BRICS’ expansion methodology would be better defined by a moderated approach that sees the deepening of the partnership model

The growing interest in the expansion of the BRICS alliance and its geopolitical implications continues to spark excitement regarding its role in global affairs, especially following the recent addition of Indonesia on January 6. For BRICS, the aim is to influence or create a new global economic and financial framework that is bolstered by the strength of its member nations. The opportunity for expansion aligns with BRICS’ objectives of leveraging structural power to challenge the status quo and enhance its influence.

In 2023, under South Africa’s presidency of BRICS, a significant decision was made to invite Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to join the alliance. Many analysts view South Africa’s entry in 2010 as the first step in the alliance’s strategic expansion.

As the discussion around BRICS expansion intensified, the 2024 Kazan Summit, held under Russia’s presidency, introduced a new category of partner countries, indicating a prudent approach to further growth. This development prompts critical questions about what expansion truly means for cooperation engagements and the potential impact on consensus decision-making and collaboration.

Argentina’s Change of Heart

Argentina’s choice not to join as a member and Saudi Arabia’s ongoing hesitation regarding formalising its membership underscores the complexities at play. This undeniably reflects a landscape shaped by competing power politics, deeply intertwined with geo-strategic considerations.

Argentina’s original enthusiasm about joining BRICS emerged from a pressing economic crisis and rampant inflation. The then-outgoing president, Alberto Fernández, regarded this as a critical opportunity for transformative change. “We open up possibilities for joining new markets, consolidating existing markets, attracting incoming investment, creating jobs and increasing imports,” he said.

He argued that aligning with BRICS could let Argentina engage in ‘soft balancing’ against the US, positioning the country more strategically on the global stage. However, following the October 2023 elections, the sentiment towards BRICS underwent a significant shift.

Many anticipated that right-wing politician Javier Milei was merely leveraging anti-BRICS sentiment for political gain. But ultimately, he opted to not pursue the partnership. This decision was profoundly shaped by geopolitical realities.

The unresolved diplomatic tensions stemming from the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires by Iran have lingered for decades. Moreover, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has heightened existing West-Russia tensions, leading to greater complexity within BRICS and hindering Brazil, India, China and South Africa’s ability to maintain neutral stances.

This political landscape presents a formidable challenge for countries like Argentina. Further, Milei’s campaign consistently featured sharp criticisms of China, signalling a clear preference for western alliances over eastern prospects. This strategic realignment underscores Argentina’s evolving geopolitical considerations and priorities, making BRICS membership less viable.

Saudi Walks a Tightrope

Saudi Arabia’s invitation to BRICS was seen as a way to ease tensions with Iran. But since taking up the invitation, Saudi Arabia’s involvement has been tepid, engaging in the bloc’s meetings and summits only as an invited nation.

The geopolitics of oil, with recognition of major producers and OPEC+ voices, highlights BRICS’ intent to build a supportive energy infrastructure.

However, membership poses a delicate balancing act for Riyadh, which remains an ally of Washington. Saudi Arabia’s long-standing relationship with the US, reliant on oil supplies and military security, is now under strain as they fear a withdrawal of US support and repercussions of American actions in West Asia, especially with the Trump presidency.

Thus, engaging with BRICS offers both a search for alternatives and a challenge in establishing new alliances.

The expansion of BRICS in 2023 could be interpreted as an intentional focus on West Asia, taking into consideration the risks posed by involving regional competitors like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The expansion is underpinned by two key considerations: inviting one competitor to isolate the other, potentially pushing them closer to the West and understanding how this expansion can help BRICS achieve a fair and inclusive economic order.

A Partnership Solution

The partnership model unveiled at the 2024 Kazan Summit provides some form of guarantee for how expansion can be based on mutual interests that does not compromise the alliance’s consensus-driven approach.

Moreover, those who show interest and are invited to join BRICS as a partner country can offset the dilemma that Argentina and Saudi Arabia have posed with a change of leadership or the geopolitical sway of other global players.

It can also deal with situations, like the rejection by Ethiopia and Egypt of Brazil and India’s condition that new members support their bid for permanent seats in a reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The refusal by Addis and Cairo to sign the BRICS foreign minister’s communique on the sidelines of the UNGA 2024 meeting stemmed from the lack of consensus on Africa’s representatives. The stalemate highlights the political sensitivity of consensus decision-making, as new members may heighten tensions in the alliance based on vested national interests.

The partnership model is interesting not only because of what different partners can bring to the table but also because such partner countries can elevate the BRICS agenda on global governance reform, global economic traction and sustainable development goals.

Case in Point

A case in point is Indonesia’s strategic geographical position, covering a significant portion of the Strait of Malacca—the shortest and one of the busiest sea routes between China and India—plays a crucial role in global trade, especially for oil tankers from West Asia. This makes Indonesia a vital player in regional and global maritime security.

The inclusion of Indonesia in BRICS could, therefore, be seen as a calculated move to consolidate the alliance’s influence over key global shipping routes, which are critical for energy and trade flows.

By integrating Indonesia, BRICS not only gains a strategic ally that commands a pivotal maritime choke-point but also secures a stronger link to Southeast Asia through ASEAN’s most influential member. This connection potentially broadens BRICS’ influence in the region, offering a platform to counterbalance Western dominance in global politics and economics.

Through Indonesia, BRICS could extend its economic and political reach across Southeast Asia, thereby fortifying its global presence and influence in an increasingly multipolar world. As BRICS evolves, its structural orientation will increasingly adapt to the changing global architecture.

The alliance’s expansion methodology is better defined by a moderated approach that sees the deepening of the partnership model. This will enhance its ability to global dynamics and demonstrate collective influence in the Global South, while maintaining their partnerships with their western partners.

The article was first published in Outlookbusiness.com

Arina Muresan is a senior researcher and Sanusha Naidu is a senior research associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue associated with UNISA. The views do not necessarily reflect those of the IGD.