T

he global agenda is concerned with the enlargement of BRICS, a non-formal economic organization consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Though the group does not have an official status, it functions as an international organization and accepts or rejects memberships of applicant countries.

In August, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced at the 15th BRICS Summit that Iran, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had been invited to join the bloc and the membership will take effect on January 1, 2024.

Aside from new members, 16 countries have formally applied to join BRICS while 16 others, including Turkey, have shown interest in the group. The increasing amount of interest attests to the popularity of the bloc, which attracts countries mainly from the Global South. With new members, BRICS will represent 46% of the global population, 29.3% of global GDP, 43.1% of global oil production, and 25.1% of global exports.

Why do countries want to join BRICS?

There are several reasons why the BRICS are attractive to certain countries. First, current members, future members, and other applicants are non-members of the Western bloc and generally disadvantaged against the U.S. and the EU in many respects. Among many such countries, there is a general understanding that the West tries to maximize its economic and political power and interests on account of the rest of the world. What is more, the maximization policies of the West are considered unfair and often morally questionable actions. Therefore, BRICS-like groupings are seen as a way to resist the destructive dominance of Western economies, best summed up perhaps by the phrase “United we stand.”

Western economic cooperation and organizations may be damaging to the BRICS economies, but they also inspire them to counter them. Indeed, the model of economic cooperation, namely the EU, introduced by the transatlantic alliance worked well after World War II, enriching Europeans. Thus, BRICS members are following Europe’s path to strengthen their economies; BRICS is an organization that both imitates Western institutions and counters them.

New members are not aligned to any bloc, making BRICS the only economic body they can approach. It is quite unlikely that Ethiopia, Argentina, or any Middle Eastern country will one day become an EU member—their best choice for economic cooperation is to be a member of BRICS.

Middle Eastern countries, particularly, tried their best to align with U.S. interests but were disappointed with Washignton’s policies towards them. No Middle Eastern country is willing to be satisfied with allying with the U.S., for example, against Iran and Israel. The example here is political, but politics affect economic relations and alliances. Moreover, new members and BRICS enthusiasts are ideologically closer to BRICS members than the West.

Will Turkey join the BRICS?

As for Turkey, being a BRICS member will bring economic benefits to the country. However, for all countries, including Turkey, economic alliances have political repercussions and are mostly formed according to countries’ political postures. As BRICS is an unofficial union formed by big powers of the Global South, Turkey’s membership would have the greatest consequences compared to any other membership.

To begin with, Turkey sees itself as a European country. While a small part of its territory is on the European continent, it has historical and political ties with Europe and has always turned its face to the West. The secular community which founded the country in 1923 distanced itself from the East (and South) arguing that Turkey should be in the Western bloc.

On the other hand, Turkey’s conservative democratic community, which now governs the country, is not fully aligned with the West nor is it anti-Western. In fact, it would welcome EU membership more than any other economic grouping. Currently, even though Ankara no longer maintains a full allegiance to the West and relations are not at a desired level with the U.S. and the EU, the incumbent government still wants to keep strong ties with both.

At the moment, Ankara prefers not to part ways with Western powers and, concurrently, improves relations with the rest of the world. While it tries to remain neutral in world politics on account of its NATO membership and EU candidacy, it does not want to change its axis completely. Turkey’s balancing policy can be tied to its “Century of Turkey” motto, referring to an independent foreign policy, which is more assertive and gives priority to the country’s own interests. Besides Turkey’s new foreign policy, being estranged by its Western allies compels Turkey to seek new cooperation opportunities. BRICS is not a political bloc and being a BRICS member does not mean an axis change. Yet, being a BRICS member does have political consequences.

In the current circumstances, the Turkish government will most likely opt for improving economic cooperation with each BRICS member rather than becoming a member of the organization. Relations with the BRICS bloc will continue informally and without formal membership.

In addition to Turkey’s orientation towards the West, certain structural problems of BRICS also compel Ankara not to join. First, although China appears to be leading the bloc, its leadership is weak and other members may not accept a more influential member joining the bloc. It is also questionable to what extent members will unite against rivals such as the EU. While Western countries act as a bloc in their economic and foreign relations, this may not be the case for BRICS members.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, for example, will join BRICS for the economic benefits and thus have a sort of backing against Western powers. Russia and China are already challenging the West, while the West is relentlessly trying to pull India out of the group and may sooner or later succeed.

BRICS may not offer Turkey what it expects. The only reason Turkey might apply to join BRICS is as a result of deteriorating relations with Western states. Turkey’s relations with the West are strained, but not bad enough to force the country to go down that road.

W

e are at a historic turning point in terms of the power struggle in the international political system. The two devastating World Wars and the Cold War were major turning points in the twentieth century; however, in terms of shaking the power of “Western supremacy,” a very important undercurrent in the development of global politics, these developments did not have a significant impact.

World War I was largely a war between Western powers, and in its aftermath, the military and economic supremacy of the West continued to grow. World War II was also largely fought between Western powers and ended in the defeat of the challengers. Russia, one of the traditional European powers, challenged the United States and Western Europe under the Soviet regime during the Cold War, which also ended in defeat. It is generally accepted the current challenge to Western supremacy is a development that needs to be taken more seriously in terms of ending nearly 250 years of Western dominance.

If we look at where this challenge is coming from, Asia is clearly at the forefront, but Latin America and Africa have also raised objections to a global political system that reflects Western domination, albeit not as strongly. Let us examine the place of the BRICS, which brings together actors from these three continents, in the U.S.- and European-led international system; their challenge to this system; and the disadvantages they face in doing so.

Indicators of economic dominance

The first step in understanding the scale of the BRICS challenge should be a comparison of their positions in the global economy with those of the U.S. and the EU. In GDP terms, according to purchasing power parity (PPP), the main indicator of economic power, BRICS is the world’s largest economic bloc and one of its members, China, is the world’s largest economy.

The fact that by 2020 the five members of BRICS have reached a GDP (in PPP terms) larger than that of the United States and the 27-member-strong European Union combined shows that the organization has reached the capacity to have a serious impact on the future of the global economic and political system. There are now frequent reports that the BRICS members’ efforts to counter the United States’ increasing use of the dollar and the SWIFT system as a weapon could undermine the dollar’s position. Among the issues to be discussed at the BRICS summit in South Africa in August is the creation of a BRICS currency to counter the dominance of the dollar.

Brazil’s GDP, which stood at $2.47 trillion in 2013 when the instability began, shrank almost every year, falling to $1.48 trillion in 2020. Given that the domestic instability caused by social and political polarization and income distribution problems in the country has created an environment open to interference and manipulation by external actors dissatisfied with Brazil’s foreign policy line, it is clear that Lula da Silva, who will resume the presidency in January 2023, will have to tread more carefully in the global power struggle.

In addition to these weaknesses, another handicap of the BRICS countries in challenging the Western-dominated global political and economic system is that their military capabilities still lag far behind those of the United States and its allies. Although three of the five BRICS members possess nuclear weapons, the BRICS countries are not comparable to the United States in terms of military spending.

World history is full of examples showing that military power is as important as economic power in determining the fate of global challenges. The challenge to Russia’s military capabilities in Ukraine serves as the most recent example of this.