Brics Questions from IDSA

Given the different political systems, sizes of economy or stages of economic development, do the BRICS nations have any prospective areas of cooperation?

Within the BRICS, its constituent members collectively wish to gain a number of objectives at the broader global level, which they are unable to achieve at the individual level. For instance, one of the main objectives of the BRICS is to advance the “reform of international financial institutions, so as to reflect changes in the world economy.” In fact, BRICS has rapidly evolved into a multilateral grouping to exert pressure on the developed economies on issues of global governance, social justice, accountability and legitimacy. There is a greater call for “better representation of the Southern values and interests” on these issues. One of the main targets of the BRICS is to check the US and Western dominance in the global financial institutions, and to demand for better voting rights for the emerging economies in those institutions. There is also a determined attempt to take a strong position and stance on various sensitive global security and political issues.

Politically, BRICS members may find it hard to build consensus on certain issues, given their different political systems, distinct global objectives and social diversities. Yet, the previous BRICS summits, mainly the ones held at Sanya and New Delhi did indicate that the systemic differences or difference of opinion is not always a result of differences in perception on key global political and governance issues.

Issues like Iran, Syria and Libya are of immense strategic importance, and BRICS views them as matters of serious concern in global politics. The common BRICS perspective on Iran is an example of this. For instance, at New Delhi summit, BRICS made its stance clear that the US pressure should not be a factor in formulating their relationship with Iran. Within a broader spectrum, India’s perspective on Iran could be different from that of China and Russia, but their common stance on the Iranian nuclear crisis within the stratagem of the BRICS seems to indicate a change in global power politics. In short, BRICS is currently acting more as a “pressure group” in order to maximize the claim and share of the developing world. The very existence and the rapid rise of BRICS remains a constant reminder of the declining supremacy of the US, indicating that a power shift is underway currently at the broader global level.

What is the future of WTO & Bretton Woods Institutions in the light of the establishment of BRICS Bank & the emergence of multilateral agreements like TPP & RCEP?

The establishment of BRICS Development Bank is a progressive aspect of the world politics which indicate that the influence and economic clout of developing countries or emerging economies is on ascendancy. BRICS began with an economic mandate, advocating a transparent and an equitable global governance process in favour of the developing world, and to bring parity between the North and the South. In this context, BRICS Development Bank is an initiative to address the financial need and requirement of the developing world and pressurise the developed world to reform the Bretton Woods financial institutions. Therefore, sooner or later, the WTO and other Bretton Woods Institutions would have to be reformed to make them more equitable for both the developed and the developing world.

On the other hand, multilateral agreements like TPP and RCEP indicate that the regional and global economic multilateralism is on constant move. New ideas, concepts and multilateral trade agreements will be the driving force of regional and global trade liberalising process and politics. The economic influence of countries like China and India will increase where multilateral bodies like APEC and RCEP will be the central focus of these new agreements.

Is India thinking about creating a common IBSA bank, similar to the BRICS bank?

Strategic communities in India, Brazil and South Africa have started debating and discussing the possibility of creating a common bank for IBSA grouping. The idea is at a preliminary level and far from being actualised. Establishing a common IBSA Bank will not only require common understanding, but also proper political direction and consultation among the member countries. The launch of BRICS Development Bank is certainly a reference point in this context.

Given India’s economic and political weight, New Delhi must take a leading approach towards the creation of a common IBSA bank. However, it will not be easy to push this idea ahead given that the formation of a common bank will require stable funding resources, institutional mechanisms and trans-national cooperation among member countries. Besides, the BRICS Development Bank is still in an evolving stage and all the IBSA countries are members of BRICS. Both Brazil and South Africa may also find it difficult to contribute financially to IBSA bank since they have already agreed to contribute to the BRICS Development Bank.

Has IBSA become redundant now that South Africa has acceded to the BRICS group?

IBSA will continue to be relevant despite South Africa’s accession to the BRICS group. We must remember that the IBSA dialogue forum brings together three large democratic countries from different continents – Asia, Africa and South America. In comparison to BRICS, the IBSA has managed to develop a framework of multi-sectoral cooperation. Various working groups set up under the rubric of the IBSA dialogue forum has taken diverse initiatives towards South-South cooperation.

Further, IBSA countries have been successful in coordinating positions at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on issues of global concern. This was quite evident by the visit of IBSA representatives to Syria and the coordination of positions in this context by the three countries at the UNSC. In the case of BRICS, the fact that it is a more diverse grouping composed of democracies as well as autocracies with differing geopolitical interests, limits the possibilities of synchronizing positions.

What is the future of IBSA and RIC, considering these countries are also involved in BRICS?

The future of IBSA is certainly under test after the rapid emergence of BRICS. IBSA is more about ‘democratic’ societies and India would like to capitalize on IBSA. The Chinese have recently urged informally for a merger of IBSA with BRICS, therefore, it will remain a challenge for India and other countries on how to sustain the future of IBSA. On the other hand, RIC is a track of three countries- Russia, India and China – who are involved in BRICS alliance as well. RIC is now working more as a second fiddle to BRICS. Though the significance of RIC has eroded substantially given the rise and prominence of BRICS, still the three neighbouring countries- Russia, India and China- would like to continue and sustain the RIC framework to discuss greater regional issues which are outside the purview of BRICS.