As the BRICS Kazan summit draws closer, Malaysia and Azerbaijan have formally applied to join the group. Their application, presented even after host country Russia declared a halt to membership expansion, shows the BRICS mechanism’s appeal.
Meanwhile, with more than 30 countries lining up for membership, there have been plenty of discussions about whether BRICS should continue expanding and why it has suspended expansion. The United States is more interested in whether Russia’s proposed “BRICS partners” structure would be another form of membership expansion, and whether such anti-U.S. countries as Venezuela and Cuba may become the first partners.
Discussions about whether or not BRICS should expand have been around since the group formed 18 years ago. There are two main ideas:
One insists on preserving the original scale because a small size is conducive to policy adjustments. Those holding this view believe that expansion may sink BRICS into inefficiency. Many members would mean less consensus; or too many ideas would be difficult to implement. So they advocate that BRICS should follow the G7 example and refrain from expansion as much as possible.
The other idea assumes that BRICS should pursue larger scale, believing that a bigger ship would prove safer in stormy weather. With this view prevailing at the South Africa summit, BRICS accomplished a large-scale expansion and entered a phase of greater cooperation.
A fundamental reason that BRICS members reached a consensus on expansion was the serious lack of equilibrium in the international institutional power structure, which features a mismatch between emerging and developing nations’ economic size and their say in the system. The U.S.-led West strives to maintain its own advantages by constantly consolidating and expanding alliances and partnerships and trying hard to continue its monopoly over major institutions in global governance. BRICS, which represents the interests of the Global South, is fed up with playing only a supporting role in international affairs in the new century and wishes to build a more reasonable, fair framework for the distribution of power. But BRICS countries are aware they can’t make it alone, or with a small number of friends. Instead, they must work with many others to change the status quo and build a new international order and system.
While expansion is necessary, it is of greater significance how expansion would be executed. With more than 30 countries waiting to join, it would be impossible to either admit or reject all. Corresponding rules and procedures must be worked out; the organization’s own resilience, as well as the overall socio-economic conditions of applicant countries, must be taken into consideration; and related principles must be followed.
The first consideration is the scale of an applicant’s economy and population. In order to preserve the original characteristics of BRICS, expansion must prioritize emerging economies, such as intermediate powers (VISTA and N-11 countries, for example). Although some small countries whose economies have long been in recession or stagnation are enthusiastic about joining BRICS, their admission may greatly undermine the group.
Second is global/regional equilibrium. BRICS is a global platform for cooperation rather than a regional mechanism; therefore, relative balance for Asia, Africa and Latin America has to be considered. Last year’s South Africa summit won acclaim because it gave full consideration to this factor.
Third is geopolitical representativeness. Some applicant countries are not the biggest or second-biggest economies in their region but may have significant geopolitical and diplomatic influence. Their admission would upgrade the global strategic impact of BRICS. Hence, such countries as Belarus and Kazakhstan may be good candidates.
Fourth is a step-by-step approach. Applicant countries may become dialogue partners first, then observers and finally be taken as official members when conditions are ripe. The development of global multilateral institutions shows that a step-by-step approach to membership expansion is conducive to an institution’s sustainable growth.
The large-scale expansion at the South Africa summit may has left some worthy lessons for future expansion.
First, expansion discussions should take into account the stability of applicant countries’ domestic political ecosystem; otherwise, there may be the embarrassing example of Argentina abandoning BRICS. Leftist and rightist parties in Argentina hold conspicuously divergent opinions about BRICS. When the leftists were in power, the Fernandez government joined BRICS; after the extreme right-wing Milei government took office, however, BRICS was immediately abandoned. Political stability matters, and countries where leftist and rightist parties alternate in power are worthy of particular attention.
Second, applicant countries’ political will must be considered. During the expansion process, some quality candidates appeared hesitant about joining BRICS. Under pressure from the United States, they didn’t want to take sides. While the Indonesian president participated in the South Africa summit, the country has yet to submit its application. High-ranking Turkish officials have on multiple occasions expressed interest in joining BRICS, but they said they still need to continue studying BRICS momentum and the potential gains and losses for their country.
What is especially baffling to the international community is that while Saudi Arabia has become a BRICS member, its commerce minister openly stated that his country had not officially joined. This created an uproar. After that, Saudi officials and scholars have rarely been seen at Russia-hosted official events and Track II activities, leading some Western media to claim that today’s greater BRICS is BRICS 9, rather than BRICS 10, and to speculate that Russia’s suspension of BRICS expansion derived from Argentina’s exit and Saudi Arabia’s hesitation and ambiguity.
Third, expansion discussions should consider the principle of applicants having zero issues in bilateral ties. In other words, expansion should avoid bringing in countries that have serious frictions with others in the group, as this would affect multilateral cooperation. Some bilateral issues in the greater BRICS lineup have already affected cooperation. Future expansion may draw lessons from the EU — for example, applicant countries would not be admitted until they resolve bilateral issues with all member countries.
With an eye on the disputes over expansion and the BRICS mechanism’s sustainable development, Russia put forward the idea of “BRICS partners.” The proposal is consistent with the Chinese idea of “BRICS+” and could both meet the needs of many Global South nations and concentrate on digesting new membership applications. The Russian suspension is not permanent, and slowing down may help the group go further. So BRICS partners appears to be a necessary and reasonable procedure before an applicant country becomes a full member.
At present, the United States is particularly interested in which countries would become BRICS partners. According to some international media reports, Belarus, Kazakstan, Venezuela, Cuba, Malaysia and Thailand are likely to be the first.
Some scholars from member countries have suggested BRICS should not only expand but also establish exit mechanisms. Few global multilateral mechanisms don’t have exit rules. There should be exit mechanisms for countries that don’t fulfil their BRICS responsibilities, that continuously dodge leaders summits or that shirk responsibility for BRICS mechanism-building, so as to guarantee the integrity, coordination and effectiveness of BRICS actions.
In short, an important task for the “BRICS year of Russia” is to encourage new members to better integrate into BRICS mechanisms and on that basis to broaden the group’s circle of friends in the form of BRICS partners in the Global South. Positions should be coordinated and conflicts resolved between individual member countries’ interests and the group’s overall goals. The main object is to forge a BRICS bloc that is both big and strong — one that can push for rebalancing global governance in the rebuilding of the international order and bring about a fairer, more just and reasonable new order.
