logo
Brics bigger than G7: Expansion boosts global clout but Trump, China pose challenge

Brics bigger than G7: Expansion boosts global clout but Trump, China pose challenge

First Post4 hours ago
Brics has expanded from initial four to eleven members and has sought a greater say in the world's affairs in recent years, but the group has faced a challenge to its relevance from US President Donald Trump's direct threats and attempts by China to turn the group into an anti-West bloc to take on the United States. read more
Over the past two decades, Brics has evolved from a forum of four emerging economies to a group of 11 nations that its supporters say is ushering true multilateralism in the world. Critics, however, say that the bloc is just a Chinese tool to unseat the United States to become the world's foremost superpower.
The idea of Brics emerged in 2001 when then-Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O'Neill argued that Brazil, Russia, India, and China had the potential to reshape the global economic landscape by 2050 due to their large populations, rapid economic growth, rising global influence, and rapid upward social mobility.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In 2006, the four countries came together to form Bric — South Africa joined in 2010. With the expansion in 2024, the group has 11 members.
Brics has positioned itself as a non-Western alternative for supporting economic growth and cooperation. Even though the group's influence has risen, challenges have also risen and the group now finds itself as a critical juncture.
Brics is bigger than G7 but faces tough challenges
In 2015, Brics launched New Development Bank (NDB) to fund infrastructure and development projects in developing countries.
With initiatives like the NDB and the Russia-led grain exchange, and collaboration in other areas of emerging technologies and economies, Brics has positioned itself as an alternative to Western-dominated financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. But, even as Brics continues to attract new members, the group is far from replacing IMF or World Bank and stares at formidable challenges — both internally and externally.
Internally, the very purpose of Brics is under question as China has sought to become the leader of the group and turn it into an anti-Western bloc. Russia has supported China to the hilt in this quest. The two countries are already part of an anti-Western alliance also comprising Iran and North Korea (the so-called CRINK bloc) and want to make Brics an extension of that bloc — while the CRINK bloc clashes with the West militarily, Brics takes on the West economically.
Externally, Brics has faced strong opposition from US President Donald Trump, who has dubbed any move by the group to dethrone the US Dollar as a red line. He has threatened Brics members with 100 per cent tariffs if they move towards a Brics currency or dedollarisation.
With such challenges that put the very basis of the group in question, Brics stands as a unique blend of opportunities, aspirations, and challenges, and India as a founding member and a competitor of China has its own share of challenges.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A non-Western group or an anti-Western group?
India has gone to great lengths to explain to the West that Brics is not an anti-Western group and that it supplements Western institutions like the IMF and World Bank and does not seek to replace them. But China and Russia continue to push the group as an anti-Western bloc.
Brics is definitely a China-dominated group as China is the largest economy and contributes to 40 per cent of the bloc's gross domestic product. Moreover, NBD is headquartered in Shanghai even as five initial members —Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa— are equal shareholders of the bank.
The presence of ironclad partners Russia and China (and Iran as well) in Brics further adds to the anti-Western impression of the bloc.
However, India's presence in the group and, more importantly, its status as a founding member counterbalances the China-Russia influence. India has so far prevented the bloc from turning into an anti-Western bloc. In March, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar dismissed fears of Brics trying to replace the US Dollar.
Instead, India considers the strength of the US Dollar essential for global stability, said Jaishankar.
'I don't think there's any policy on our part to replace the dollar. As I said, at the end of the day, the dollar as the reserve currency is the source of international economic stability. And right now, what we want in the world is more economic stability, not less,' said Jaishankar.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India has also used its status as an equal shareholder at NDB to prevent the bank from turning into an extension of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
As China is not just working to dethrone the United States, but is also looking forward to suppress India's rise, India's continued presence and assertion of its role as a founding member in Brics is a must. Anushka Saxena, a China researcher at the Takshashila Institution, previously told Firstpost that India's involvement in Brics and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a must to ensure these institutions work for stated purposes and not become China's tools.
'In Brics, India's priorities lie in making sure that principled guidelines are laid out to set benchmarks for membership, in creating space for consensus-building against the possibility of China's influence-peddling, and in attempting to retain the image and brand value of Brics as a community of developing market economies demanding more voice in global governance,' she said Saxena.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Similarly, in the SCO, India's role as a disruptor is vital. If China and Russia continue to propagate the idea that these groupings are anti-West, India's presence becomes necessary to maintain the balance and act as a bridge with the West,' Saxena further said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sajjan Jindal bats for 'longer term solution' for Indian steel sector
Sajjan Jindal bats for 'longer term solution' for Indian steel sector

Business Standard

time37 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Sajjan Jindal bats for 'longer term solution' for Indian steel sector

Billionaire industrialist Sajjan Jindal has called for a 'longer-term solution' to ensure the competitiveness of Indian steel in the wake of the uncertainty caused by US tariffs. In his message to shareholders as mentioned in JSW Steel's latest annual report, Jindal said: 'We are navigating a period of change, shaped by an evolving global political and policy landscape. While India remains on a transformative growth path, driving healthy steel demand, the steel industry faces a challenging environment marked by weak global demand and record Chinese steel exports, even as iron ore costs remain relatively elevated.' The chairman and managing director of the company pointed out that uncertainty related to tariffs imposed by the US had caused volatility in global markets. 'Trade barriers have been rising, with various countries either imposing measures or initiating action to protect their steel industries from unfair imports.' 'This is altering global trade flows, with surplus steel finding its way into India, posing significant challenges for Indian steelmakers. India has imposed a 12 per cent safeguard duty on certain steel products for 200 days, based on a preliminary investigation undertaken by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR),' he said, adding that a longer-term solution was critical to ensure the competitiveness of Indian steel, create a level-playing field, and allow Indian steelmakers to earn a reasonable return on investments. The comments come at a time when major Indian steel producers are expanding capacity at a frenetic pace. JSW Steel has committed a capital expenditure of Rs 62,000 crore over the next three years to support its goal of achieving 42 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) steelmaking capacity in India by September 2027. The company's domestic installed capacity is 34.2 mtpa, and plans are afoot to take it to 50 mtpa by FY31. On 21 April, the Ministry of Finance announced the imposition of a 12 per cent provisional safeguard duty for a period of 200 days on certain steel products to protect the domestic industry from injury caused by a spike in imports. It came a month after the DGTR, under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, had recommended a 12 per cent safeguard duty. However, steel prices have remained soft despite the safeguard duty. Tata Steel and Tata group chairman Natarajan Chandrasekaran, while responding to shareholder queries on the market environment at the steel major's annual general meeting (AGM) recently, said that China continues to export about 100 million tonnes (mt) of steel. 'That is definitely affecting the overall steel price not only in global markets but also in India. The Indian government has put a safeguard duty of 12 per cent and the industry obviously was wanting almost double that. But we are happy that the government took the step to put the 12 per cent,' he said, adding that in spite of that, steel prices remained soft. However, he also said that Tata Steel was expected to post better revenues, EBITDA, profits, and cash flow in FY26 compared to FY25 on the back of overall performance, increased capacity, and current spread levels.

‘1 border, 3 adversaries': Army Deputy Chief on Op Sindoor, says Pakistan got live inputs from China
‘1 border, 3 adversaries': Army Deputy Chief on Op Sindoor, says Pakistan got live inputs from China

The Print

time39 minutes ago

  • The Print

‘1 border, 3 adversaries': Army Deputy Chief on Op Sindoor, says Pakistan got live inputs from China

Further explaining his statement, he added, 'Pakistan was the front face. We had China providing all possible support. This is no surprise because if you look at statistics, in the last five years, 81 percent of the military hardware that Pakistan is getting is all Chinese. China, of course, the good old dictum, killed by a borrowed knife…So, he would rather use the neighbour to cause pain than get involved in the mud-slinging match on the northern borders.' Speaking Friday at an event 'New Age Military Technologies' organised by FICCI, Lt Gen Singh said, 'First, one border, two adversaries. So, we saw Pakistan on one side, but adversaries were two, actually four, or let's say three.' New Delhi: In candid assessment of India's Operation Sindoor, Lieutenant General Rahul R. Singh, Deputy Chief of Army Staff (Capability Development & Sustenance), has said that there are multiple lessons to be learnt from the 87-hour conflict, with the biggest lesson being that while there was just one border, there were a minimum of three adversaries. China has been able to test its weapons against others, he said. 'So, it's like a live lab available to them. It is something that we have to be very cognizant about. Turkey also played an important role in providing the type of support it did…' he said on the use of Turkish drones of various kinds by the Pakistani military. Lt Gen Singh also spoke about what has emerged as one of the primary concerns within the defence and security establishment—China using its satellites to monitor Indian military deployment. 'The next important lesson is the importance of C4ISR and civil military fusion. There is a lot to be done as far as this domain is concerned.' C4ISR stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. 'When DGMO-level talks were on, Pakistan actually was mentioning that we know that your such and such vector was primed and ready for action, and we would request you to perhaps pull it back. So he was getting live inputs from China. That is one place we really need to move fast and take appropriate action,' the Deputy Chief said. While ThePrint held back a lot of information verified by it while Operation Sindoor was underway, it has been learnt that China was indeed an active participant in this conflict by providing strategic military inputs to Pakistan. Indian leadership has been trying to downplay the involvement of the Chinese in the conflict. Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had said on 31 May that while Pakistan may have leveraged Chinese commercial satellite imagery, there is no proof of real-time targeting support. ThePrint's Editor-In-Chief Shekhar Gupta had written in his column 'National Interest' on 7 June how Operation Sindoor was the first battle in India's two-front war, and that the Chinese use Pakistan as a cheap instrument to triangulate India between them. 'It is safer to presume that the Chinese now see Pakistan as an extension of their Western Theatre Command,' he wrote. Lt Gen Singh said that 'thankfully our population centres were not quite at risk' during Operation Sindoor. 'In the next round, we will have to be prepared for that. For that more and more air defence, more and more counter rockets, artillery, and drone sort of systems has to be prepared for which we have to move very very fast,' he noted, while admitting that while indigenous systems did very well, some did not. (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: IAF lost 'some' jets in Op Sindoor over political constraint to not hit military—Indian Defence Attaché

Can India and the US strike a trade deal without clashing over agriculture?
Can India and the US strike a trade deal without clashing over agriculture?

First Post

time39 minutes ago

  • First Post

Can India and the US strike a trade deal without clashing over agriculture?

As India and the US push to finalise a trade pact before Trump's July 9 deadline, agriculture has emerged as the biggest roadblock. With disagreements over GM crops, dairy and ethanol, and concerns over rural livelihoods, both sides are locked in a tense standoff. Can they reach a deal without upsetting India's farmers? read more A farm worker holds rice sapling as he prepares to plant them in a field on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, India, July 22, 2024. File Image/Reuters India and the United States are racing to conclude an interim trade pact ahead of President Donald Trump's July 9 deadline but a long-standing hurdle threatens to block progress — agriculture. Despite nearing consensus on various industrial sectors, disputes around farm goods, including genetically modified crops, dairy imports and ethanol remain reportedly unresolved. The issue is not merely economic for India; it touches upon food security, rural livelihoods, and political sensitivities, all of which have major implications for the country's domestic stability. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why India's agriculture sector is non-negotiable Though farming and allied activities contribute a relatively modest portion — around 16 per cent — to India's GDP, the sector supports nearly half of the country's population of 1.4 billion. The farming community represents a dominant political constituency and has historically influenced policy decisions through sustained mobilisations. In 2021, the Indian government was compelled to withdraw major agricultural reforms following year-long nationwide protests. This past resistance still casts a shadow over current trade negotiations, as New Delhi remains wary of sparking fresh unrest by opening up its agricultural sector to foreign competition. India's farming structure is notably small-scale. The average size of a farm is just over a hectare, contrasting sharply with American agricultural operations, where the mean farm size exceeds 180 hectares. In India, most farms are manually operated or use outdated techniques passed down over generations, while US agriculture is highly mechanised and supported by advanced technology, including AI-based monitoring systems and large-scale machinery. US agricultural demands vs India's red lines A central point of contention is Washington's push for increased access to the Indian market for a range of American agricultural products. The US seeks to expand exports of various farm commodities — among them genetically modified (GM) corn and soybeans, wheat, poultry, dairy, rice, ethanol, and a variety of processed foods including canned peaches, frozen French fries, chocolates, cookies and citrus fruits. While India has indicated some openness to easing tariffs on selected imports such as dry fruits and apples, it has remained firm on rejecting access to GM grains, US dairy products, and ethanol. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Genetically modified crops form a significant part of US agricultural output. However, India does not currently allow the commercial cultivation of GM food crops due to concerns over ecological balance, food safety and the impact on smallholder farmers. Even as India imports edible oils made from genetically modified crops — such as soy and canola — it restricts GM crop cultivation. The commercial release of GM mustard, for example, remains on hold due to pending legal proceedings, and a previous attempt to introduce GM brinjal was blocked in 2010. Nonetheless, some flexibility is being explored. According to Bloomberg, Indian regulators may consider permitting select GM-derived by-products used in animal feed, such as soybean meal or distillers dried grains from corn-based ethanol production. These items would not directly affect human food chains but would still mark a departure from India's long-standing GM restrictions. Why dairy and ethanol are particularly sensitive India's dairy sector employs more than 80 million individuals, a figure that includes small-scale farmers, cooperatives, and vendors. The industry is largely unorganised and depends on herds that typically contain two to three animals per household. In contrast, US dairy farms operate on a vastly different scale, often managing hundreds of cattle with heavy reliance on mechanisation and feed practices that include animal by-products. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This latter point is a major concern in India, where dietary norms and religious sensitivities significantly influence food preferences. The potential entry of dairy sourced from cows fed with animal remnants has been met with strong resistance from Indian consumers and cooperatives like Amul, which have played a key role in shaping the country's self-reliant dairy ecosystem. Similarly, ethanol is another highly sensitive area. India has made substantial progress under its Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) initiative, aiming to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels by blending petrol with domestically produced ethanol. Most of the ethanol used in India is derived from surplus sugarcane, rice and corn. Allowing the import of US ethanol would not only compromise this strategic energy programme but could also undermine the investments made by Indian distillers and agribusinesses. What each side is willing to concede With the deadline for reciprocal tariffs fast approaching, negotiators from both countries are working to close the deal. Sources indicated that the Indian delegation, led by Special Secretary Rajesh Agarwal, has had to extend its stay in Washington due to ongoing disagreements, particularly over agricultural tariffs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has shown willingness to discuss reductions on industrial tariffs and provide access to the US in sectors where the political cost is lower — such as in automobiles, a long-standing American request. It has also pushed for broader access to US markets for Indian exports from labour-intensive sectors including textiles, leather, jewellery, plastics, and chemicals. The interim agreement is seen as a stepping-stone towards increasing bilateral trade volumes, with a shared ambition to double total trade to USD 500 billion by 2030 — a goal reiterated by Trump during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's February visit to the United States. Trump, speaking about the potential deal earlier this week, said: 'I think we are going to have a deal with India. And that is going to be a different kind of a deal. It is going to be a deal where we are able to go in and compete. Right now, India does not accept anybody in. I think India is going to do that, and if they do that, we are going to have a deal for much less tariffs.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why India is not backing down India's resistance to opening its agricultural market is deeply rooted in structural and strategic realities. The rural economy is vulnerable to global market shocks. Even modest tariff relaxations could disrupt domestic pricing and erode the safety net provided by public procurement and the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system — pillars that protect farmers from price crashes. Many experts argue that liberalising agricultural trade too quickly could expose India's fragmented farming community to the volatility of global commodity markets dominated by large multinational agribusinesses. These companies often benefit from generous subsidies and economies of scale unavailable to Indian farmers. Further complicating the negotiations is the demand from US exporters for greater parity. However, India's current agricultural tariff regime — ranging from zero to 150 per cent — is not exceptional. The US, too, maintains steep tariffs on specific imports, such as tobacco at over 350 per cent. Thus, criticisms of asymmetry in trade practices may not be entirely justified. India's position finds some backing under WTO norms, which allow member nations to protect sensitive sectors for reasons such as food security, rural development, and employment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nonetheless, the final decision may come down to political calculus more than legal boundaries. Farmers and labour unions mount pressure Opposition to agricultural liberalisation is growing beyond policy circles. On July 3, leaders of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) held a press conference in Hyderabad, reaffirming their call for an all-India strike on July 9. The SKM, in collaboration with trade unions, is staging protests to oppose what it describes as 'anti-farmer, anti-labour, and anti-people' policies. Former Member of Parliament Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao voiced strong opposition to including agriculture in any trade agreement with the U.S. He and other SKM leaders also criticised the government's delay in enacting legislation to guarantee MSP as a legal right. The farmers' coalition has called for a full withdrawal of the National Policy Framework for Agricultural Marketing (NPFAM) and warned of further mobilisations if agriculture is compromised in trade talks. A way out? In light of these challenges, a compromise may be possible through selective market access rather than full liberalisation. One such mechanism could involve tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) — a system that allows a limited volume of imports at reduced tariffs, while maintaining higher duties on imports exceeding the quota. This model was recently adopted in the US-UK mini trade pact announced in May, where agriculture was kept out of contentious discussions. India may be open to marginally lowering tariffs on select low-risk items such as almonds, walnuts, apples, raisins, olive oil, spirits and wine — products that pose minimal threat to domestic producers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such a calibrated approach could allow both sides to claim victory without triggering adverse political fallout in India. However, the extent of these concessions remains uncertain. A NITI Aayog policy paper has suggested tariff cuts on certain US agricultural products, but it is unclear whether this reflects the official stance of the Indian government or is merely a preliminary recommendation. Agriculture remains the thorniest issue in the India-US trade negotiations. With inputs from agencies

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store