Can BRICS project unity amid global tensions? – DW – 07/04/2025
A two-day summit of the BRICS grouping of emerging economies starts Sunday in Brazil's Rio de Janeiro, as the global forum seeks to build consensus and cohesion after the group expanded over the past two years.
BRICS styles itself as a counterweight to western multilateral institutions like the G7, and describes its role as a "political and diplomatic coordination forum" for countries of the Global South.
Brazil, which holds the grouping's rotating presidency, is focusing the Rio summit on strengthening Global South cooperation for more inclusive governance.
In the run-up to the official conference, negotiators from member states have met to find common ground that will shape discussions on issues like access to vaccines, disease prevention, ethical implementation of artificial intelligence and enabling Global South action on climate change.
The leaders of Russia and China, two of the grouping's key members, will not travel to Brazil to attend the 17th BRICS summit.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely skipping the summit to avoid an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for war crimes. Russia has said Putin will join via video link.
Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend a BRICS summit for the first time since he became China's leader in 2012. His absence is more of a mystery. China's Foreign Ministry said Premier Li Qiang would represent China, and did not provide a reason as to why Xi is staying behind.
The , which first broke news of Xi's absence, cited unnamed Chinese officials that Xi had a "scheduling conflict" and had met Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva twice in the past year.
The report included that an exclusive invitation to a state dinner from da Silva to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would also have been bad imaging for Xi.
Another possible source of tension is Brazil's decision to not join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing's keystone global infrastructure financing scheme.
China has positioned itself as the vanguard of BRICS expansion and ambition, but Xi's absence at the Brazil summit gives India's Modi the opportunity to take center stage. India is due to take up the BRICS presidency in 2026, and New Delhi is eager to expand on its global diplomatic outreach.
Modi's appearance in Brazil is part of a five-nation tour, his longest diplomatic circuit in 10 years, which also includes Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina, and two African countries, Namibia and Ghana.
BRICS is a forum where both the Chinese and Indians have been "trying to come to terms with who is a better spokesperson for the Global South," Harsh V. Pant, head of the Strategic Studies Program at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), a New Delhi-based think tank, told DW.
The summit "might give Modi the opportunity to amplify that part of India's foreign policy agenda" and Xi's absence "certainly gives him more space to maneuver," he said.
"When BRICS started, it was about emerging powers trying to retain space in the global multilateral economic order. There was an unease with Western dominance of global economic institutions, and India wanted to work with emerging powers. At that point, India believed there was space to work with Russia to balance China. Today, those considerations are up in the air," Pant added.
BRICS, originally called "BRIC" after founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China, eventually added an "S" with South Africa in 2010. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates joined in 2024, but the acronym remained the same.
Indonesia officially joined earlier this year, bringing the membership to 10 countries. Saudi Arabia has been invited to join, but has held off on formalizing membership. Dozens of other countries have shown interest.
Statistically, BRICS countries comprise 40% of the global population, and the share of global GDP at purchasing power parity comes in at more than 35%.
However, the grouping has so far found it difficult to turn that potential clout into a viable alternative to Western-led multilateral institutions.
Fundamentally, BRICS is more of a loose grouping than a bloc like the EU, or an alliance like NATO. And with more members, finding consensus becomes more complicated.
One of BRICS most ambitious undertakings has been the New Development Bank (NBD), a development financing institution founded in 2015 as an alternative to institutions like the World Bank, which Global South countries believe is failing to meet their needs.
The NBD has seen some success in funding infrastructure projects in developing countries using local currencies. BRICS is now seeking to build on that track record. A press release from Brazil said the 2025 summit will seek consensus on making the NBD the "main financing agent for industrialization in the Global South."
However, the NBD's smaller size makes it unlikely to emerge as a challenger to the World Bank and the global financial system.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Other ideas like a common BRICS currency to counter the US dollar have fallen flat, partly due to China's economic dominance, which would give it an outsized weight over other members.
Moreover, internal disagreement persists over issues like Russia's war in Ukraine. A key narrative used to promote BRICS was based on an appeal to legitimizing principles, like the idea of national sovereignty, and non-intervention of countries in another's domestic affairs.
"The problem is that you have Russia there, which is now challenging the sovereignty of other countries. You have China there, which is challenging the sovereignty of India and of several other countries in the maritime space," said ORF's Pant.
Geopolitical tensions between China and India include a border dispute and China's support for Pakistan during the recent skirmish between Islamabad and New Delhi.
There are "divergences between India and China that are quite significant,"Pant said.
"China remains uncomfortable with wider issues about India's rise and role in the global hierarchy," according to the Indian expert.
BRICS has also notably failed to muster a common response on the string of geopolitical and economic challenges coming from the US, including Donald Trump's threat of tariffs.
When Iran, a member of BRICS, was bombed by the US, BRICS members issued a strongly worded joint statement expressing "serious concern" over attacks against "peaceful nuclear installations."
But fellow BRICS members Russia and China, which both have partnership agreements with Iran, did not take any substantive action on Tehran's behalf.
On Trump's blanket tariffs, BRICS was absent as a cohesive front for negotiation, despite its massive GDP size on paper.
"By and large we've seen a very pragmatic approach by all of these countries in engaging with the Trump administration rather than putting up a fight on some grand principles," Pant said.
"If you look at the rhetoric and you look at the actual realities on the ground, both the Russians and Chinese at this point are more interested in cutting bilateral deals with Trump. Russians are working with Trump on security architecture in Europe, China is working on a trade deal. Indians are also interested in a bilateral trade deal with the US."
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
"On substance, there is not much there as an example of countries that have the potential to push back against the US, because all of them are cutting bilateral deals," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
Do EU structures enable far-right misuse of public money? – DW – 07/04/2025
A leaked audit accuses far-right parties of improperly spending millions in EU funds. Critics say it's not just a scandal but a symptom of the EU system's deeper problems. From donations to dog shelters to questionable contracts with politically affiliated companies, far-right members of the European Parliament have been accused of funnelling public funds towards personal or ideological allies. An internal parliamentary audit obtained by a group of investigative journalists from German broadcaster ARD's magazine show Kontraste, German newspaper , French newspaper and Austrian media outlet, Falter, reveals that the now-defunct far-right Identity and Democracy group, commonly referred to as ID, may have spent at least €4.3 million ($5.1 million) in EU operating funds on what the European Parliament's own administration calls "unjustified and potentially unlawful" transactions. Every year the European Parliament allocates funds for the administrative and operational expenses of each political grouping in it, usually between €6 million to €7 million annually. Those funds are meant to support legislative work — such as funding policy research, running public events related to EU politics, or producing communications materials that explain their activities to citizens. Around 5% of this budget can be transferred to external organizations but donations to local charities, national campaign efforts, or groups with no clear link to EU-level work are explicitly prohibited. However the internal audit alleges that around 80 of the ID group's expenses do not meet that requirement. The improper spending allegedly includes fictitious service contracts, improper tender procedures and donations to associations unrelated to parliamentary activities and connected to far-right figures, the investigating publications reported. The scale of the findings suggest that this was more than administrative sloppiness and raises deeper questions about how the EU's own structures may be enabling such abuses. As an example, the report says the ID group — which disbanded in the summer of 2024 but previously included Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National, or RN, Germany's Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Italy's Lega and Austria's Freedom Party, or FPÖ — donated €1,000 ($1200) to the president of a French-Russian cultural association, Teremok. She is the spouse of Gregoire Eury, an RN councillor for the Grand Est region. This was just one of many connections between the associations that benefited from ID donations and far-right officials from ID-affiliated parties. Other donations simply reflected the broader political affinities of ID elected officials. In Germany, SOS Leben (or "SOS Life," in English), which is linked to the AfD, received €3,500 to support anti-abortion campaigns. In France, €1,000 went to the Catholic identitarian association SOS Calvaires to restore a parish. Around €600,000 reportedly landed with , a far-right Austrian newspaper close to the FPÖ, with ID paying for advertising far above market rates. Money also went to animal shelters and charities — not necessarily a bad thing, but also not acceptable under EU rules. French companies close to Marine Le Pen were among the biggest beneficiaries: Two firms tied to her longtime political allies reportedly received more than €3 million in total. One of them has previously been implicated in another EU funding scandal. The former secretary general of now defunct ID group, Philip Claeys, denied any wrongdoing and told the investigating journalists that all the payments were "duly invoiced and justified." Claeys said that an external auditor and then the European Parliament had approved the ID group's yearly financial statements. Donations by the group were apparently based on a rule called "Article 68." Only thing is, the investigative journalists found, there's no such thing as "Article 68." Yet it appeared in multiple years of published accounts without triggering alarms. When contacted, the Belgian auditors responsible declined to comment. "This is not an isolated incident," Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International EU, told DW. "This seems to be a scheme that that ran over many years, involved many entities cross-border." Without the proper checks in place, he adds, this could easily happen again today. It is true that this is far from the first time that European MEPs have been caught misusing EU money. In March, Marine Le Pen was sentenced in France to four years probation and banned from holding political office after being found guilty of embezzling European parliamentary funds through a fake jobs scam. She has appealed the ruling. And it's not only the far right. Past scandals have implicated politicians across the spectrum. The so-called Qatargate scandal in 2023 exposed bribery and cash-for-influence schemes involving current and former MEPs. And in 2018, investigative journalists went to court seeking further information on what's known as "general expenditure allowance," or GEA, an amount paid monthly to MEPs for expenses like running an office and travel. MEPs get over €4,000 a month in GEA — this adds up to over €40 million a year — but don't have to provide information on how they've spent it. At the time, investigative journalists found over 200 of what they called "ghost offices." A court denied the journalists the information and the lack of transparency and accountability around the GEAs has remained a sore point. Despite repeated scandals, the European Parliament has failed to implement meaningful reforms, Aiossa says. He argues that the institution has done itself lasting damage — first by refusing to respond decisively when issues arose, and then by continuing to tolerate weak accountability and integrity systems. The result, he warns, is a steady erosion of public trust. At the core of the problem lies the structure of parliamentary finances, according to Aiossa. Instead of managing budgets directly, the European Parliament delegates this responsibility to the political groups themselves. Groups are required to conduct annual audits but those are done according to random sampling, which means misuse of funds may not be detected. This means that the responsibility of how party group money is spent lies primarily with its party leadership, particularly its financial officers and secretary general. This, according to Aiossa, has to change. "The parliament needs to take a much more proactive approach in managing this money itself and not delegating that responsibility just to the political groups." German MEP Niclas Herbst, a member of the conservative Christian Democrats, who chairs the Parliament's committee on budgetary control, agrees. "This is taxpayers money and we want it back," he told journalists. He plans to push for criminal charges on this latest case at the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), to show that there must be accountability. Aiossa warns that unless the European Parliament seizes this moment to enact serious reforms, including transparency on allowances, competitive bidding for contracts and direct control over group budgets, public trust in the body will only continue to erode.
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
'One event' arms pause troubling for Ukraine – DW – 07/04/2025
The US says its pause on arms shipments is a one-off. But amid the turbulent US-Ukraine relationship, the assurance is little comfort to Volodymyr Zelenskyy or his European supporters. Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy will seek "clarity" from Donald Trump on Friday amid a challenging week that saw a scheduled US arms shipment paused and Kyiv pummeled by another Russian drone strike. The US confirmed earlier this week that a batch of arms shipments to Ukraine would be paused in yet another reminder that the eastern European country's supply of advanced military equipment is not as secure as it once was. The US has downplayed this decision to withhold crucial arms shipments to Ukraine, as a state department spokesperson told reporters it was a one-off. "This is not a cessation of us assisting Ukraine or of providing weapons," said spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. "This is one event and one situation, and we'll discuss what else comes up in future." The US president has continued to press both sides of the conflict to negotiate a ceasefire and spoke with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the matter on Thursday. But progress, according to Trump said, was limited. "I didn't make any progress with him today at all," he told reporters. "I'm not happy about that. I'm not happy… I don't think he's looking to stop." Russia followed that call with a massive drone strike on the Ukrainian capital. Zelenskyy is due to speak with Trump on Friday about the shipment pause. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The pair have had a strained relationship during Trump's second term, publicly evidenced in a televised falling out during a White House sit-down in early March. Following the disastrous visit, Zelenskyy sought to shore up support closer to home with key European allies. Europe has since stepped up their support in financial and supply terms. But if the US were to continue to withhold support, it would significantly undermine Ukraine's position versus Russia. "If this were to be a longer-term issue, it would definitely be a challenge for Ukraine to cope," Jana Kobzova, a senior policy fellow specializing at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told DW. "Partly because some of the US systems are not easily replaceable, that goes especially for air defense, but also some of the longer-range capabilities which Ukraine has started to produce domestically but not in the quantities needed." Despite the spat between Trump and Zelenskyy, the pause on shipments could be as much about the US needing to weigh its own interests against the support it gives to dozens of other countries, including Israel. "After the Israel-Iranian exchange, I can imagine that Trump wants to relocate resources," Marina Miron, a defense researcher specializing in military technology and Russian capability at Kings College London, UK, told DW. Brent Sadler, a research fellow at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, told Politico the move is likely a "due diligence" measure to ensure adequate resourcing for US forces elsewhere, including the Indo-Pacific in the event of a conflict outbreak in that region. Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, took a different view, saying the shipment pause was not about stockpiles. "It's a choice of this administration to placate Russia, at the expense of Ukraine," Hodges said. "It also shows the very limited understanding this administration [has] of the importance to America's strategic interests to help Ukraine and Europe deter Russia." Irrespective of the US' reasons for pausing its military shipments, the signals from the first months of the new administration suggest Europe's transatlantic ally is not the steadfast partner it once was. "There is a sober analysis both in Kyiv and the European part of NATO that relying on US military assistance to continue forever in Ukraine is not an option," said Kobzova. "And that has been there ever since March when the assistance was stopped for the first time." Among the American weapons due for shipping were Patriot air defense missiles and precision-guided artillery, according to officials speaking to newswires anonymously. The pause on these shipments comes at a critical time, with Russia ramping up weapons production and attacks. Those include strikes on soldier draft hubs in Poltava, the national capital Kyiv, the port city Odesa, and ground advances in key regions in Eastern Ukraine. Despite increased spending on defense from Europe's NATO members — now 5% of GDP following its June meeting — any long-term US stall on weapons will likely squeeze Ukraine and its neighbors. "There is recognition at the political level … that [Europe] would need to be increasing production, but none of that happens quickly enough for Ukraine," said Kobzova. Kobzova also pointed to investments being made into Ukraine's own defense industry to buffer against future supply-line cuts from the US. Europe is now the biggest investor in Ukraine's domestic defense industry. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video But even that might not be enough. Experts interviewed by DW highlighted the offer made by Zelenskyy to directly purchase armaments from the US, but in reality, arms manufacturing is a time-consuming process. "It takes two years to produce one [air defense missile] battery," the defense expert Miron told DW. "So even if you buy them now, it doesn't mean that they will be on the battlefield. You place a purchase order and you get in the queue." Finding a way to more effectively repair and adapt equipment for different missiles could be a potential stopgap to meet immediate needs. But, as defense supplies are again in doubt, Miron questioned whether Ukraine has what it needs to push back Russia's offensive. "The problem is time and money and we also have the variable of people," she said, adding that about 90 people are needed to operate a Patriot air missile battery. And Ukraine, Miron pointed out, is losing people, with no guarantee of replacement as the war grinds through its fourth year. Ukraine's support in Europe has been increasing — both rhetorically and materially. As it took over the presidency of the EU for the next six months, Denmark has seized the early opportunity to put Ukraine's membership application into the bloc back on the agenda. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Thursday said the EU "must strengthen Ukraine. And we must weaken Russia." "Ukraine is essential to Europe's security. Our contribution to Ukraine is also a protection of our freedom. Ukraine belongs in the European Union. It is in both in Denmark's and Europe's interest." Her comments come on the back of a visit to Ukraine from German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who branded Ukraine's plight Berlin's most important foreign policy task. These statements from Europe might be more important than ever, as Miron says she is pessimistic about the future of the US-Ukraine relationship. "Certainly you can try some diplomacy, and explain to Trump that Ukraine matters, but I think Trump has already made up his mind," she said. "Trump has much more to solve with Russia in terms of global problems than with Ukraine."
DW
4 hours ago
- DW
Can BRICS project unity amid global tensions? – DW – 07/04/2025
The influence of BRICS, a global forum championed by China, Russia, and India, is on the rise. Still, even its major members have to negotiate internal conflicts amid challenges posed by the Trump administration. A two-day summit of the BRICS grouping of emerging economies starts Sunday in Brazil's Rio de Janeiro, as the global forum seeks to build consensus and cohesion after the group expanded over the past two years. BRICS styles itself as a counterweight to western multilateral institutions like the G7, and describes its role as a "political and diplomatic coordination forum" for countries of the Global South. Brazil, which holds the grouping's rotating presidency, is focusing the Rio summit on strengthening Global South cooperation for more inclusive governance. In the run-up to the official conference, negotiators from member states have met to find common ground that will shape discussions on issues like access to vaccines, disease prevention, ethical implementation of artificial intelligence and enabling Global South action on climate change. The leaders of Russia and China, two of the grouping's key members, will not travel to Brazil to attend the 17th BRICS summit. Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely skipping the summit to avoid an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for war crimes. Russia has said Putin will join via video link. Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend a BRICS summit for the first time since he became China's leader in 2012. His absence is more of a mystery. China's Foreign Ministry said Premier Li Qiang would represent China, and did not provide a reason as to why Xi is staying behind. The , which first broke news of Xi's absence, cited unnamed Chinese officials that Xi had a "scheduling conflict" and had met Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva twice in the past year. The report included that an exclusive invitation to a state dinner from da Silva to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would also have been bad imaging for Xi. Another possible source of tension is Brazil's decision to not join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing's keystone global infrastructure financing scheme. China has positioned itself as the vanguard of BRICS expansion and ambition, but Xi's absence at the Brazil summit gives India's Modi the opportunity to take center stage. India is due to take up the BRICS presidency in 2026, and New Delhi is eager to expand on its global diplomatic outreach. Modi's appearance in Brazil is part of a five-nation tour, his longest diplomatic circuit in 10 years, which also includes Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina, and two African countries, Namibia and Ghana. BRICS is a forum where both the Chinese and Indians have been "trying to come to terms with who is a better spokesperson for the Global South," Harsh V. Pant, head of the Strategic Studies Program at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), a New Delhi-based think tank, told DW. The summit "might give Modi the opportunity to amplify that part of India's foreign policy agenda" and Xi's absence "certainly gives him more space to maneuver," he said. "When BRICS started, it was about emerging powers trying to retain space in the global multilateral economic order. There was an unease with Western dominance of global economic institutions, and India wanted to work with emerging powers. At that point, India believed there was space to work with Russia to balance China. Today, those considerations are up in the air," Pant added. BRICS, originally called "BRIC" after founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China, eventually added an "S" with South Africa in 2010. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates joined in 2024, but the acronym remained the same. Indonesia officially joined earlier this year, bringing the membership to 10 countries. Saudi Arabia has been invited to join, but has held off on formalizing membership. Dozens of other countries have shown interest. Statistically, BRICS countries comprise 40% of the global population, and the share of global GDP at purchasing power parity comes in at more than 35%. However, the grouping has so far found it difficult to turn that potential clout into a viable alternative to Western-led multilateral institutions. Fundamentally, BRICS is more of a loose grouping than a bloc like the EU, or an alliance like NATO. And with more members, finding consensus becomes more complicated. One of BRICS most ambitious undertakings has been the New Development Bank (NBD), a development financing institution founded in 2015 as an alternative to institutions like the World Bank, which Global South countries believe is failing to meet their needs. The NBD has seen some success in funding infrastructure projects in developing countries using local currencies. BRICS is now seeking to build on that track record. A press release from Brazil said the 2025 summit will seek consensus on making the NBD the "main financing agent for industrialization in the Global South." However, the NBD's smaller size makes it unlikely to emerge as a challenger to the World Bank and the global financial system. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Other ideas like a common BRICS currency to counter the US dollar have fallen flat, partly due to China's economic dominance, which would give it an outsized weight over other members. Moreover, internal disagreement persists over issues like Russia's war in Ukraine. A key narrative used to promote BRICS was based on an appeal to legitimizing principles, like the idea of national sovereignty, and non-intervention of countries in another's domestic affairs. "The problem is that you have Russia there, which is now challenging the sovereignty of other countries. You have China there, which is challenging the sovereignty of India and of several other countries in the maritime space," said ORF's Pant. Geopolitical tensions between China and India include a border dispute and China's support for Pakistan during the recent skirmish between Islamabad and New Delhi. There are "divergences between India and China that are quite significant,"Pant said. "China remains uncomfortable with wider issues about India's rise and role in the global hierarchy," according to the Indian expert. BRICS has also notably failed to muster a common response on the string of geopolitical and economic challenges coming from the US, including Donald Trump's threat of tariffs. When Iran, a member of BRICS, was bombed by the US, BRICS members issued a strongly worded joint statement expressing "serious concern" over attacks against "peaceful nuclear installations." But fellow BRICS members Russia and China, which both have partnership agreements with Iran, did not take any substantive action on Tehran's behalf. On Trump's blanket tariffs, BRICS was absent as a cohesive front for negotiation, despite its massive GDP size on paper. "By and large we've seen a very pragmatic approach by all of these countries in engaging with the Trump administration rather than putting up a fight on some grand principles," Pant said. "If you look at the rhetoric and you look at the actual realities on the ground, both the Russians and Chinese at this point are more interested in cutting bilateral deals with Trump. Russians are working with Trump on security architecture in Europe, China is working on a trade deal. Indians are also interested in a bilateral trade deal with the US." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "On substance, there is not much there as an example of countries that have the potential to push back against the US, because all of them are cutting bilateral deals," he added.
