BRICS: Not Against Anything, But For Development, Fairness and Global South
/ Go to the mediabankXVII Summit BRICS
/ Go to the mediabank
In recent years, the BRICS has experienced rapid development, from accepting more members to including more countries as partners. The 17th BRICS Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from Sunday to Monday, resulting in a joint declaration signed by member countries. Entitled “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance,” the document seals the group’s commitment to strengthening multilateralism, defending international law and striving for a more equitable global order. In a recent interview with Global Times (GT) reporter Xia Wenxin, Igor Makarov (Makarov), an expert of the BRICS Expert Council-Russia and head of the School of World Economy, Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at HSE University in Russia, shared his views on the drive and significance of BRICS’ development, as well as new horizons for future cooperation within the group.GT: This year’s summit was the first since the decision to create the BRICS “partner country” category was approved during the 2024 BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia. As of now, nine nations have been announced as BRICS “partner countries.” What is the significance of establishing this category for BRICS cooperation?
Makarov: The introduction of a new category of partner countries is extremely important for BRICS development. It continues the logic of enlargement launched in 2023. BRICS is evolving from a club of the largest emerging economies to a platform representing the voice of the global majority. This represents a fundamental shift as it imposes new responsibilities on BRICS. Now, its focus is not only on discussing ways of intra-BRICS cooperation but also on developing new approaches to global governance that reflect the interests and priorities of the developing world. The category of partner countries, in fact, enables further enlargement (with larger legitimacy in BRICS’ representation of the global majority) without losing operational capability and without complicating consensus-based decision-making. 
EconomyUS Feels Threatened by BRICS: Here’s WhyYesterday, 16:35 GMT
GT: According to reports, over 30 nations have already expressed their interest in participating in BRICS, either as members or partners. In your opinion, what has made BRICS so appealing to countries around the world, especially those in the Global South, in recent years?
Makarov: There are two major reasons. The first is the rapid rise of the role of core BRICS countries in global affairs. Europe has now focused more on domestic issues and its participation in discussions of global problems has contracted dramatically. The US under the current administration is shifting toward larger isolationism. Moreover, it is becoming a destabilizer of the global agenda rather than a country ready to make its contribution to the global good. That’s why many countries want to be a part of BRICS.
Second, since its enlargement, BRICS has been universally recognized as the voice of the global majority, and most countries in the Global South understand this. They want, therefore, to be part of discussions within BRICS in order to ensure that the voice of “the Global South” includes their own perspectives.
GT: The US threatened in January to impose a 100 percent tariff on BRICS countries if they pursue creating a new currency. In your opinion, will this effort from the US halt BRICS’ de-dollarization ambitions?
Makarov: Repeated threats by the US to different countries and country groupings have led to a situation where many countries take them less and less seriously. However, some BRICS members still prefer to be more cautious in declaring their priorities and measures. Such threats to BRICS may make BRICS countries quieter in terms of discussions about de-dollarization (some countries prefer not even to use this term), but they are unlikely to undermine their ambitions.
The US threat to BRICS concerns the creation of a new currency. However, I think the creation of such a currency is very unlikely and is not even being discussed at a political level. What is much more probable is the expansion of payment in national currencies, as well as the creation of alternative payment systems that are much less dependent on the dollar. These may be based, for example, on central bank digital currencies. The role of the dollar in the global financial system would decrease not because it will be substituted by any other dominating currency, but because it will be less necessary as an intermediary in payments. 
WorldCooperation Within BRICS Has Never Been and Will Never Be Aimed at Third Countries – Kremlin Yesterday, 10:10 GMTGT: For a long time, some in the West have tended to portray BRICS as an “anti-West coalition.” What is your take on this?
Makarov: I don’t think that BRICS should consider itself as anti-something. For the last few years, the G7 has formed its agenda around opposing certain countries (Russia, China or Iran). Such an approach may temporarily increase consolidation within the group but is unlikely to enhance its attractiveness to outsiders. BRICS is not “against” anything; it is “for”: for the development, for a fairer world order, and for a larger role for the Global South. It concentrates on specific development problems, which makes BRICS very attractive to other developing countries.
GT: Earlier this year, you commented that BRICS countries could “create new international institutions in the areas where there are no organizations yet.” Could you elaborate on this? What areas do you believe BRICS should focus on to create an international institution?
WorldAuthority and Influence of BRICS in World is Growing Year by Year – Putin6 July, 15:01 GMT
Makarov: BRICS should not create alternatives to existing global institutions, such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization. Rather, it should concentrate on establishing institutions in the fields where there is a vacuum of governance at the international level. For instance, addressing natural and man-made disasters is an urgent problem that lacks a global institution to manage it. Another example is the creation of institutions focused on accumulating R&D and ensuring the transfer of vaccines. Additionally, research and expert agencies that could address issues such as energy transition and climate change are needed (now this field is dominated by Western-based International Energy Agency and OECD).
Even the existing BRICS institution – the New Development Bank – should not be considered an alternative to the World Bank. Instead, it should explore new forms of development finance that have not been fully implemented by the World Bank, such as financing in national currencies and currency swaps, political guarantees, joint credits with national development agencies and so on.This article was originally published by the Global Times.
