I am sometimes referred to as the Father of the BRICS in Chinese media, because I created the acronym for Brazil, Russia, India and China, which encapsulated the idea of their likely rise to prominence, and the need for them to take a bigger role in global governance as a result.
After the latest BRICS leaders’ summit in Johannesburg in August, and the news that the group plans to expand to become 11, I wrote a piece for a Chinese magazine, saying that, as often happens, the father’s advice had apparently been ignored.
There had been speculation all year that there might be some expansion of membership.
Earlier this year, I wrote an article suggesting that in order to warrant this, someone from inside the BRICS policy world should write down transparently what exactly it was they were trying to achieve as a group and why expansion might be helpful. And as part of this, what criteria would be used to admit new countries — would it be population, economic size and/or potential, or wealth, or its natural assets? Or what?
Puzzling choices
After it became known which the new six members were, I remained baffled as to what process, if any, had been followed in their selection.
Superficially, there is not much in common between Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
For example, why admit Egypt and Ethiopia, and not Nigeria, Africa’s biggest country population-wise, currently its largest economy and certainly the one with the clearest potential, if it ever managed to introduce better governance and plans to really boost economy-wide productivity?
And why Argentina, instead of Mexico, easily the largest Latin American economy after Brazil?
In the same spirit, what about Indonesia, probably the country with the most legitimate gripe that I never included it in the acronym in the first place? Today, it looks certainly better placed than either Brazil or Russia to be amongst the very largest economies of the world in another 20 to 30 years.
Is it because these more obvious countries didn’t want to join, or was there something about them which the BRICS countries didn’t see as advantageous? We don’t know because there was little explanation given.
Of course, the inclusion of the big oil and gas producers, especially Saudi Arabia, carries its own intrigue, especially given their past close ties to Washington.
What has it done?
My core issue with the BRICS as a political group is that I can’t see what they have achieved since they first started meeting together — beyond symbolism, though that is admittedly very large.
Perhaps a desire to be a member of some club that doesn’t include the US, nor having its rules of engagement heavily influenced by the wishes of the US, might have been the central factor. Even if this were true, it is not obvious to me what the BRICS expect to achieve.
At the core of the past disappointment is a frank reality that its two biggest members, China and India, rarely agree on anything. As I have often argued, in order for any BRICS group to be truly influential, these two nations need to find a much better way of working together productively, rather than regarding each other with suspicion and as rivals. Until this changes, it is hard to believe that the BRICS club can really achieve much politically.
In any case, as evidenced by the G20 Summit in New Delhi three weeks after the BRICS gathering, this is the body that can truly influence the big global challenges of today and the future. Neither the BRICS 11 nor the G7 can do this on their own.
The G20 includes all the G7 members, the BRICS 5, plus Argentina and Saudi Arabia from the new BRICS members. Leaders of the UAE and Egypt, though not members, were invited to this summit. Including the other important large countries in the G20, and now the African Union, it represents some 85% to 90% of global GDP.
This is a hugely legitimate and representative body, and while it struggles with having a relatively large membership, it has demonstrated — occasionally — that it can achieve results. Despite the fact that the presidents of China and Russia did not attend the New Delhi meeting, the group did succeed in publishing a communiqué about the most important global issues we face going forward. Hopefully this can set the basis for renewed commitment by all its members.
As for the expanded BRICS, as well as encouraging China and India to jointly develop a list of issues to work on that they could both benefit from, I would urge the group to think more seriously about what each member might do to help both itself and its fellow BRICS members achieve stronger and more sustainable growth.
Without that, the BRICS’ attraction to others, and indeed its relevance, may be limited.
Lord O’Neill is a senior adviser to the council of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and UK Treasury minister.