By Javier Surasky
The XVII BRICS Summit took place in Rio de Janeiro on July 6–7, where member states adopted a series of political documents:
The
direction the BRICS are taking is deeply concerning. The group seeks to
position itself as an alternative form of multilateralism—more effective and
more focused on people’s issues rather than the priorities of major powers.
However, it neither signals a genuine renewal of multilateralism nor
contributes to strengthening the United Nations to lead that task decisively,
even though the group’s own members demand such action from the UN.
The Rio de
Janeiro Declaration: Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive
and Sustainable Governance, includes a section on strengthening multilateralism
and reforming global governance (paragraphs 5 to 16). There, the BRICS begin by
expressing their commitment to “reforming and enhancing global governance by
promoting a more just, equitable, agile, effective, efficient, responsive,
representative, legitimate, democratic, and accountable international and
multilateral system, in the spirit of extensive consultation, joint
contribution, and shared benefits,” reaffirming the central role of the UN
in the international system.
They call
for respect of “the general rule that there should be no monopoly of senior
positions in the United Nations system by nationals of any one state or group
of states,” although it is well known that this is not the policy practiced
by some of their main members. Since July 2007, for example, a Chinese national
has continuously held the position of Under-Secretary-General for Economic and
Social Affairs (Sha Zukang, August 2007–July 2012; Wu Hongbo, August 2012–July
2017; Liu Zhenmin, August 2017–July 2022; and Li Junhua, July 2022–present).
They also
call for comprehensive reform of the United Nations, “including its Security
Council, with the aim of making it more democratic, representative, effective,
and efficient.”
There are two red flags regarding that call:
- The gap between words and action: within the group, there are two permanent members of the Security Council (Russia and China) who, along with others, effectively defend the status quo of that body.
- The Declaration itself states that China and Russia support “the aspirations of Brazil and India to play a greater role in the United Nations, including its Security Council,” which could be interpreted as an exercise in pre-claiming seats in the event of a future expansion of the body.
They later
reiterate their “commitment to providing the United Nations with all the
necessary support to fulfill its mandate.” Once again, a red flag:
- If we add up the assessed contributions of the five original BRICS members to the UN budget for 2025, they amount to nearly a quarter of the total (24.866%). If we include the expanded BRICS, that figure exceeds a quarter (reaching 26.085%). However, only India has paid its assessed contributions to the UN within the deadline (February 6): Brazil paid on April 27, South Africa on March 19, and neither Russia (the tenth-largest contributor, 2.094%) nor China (the second-largest contributor, 20.004%) had paid at the time of this text’s publication.
Later, in
paragraph 108, the Rio de Janeiro Declaration states that the BRICS call for “respect
for democracy and human rights [which] must be implemented at both the global
governance and national levels” and reaffirm their “commitment to
ensuring the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights, and
fundamental freedoms for all.”
Moore red flags:
- Beyond the well-known concerns regarding human rights and democracy in China and Russia, the expansion of BRICS has led to the inclusion of countries whose international commitments to multilateralism and human rights are highly questionable, such as Iran, Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia.
- According to the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, which includes 142 countries, South Africa ranks 57th, followed by India (79), Brazil (80), China (95), and Russia (113). Among the new members, United Arab Emirates ranks 39th, Indonesia 68th, Iran 128th, Ethiopia 130th, and Egypt 135th. Saudi Arabia is not ranked due to lack of available data.
- No country ranks in the top quartile of the index.
- Only three countries are in the top half: South Africa, UAE, and Indonesia.
- Countries in the bottom quartile: China (95), Russia (113), Iran (128), Ethiopia (130), and Egypt (135)—with the last three in the bottom 10%.
Finally,
because of the need to use a vocabulary that “accommodates positions,”
the Declaration runs to 131 paragraphs, making it longer than the Pact
for the Future (84 paragraphs), the 2030 Agenda (91 paragraphs), or
the Paris Agreement.
None of
this reflects the renewed and strengthened multilateralism the BRICS claim to
be building—and we haven’t even discussed their references to international
law, the promotion of peace, the fight against climate change, or the single
(and very weak) mention of civil society in paragraph 123 of the document.
Too many
contradictions—and too many repeated failings of the multilateralism they claim
to want to renew and democratize—to believe that the BRICS can be an effective
tool for meaningful change.