The 2024 BRICS Summit is being held in Russia. In this interview with BizNews, foreign policy analyst Sanusha Naidu of the Institute for Global Dialogue says with about 38 countries invited, 32 of which confirmed attendance and 24 sending Heads of State, “this is really a moment in the sun for Russia to say we still have traction”. She looks at what South Africa and Africa could hope to gain from its fellow members. Naidu also discusses the big talking point of trade in local currencies, and says she doesn’t think BRICS wants to create a third currency, but would instead like to strengthen and instrumentalise the frameworks as well as the rolling out of piloting projects around the use of localised currency. She does not expect any major expansion moves at this summit because of the implication of permanent members having to start sharing their power base which then challenges who is actually the ultimate decision maker in BRICS. Instead it might rather focus on “partnership” countries. Naidu further analyses the extent to which the BRICS countries are already challenging the US-led World Order.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Watch here
Listen here
Extended transcript of the interview ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Chris Steyn (00:02.093)
The 2024 BRIC Summit opens in Russia today. We speak to foreign policy analyst, Sanusha Naidu of the Institute for Global Dialogue. Good morning, Sanusha.
Sanusha Naidu (00:13.912)
Good morning Chris and it’s always a pleasure to be on the platform with you and share my insights.
Chris Steyn (00:20.381)
Thank you. What do you think Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes to get out of hosting this summit?
Sanusha Naidu (00:27.448)
Well, I think definitely much more visibility, profiling. The fact that Russia has been isolated, especially after the Ukraine crisis and conflict, there’s been that sanctions against the business and the commercial transactions with Russia. I think what this does is that it elevates the platform for President Putin to say to countries that have been distractors of Russia for the longest time and has constantly used Russia’s space as one to push back against Russia and say, oh, you violated international law, actually makes it a very, very sweet spot for President Putin to be sitting at the BRICS, to be hosting it in Kazan, as well as to demonstrate to the world that, heck, I don’t have to come to your platform, but everybody comes to where I am as well.
And I think if you look at that, it kind of pushes back against what has been this very, very acute and innocuous kind of debate about whether Russia still has convening power. Now, obviously it’s coming in through the BRICS, but I think the BRICS like the Shanghai Corporation Organisation, and even in the context of the fact that President Putin could not attend some of those UN meetings in September, et cetera, because of what this meant. It gives that kind of elevation of the world and the profile to the world of Russia.
But it also is about the fact that it’s a platform that Russia can use to constantly beat the brow of the West by saying, hang on, we can actually still do business. There are countries here that still want to do business with us. The sanctions haven’t really hurt us. And I think what happens in the way that people have projected the narrative on Russia being this kind of sanction-induced coma for Moscow, I think kind of gets to this point to say, well, if you’re actually in Russia at a particular point in time, you see that people are going about their normal everyday lives, their business, et cetera. Yes, they can’t use the SWIFT system, which is the international banking system that does transactions in terms of currency, you can’t use that.
Sanusha Naidu (02:48.745)
And so when you’re in Russia, you have to use a lot of hard currency. But it actually is interesting because it’s also about how do you change a perception of a country?So I think the fact of the matter is you’ve got almost around about 38 countries in some way or form that have been invited to attend this summit. 32 of them which have confirmed their attendance. 24 of them which are essentially going to be sending Heads of State. We may not all agree with those that are attending. However, I think this is really a moment in the sun for Russia to say we still have traction.
Chris Steyn (03:26.121)
Now South Africa is there as a member. What do you think it hopes to get from its BICS partners at this summit?
Sanusha Naidu (03:36.782)
Well, I think South Africa would really want to pivot its position, its engagements with the BRICS around what it has always reiterated as part of this inequality, sustainable development, and kind of, I would say, what links back to our National Development Plan, which is the triple oppression of poverty, inequality, and unemployment. Now that is also something that kind of locks in to South Africa’s positioning on the G20. It talks about that in the context of its theme, is solidarity, equality and sustainable development. It’s speaking about key drivers of that in the context of debt and development, issues around inequality, which is really a point of divergence in the world where you have this unequal land as a playing field. And it’s not necessarily about equivalency. I think also it’s about the global governance agenda, the reform of this. And with countries like India, I think South Africa and Brazil can actually start pushing for that kind of democratic transformation of those international institutions, which have been very much the preserve of the world of 1945 and basically the custodians of that world being countries that haven’t really been able to shift the needle on what an inclusive global governance order should look like. And so that is the other key point as well for South Africa.
And then of course, finally, we can’t ignore the fact that in terms of trade, economic diplomacy, in terms of the renewable energy and working around climate change and the just transition, I think working with the BRICS, South Africa is able to also harness the potential that that could bring in the context of South Africa looking for partnerships around economic engagements, looking for partnerships around the climate change and the kind of energy transition that we’re talking about, and dealing with the mitigating effects of climate change adaptation and so forth. So I think these are some of the areas.
Sanusha Naidu (05:52.162)
But again, we can’t also ignore the gig economy or the digital economy in this.
So these are all the spaces that South Africa could work very well with the BRICS countries.
And then finally bringing it back home to Africa. How does this align to the South Africa-Africa agenda? But of course you’ve got countries like Ethiopia and Egypt that have been brought in as members to the BRICS as an expansion of the BRICS. And this is where South Africa needs to start thinking about what its alignment of its Africa policy is in working with partners both within Africa and outside of Africa around its BRICS agenda.
Chris Steyn (06:26.887)
What do you think we can expect from this summit with regards to increased trade in local currencies?
Sanusha Naidu (06:35.81)
I think that’s the big talking point because if you remember Chris, in the run up to last year’s summit, there was a lot of talk about the BRICS creating a third global reserve currency. I mean, that comes with a lot of different types of structural issues that need to be aligned, et cetera. And the idea that this BRICS reserve currency or the BRICS currency as they were calling it would be aligned to a kind of a a gold standard, that kind of alignment. Of course, we’re not there.
And I think what has happened in this summit, in the run up to this summit, there’s been a tempering of that kind of argument, that the BRICS are not going to create a third currency. And I don’t think they want to create a third currency. And that’s the kind of misinterpretation that happens in global debates and in mainstream media. But I think what they really want to do is like you pointed out, is to strengthen and instrumentalise the frameworks as well as the rolling out of some of those piloting projects around the use of localized currency.
If you think about India, we look at India and India has something called Rupay on the Go. And Rupay is a very interesting payment system that is used with countries in…they use it internally as well as they can use it now externally. And I think if I’m not mistaken, I stand corrected, Iran and India are looking at that space of localising the credit payment system in terms of how you use the rupee.
Same with China. China is using a lot of its renminbi or its currency in terms of bilateral trade transactions. And I think this helps to also move away or lessen dependence on volatility in financial markets.
Because if you think about the fact that the dollar is also caught within the space of what happens in the upcoming US elections are going to be critical in terms of what happens to the global financial markets, as well as in terms of the global economy.
Sanusha Naidu (08:48.586)
Having these kinds of options on the table for the BRICS countries is going to be key.
So listening to President Putin yesterday deliver his inaugural address to the BRICS Business Council, he spoke about something very interesting. He didn’t speak about new economic diplomacy. He calls it economics of sovereignty. And I think economics of sovereignty tells you that having a credit payment system, looking at how logistics or having a subgroup of transport logistics with regard to shipping lanes and maritime security around economic and commercial lanes, choke points are going to be critical. Looking at how you may use perhaps the kind of dynamic of creating a BRICS credit payment system, a BRICS credit kind of rating system. All of this is about this notion that if you start moving away, not moving away, but lessen dependency, because dependency is what ties you and locks you into this current global financial markets and this current financial global markets are also kind of very highly volatile and so we’re hearing that you know the next coming global economic crisis is going to be around the debt issue.
Chris Steyn (09:59.699)
So, Sanesha, what do you expect from this summit with regards to expansion?
Sanusha Naidu (10:05.26)
Well, I think we should not assume that expansion will take place like we saw at the end of the 15th BRICS summit, where South Africa hosting had announced six new members.
We know one of those members declined the invitation to be Argentina, which has a very interesting president. And then of course, Saudi Arabia, which has not necessarily said they have joined formally. So they kind of still sitting if you want to call it as an observer. And they haven’t really come out and inculcated the BRICS within their kind of global footprint. So that still remains to be seen what happens after this summit and what the Saudi Arabian government and authority or the monarchy would do, what the Crown Prince would do.
I would say for this summit, my expectation is low on expansion. We’re not going to see new members come in. Perhaps what we need to look at very carefully is what has been little drips that the Russian media as well as the Russian Foreign Minister have been saying. And even the inner circles of people working on the BRICS from the National BRICS Council there in Russia, as well as their Foreign Ministry and various other ministries, is that I think they’re talking about a partnership model. And a partnership model means that it’s not going to be…we’ve now announced that there’s the next six new members that are going to join. It’s going to be a model that’s going to look at where you create partnerships around particular projects. And that is a different interpretation in my opinion.
And from where I sit about what membership means, because to my mind, I haven’t seen any kind of deeper discussion, deeper documents on what is the criteria, principles, standards around membership and how that will evolve. Because that in itself then means that if you’re going to create membership, you have to start sharing your power base, your power space. And that I’m not sure that the permanent members of the BRICS, particularly Brazil, Russia, India, and China and South Africa are willing to go there so fast because it then challenges who is actually the ultimate decision maker in the BRICS.
Sanusha Naidu (12:27.33)
So you can have this kind of approach where you can say the consensus approach is what defines BRICS decision making and that we have this underlying kind of motto that says the right to agree to disagree, but the complication and the complexity becomes is when you expand, you have to share that right to agree to disagree.
And so there are countries that if you look at the so-called…I think there was on social media in the last 24 hours, 48 hours, there’s been a leak of how many countries are going with the list of names. And that tells you you’ve got Belarus there, which is a Russian, a pro-Russian country. You’ve got Morocco there, which then creates tensions for South Africa. You’ve got Algeria there, which is again, questions between Algeria and Morocco. You’ve got also Palestine on the list to attend. And of course you have some of the Central Asian Republics like I think Tajikistan and Kazakhstan.
So this is very important for us to bear in mind that there are some names that were coming out in the media about countries that will be attending the BRICS summit at the invitation of the Russian Presidency haven’t been there. For one, Pakistan hasn’t been included in the list.
So it seems to me that right now there’s a tempering of what BRICS membership extension of intentions of invitations to join the BRICS as a full member mean because what the Russian Presidency also spoke about is a kind of an induction period of new members into what is constituted or identified as the BRICS culture and the BRICS family. Now whatever that means we have to find out what is the principle. So I think for now it’s a bit more tempered. I’m not sure that the inner core of the BRICS are ready to go the same route like last year, but I could be wrong and I stand corrected and probably you come back to me and say, Sanusha, you got it wrong.
But I think what’s interesting is that it raises the question of how important you find the mechanics around membership and what are the instruments that are gonna define those mechanics and what does it mean for impact of those decisions. So if new members are coming in and we already saw that Ethiopia and Egypt have also raised the red flag in the BRICS where they said, well…
Sanusha Naidu (14:50.134)
we haven’t conformed to this position that Russia and China support the UN security reform and membership of India, Brazil, South Africa. It should be an open space for people to go that route. So again, we’ve seen those underlying tensions that may come up. I suspect partnership is, partnership countries is going to be the tagline for this BRICS.
Chris Steyn (15:14.828)
Do you think the permanent members feel that they are currently strong enough to take on the West should they wish to do that without expansion?
Sanusha Naidu (15:24.642)
I think so. And I think one of the things that they pride themselves on is the fact that you have so many countries looking to kind of leverage their own geopolitical interests. And when I say that, I mean that they’re not looking to be locked into one system only. So we are kind of in a very complicated international architecture.
I love the metaphor that one of the seasoned international relations experts talk about, Professor Amitav Acharya, he calls it the Multiplex System. And the Multiplex System means that you have one cinema but with many, many different movie rooms around. And that for me kind of captures the essence of it. So right now you’ve got this kind of interest that countries are looking at towards the BRICS. If they’re looking at the way in which, for example, the New Development Bank is raising, kind of the disrupting what you would call the international financial system in terms of the provision of equity and liquidity in markets around loans and concessional finance. Yes, it has its own dynamics. We have to be much more lucid about the impact of those loans that come from the bank.
But at the same time, you’ve got countries like I think it was the latest being Algeria who has joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. You’ve got countries that have also joined the New Development Bank.
So I think in many ways what you are witnessing is that the idea that we are in an uncertain, unpredictable international system means that countries are looking to hedge where their interests can be best served and not to become completely locked into one.
Because again, I’ll give you the example of the SWIFT system where now, even though you put sanctions on Russia and you’re hoping that that hurts Russia from a financial transaction and you can’t get international currency or the dollar, but it hurts us in South Africa because we cannot also, because of the way in which the international financial system and the rules-based system is designed. The design of it means that we too can’t do business with Russia or any other country can’t do business with Russia. And that’s part of the reason why the question is you end up in this context of the uncertainty of multipolarity is this multiplex kind of system.
Chris Steyn (17:52.657)
To what extent do you think the BRICS countries are already challenging the US-led world order?
Sanusha Naidu (18:00.184)
Well, I think it’s about the fact that you have this constant pushback, the constant pushback around whether the BRICS serves the utility of the international system. The constant pushback that as much as the BRICS may deepen its footprint, as much as it may utilise the space around whether it creates these alternative financial instruments or that it opens up the space for countries to then go to a kind of smorgasboard of an international system and choose how you want to design your foreign policy and design your foreign economic engagements and so forth.
There’s a constant qualification to that. And that qualification is the BRICS countries will never get to a point where the US is, that the US is still the defecto, even if it’s losing its decline and losing its influence. It’s still very much the relative de facto power with preponderance dominance of preponderance power in its way that it shapes the international institution.
Let me give you four areas where this I think starts to show why the BRICS is challenging that. It’s in structural power. And in structural power, you have what Susan Strange, an international political economist used in the 1980s, late 70s, 80s to define what US global power looks like. She said, you have security, you have production, you have knowledge, and you have something called finance and credit. And in all of those four pillars of structural power at the global level, the US shows its influence, shows its power, and actually undertakes the kind of architecture in terms of underwriting the system in that way. Now, when we come back, or we fast forward to now, yes, the US is kind of not in that space of being able to underwrite, but it’s still very much a power that you have to engage with, whether you like it or not. And I think that is where it becomes interesting in terms of whether or not the BRICS is going to challenge that.
But what is really happening is that internal to the US and internal to its domestic political and economic landscape, it has an immense impact on the global system. So what’s interesting is that you have what you call in business called distribution coalitions…
Sanusha Naidu (20:19.894)
People in the US who essentially are influencing the political landscape as well as the economic landscape, which then will have incredible impact on the global. And that is important because whoever wins this next US election is going to be critical for the global international system and the global economic order.
So whether the BRICS is pushing back and the US is declining, I don’t think that it’s the BRICS per se. It is a number of different configurations that are emerging, whether you talk about it in the context of the Shanghai Corporation Organisation, you talk of it in the context of what happens in the G20, or you talk about it in the context of the European Union. Even the European Union may actually also feel that from a transactional perspective, the US is a liability. And so in that way, I think the US in itself is undergoing its own existential crisis because it’s caught up in an international system where the expectation that it will help to stabilise the international system is not there now. And what’s happening domestically in the US is actually going to have a profound effect on whether the US becomes more isolationist, more protectionist, et cetera. Now, if that goes down that route, I think that then reaffirms my previous point about the multiplex complexity of the international system. Because even with countries like, if you look at what’s going on in Palestine, or you look at what’s happening in Gaza, or we look at the impact of what’s going on in Lebanon. I mean, even the whole issue there, the US has to now make very, very difficult decisions, challenging decisions about how this will be pursued. So even within its own kind of pact of countries, its alliances, there is a pushback. So I think it has to be tempered and has to be disaggregated that it’s not just the BRICS per se, but it’s in the various configurations where the US may be losing some of its comparative advantage and its leverage.
Chris Steyn (22:23.517)
Thank you. That was foreign policy analyst, Sanusha Naidu, of the Institute for Global Dialogue, speaking to BizNews about the BRICS Summit currently being held in Russia. Thank you, Sanusha, and I’m Chris Steyn.
Read also:
- BN@10: Hersov engages on Jeffery’s book; CR; BRICS; Russia; ANC after losing power
- BRICS Summit to tackle Russian invasion of Ukraine: Uncertainty still surrounding Putin’s attendance
- BRICS is crumbling: SA’s foreign policy in jeopardy as Russia weakens and India leans towards USA – Katzenellenbogen
