BRICS+ Series: How OPEC and BRICS are Shaping the Future of Global Energy Trade
OPEC and BRICS: Shared Goals and Increasing Cooperation
Founded in 2016, OPEC—which controls over 50% of global oil production, plays a key role in stabilising prices by strategically adjusting its output levels. BRICS+ on the other hand, now including Middle Eastern countries Iran, UAE and possibly Saudi Arabia, aims to promote multipolarity, enhance economic ties and counter Western financial dominance. The increase in collaborations between the OPEC+ and BRICS+ wisely strengthens the Global South, and this makes them very important actors in the shift to renewables and global energy governance.
Brazil's Strategic Move: Joining OPEC+
In 2023, Brazil joined OPEC+ and this signaled its efforts to be one of the key players in the energy sector. As the eighth biggest global oil producer (3.3 million bpd in 2024), Brazil's OPEC+ membership enables it to have an influence on global oil policies and aligns with BRICS' pursuit for a multipolar energy system. This move strengthens the energy and security partnership of Brazil within OPEC+, especially within the Middle East.
Russia's Dual Role: OPEC+ and BRICS+
The key role of Russia in both OPEC+ and BRICS+ makes it central to global energy governance. As the third largest oil producer in the world, Russia aims to reduce reliance on western markets, diversify exports and strengthen Asian ties. In 2024, Russia produced 10.5 million bpd, with majority exports flowing to BRICS+ countries. Its involvement in the OPEC+ allows it to influence oil production decisions. This dual membership allows Russia to contribute to energy pricing and stabilisation, while also supporting BRICS' geopolitical goal of reducing Western financial dominance.
Middle Eastern Powerhouses: Iran, UAE, and Saudi Arabia
Iran, UAE and Saudi Arabia, major players within OPEC+, have joined BRICS, signaling a broad geopolitical shift. These countries, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia, are some of the founding members of OPEC and they hold a large portion of the world's oil reserves together. With a production of 10.5 million bpd in 2024, Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter, and Iran, regardless of sanctions, reached 1.2 million in 2024.
The strategic pivot of Saudi Arabia towards BRICS+ shows that the kingdom has intentions to further strengthen ties in the Global South, moving away from its historical dependence on Western powers. This is a very important development in energy geopolitics as Russia and Saudi Arabia have been cooperating to balance production quotas and stabilise oil prices. Despite facing significant U.S. sanctions, Iran's oil exports have increased, mostly to China and India, showing a change in its geopolitical strategy as evident in its inclusion in both OPEC+ and BRICS. Within OPEC+, Iran maintains the influence it has over global energy discussions.
The UAE's membership in OPEC and BRICS emphasises the Gulf's evolving energy strategy. Prestigious for its efforts in diversifying into renewable energy, the UAE aims to balance its fossil fuel production with long-term sustainability goals. Its involvement in both groups positions the UAE as a bridge between traditional energy markets and emerging global energy solutions.
Global Energy Implications: A Shift in Power
The growing relationship between OPEC+ and BRICS is significantly reshaping global energy governance. Traditionally, Western institutions coupled with the U.S. dollar dominated energy policies and oil trade. However, the deepening collaborations happening between BRICS and OPEC+ presents a challenge to this established order. BRICS has been an advocate for a more equitable global energy pricing mechanism, actively seeking to diminish the central role of the U.S. in energy transactions. The BRICS-backed New Development Bank is already funding energy initiatives in the Global South, providing an alternative to Western financial structures. This growing cooperation between OPEC+ and BRICS indicates a shift in global energy governance, with a growing emphasis on the priorities of the Global South.A Multipolar Energy Future
The increasing cooperation between OPEC+ and BRICS signifies a significant change in global energy governance. These nations are aligning their interests to stabilize oil prices and reshape the global energy order. With key players like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Brazil influencing oil production, their collaborative efforts to redefine energy policies will ensure a central role for the Global South in the future of global energy trade. This partnership highlights the increasing influence of the Global South in a multipolar world, suggesting a future of more inclusive and balanced energy governance that reflects diverse global economic interests.
Written By:
*Dr Iqbal Survé
Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN
*Sesona Mdlokovana
Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group
UAE & African Specialist
**The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.
** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE https://bricscg.com/
** Follow brics_daily on Twitter for daily BRICS+ updates
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Zelenskyy, European leaders head to US for talks on peace deal terms
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump said reclaiming Crimea or entering NATO were off the table for Ukraine, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Washington for Monday talks aimed at ending the war with Russia. Zelensky, who has repeatedly rejected territorial concessions, will meet Trump in Washington on Monday, accompanied by European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and other leaders. The meeting comes on the heels of a summit between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, which failed to yield a ceasefire breakthrough but produced promises from both leaders to provide "robust security guarantees" to Ukraine. Zelenskyy was not invited to the Alaska meeting, after which Trump pivoted to the long-held Russian position that a ceasefire was not needed before a final peace deal. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," Trump posted on his social media platform. "Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!" Trump and Zelenskyy are expected to meet one-on-one before being joined by a cohort of European leaders on Monday, according to the White House schedule. Along with von der Leyen, NATO chief Mark Rutte and the leaders of Britain, Finland, France, Germany and Italy will be present. It will be the first time Zelensky visits Washington since a bust-up with Trump and Vice President JD Vance in February when the two men berated the Ukrainian leader for being "ungrateful." On Sunday night, after arriving in Washington, Zelenskyy said: "We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably." - Security guarantees - Since the Oval Office row in February, Trump has grown more critical of Putin and shown some signs of frustration as Russia repeatedly stalled on peace talks. But Washington has not placed extra sanctions on Moscow and the lavish welcome offered to Putin in Alaska on his first visit to the West since he invaded Ukraine in 2022 was seen as a diplomatic coup for Russia. Speaking in Brussels on the eve of his visit to the United States, Zelenskyy said he was keen to hear more about what Putin and Trump discussed in Alaska. He also hailed Washington's offer of security guarantees to Ukraine as "historic." Trump said he spoke to Putin about the possibility of a NATO-style collective defense guarantee for Ukraine. The promise would be outside of the framework of the Western military alliance that Ukraine wants to join and which is seen as an existential threat by Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron said European leaders would ask Trump "to what extent" Washington is ready to contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine. - Discussion on land - Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff said Moscow had made "some concessions" regarding five Ukrainian regions that Russia fully or partially controls, and said that "there is an important discussion with regard to Donetsk and what would happen there. "That discussion is going to specifically be detailed on Monday," he said, without giving details. AFP | Simon Wohlfahrt Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 following a sham referendum and did the same in 2022 for four Ukrainian regions - Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk and Zaporizhzhia - even though its forces have not fully captured them. A source briefed on a phone call between Trump and European leaders on Saturday told AFP that the US leader was "inclined to support" a Russian demand to be given territory it has not yet captured in the Donbas, an area that includes the Donetsk and Lugansk regions and which has seen the deadliest battles of the war. In exchange, the source cited Trump as saying, Moscow would agree to "freeze" the front line in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Russian forces hold swathes of territory but not the regional capitals. Russia has until now insisted that Ukraine pull its forces out of all four regions as a precondition to any deal. - 'Capitulation' - There is concern in Europe that Washington could pressure Ukraine to accept Russia's terms. "For peace to prevail, pressure must be applied to the aggressor, not the victim of aggression," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said Sunday. Macron said: "There is only one state proposing a peace that would be a capitulation: Russia." Zelensky has repeatedly pushed back against ceding territory, but said he is ready to discuss the issue in the context of a trilateral summit with Trump and Putin. Trump has raised the possibility of such a meeting, but Russia has played down the prospect. Moscow's forces have been advancing gradually but steadily in Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk region.
Mail & Guardian
5 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
South Africa could see short-term benefits from US tariffs, such as lower coffee prices
South Africa could potentially see a drop in coffee prices as a result of the 50% tariff imposed on Brazil — the world's largest coffee producer — and the biggest supplier to the local market. Some imported products could become cheaper in the short term as US tariffs take effect and as countries grapple with surplus in products, South Africa was slapped with a 30% tariff on local goods, which officially took effect on South Africa's With limited access to the American market, these countries will have a surplus of products that they will have to sell at lower prices, economists said. 'For now, every country is looking for an alternative in terms of where they can sell the products that they were sending to the US, but that is not going to be easy,' said Thabile Nkunjane, an economist at the National Agricultural Marketing Council. 'That means that there is going to probably be a bit of an influx of some of the products, especially those that were being sent to that market.' South Africa could potentially see a drop in coffee prices as a result of the 50% tariff imposed on Brazil — the world's largest coffee producer — and the biggest supplier to the local market. 'Two things are going to happen for Brazil — either they find alternative markets immediately, which isn't going to really happen, or two, they are going to have to sell their coffee at maybe relatively lesser prices,' Nkunjane told the Mail & Guardian. 'For us, who are buyers of their coffee, are going to probably have a bargain when we import from them.' But he warned there could be an adverse effect if the South American country runs low on supply due to unfavourable climate conditions or decides to vastly diversify its market. The shake-up brought on by the US tariffs presents an opportunity for South Africa to pursue greater trade and investment with other countries in the Brics bloc, the deputy director general responsible for trade Xolelwa Mlumbi-Peter said. 'The aim is to advance this on the basis of complementarities. There is also a risk of potential trade diversion as the two economies look for alternative markets,' Mlumbi-Peter told the M&G . 'Hence, we have prioritised the implementation of trade defence measures in line with our international commitments in the World Trade Organisation.' The price of rice coming from India — one of the world's largest producers of the grain — could also ease as it loses some of its access to the American market. But while South Africa could benefit in the short term from lower import prices as its trading partners look for alternative markets to the US, local exporters will have to identify new buyers for their products. India, for example, is very protective of its agricultural producers, noted Mmatlou Kalaba, a senior analyst and director at the Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy. 'It looks inwards and only opens up for a short period when they have a need. Especially on agriculture or on more labour-intensive goods that India is able to produce themselves, they are very restrictive. They put up very high walls in terms of tariffs and non-tariff measures,' Kalaba said. He said that South Africa should rather strengthen its relationship with Middle Eastern countries — to which it already exports beef — but the trade conditions could become tighter as different players enter the market. 'The US has imposed a 15% to 30% tariff on countries like Australia, New Zealand and Brazil, but our beef market has been mainly in the Middle East and the continent,' Kalaba said. 'What that means is that Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina and others who are affected by these tariffs, are looking for new markets as well. They are going to go to the high-income, oil-rich states of the Middle East — your United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on. 'This means the challenge now shifts to competition — it's not so much about the tariffs. Basically, the tariffs change, if I may say, the playing field to a third market, in some instances, so now we need to be competitive in those markets.' The government says the US tariffs will The 'This is not a plan B; it is a plan A for long-term resilience and competitiveness. We are committed to strengthening our relationships, particularly under the AfCFTA, to build regional resilience,' the department said. 'We will also continue the work we have started with our European partners towards enhancing our trade and investment relations in a manner that unlocks sustainable growth and development and entrenches South Africa in new supply chains. 'We are looking at Asia, including Japan, Vietnam and Thailand, the Middle East and India. We are pursuing these markets because we see growing demand, existing negotiations and a positive reception to South African products.'
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- The Citizen
How will Ramaphosa deal with SA's foreign policy nightmare
South Affrica has a non-aligned foreign policy which has been seen as anti-U.S. A radical cabal already dominates SA's foreign affairs department. This week, the department – once studiously aloof from the ruling party's ideological feuds – showed it, too, has been drawn into the fray. During an official visit to Tehran, the country's top general pledged political and military solidarity with Iran against the US and Israel. It is the latest move in a quiet but fierce struggle inside the ANC between a dwindling band of what passes for moderates and an emboldened bloc of extremists, many with hard-line Islamist sympathies. The former cling to the fiction of a non-aligned SA. The latter see the present global disorder as their moment to cast the country as a heroic standard-bearer of the global south, leading the fight against 'Western imperialism' and 'US hegemony'. General Rudzani Maphwanya, chief of the SA National Defence Force (SANDF), met in Tehran an array of Iran's top military leadership in a calculated affront to Washington. The departments of international relations and cooperation (Dirco) and defence are now scrambling to disclaim his anti-US rhetoric, even as he publicly committed South Africa to joint military ventures with a pariah state. Such denials should be taken with a generous pinch of salt. It is inconceivable that Maphwanya acted without the blessing of both departments and of the Presidency itself. Maphwanya's actions are extraordinary for the head of a military in a democracy. If the trip was unsanctioned and Maphwanya's statements unapproved, the implications are grave. As chief of the SANDF, such unilateral actions would constitute a direct military intrusion into civilian affairs of near-treasonous proportions. Immediate dismissal and possible cash earnings from the SANDF would be warranted. The department's responses have been striking. Neither denied knowing about the general's trip but both issued statements stressing foreign policy is the responsibility of the Presidency and Dirco. The implication is that they did know, but the general went rogue. If the trip was sanctioned, the diplomatic dis aster that has been unleashed demands account ability at the highest levels. Ronald Lamola (Dir co), Angie Motshekga (defence), and Khumbudzo Ntshavheni (Presidency) should all be axed. But the Presidency flatly denies any knowl edge of the trip or giving permission for it. This statement is almost as extraordinary as the general's actions. If the President was kept in the dark and his ministers knew, they must be axed immediately. The point is that there is a military stirring that needs to be nipped in the bud. It should be extremely concerning, especially to the ANC's partners in the government of national unity, that there is a strong possibility the Islamist-led bloc dominating Dirco has found a like-minded, equally senior anti-US/anti-Israel faction within the SANDF. The rot is spreading, and the consequences are eye-popping. This is not non-alignment. It's a confirmation of the US position articulated by US President Donald Trump in the February executive order: South Africa is actively acting against the interests of America in its embrace of Iran. Domestically, the implications of a politically assertive military are equally alarming. This is the well-worn route taken by every 'liberation party' regime north of the Limpopo: a slide towards authoritarianism, one-party dominance, repression and the occasional military coup. SA is now caught between two forces: an increasingly radicalised foreign policy and a militarised ideological alignment. What began with a quiet capture of Dirco has metastasised into an open assertion of anti-Western sentiment at the heart of the SANDF. The president and his coalition partners in the GNU must ruthlessly excise the cancer. But they won't.
