In 2001, Jim O’Neill famously coined the term BRIC, referring to the four largest emerging economies. Since its formal establishment in 2010, BRICS, now comprised of five member nations, has been a tantalizing prospect on the global economic stage, poised to potentially reshape the existing world order.
What sets BRICS apart is its inclination to challenge the dominant US-centric global order, which shows no signs of loosening its grip. Tensions between the US and its allies, on one side, and Russia and China, on the other, have flared in conflicts like Ukraine and Taiwan. In Brazil, the US made every effort to keep Jair Bolsonaro in power, but the people voted for change, bringing Lula, a symbol of the Pink Tide, back to leadership.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, holds a unique position in the BRICS alliance, as it is strategically leveraged by the US against both China and Russia. India has been vocal in supporting the QUAD’s anti-China stance but has been reticent in endorsing Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Despite these divisions within BRICS, the alliance has managed to make progress by welcoming six new members: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Argentina, the UAE, and Ethiopia. A mere year ago, the idea of Saudi Arabia and Iran sharing a platform would have seemed implausible, as would Egypt and the UAE distancing themselves from their long-standing US alliances to align with BRICS.
The collective GDP of BRICS nations surpassed that of the G7 in 2020 and is projected to account for 33 percent of global GDP by 2028, compared to the G7’s 27 percent. With the inclusion of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, OPEC countries may also join BRICS. If Iraq joins, eight of the world’s top ten oil producers will be BRICS members.
While Pakistan has yet to formally request membership, its alignment with China makes it a likely candidate in the near future. Additionally, Pakistan is among the Next Eleven (N-11), identified by Jim O’Neill in 2005 as rapidly growing nations with the potential to impact the global economy. N-11 countries, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, and Vietnam, are poised to make significant contributions to the global economy. However, political stability and external interventions can influence their progress, as seen in Pakistan’s case.
BRICS collectively encompasses 30 percent of the world’s land area and 42 percent of its population, endowing it with considerable global influence. This prompts the question of whether BRICS could establish a new world order that aligns with its interests.
Post-Cold War geopolitics have fostered division among states, emphasizing self-interest and unilateral globalization under US leadership. This approach thrives on power and seeks to subjugate others, discouraging neighborly cooperation and regional alliances.
This dominance seeks to maintain an inequitable status quo, with the richest 1 percent owning nearly half of the world’s wealth, while 85 percent of humanity lives on less than US$30 per day, and 10 percent on less than US$1.90 per day.
While China appears to be championing a Chinese-led world order and emphasizes the Global Civilization Initiative, focusing on mutual understanding and friendship among nations, questions arise about whether China genuinely intends to create people-centric global frameworks for security and development or if it’s a façade concealing the same lust for power and capital accumulation.
The crucial question is whether the new world order will prioritize wealth redistribution and global progress toward equality or simply shift capital from one coffer to another, perpetuating the loss of humanity’s well-being.
In the pursuit of progress and prosperity, the fortunate often trample the less fortunate in their relentless pursuit of selfish greed. The real challenge is whether we can embrace a pro-equality, pro-environment, pro-sharing ideology and challenge the capitalist impulses within us.
China and Brazil have made significant strides in socialist development, lifting millions out of poverty. However, the question remains whether they can apply these principles globally or if they will use them as moral slogans to attain superpower status.
It is both a moral duty for individuals and nations to assess their actions based on their impact on communities and the global community of nations. Life should not be purposeless, and humanity should not be destined for despair and suffering.
