BRICS Summit underscores the bloc’s ambition to challenge the Western-led global system by advocating a more equitable and multipolar world order. The inclusion of 13 new partner countries, with Iran, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt becoming full members, underlines BRICS’ strategy to expand its geopolitical influence among emerging economies.

Evolving Agenda Beyond Economics: BRICS has evolved from an economic forum to a comprehensive platform addressing political, security and cultural issues. The Kazan Summit reflected this shift, emphasising reforms in global governance and economic independence from Western economic system, despite the challenges of implementing ambitious initiatives such as de-dollarisation and a BRICS Pay system.

Internal Tensions and Cohesion Challenges: Diverging interests among members, particularly between China, Russia, and India, complicate the formation of a unified strategy. The bloc’s consensus-driven model, while accommodating diversity, risks weakening its coherence, especially as new members with different geopolitical priorities are integrated.

Risks of Fragmentation Amid Expansion: The Kazan Summit highlighted both the opportunities and vulnerabilities of BRICS’ expansion. The bloc’s diversity, while a source of strength, may become a liability if internal divisions grow. BRICS’ future as a credible alternative to Western institutions will depend on its ability to manage these differences and effectively implement its goals.

Introduction

The 16th BRICS Summit, held in Kazan, Russia, from 22 to 24 October 2024, demonstrated the bloc’s aspiration to restructure the global order in the context of prevailing geopolitical uncertainties. The theme of the summit, “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” provided an opportunity for leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and new partner nations to present BRICS as an alternative to Western-led institutions. Nevertheless, despite the prevailing discourse of unity, the summit revealed the existence of underlying tensions and divergent national interests.

In the past decade, the BRICS forum has evolved from an economic to a multifaceted platform addressing political, security, and cultural issues. This shift was evident at the summit in Kazan, where discussions were held on matters beyond economic strategies, including reforms in global governance and the pursuit of greater geopolitical influence. Nevertheless, the emphasis on reducing Western financial dominance and advocating for a multipolar order gives rise to questions regarding the capacity of BRICS to maintain cohesion in the context of internal divisions.

The Kazan Summit resulted in the adoption of the Kazan Declaration, the introduction of new economic measures that challenge the dominance of the US dollar, and the inclusion of 13 new partner nations. Crucially, four new full members—Iran, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt—joined BRICS, reflecting the bloc’s strategy to further broaden its geopolitical reach. While these developments demonstrate the ambitions of BRICS, they also highlight potential vulnerabilities. This analysis will examine whether BRICS can maintain unity in the face of internal contradictions, arguing that its capacity to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world remains uncertain.

Historical Context of BRICS and Recent Developments

The BRICS coalition, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, originated as a collective of nascent economies seeking to challenge the prevailing Western-led global financial order. The concept was first articulated in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, an economist who identified these nations as future economic powerhouses. The initial focus on economic cooperation has given way to a significantly evolved BRICS, reflecting the shifting global dynamics and the bloc’s growing ambitions.

The inaugural formal BRIC summit was held in 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. In 2010, South Africa was incorporated into the group, which subsequently became BRICS and expanded both its geographic and political scope. While the initial focus remained on economic growth and development, the 2010s marked a turning point as the BRICS agenda expanded to encompass security, energy, infrastructure, and the digital economy. This shift indicates an increased political influence.

In recent years, BRICS has sought to establish itself as a counterbalance to Western-led entities such as the G7 and the IMF. The establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), together with calls for global financial reforms, demonstrate the pursuit of a more equitable and multipolar international order. This initiative was further emphasised in the 2023 Johannesburg II Declaration, in which leaders advocated for reforms to governance systems that are perceived to be biased towards Western interests.

The 2024 Kazan Summit represented a pivotal moment for BRICS, building upon the momentum generated in 2023 when six new countries were invited as full members. The summit’s agenda extended beyond economic issues to encompass political and security matters, reflecting BRICS’ aspirations to exert comprehensive influence over global governance. However, as the scope of the bloc expanded, a number of internal challenges emerged. The divergence of political and economic interests, particularly between China and India, Russia’s Western tensions, and South Africa’s domestic complexities, render consensus-based decision-making more challenging and give rise to concerns about internal fragmentation.

The inclusion of 13 new partner nations at the Kazan Summit, alongside the addition of four new full members, largely from the Global South, indicates that BRICS is pursuing an expansionary strategy that prioritises horizontal growth over deepening internal integration. While this strategy aims to create a broad coalition of emerging economies, there is a risk that it will result in a lack of coherence, which has been a defining feature of the bloc in its earlier years. These dynamics illustrate the evolving role of BRICS in global politics and the challenges it faces in maintaining unity as it seeks to enhance its influence in a context of significant global change.

Major Outcomes of the Kazan Summit

The 2024 BRICS Summit in Kazan yielded several pivotal outcomes that reflect the bloc’s aspirations, yet also illuminated underlying challenges. The summit’s outcomes are focused on three main areas: economic initiatives, political and security cooperation, and cultural exchanges. These outcomes are poised to shape the trajectory of BRICS in a multipolar world.

The adoption of the Kazan Declaration constituted a significant accomplishment, underscoring BRICS’ dedication to multilateralism and an enhanced global order that is more inclusive in nature. It called for reforms to global governance structures, particularly the United Nations Security Council, with the objective of ensuring a more representative composition of the Council that better reflects the interests of the Global South. Furthermore, the Declaration called for the establishment of a more equitable economic system that would better serve the developmental needs of emerging economies.

However, the Declaration’s expansive wording concealed internal disagreements. The call for a “more representative and fairer international order” was interpreted by some as a veiled criticism of Western dominance. However, the document lacked detailed strategies to achieve these goals. This cautious ambiguity seems to be an attempt to avoid alienating Western powers while still indicating the desire of BRICS for greater influence.

Initiatives of an economic nature: The summit saw the presentation of a series of ambitious economic initiatives, the overarching objective of which was to reduce reliance on Western financial systems and enhance the autonomy of the BRICS. A notable development was the proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin for the establishment of a BRICS-based grain exchange. The objective of the exchange is to establish fair pricing for commodities, enhance food security and challenge the dominance of Western-controlled agricultural markets.

A significant point of interest was the potential introduction of the BRICS Pay system, which is a blockchain-based network designed to facilitate cross-border transactions using national currencies in lieu of the US dollar. The Chinese President, Xi Jinping, has indicated his support for a reformed financial architecture, which would represent a significant shift away from the current platforms, such as SWIFT, that are in use. However, the implementation of these initiatives is beset with technical, political and logistical challenges, which render their success uncertain.

These economic measures are consistent with the broader strategy of de-dollarisation pursued by BRICS, which aims to reduce the dominance of the US dollar in global finance. However, there is considerable variation in the priorities of individual members. For instance, India has maintained robust economic relations with the West and may be reluctant to fully endorse measures that could potentially disrupt its financial interests. This divergence gives rise to questions regarding the capacity of BRICS to present a unified economic strategy.

The Kazan Summit also addressed political and security issues, with a particular focus on regional stability and the pursuit of a multipolar global order. The meeting served to emphasise the strategic partnership between Russia and China, which was presented as a model of cooperation that exists outside of Western influence.

Nevertheless, the bloc continues to be characterised by internal contradictions. While Russia and China frequently demonstrate alignment in their opposition to Western hegemony, India’s position remains one of greater caution. The summit highlighted the challenge India faces in balancing its desire to deepen ties with BRICS with the need to maintain strategic partnerships with the West. The cautious approach adopted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was reflected in the language of the Kazan Declaration, which avoided directly addressing contentious issues such as the Ukraine conflict, which has proven to be a point of division among BRICS members.

Expansion of BRICS and Implications

A significant topic of discussion at the 2024 summit was the expansion of BRICS, which saw the formal addition of 13 new partner nations, including Algeria, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Turkiye. This horizontal expansion aims to broaden BRICS’ influence and engage a wider segment of the Global South, thereby reinforcing its identity as a champion of emerging economies. However, the inclusion of nations with differing geopolitical interests presents new challenges. The criteria for full membership remain unclear, and it is uncertain how these new partners will align with BRICS’ objectives. The Kazan Summit thus demonstrated both the potential and vulnerabilities of BRICS as it seeks to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world.

The incorporation of countries such as Algeria, Turkiye, and Malaysia is designed to enhance the representation of developing nations. However, the political and economic differences among these new partners – many of whom have unique regional priorities – risk complicating the strategic direction of BRICS. To illustrate the challenges of BRICS’ broader coalition, one might cite the potential for Turkiye’s NATO ties and Iran-Saudi tensions to impede consensus on key issues.

The summit highlighted the necessity for partners to align themselves with the fundamental principles and values espoused by BRICS. However, the specific criteria that must be met in order to achieve this alignment remain vague. This lack of clarity could result in the politicisation of future membership decisions and the erosion of internal cohesion. The economic disparities between members, from high-income nations like the UAE to lower-income countries like Ethiopia, illustrate the tension between inclusivity and effectiveness.

The objective of BRICS’ expansion is to challenge the dominance of Western powers by creating alternatives to existing institutions such as the G7 and the IMF. However, the internal diversity of BRICS presents a challenge to the presentation of a unified front on global issues, which may limit the role of the bloc as a cohesive geopolitical force. The strategy adopted by the bloc may provoke a negative reaction from Western countries, which could result in further geopolitical polarisation.

As BRICS expands, the challenge of maintaining consensus intensifies, with discernible fissures emerging in economic and foreign policy approaches. China and Russia are proponents of enhanced integration, whereas India and South Africa adopt a more circumspect approach, striving to maintain equilibrium in their relations with both BRICS and the West. The existence of these divergent interests gives rise to doubts as to whether the bloc will be able to evolve into a cohesive and influential actor on the global stage.

Conclusion: Strategic Partnerships and the Future of BRICS

The 2024 Kazan Summit served to underscore the aspirations of the BRICS group to assume a prominent role in a world characterised by multiple centres of power. Nevertheless, the fulfilment of this aspiration necessitates the bloc to negotiate intricate internal and external dynamics, harmonising disparate interests while pursuing a unified strategy.

The efforts of BRICS to reinforce the partnerships within the bloc, particularly between China and Russia, illustrate a resolve to counterbalance Western influence. However, the disparate priorities of members such as India, which seeks a balanced approach between BRICS and Western alliances, present a significant obstacle to deeper integration. Similarly, South Africa’s moderate stance reflects the broader challenge of unifying a diverse coalition.

The incorporation of 13 new partner nations, many of which are located in the Global South, is intended to enhance the influence of BRICS. Nevertheless, geopolitical rivalries, such as those between Iran and Saudi Arabia, present obstacles to unity and risk the fragmentation of the bloc. The absence of robust mechanisms to ensure compliance with agreements and the bloc’s inclination towards consensus-based decision-making contribute to the challenges faced in maintaining cohesion.

The future credibility of BRICS as an alternative to Western institutions is contingent upon its capacity to reconcile internal contradictions, deliver tangible benefits, and translate its broad ambitions into concrete actions. While the Kazan Summit demonstrated the potential of BRICS, it also revealed the constraints of a coalition that espouses both diversity and unity. It remains unclear whether BRICS can evolve from a coalition of convenience into a transformative force. However, the bloc’s efforts to shape a more equitable global order are significant in an increasingly polarised world.