BRICS: a “kintsugi” to counterbalance global power?

There is no better way to start any analysis of BRICS than by highlighting that they account for 45% of the world's population, 35% of the global economy, and 25% of the global GDP.

The foundation of BRICS was laid with a high-level meeting in 2006 of Brasil, Russia, India, and China, with the purpose that cooperation and investment would eventually counterbalance the impact of the big economies.

It is not a coincidence that after the meeting, the Four Nations started witnessing rapid growth. They settled their political will to join with other economies, putting aside competition and rivalries. The outcome is clear: not even the global financial crisis in 2008 stopped their speedy growth.

How much credit should we give to strategic partnerships like BRICS?

“It took China less than 70 years to emerge from isolation and become one of the world's greatest economic Powers” *

“Brazil wants to avoid a world order structured only by great power competition and instead hopes for a multipolar order where states its size have more say in international institutions and greater influence overall”.*

“Over the last 50 years, India’s average growth has accelerated slowly but steadily across sectors – agriculture, industry and services – and become more stable. This is reflected in increasing labor productivity and total factor productivity. After growing far more rapidly before the global financial crisis, the economy has grown at an average rate of about 7 percent since 2008–09”*.

“Russia stands 11th in terms of global GDP—well behind China (second) and India (sixth), and just ahead of Brazil (12th) among large emerging-market economies”*

If strategic partnerships are the driver to stability, is indeed alliances like BRICS that make it possible, contributing, even from a confrontational position to keep the balance with the so-called “advanced economies” * The IMF definition includes the US, European countries, Canada, Japan based on GDP per capita, export diversification, insertion in the global financial system, volume of international trade, and participation in international financial institutions.

Is precisely because of the latest that BRICS becomes a necessity rather than a political-ideological anti-Western alliance. In a way a reshape from the South-South cooperation.

Is good to consider that BRICS members share the same category of emerging economies despite their growth, and global economic contribution. Is precisely their limited influence in decision-making processes within international financial institutions that makes them placing trust on BRICS as the organization that may balance their weakness.

In a way to fix the fragile status from a global system. Is particularly inspiring, the Japanese technique of repairing broken pottery -by mending it with powdered gold, silver or platinum- Kintsugi, as we may apply the same principles in terms of fixing the fragile “vase” from a global system by the gold coming from strategic partnerships. Keeping the vase technically broken but without losing any of their parts.

Sadly is not possible to recover harmony after the atrocities of war, crisis, and hate, although we can fix the broken parts, and be ambitious enough to see the beauty on it.

Acknowledging alliances like BRICS is also a way to support the SDGs, and take it to a new dimension. Some SDGs strongly resonated in the Summit as they were engaged with strategic partnerships, peace, justice and strong institutions, sustainable cities and communities, zero hunger, industry, innovation, and infrastructures. Affordable and clean energy, and life on land. (2-7- 9-11-15-16-17)

A driven focused agenda for a new economic architecture along with proposals to end the war with Ukraine reinforces the idea that sustainability goals are on the table.

All of them related to building stability in their communities and continuing the resilience, and the economic speed growth. Since the West is not given the correct tools for dialogue, and inclusiveness in political-decision processes, and financial and commercial support, is when BRICS appeared on the scene as a niche market for whom their members may trust, and thrive together. I do believe that is a success as well as a failure as seen through the lenses of a pretended global system that do not figure out how to become truly conciliatory, and in the end…truly global.

The short-term future for BRICS looks promising. The waiting list of potential new members represents a new beginning as an “emerging” key actor on the global stage. Is only the failure of Westerners to negotiate positions the responsible for their popularity.

For the medium term a world organized by blocks of power seems to be the more compelling way to forecast a new global political roadmap even if may be considered a dangerous move to get into global stability. However, I strongly disagree with this assumption as the world has maintained their stability by keeping ideologies alive, and determined political goals in steady processes of negotiation, dialogue and Diplomacy.

Cold war times were the best example that peacekeeping processes are achieved when there is no military involvement, and the potential to reach agreements are on the table. When Brussels, decided to take part in Ukraine-Russia war instead of forcing a peace agreement, having at the top of the agenda a negotiated way out is when the chaos come up.

Setting the tone for the future.

Putin : “fair, multipolar global order” “BRICS is not an anti-Western group; it's just a non-Western group.”"Russia is interested in concluding it by peaceful means. It was not us who stopped the negotiations but it was the Ukrainian side”(2022 Ukrainian negotiator Denis Kireev was shot dead among many other circumstances that boycott any chances for a peace agreement) “illegal unilateral sanctions, blatant protectionism, manipulation of currency and stock markets, and relentless foreign influence” “Such perverse methods and approaches — to put it bluntly — lead to the emergence of new conflicts and the aggravation of old disagreements,”

Lula: “We want to reaffirm the vocation of the bloc in the struggle for a multipolar world and for less asymmetrical relations between countries”

Modi: “we must be careful to ensure that this organisation does not acquire the image of one that is trying to replace global institutions, instead of being perceived as one that wishes to reform them," "We support dialogue and diplomacy, not war”.

Xi Jimping: "We must uphold the three key principles: no expansion of the battlefields, no escalation of hostilities, and no fanning flames and strive for swift de-escalation of the situation."

The Summit exposed the different global crises, and proudly showed the intention to address it from a joint-action focus. Particularly, their leaders set clearly the two most controversial issues in the Summit: they are not trying to dismantle the current international institutions, -just finding their way to consolidate their strategy towards becoming an alternative axis of power, and mostly importantly the political will for settling Ukraine- Russia conflict, therefore, a strong commitment for peace.

It would be good if the international community grab from those political gestures coming from BRICS that dare to move forward, and put an end to the conflict, preventing the escalation of future ones, welcoming new shapes of power and global influence.

Is precisely the lack of an open mindset that prevents taking actions focusing only on peace, and somehow a zero-sum game that blocks confrontations from escalating. The distortion from the original goal of EU-US engagement in the war is what leads to the current situation of Zero dialogue, and the absence of proposals for a peace agreement. In fact, the death of Denis Kireev in 2022, a Negotiator for Ukraine, shot dead by National forces exposes that there is a completely different agenda than the search for a peace agreement. Has never been a true goal of peace but to cancel any attempt of Russia to take positions and stop NATO expansion.

The EU assigned 45 billion euros to support Ukrainian armed forces as a top priority. Certainly, this is not the agenda for EU citizens who in the end, are the ones who should decide if the investment in a non-European country is their real goal. Under the light of the latest data from the EU Public Opinion Monitoring Unit on the last two years support -financial and military -to Ukraine has decreased, not so on humanitarian aid is always up in their intentions.

Is not just about peace, but what I strongly believe is the mistaken path taken by Brussels, by defending an agenda that goes in contradiction with Europe´s values and historically effective role as a Mediator. It ought to be reverted to rescue their identity. The EU is now part of a war without considering the consequences for European citizens. Being part of war, erased any possibility for peace, and stability, and, unintentionally furthered BRICS development.

The expectation that only one block of power joining in a military axis will deliver peace is simply wrong, it delivers power for the most powerful members. In fact, it goes against a global system to the point that it wipes away all possibilities to make a world united in its diversity. Is only when you accept that the world unfailingly will remain ideologically divided is when you can build a sustainable model in economic and political terms.

The extraordinary asset that the BRICS block complied with a common goal: the SDGs, open opportunities to figure out new scenarios to build bridges and share power to achieve a common ground of action, although within diverse levels of multiculturally political sensitivity.

Because to get into a global system is imperative to accept that economic and political interests will always be contradictory, and the existence of only one axis of power would reinforce the idea that advanced economies lead from their own selfish interests, and not on behalf of the rest of the world. The philosophy beneath a global system is to be inclusive, more democratic to pursue the goal of fruitful integration.

To get into true global stability, counterbalance power becomes key, and demands a less idealistic strategy based on a centered power, and a more flexible and democratic approach that dares to design a new political map within:

Wabi-sabi focus: embracing the imperfections by accepting ideological differences,

Kintsugi: mending the broken parts by delivering multipolar strategies that unite Nations democratically within generosity, and ethical competition.

Gold: political will to fix the broken parts, and get into peace agreements at the regional level, and global settlement agreements.