 Hello everyone. Welcome to another IR capsule for the Shankar AAS Academy. Today we will discuss the most recent summit of the BRICS countries. All of you are aware as to who the members of this group are. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The summit was held virtually hosted by President Xi Jinping. And the very fact that the summit took place at this time in history was a little bit surprising. Because in the context of what has happened in the last couple of years, the chemistry of the member countries that is Brazil, India, China, Russia and South Africa had changed considerably. The global politics is undergoing a great change. And the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the continued occupation of China of various areas in Ladakh. All this had an impact on the relationship among these countries. You may recall that this grouping was not invented by the members of the group, but by a Goldman Sachs professor who in 2001 identified these countries. South Africa was added later. He identified the four countries that is Brazil, India, Russia and China. They are having some common characteristics, which he thought would have an impact on international economic situation. And he predicted that these countries will have a global leadership, or at least a domination of world economic growth by 2050. So it was just an identification of certain characteristics of these four countries. And nobody expected that it would become a formal grouping of this kind. But I think the Chinese saw an opportunity here of bringing these countries together because it would be a group of non-Western countries, particularly since they were going to deal with economic issues. So China saw in it an opportunity to fulfill their dream of rewriting the economic pattern of the world, the domination of the world bank and IMF. And generally Western dominance of the world and the value of the dollar. That was the prevailing economic arrangements in the world, written rules, institutions, etc. And China had long dreamt of a change in the situation so that China can have a role, a different role in the management of the world economic system. India also had several ideas like that of reforming the economic situation. And so a group of developing countries, even though Russia was also in it, was found welcome. Though we were hesitant about it because we did not want to appear as though we were setting up an economic group non-Western, not to appear it to be an anti-Western move. But over the years, BRICS, together with South Africa, which was added because of geographic representation, has functioned as a group of developing countries looking at their own economic problems, encouraging cooperation among themselves and also seeking a better deal from the West. This suited all the four of us. But the benefits came mainly to China because China took the leadership. They set up this new bank. There were other institutions which would provide short-term assistance to the member countries. And generally a benign economic approach with their eye on a changed economic situation. So this is the 14th summit. And if you look at the declarations issued at these conferences, it was basically a G77 approach that is justice for developing countries, increased role for them in the United Nations and elsewhere. And so it was generally beneficial. But it was very clear that it was China which was taking the initiatives and in fact even contributing to the work of BRICS. And we went along with it with certain benefits that we also and the other countries received. But there was already a contradiction in BRICS because there were two countries which were major powers. One was a superpower, another aspiring to be a superpower. And three countries which are developing countries, large and fast growing, but nowhere in the vicinity of development of Russia and China. So there was already a little contradiction there. But the presence of Russia and China who had a different kind of relationship gave it some kind of a balanced position. But the present situation is very different from what it was in 2001 when it was identified and 2006 when it was formally structured. The main change that has taken place is that India-China relations have changed dramatically. China has violated almost all the agreements reached since 1988. And the relationship is an open question now as to how it will develop. Meantime China occupies several areas across the line of actual control and negotiations are not moving forward for disengagement. So we have identified, we have established that a new kind of relationship with China is necessary. And like we moved out of SAARC or we did not allow SAARC to function because of our differences with Pakistan. There was sufficient reason for us to keep away from BRICS or not have meetings that could be some justification there. And also the pandemic proved that cooperation among these countries is not easy or automatic. Then the Ukraine war changed the image of Russia and within the BRICS the approach to the Ukraine war was not uniform. So the pandemic, the India-China relationship and the Ukraine war had completely changed the chemistry, the relationship between these four countries, five countries. So that's why I said it was significant that such a meeting was held. Not only that such a meeting was held, a very long 7500 words joint statement was issued. And also on the second day, that is on the 24th of June, a high level dialogue on global development involving BRICS leaders and 13 like-minded countries who were invited. And there also there was a longish declaration about the present global situation. So both these are important documents and the fact that it happened was significant enough. But if you study this document very carefully, you will find that there is a kind of escapism in this. That is, they are avoiding because there were differences among them. They were avoiding the contentious issues. But looking for statements, positions which were identified and recognized before these changes and bring them out as though nothing has changed in the relationship between these countries. And that is where these documents will be called into question at some stage or the other. But interestingly, they have only picked up those ideas in which there is some general agreement. For example, the regional agreement among all the BRICS countries that there should be a multilateral system which is reformed, including the United Nations, particularly the security council. Here again the contradiction was that two of these members are permanent members and the three members are aspiring permanent members. And it is quite evident that neither China nor Russia, even though these three countries are partners in this group, have no sympathy for their admission as permanent members. They have developed a position, both China and Russia, developed a position that they want to reform, but not the way we want it. Not the way of bringing in developing countries into the security council as permanent members. They were inclined towards Japan and Germany entering, but they were never supportive of India, Brazil and South African permanent members. So in many of the documents that the BRICS had produced, they had established a position that yes, they must have a bigger role to play these countries, but without mentioning the permanent membership. So here again, although all this has happened, there is nothing, nothing has changed in their fundamental position. But they were able to find language which would not dissatisfy India, Brazil and South Africa. And the entire document, you will find this kind of escapism and re-establishing principles that were established earlier. Without taking note of the changes that have taken place in the world. Although those are all mentioned. For example, we all know that the pandemic took China in a very difficult situation. A suspicion that China was responsible for it. Or at least they were guilty of not telling the world about it early enough. So China was in the dock as it were when the pandemic broke out. And they have been struggling to establish their credentials. But still, it is not clear as to whether China had any responsibility in it. And because China took that position as a permanent member of the security council, the United Nations could not act together in a case of a threat to international peace and security. Existential threat. In the case of other diseases like HIV, AIDS, Ebola, etc. The UN system itself, not just the WHO, came into that and they could be resolved. But here the security council could not even meet. And therefore all individual countries rushing Helter Skelter to find a way. When developed nations, particularly the United States was in deep trouble. So the lack of international cooperation, China doing various things, India doing various things, United States doing things, Europe was a real disaster in terms of dealing with a crisis in a multilateral way. But certain things developed, Quad developed certain ideas, international cooperation, K-20 did, SAR did not. And general cooperation developed after a year or so and now we all have reason to feel that yes, there is multilateral cooperation in vaccine development, distribution, etc. So the pandemic was a test case as to whether China as a powerful country will be able to work with others in a situation like this, where they are accused. So this is a major change. But what they have done in the joint statements, speaking about what they have individually done and the need for us to do more, etc. Without accusing anybody of having upset the multilateral cooperation aspect. Ukraine is mentioned, but it is mentioned in such a way that it does not justify, it does not object to the Russian action, nor does it justify the action because it speaks about need for respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of disputes. So all these principles have been initiated, but without specifically linking it to the changes that has taken place in Russia's image. China took a very friendly position towards Russia just before the war started, we all know. The President Putin went to Beijing a few days before he invaded Ukraine and signed an unprecedented agreement between Russia and China, which transformed the relationship between the two. And there seemed to be an implied understanding that China would support Russia on the question of Ukraine. And if necessary, Russia will support China on the question of Taiwan. This again has put both these countries in a different group altogether within bricks. So how could they find a solution except ask for peace, except for negotiations and it was ironical that Russia is also asking for negotiations together with these countries. But refusing to have any kind of negotiations or even as these facts. So there's a certain duplicity here. And in order to keep the integrity of the bricks, they have stated these principles, which are very difficult to apply in the present situation. So it has a certain strange ring about it. And China talks about border conflicts should be avoided. There should be friendship among countries and so on, and holding on to the integrity. And Russia declaring the same things while they are occupying another country. And threatening world peace in a big way which could develop into a global conflict. So these are some of the things that stand out as artificial or some kind of escapism. In order to protect the integrity of bricks. Does it have any value? Will it have any impact on the global situation. And that is doubtful. Things have to change if these things are to be talked about. But the documents, the two documents called for reform, political and economic reform around the world. All the principles are listed again and again. They talk about responsiveness, effectiveness, transparency, democracy, objective, action oriented and credible global system, which reflects the sovereignty and territorial dignity of countries of the world. So they sound a little bit hollow in the context in which this has been made. But let us look at this document carefully. And we will find that they have identified three pillars, politics and security, economic and financial reform, cultural and people to people dialogue. Again, unquestionable. It makes a case of multi polarity and multilateralism. But these were quite valid before Galvan, Galvan, COVID and Ukraine. But now when they talk about it, it rings a certain unreal world. But that does not stop them from going ahead with an elaborate declaration. And China certainly wanted to inject fresh energy into this, because they see bricks as an additional facility for them, in addition to BRI, whatever other things they are doing. It is an instrument of their grandiose positions, foster high quality bricks partnership, new era of global development. All these are stated. By calling a meeting for a high level dialogue on global development. China has also hinted that the bricks should be expanded. They invited about 13 countries and China has been saying that this is time for us to expand bricks. Or without of course changing, bringing any country which would be against Chinese interests. But the other countries, the three countries have been reluctant to accept the idea of expansion. It's not just expansion, but all of us are insisting that any expansion should be on the basis of consensus. And no country should be bringing in other countries to the bank. But that's exactly what China did. They brought these countries of special invitees and made a separate declaration. And that itself is again a matter of concern for the others. They fill up the bricks with several other countries with different orientations. It may not be difficult for us to sustain this. So in fact, unsustainability of bricks already evident in this conference. The expansion of membership is meant to demonstrate the diversity of the group, according to the Chinese. So they want the emerging markets and developing countries of the leadership of the global south. You may remember there was already an India Brazil South Africa group of fastest developing countries, emerging countries. But that has taken a backseat after the evolution of bricks, but it's also continues. So while Beijing and Moscow are waiting to speed up the expansion, the other countries are reluctant. And this may not happen. You may know that India was kept out of APEC all these years. We have stopped asking for membership, but it has not happened even today. Because some of the western countries kept India out of APEC all these years. So the need to clarify the guiding principles standards criteria and procedures. That are necessary before any expansion take place. But we cannot lose this in spite of all these, shall we say some negative elements. We cannot say that bricks has not done anything. There is a hundred billion strong new development back with 78 projects available to the bricks countries. There is a hundred billion contingent reserve arrangement and cooperation in several sectors have been taking place. And these are no mean achievements. Perhaps one of the reasons why India South Africa and Brazil are continuing in this grouping is basically because of these economic advantages for which China has taken the initiative. So we cannot say that it was entirely fruitless. But as I said, there is a lack of acceptance of realism. Climate change, for example. On climate change, all the five countries have more or less similar approach. But as developing countries, we insist on financial assistance. We insist on modern technology to meet the challenges of climate change. But the declaration simply mentions all the developments that have taken place, the Paris Agreement commitments under Paris Agreement. And now the decision to identify countries which can declare net carbon emission zero years. And China and India agree that is declaring these carbon free net carbon free years will be difficult for developing countries unless there is external assistance on the basis of the principle adopted long ago about differentiated responsibilities of developing countries and developed countries. That has been stated in the declaration but in a very soft manner. And no new area of effort among the three countries is mentioned. It only mentions that more action is required to make this a reality. And India has specifically said unless there is a trillion dollars made available will be difficult for us to stick to the year 2070 which we have identified as the peaking of India's global emissions. So in other words, this is this conference has added limited value. One of those that was held, and these four countries are still on talking terms, because it was virtual therefore there was no opportunity for the five leaders to sit together and exchange ideas. And but the underlying tension was quite evident in the documents that have been issued so it was a limited success. It keeps the process of the development of bricks going. It contributed to the work that is being done by the bank and the contingency fund etc which India, India and China have major major contributions and ready for a better, better world. Africa is supposed to host bricks next year. And hopefully these reiterations of principles will be valuable for these countries and the world to shape a new global order. As you know the present day is a global disorder and I personally feel this is a time for countries to meet bilaterally and discuss issues rather than go into groupings, the justification of which seem to have changed. We recognize that in the case of SAAC, but we did not recognize in the case of bricks by saying that no, we will not participate because of these reasons. This is obviously a very diplomatic approach. So the summit has really given a lease of life to bricks in spite of the negative changes and the negative attitudes which are found. So we can perhaps hope that these new reiteration of principles will have an impact on Russia and China in their own attitude towards the other countries. On the question of expansion of bricks, but also on the expansion of the security council. So it's optimistic, but kind of an escapist document. So it is fair as it goes, but the value of it will be can be assessed only after more changes take place and how these countries evolve in their relationship with each other. Of course, you know their solutions, which are not acceptable to us at all. But I did not mention JNK and Adnan Sir Pradesh because those are not new issues. Those have been in the India-China agenda for a long time and we have high level discussions taking place without coming to any kind of resolution. And we don't expect any resolution in a hurry because China is not in a hurry to solve any of these. Because by maintaining tensions in JNK and Adnan Sir Pradesh, they have the opportunity to test India or to teach India lesson etc. So in the context of bricks, these are not relevant. But in the context of bricks, the inter-relationship between these countries is relevant. But JNK and Adnan Sir Pradesh are all major issues which cannot be proposed in this forum. Well, he has not been travelling to so many countries in the last two years. Today I saw the account that he had been to 64 countries total and almost 60 of them were before the pandemic. And therefore it's not a large number and also because of the virtual summits that have taken place. But he was physically in Japan for the Quad. He was physically in Germany for G7. He was basically in UAE to resolve some political and economic problems with the 12 countries. So I think he is not travelling too much. He is doing only the basic essential. Even in the old days when he was travelling, I used to think that he only went to places where he had seen the potential of solving problems. He was going five times to US or five times to Nepal or four times to UAE. He all had its meaning and it had specific advantages. So I'm not a critic of his travels. I have a feeling that he has done it judicious. Thank you very much. Bye-bye.