In the recent 16th BRICS Summit held in Kazan, Russia, a joint declaration expressed concern, stating: “We express deep concern over the negative impact of illegal and unilateral coercive measures, including unlawful sanctions, on the global economy, international trade, and the attainment of sustainable development goals.”
This declaration unmistakably highlights the BRICS countries’ desire to create a global economic environment based on equality. The BRICS nations are striving to adopt a united stance for multilateral governance, with the goal of establishing a balanced world system that reflects the interests of emerging economies. The Kazan declaration proves that the BRICS nations are committed to confronting the challenges posed by unilateral sanctions and promoting cooperation among nations. During this BRICS summit, a meeting took place between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
This meeting is considered significant for the relations between the two countries. Meanwhile, amid U.S. sanctions due to the Ukraine war, Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed the message that Russia is not isolated in the world and that the U.S. will not succeed in its efforts to isolate or ruin the Russian economy. According to reports, Russia and China raised the issue of Pakistan’s inclusion in BRICS with India, though further details have yet to be disclosed. However, if conditions progress positively, India might be persuaded to allow Pakistan’s entry into BRICS. Notably, many specific demands from BRICS countries have indeed unsettled the West, which is accustomed to a governance style marked by dominance.
As more countries choose to conduct transactions in their own currencies, the U.S. is increasingly concerned that if the BRICS nations agree on a sovereign trade and transaction system, they will promote “de-dollarization,” thereby ending U.S. financial supremacy. In fact, “dollar dominance” is a trap through which the U.S. can monopolize the world’s wealth. If this trap is dismantled, the U.S. is bound to feel troubled. Chinese leaders, as significant figures in the BRICS mechanism, have frequently pointed out that “the world today is undergoing unprecedented changes this century, with notable shifts in the global pattern, international system, and the international balance of power, reshaping the global order.” This scenario is reminiscent of the notion, “For whom the bell tolls.”
China’s stance on the global pattern indeed causes discomfort to the West, which is a dominant force in the current unequal international system. Thus, opposition against the China-inclusive BRICS mechanism naturally continues to grow. The BRICS mechanism has now emerged as a platform for equal cooperation and shared development, precisely what these countries need most. Unsurprisingly, the list of countries lining up to join BRICS continues to grow.
During every BRICS summit, the West repeatedly echoes outdated tunes of “the decline of BRICS” and “the division of developing countries.” Western public opinion tends to exaggerate the so-called “internal conflicts” within the BRICS mechanism while misrepresenting the position and nature of BRICS, portraying it as a “geopolitical rival” of the G7, or even as a potential threat to global peace and stability. However, the reality is quite the opposite. Today, more countries are “knocking on BRICS’ door,” a clear testament to the strength and influence of the BRICS cooperation mechanism and a robust response to the West’s “decline” narrative.
Western media once mocked the BRICS mechanism as a “useless butterfly” fluttering in the corner of a Western-dominated global order, but the truth is that today, the “butterfly effect” is quietly reshaping the world.
From a butterfly fluttering in a corner to a major global force, BRICS is now more significant than ever. The West has never ceased to mock, question, or discredit the BRICS mechanism, even laying a substantial trap to obstruct its progress. The West perceives BRICS’ expansion and its demand for reforms in global governance systems as threats to Western supremacy, fearing these moves will weaken the West’s influence in global politics and economics. Nonetheless, BRICS’ call for democratic reforms in international governance has shaken Western powers, who, despite being architects of a dominant and authoritarian international governance system, claim to be champions of democracy.
Western politicians, media, and certain scholars attempt to discredit BRICS and draw comparisons with the G7, and even NATO, by suggesting that there are “military alliance tendencies” within the BRICS countries. However, BRICS has always functioned purely as a platform for multinational cooperation. Saying that the BRICS mechanism, with its “decentralized” nature, is not even an international organization but rather a voluntary cooperation platform among countries would not be wrong. BRICS has attracted many developing countries, and even Turkey, with its NATO background, has applied for membership, causing unease throughout the Western world. BRICS’ success highlights the significance of economic needs and the efforts to reshape old alliances for this purpose. Specifically, the priorities and policies of India, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are worth noting. These three countries are close allies of the U.S., which particularly relies on them to “contain” China economically and strategically. However, India’s interest and consistent participation in platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS is a recognition of the fact that cooperation and partnership with its neighboring countries in the region cannot be sacrificed for global alliances or U.S. interests.
The participation of major countries like China and India in this summit also demonstrates that despite political narratives, all nations value economic and regional cooperation. They recognize that building new alliances and working for economic goals are necessary to achieve these objectives. Cooperation with Russia and Iran could provide India and multiple other countries with affordable energy and transportation options, as both these countries are subject to severe U.S. sanctions, and hence view alternative economic and diplomatic groupings as essential for their interests. This Indian approach persists despite the fact that U.S. companies are investing heavily in India, India is a strategic partner of the U.S., and they share defense agreements. Meanwhile, the U.S. has persistently portrayed Russia as the greatest enemy of the civilized democratic world.
Following the start of the Ukraine war, instead of attempting to end the conflict, the U.S. prolonged it by providing extensive financial and military aid to Ukraine and helped successfully counter Russian advances. To punish Russia, the U.S. imposed stringent economic sanctions. Pakistan needs to learn that differences on particular issues should not be seen as complete confrontations between two nations.
Despite certain differences, countries must find areas to enhance cooperation in other sectors. However, Pakistan and India have turned mutual disagreements into hostility, adopting a policy of ignoring each other in sports, cultural fields, and other matters. In a rapidly changing world with new alliances emerging, this approach may not be beneficial. The example of friendships with both China and the U.S. is not akin to “having a foot in two boats,” but rather an opportunity to make both nations realize that Pakistan serves as a crucial connection between them. Our policymakers should be capable of crafting strategies and expressing this in appropriate diplomatic language.