Imran Khalid :

THE 16th BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, felt like a deliberate contrast to the annual IMF and World Bank meetings taking place in Washington. The timing couldn’t have been more telling. The optics of this contrast were hard to miss, giving off the impression of a bloc standing firmly apart from the US-dominated global order. While the West may see Kazan, a city under US-led sanctions, as a symbol of defiance, the BRICS gathering was far from an attempt to topple the existing global order. Rather, it was a call for reform. The 43-page communiqué that followed highlighted this intent, proposing a new international payment system, a direct response to Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT. But the message was clear: BRICS is not about rebellion; it is about resilience and cooperation. Some Western observers may find the cosy relationship between China and Russia unnerving, but the summit’s focus went beyond optics.

Discussions centred on peacefully resolving conflicts, including in Ukraine and the Middle East. For BRICS, it is not about confrontation; it is about carving out a space for true multilateral cooperation. In a world increasingly divided, BRICS is seeking to offer a platform where emerging powers can shape a fairer, more inclusive future. It is a subtle, yet deliberate, shift in the global conversation — one that’s not easily ignored. What BRICS is really advocating for is a multipolar world — one where nations, big or small, can have their voices heard without being overshadowed by Western dominance. It is not about building a rival bloc but about carving out space for dialogue and genuine collaboration. In a world so often divided, BRICS offers an alternative path — one based on respect, mutual benefit, and the hope for a more balanced global future.

The Kazan summit concluded with outcomes that resonate positively for all member states. For Russian president Vladimir Putin, long shunned by the West, the summit was a successful display of collaboration among the leading nations of the Global South. It served as a demonstration of his diplomatic ability to host an event that brought together countries eager to chart a course independent of Western influence. Non-Western nations are signalling a willingness to engage with Russia, despite its status as a pariah in the eyes of the West. The appeal of Russia lies not only in its strategic assets but also in its role as a key supplier of energy and arms. Since the Ukraine invasion, Western sanctions have sidelined Putin, limiting his travel and interactions. Yet, by hosting this summit, he has sent a powerful message of resilience and relevance. In the face of isolation, Russia can still claim a seat at the global table, bolstered by support from emerging powers.

For China, this dynamic is telling. This alignment presents an opportunity for Beijing to recalibrate influence, emphasising a desire to reshape a world order that reflects a multipolar reality — one where respect for sovereignty prevails over Western hegemony. The implications are profound, reverberating through a shifting geopolitical landscape. From the perspective of China, president Xi Jinping can highlight a renewed sense of stability in Sino-Indian relations, thanks to agreements on border patrolling and disengagement. This summit provided an opportunity to mend ties that have been strained in recent years, demonstrating that even amidst geopolitical tensions, cooperation is still possible.

The Kazan Declaration, emerging from the summit, covers essential topics such as the need for equitable global governance, the restoration of peace through dialogue, and fostering cooperation among Global South nations. While the Declaration is rich in intent, it lacks specific commitments or actionable measures, leaving observers wondering about the practicality of these lofty ideals. Yet, within this non-Western alliance, there exists a palpable sense of optimism — an acknowledgement that through collective dialogue, the Global South can assert its voice and influence in an increasingly multipolar world. The journey ahead may be fraught with challenges, but the path is undeniably set. In an era where the world order is increasingly contested, BRICS has emerged as a corroboration of the growing prowess of non-Western nations in forging a cooperative platform that, in many ways, rivals traditional Western institutions. Critics often label BRICS as overly diverse to function cohesively. Indeed, it is a melting pot of political ideologies and economic structures, from China’s formidable $18 trillion economy to South Africa’s more modest $400 billion.

The disparity in size and governance — encompassing democracies, authoritarian regimes, and monarchies — might suggest discord. Yet, this very diversity has become BRICS’ strength. The coalition has skilfully navigated its differences, focusing on shared interests rather than divisions. Annual summits have become a hallmark of its unity, and the establishment of the New Development Bank in 2015 exemplifies its commitment to collaboration, having funded projects totalling $30 billion. Remarkably, the BRICS leaders have maintained their attendance at summits despite geopolitical tensions, demonstrating a resilience that speaks to their collective ambition. BRICS may not yet be a superpower bloc, but its modest accomplishments over the past 15 years indicate a significant shift in global dynamics. As non-Western countries increasingly covet membership, the group is quietly reshaping the contours of international cooperation and challenging the very fabric of a Western-centric world. Like it or not, BRICS has emerged as a formidable force in global politics, sparking both intrigue and apprehension among Western powers. The rising bloc has captured attention for its potential to rival the G7, challenging the established order and threatening the traditional dynamics of the G20.

While primarily an economic coalition, BRICS is not shy about injecting its political voice into international discourse, steadfastly addressing issues of discrimination and inequality that permeate the global system. Factually speaking, many members of BRICS harbour a deep-seated resentment towards their under-representation in pivotal institutions like the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Despite their diminished clout, Western nations are continuously trying to exert disproportionate influence over these entities, prompting calls for reform from BRICS leaders. The Kazan Declaration eloquently articulates this desire for change, emphasising the need for a more equitable international framework that acknowledges the aspirations of emerging economies.

As BRICS asserts itself on the world stage, it not only highlights the disparities in global governance but also envisions a re-imagined order where the voices of its diverse members can be heard. This quest for representation and respect underscores the shifting tides of power dynamics, signalling a new chapter in international relations that the West can no longer afford to overlook. The narrative is evolving, and BRICS stands poised to write the next chapter, one that could redefine the contours of global governance.

Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance contributor from Karachi.