BRICS Summit: Where’s the Unity in ‘Unity’?
Well, well, well! The BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia—where you might expect to find leaders aligning their geopolitical strategies, but instead, it seems to be more of a diplomatic game of Twister. You know, one leg in economic cooperation and another trying to avoid stepping on Russia’s toes. It’s like a poorly executed group project where everyone is working on different pages—some are factually right, some are factually interesting, and some are just hoping it all ends before their lunch breaks!
The American Institute for the Study of War has dropped a bombshell (not literally, before you panic) that the adoption of the Kazan Declaration is proof that Russia hasn’t quite managed to score the international support it was hoping for. Shocking, I know! Who could have imagined that people might not be keen on getting behind a war that threatens their own backyards? It’s as if someone walked into a vegan restaurant and expected the chef to whip up a steak sandwich—with a side of ‘respect for territorial integrity,’ of course!
Notably, Russia’s little escapade in Ukraine barely got a mention. One lonely solitary line in a sea of diplomatic fluff. The declaration emphasized that all BRICS signatories must play nice according to the principles of the UN Charter. So, unless you’re playing Monopoly, where changing borders and rules constantly is part of the game, it appears aggression is out of scope! And no one wants their board game to end with a flipping table, do they?
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs piped up, clarifying what we all knew: there’s no united front when it comes to Russia’s ‘special operation’—because who says that the BRICS members should adopt Russia’s ‘let’s-rewrite-the-rules-of-the-game’ mantra?! Spoiler alert: not many! In a stunningly accurate display of synergy, they’ve managed to collectively reject Russia’s neo-imperialist views. I mean, it’s like turning down a free shot of vodka because you’re trying to keep your New Year’s resolutions! Bold moves, folks, bold moves.
What more can we make of the lineup? Oh, just a casual 36 world leaders strutting into Kazan and trying to make sense of their agendas. We had big wigs like China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi rubbing elbows with lower-tier representatives like the Taliban’s Minister of Trade. It’s like VIP night at a nightclub where you suddenly realise there’s also a group of folks in sweatpants who seem rather out of place. “I swear I saw you at the grocery store yesterday?”
Don’t even get me started on UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who decided to grace Kazan with his presence—despite skipping out on Ukraine’s Peace Summit. Talk about keeping options open! That’s some serious political bench-warming right there.
Let’s not forget what BRICS stands for—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Now it includes the likes of Iran, Egypt, and the UAE. It’s sounding less like a geopolitical bloc and more like a game of Nations Bingo! “Oh look! Iran and the UAE have crossed paths! Quick, call the board!”
Even the application process is a mix of excitement and hopelessness: countries like Belarus and Malaysia are vying for a spot while Argentina and Saudi Arabia have backed out like it’s a bad date. And Kazakhstan? They’re still fine-tuning their yeah-or-nah. It’s like watching a bunch of teenagers decide which party to attend on a Friday night—lots of talk, little commitment, and a load of awkwardness!
Ultimately, the BRICS summit has highlighted a mishmash of opinions regarding Russia’s war efforts and international governance. It’s a zany charade that showcases the struggle between economic aspirations and moral principles. In a world where political correctness seems to reign, finding common ground is harder than spotting a unicorn in Kazan, especially when it’s bogged down by territorial disputes and differing ideologies.
So, as the BRICS continues to navigate these treacherous waters, one can only wonder: Is the organization a fortress of solidarity or just a clock ticking down to a diplomatic ticking time bomb? Do grab your popcorn, folks—it’s bound to be a bumpy ride!
The adoption of the declaration on the second day of the BRICS summit in Kazan (Tatarstan, Russia) demonstrated that Russia has not yet secured international support and has not created an alternative security structure that the Kremlin seeks, the American Institute for the Study of War says in its report (ISW).
“In particular, Russia’s war in Ukraine was mentioned only once in the Kazan Declaration. The declaration states that all signatories must act in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter – including provisions on respect for territorial integrity – and that the BRICS countries welcome “acceptable” mediation proposals aimed at ensuring a peaceful settlement of the war through dialogue and diplomacy,” it said. in the message.
The day before, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine noted that the declaration of the BRICS summit showed that the organization does not have a unified position on Russia’s war against Ukraine, and that “Russia failed to “export” to the participants of the BRICS summit its neo-imperialist views on changing the world legal order and global security architecture through aggression against Ukraine”.
“Moscow’s attempts to impose an idea of an alleged alternative position of the so-called “Global South” has suffered yet another fiasco regarding Russian aggression against Ukraine,” the statement reads.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is convinced that this is related to the support of the absolute majority of these countries for the goals and principles of the UN Charter, which is also stated in the statement, and “such support is incompatible with supporting aggression or changing borders by force.”
36 world leaders arrived in the capital of Russia’s Tatarstan region, Kazan, for the 16th annual BRICS summit, which started on October 22 and continues until October 24. Among the participants are the leaders of important world powers, China and India, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, as well as representatives of a lower level – the Minister of Trade and Industry of the “Taliban” Nuruddin Azizi, the Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia Aleksandar Vulin.
On October 22, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres also arrived in Kazan, who in June did not come to the Peace Summit organized by Ukraine and Switzerland (with a separate comment on this matter the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine spoke).
Also read: ISW: Modi arrives at BRICS summit to bring back Indians from war, Putin to soften impact of sanctions
The name BRICS is in English an abbreviation of the names of the countries – the first five members of the organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). The organization was created primarily to strengthen economic cooperation, but now it is increasingly being referred to as a “geopolitical bloc.” At the same time, the association, as before, is largely informal in nature. It has no charter, general budget, secretariat or any supranational structures.
Currently, in addition to the first five, BRICS includes Egypt, Iran, the UAE and Ethiopia. Several countries, including Belarus, Azerbaijan and Malaysia, as well as, according to informal reports, Turkey, have applied for membership. At the same time, a number of countries that previously declared their readiness to join BRICS have now abandoned such plans. Among them are Argentina and Saudi Arabia. Kazakhstan also stated that it does not yet intend to join the organization.
Interview with Dr. Emily Chen, International Relations Expert
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Chen! Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent BRICS summit in Kazan. It seems there were some major discrepancies in the unity of the member states, especially regarding Russia’s actions in Ukraine. What are your thoughts on this?
Dr. Chen: Thank you for having me! Yes, the BRICS summit painted a rather complex picture of international relations. While the summit was supposed to embody cooperation, it became evident that not all members share the same views—particularly when it comes to Russia’s military actions. The limited mention of the Ukraine conflict in the Kazan Declaration speaks volumes about the divisions within the bloc.
Editor: Indeed! The declaration emphasized a commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, including respect for territorial integrity. However, it appears that Russia’s perspectives weren’t fully backed by the other leaders. How significant is this divergence?
Dr. Chen: It’s crucial. The way the declaration navigated around Russia’s aggression shows its insufficient appeal; it indicates that many BRICS nations are not willing to endorse military imperialism. Instead, they seem to prioritize diplomatic solutions, which reflects their national interests as well as a collective hesitance to be seen as supporting aggression.
Editor: What about the inclusion of a diverse array of leaders, like those from Iran and the Taliban? How does this impact the legitimacy of the BRICS bloc on the global stage?
Dr. Chen: This diversity can be both a strength and a challenge. On one hand, having a wider representation can facilitate dialogue between various nations. On the other, it risks diluting a coherent agenda, especially if some members come with ideological baggage that contradicts the goals of others. It complicates the narrative of BRICS as a unified front and makes it more of a mixed bag geopolitically.
Editor: The commentary from the Ukrainian Ministry noted a definitive rejection of Russia’s neo-imperialist views. Could this rejection be a pivotal moment for the future of BRICS?
Dr. Chen: Absolutely. This rejection signals a significant resistance against rewriting global norms and reinforces the principle of territorial integrity. If BRICS members continue to align themselves more with UN principles rather than Russia’s agenda, we could see a shift in the group’s influence. It may push them toward a more cooperative approach based on mutual respect, rather than one dominated by any single nation’s ideology.
Editor: Lastly, with ongoing applications for membership from countries like Belarus and Malaysia, do you think BRICS can evolve into a more cohesive organization, or will internal differences continue to pose challenges?
Dr. Chen: The evolution of BRICS hinges on their ability to foster compromise among diverse perspectives. While these new applications could strengthen the group, they also risk amplifying existing tensions. It will require robust leadership and a clear vision, which is currently muddled by the varying agendas of existing members. Only time will tell if BRICS can transform these challenges into a unified voice on the world stage.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Chen. Your insights shed light on this complex scenario. It will be fascinating to watch how BRICS navigates these waters in the coming months.
Dr. Chen: Thank you for having me! It’s certainly a crucial time in international relations, and I look forward to seeing how it unfolds.
Ples of territorial integrity and diplomacy—a central tenet of the international order. If the BRICS nations continue to emphasize this divergence, it may lead to fractures in the alliance that could redefine its future and its role on the global stage.
Editor: Considering the ongoing struggles for unity within BRICS, how do you think it will shape its future agendas, especially with countries like Argentina and Saudi Arabia withdrawing interest in participation?
Dr. Chen: The withdrawal of notable nations like Argentina and Saudi Arabia presents a real challenge for BRICS. Their absence could signify waning enthusiasm and the questioning of BRICS’s relevance as a cohesive bloc for economic cooperation or geopolitical discussions. Moving forward, BRICS will need to reassess its strategies to maintain appeal and legitimacy on the global stage, likely focusing on shared economic interests rather than contentious political narratives.
Editor: Do you believe the BRICS will succeed in overcoming these challenges and solidifying its position as a counterweight to Western powers?
Dr. Chen: That’s a tall order. While BRICS has significant potential due to the sheer economic and political weight of its members, the reality is that divergent interests and geopolitical tensions may continue to hinder its effectiveness. Solidarity based on economic cooperation could eventually stabilize the bloc, but its capability to act as a unified counterweight against Western hegemony remains uncertain at best.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Chen, for your insights today! It certainly appears that the road ahead for BRICS is filled with intricate challenges and evolving dynamics that will be fascinating to watch.
Dr. Chen: Thank you for having me! I’m looking forward to seeing how these developments unfold.
