When Jim O’Neill, an economist at Goldman Sachs, coined “BRIC,” the acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China, in 2001, it was just a financial speculation tool. The BRIC fund ended up losing 90% of its share capital in 2015, and South Africa was not included in the fund. It is worth noting that compared to the above “BRICS 1.0,” the Iraq War in 2004-2005 and the global financial tsunami of 2008 have given rise to the current “BRICS 2.0,” which has begun to politicize itself rather than as a financial goal.
At the initiative of Russia, the first BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting was held in 2006 at the margins of the United Nations General Assembly between Russia, China, India and Brazil. Then, against the backdrop of the financial tsunami that swept across the world, the four countries held their first BRICS Summit in 2009. With South Africa formally admitted to join in 2011(a major difference from the 1.0,) the platform now spans across Asia (China and India), the Americas (Brazil), Africa (South Africa) and half of Europe (Russia), and has a certain degree of global representation.
While the “Post-American World” was first mentioned by Fareed Zakaria in 2008, the so-called “Post-American” actually means the transformation of the “US unipolar hegemony” to the “US-centered collective leadership” as revealed by the G7 in the 1970s. It was undoubtedly the first version introduced by the Washington, D.C. In any case, the direct impact of the 2008 financial tsunami has shaken the US’ desire to confine the collective leadership to a small circle of the “West.” The succeeding G-20 for greater heterogeneity and the addition of Southern countries, are not only an “expanded” version of such collective leadership, but also point to a second path of structural transformation, which suggests the integration of the Global North and the Global South.
Nonetheless, the new unilateralism brought about by Donald Trump in 2017 and the full-scale trade war against China from 2018 onwards, not only fully demonstrate that the US has no intention of relinquishing its leadership, but also imply the limitations of the aforementioned second path of convergence. The BRICS summit offers a potential alternative at this point in time.
2023 marks the 15th BRICS Summit, and this platform has established the BRICS Business Council and Think Tank Council with the Durban Declaration in 2013, the New Development Bank with the Fortaleza Declaration in 2014, and the mechanism for the meeting of the UN representatives of the five countries after the Xiamen Summit in 2017. With a total population of 3.24 billion and a GDP of US$26 trillion (which rose from 17% of the global share in 2008 to 26% in 2022), the influence of the five countries are not be underestimated. However, the Summit is still a “platform” rather than an “organization,” and the key lies in having a clear common goal and a wider membership base. Accordingly, the 2023 summit may suggest a possible shift towards “BRICS 3.0.” Although there is no (and for the time being unlikely to be) clear consensus, the issues of a “common currency for the group” (hinting at a move away from the US dollar) and the alleged interest of 20-40 countries in joining the group are indicative of the platform in heading towards the “institutionalization of an organization.” More importantly, whatever the outcome of the future expansion, it is unlikely that the new members will include “Western countries.”
In fact, since Carl Oglesby first used the term “Global South” in 1969, the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Iraq War in 2003, which triggered a new global anti-war movement, and even the financial tsunami of 2008 and the post-2017 Trump “America First” have all made “Global South” increasingly popular. For example, from the Voice of the Global South Summit held by India in January 2023, to the Munich Security Conference in March, the G7 Summit in May, and the recent peace talks on Ukraine, the term “Global South” has appeared frequently, and everyone is vying to become its spokesperson. It is important to note that although Western countries (including Japan) have also joined the race, apparently “de-westernization” (or de-US) is an underlying consensus among the “South” in light of its long-standing resistance to the “North,” which gives the BRICS Summit a relative advantage in its bid to become the spokesperson for the “Global South.”
By all means, “BRICS 3.0” has not yet reached its starting point, and it is unclear whether it would become a “post-US 3.0,” but it is absolutely imperative to observe and keep track of the relevant developments.
(Tsai Tung-chieh, Distinguished Professor at NCHU Graduate Institute of International Politics)
(Translated to English by Chen Cheng-Yi)
