This week’s BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, caused a stir, which is understandable. It was a major event in terms of both representation and concept. Everyone is free to evaluate it in their own way, but it cannot be dismissed an unimportant.
If we turn away from the ceremonial and social part of the event, we should distinguish two aspects of the international assembly, which are related but don’t coincide.
The first is meaningful measures agreed, or shall we say: concrete results, in the here and now. Here, a discerning commentator will notice that there are more declarations than practical plans. Ambitious areas of action have been declared, but only as tasks. There is a basic consensus on the issues discussed (an achievement in itself, given the very diversity of participants and guests), but in some places it’s very streamlined. Finally, contrary to talk of BRICS ushering in a fundamentally new world order, the final declaration devotes considerable space to supporting the more effective functioning of existing institutions, from the UN Security Council to the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization.
The second is long-term. In this respect, the Kazan forum may be seen as a milestone. BRICS has reached a new level, where a prestigious but rather amorphous club has now become a significant meeting place. It is necessary to be at the table because, firstly, important things are being discussed there and, secondly, a key global trend is taking shape. Namely, an alternative space to the one organized around the institutions (and interests) of the West. In a sense, the main function of BRICS is its status as an anti-monopoly group, ensuring competition by restricting the monopolist, in this case on a global scale.
The fight against cartels is never easy, in any context. It’s a long process, but it has begun and it’s actually developing faster than might have been expected. The conditions have been in place for some time. So, the main thing about BRICS, no matter how many problems and oddities arise in and around this community, is that it corresponds to the rationale of the development of the global system.
The importance of progress along all these lines varies for different members of the association; for some it is a priority, for others it’s more like “why not?” But this difference of opinion does not change the direction of travel.