 The recently concluded 15th summit of the leaders of the BRICS countries in South Africa was really anticipated across the world. In fact, one could say that it was probably one of the most anticipated meetings of the year. Media reports had been coming in from across the world months before the summit itself. There had been a lot of discussion, for instance, on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would attend. In fact, that almost became the whole discussion for a point of time. But all of this discussion could not really conceal the fact that this was actually a very important meeting strategically in terms of the future of the world itself. And it does seem like the meeting of the leaders has delivered some important conclusions that came out of Johannesburg over the past few weeks. To talk about this more, to analyze this, we have with us Manila J. Khadebe, the University of Johannesburg. Thank you so much for speaking to us. Thank you for having me. And I think you are correct in your intro that indeed Putin almost became a diversion for this important summit. Absolutely. Right. We actually, a few months before had a discussion on the potential of the BRICS summit, where we looked at some of the questions you're going to be talking about today as well. But now the dust has settled a bit from the conference, you know, the official resolutions are out. There's been some rounds of discussion. So keeping in mind the anticipation before, and let's also be clear that a lot of anticipation was from the West, which was almost predicting that nothing really would come out of this summit, etc., etc., and that is clearly not what has happened. But keeping in mind all the anticipation, how do you sort of evaluate the results of the 15th summit of leaders? Yes, you are correct that the anticipation that surrounded the 15th BRICS summit that took place in Johannesburg, in my view, is a bit multifaceted, encompassing both its thematic emphasis and the declarations that were made at the end of the summit. I think you may recall that the decision to convene the summit over the overarching theme that sort of emphasized growth and sustainability, but most importantly, inclusive multilateralism elicited a lot of consideration or considerable amount, in my view, of consternation within the Western Cycles. For most amongst the noteworthy developments that Ghanad widespread attention to speak about from across the wide array of medias across the world was the BRICS resolute intent to broaden its sphere of influence and extend its geographical reach, and this, therefore, is manifested through the formal invitation that was extended to the additional cohort of six nations, namely, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabian women, living out United Arab Emirates, who all of them will be assuming their membership of BRICS on the 1st of January 2024. But I think, prominently, in my view, in the pronouncements that were made to these points of these six members, sort of diverted the attention from the core tenets of the summit's resolutions, which otherwise encompass an array of pivotal issues addressed during the course of the summit. I mean, if you looked at the resolution themselves, there were five themes that encompass those resolutions. I think the first one is important one is partnership for inclusive materialism. The second one speaks to peace and development. The third one, I think, spoke to mutually accelerated growth, which is the essence, if you ask me, of what BRICS, why BRICS was formed. Of course, then there's issues around sustainable development and the tippening of people-to-people exchange and institutional developments. Right. So in this context, coming back to the point of expansion itself, which, like you said, nonetheless seemed to gain all the media attention. And that's really what a lot of people are looking forward to. A very interesting choice of countries, six countries, like you mentioned, from various contents from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, a variety of political interests. So how do you sort of evaluate the six countries? What do you think the BRICS leaders were seeing with this choice of these countries? Well, in my view, I think the recent expansion of the BRICS coalition, I think it necessitates a contextual understanding that intrinsically links to the first theme, in my view, of the declaration, the establishment of partnership for inclusive multilateralism. And I think that the overriding call that permeated the build-up of the summit, and as well during the deliberation, during the summit, pertains to the role of traditional international institutions of global governance, chiefly being the United Nations and the IMF. Therefore, I think that the call to reform these institutions has been getting louder given the greater voice and the need to give the greater voice to the nation of the developing world and those in the global south. And I think that for me, this was the riding point for the 15th BRICS summit. As you may recall, even the United Secretary General Antonio Couteres spoke in favor of the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions and the democratization of the United Nations Security Council, which interestingly he said, I was really interested to hear this when he said it still reflects the world power balance at the end of the Second World War, where many of the states at BRICS summit were still colonies and had no place on the table. Now, if you analyze the second theme of the declaration, which speaks to peace and development, one can see the rationale behind the BRICS and how it widens putting motion in the process of workable plans to achieve these objectives in the context of reforming UN and its Bretton Woods institutions, including the WTO, to perform the functions of promoting peace and security as well as sustainable development. For me, this was part of the rationale that was behind the consideration that guided the existing five members in their decision to invite the six members. In a nutshell, the principal priority is to enhance global security. Of course, financing infrastructure development remains important. If you look at, for me, it would appear that the aspects such as the size of the population, the GDP and such neutral measures were considered in taking this decision. Of course, countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, will consider themselves unlikely not being included because they were really considered. But the long and short is that geopolitical consideration and the undeniably cast a substantial influence within the complex matrix of this decision. Right. And I would think that many of these countries, that there might be future rounds of expansion also. So who knows who might be the next round of members. It's interesting you mentioned some of the countries in Africa because we have now both Egypt and Ethiopia, two new countries in BRICS. So how do you see BRICS as a block, its role? Is there a possibility of a greater role in the block for the continent, especially we know there have been a huge number of geopolitical developments of vast significance in the continent recently. So what do you see specifically the relevance of this expansion in the African context? Yes, I mean if you look at, I think South Africa deliberately in my view played an African card in hosting this summit as reflected in its team BRICS and Africa. I think there was a part of the theme. However, more strategically along the theme of fostering peace and development, both African countries, the African countries that have joined, have been invited to join BRICS have roles to play in their respective region to foster to drive peace and development. Of course, you could argue that Egypt from more of the mainly East perspective and Ethiopia from the Horn of Africa, which continues to be a volatile region if you think about what is happening in the Horn of Africa. But we cannot discount Africa's interest in reforming the arrangements for global economic governance and its supporting the sustainable and inclusive development in Africa and the global South. Therefore for me, these three countries, the African countries who are now members of BRICS are major economic power houses in their regions and have a huge role to play in the development of the continent. All right, and also moving on to another theme, which was really very prominent in the discussions prior to the conference that was of the global financial architecture itself. Now, of course, we know that we are long a long time away, maybe from an alternative to the dollar in terms of a currency, but there was definitely, I think, a further impetus to trading within mutual currencies. So how do you see the question of financial architecture itself? You also mentioned some of the issues of the Brettonwood institutions as well. Yes, I think the point on the financial architecture must be understood in the context of the BRICS Bank itself, which has played a pertinent role in funding hundreds of major infrastructure projects in the developing world. I think that the bank will be able to finance many more when its foundation capital is increased with the new incoming members. I think that another crucial aspect of the bank is that unlike Brettonwood's institution, it does not or it does its work without imposing a neoliberal economic framework, such as structural adjustments that the recipients of these countries have been subjected to by the World Bank and the IMF. Many countries in the global south perceive this or the BRICS Bank as sort of an escape route from the enslavement by the Western capital. It is also an escape route from the dollar hegemony since the World Bank will be also since the BRICS Bank rather has argued that it will be opening loans, for example, in Brazilians or African and other national currencies. Therefore, emerging economies that are heavily burdened with a dollar dominated debt and facing fluctuation exchange rates, you know, things such as reduced capital flow and tightened monetary policies from major global banks have suffered more than, you know, economies across the key economic financial matrix. Therefore, in my view, many of these nations are now seeking to reduce the dominance of the US dollar as the world reserve currency. So during the summit, the founding nations, the five founding nations of BRICS, or you can say four plus one goes to Africa later, committed to using their local currencies to raise funding for infrastructure development projects and a move, you know, in a move to decrease the dollar debt trap. Right. And I think also another important question that came out and, you know, I think there were echoes of it during the leaders' discussion, but I think it's a larger question, which is really of the question of BRICS, internal dynamics. Let's call it that way in the sense of how you would understand, you know, the various differences or agreements between the various countries that form part of BRICS. Now, there's always been a school of thought. Again, once again, largely based in the West, which says that, and I think Jake Sullivan sort of emphasized it during the conference when he kind of said that the BRICS countries don't necessarily agree on everything. And hence, therefore, in some sense, they are doomed. Is that is the kind of thought process that a lot of people seem to have, that somehow the BRICS countries need to agree on everything if they are to move ahead as a bloc? So how do you sort of see this summit in the context of this question, which is very pertinent, that BRICS countries have different agendas, they have different perspectives, they have, you know, on a variety of issues. So how do they nonetheless continue to work together as a bloc? I mean, in my view, what do NATO countries, for example, share in common beyond economic interests? And I think that is the same logic that should or that drives an alternative perspective from the oppressive regimes of the current Unipolar world. For example, Saudi Arabia is likely Saudi Arabia joining BRICS and the BRICS bank as a major contributor of capital is obvious. And I mean, for me, it was an obvious candidate for its inclusion along the UAE and Egypt, which are already members of the BRICS banks in any, in any. So the underlying, the underlying theme here for me is our economic interests. Some talk about human rights issues in the BRICS membership, but they speak about the human rights issues from a political sense. But nothing is said about social economic rights. So for me, that is just a politically that seeks to maintain the narrow, the narrow interests. Every country does not want to be oppressed and every country wants to be prosperous. And I think that the developing world, they see a BRICS as an alternative for building of a better world. Right. And finally, you know, in a very good summit, I would think for South Africa as well, because it was definitely, I would say, historic summit. But how do you see also the country's role as far as its membership of BRICS is concerned? Well, I mean, for me, for South Africa, there are more benefits than risks for a country like South Africa to be part of the BRICS and hence a number of African countries will see the obvious benefits. I mean, South Africa's participation in BRICS, the countries always argue that it is premised on its national interest. For example, South Africa sees its engagement within BRICS as a way of enhancing its future growth, which is obvious. The development of the development of South Africa through its BRIC membership is also important because South Africa has now got an opportunity to strengthen the intra-BRICS relations now beyond five, beyond the five countries and to develop a mutually beneficial cooperation. So I mean, if you think about the points above that I've raised about around the BRICS bank and the the need to de-dollarise and some of the obvious benefits that developing countries from global south like South Africa are likely to benefit, but I think that South Africa is a punch above its weight in being a member of the BRICS and in hosting the very successful 15th BRICS summit. Right. Thank you so much, Panda Haribe, for speaking to us, for giving us an evaluation of how the BRICS summit went. And I think definitely this is not an event. This is a process which means that in the coming months and years is where we will see more, I think, aspects of this process playing out, whether it be in the financial aspect, whether it be in geopolitics. So a lot to definitely look forward to as far as BRICS is concerned. And I'm sure we'll come back to you for more analysis on some of these topics as well. Thank you so much for speaking to us. Thank you very much for having me, for watching talk to you. And that's all we have time for today. Keep watching People's Dispatch.