BRICS and the emerging multipolar economy

by SAVIOUS KWINIKA 
JOHANNESBURG, (CAJ News) – THE expansion of BRICS has become one of the most consequential developments in the changing global economic order.

What began with Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC), later joined by South Africa (BRICS), has developed into an eleven-member grouping comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Indonesia.

The economic scale of the grouping is substantial. BRICS accounted for about 40.2% of global gross domestic product (GDP) measured at purchasing-power parity in 2024, compared with 28.8% for the group of seven) (G7).

The BRICS share was projected at approximately 40.7% for 2025.

The grouping also represents about half of humanity and roughly 36% of global territory.

These figures matter because economic influence is not determined by GDP alone.

BRICS combines major manufacturing capacity, enormous consumer markets, agricultural production, energy supplies, technology capabilities and strategic geographical positions.

China is the world’s largest manufacturing economy and a major centre for technology, infrastructure and international trade, while India has become one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies and an important technology and services hub.

Indonesia adds Southeast Asia’s largest economy, while Brazil contributes vast agricultural, mineral and energy resources.

Egypt and Ethiopia strengthen the grouping’s African presence, while Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran provide enormous importance in energy and Middle Eastern trade.

Russia remains a major energy and mineral producer.

South Africa adds substantial mineral resources and an important gateway to African markets.

The BRICS’ resource base is equally significant.

Official BRICS data, drawing on international sources, puts the grouping at approximately 72% of global rare-earth mineral reserves, 43.6% of global oil production, 36% of natural-gas production and 78.2% of mineral-coal production.

These figures demonstrate why cooperation over energy, mining, processing, transportation and technology could give BRICS considerable strategic leverage.

Their economic worth depends on geological quality, extraction costs, infrastructure, technology, commodity prices and future demand.

The strategic importance is nevertheless difficult to ignore, particularly as rare earths are essential to advanced electronics, electric vehicles, renewable-energy equipment and defence technologies.

China alone dominates global rare-earth processing, giving it considerable influence over supply chains.

The greatest potential strength of BRICS is therefore not simply the combined size of its economies, but what greater coordination could accomplish.

If members expand trade in their own currencies, develop payment mechanisms, increase investment through the New Development Bank, strengthen transport corridors and coordinate energy and mineral policies, they can reduce dependence on financial and trading systems dominated by Western institutions.

BRICS remains an informal coordination mechanism without a constitutive treaty, common budget or permanent secretariat, and its members have different political systems, strategic interests and foreign-policy priorities.

Its strength will therefore depend on its ability to turn economic weight into practical cooperation while managing those differences.

The question has become particularly relevant amid Washington’s expanding use of tariffs and sanctions.

In September 2026, Trump signed legislation granting authority for tariffs of up to 100% on countries identified as major purchasers of Russian oil and gas or as sanctions evaders, potentially affecting economies including China, India and some European countries.

Canada has also imposed retaliatory tariffs following escalating US trade measures.

US military action against Iran and Washington’s January 2026 kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro have likewise intensified international debate about sovereignty, sanctions and the limits of unilateral power.

The larger question is whether one country can economically and politically sanction all 193 UN member states and compel universal compliance.

In practical terms, the United States has no powers to sanction the entire world.

The United States sanctions no longer hold centre power as many global south countries vehemently reject comply rendering Washington’s global illegal sanctions useless.

As alternative payment systems, markets and supply chains develop, the reach of unilateral sanctions can become more limited.

BRICS therefore represents less a replacement for the existing international system than a growing challenge to its concentration of power.

Its members have repeatedly called for reform of global institutions and greater representation for developing countries.

Brazil’s BRICS presidency emphasised strengthening cooperation, multilateralism and Global South participation. BRICS+1

History provides a warning.

The League of Nations struggled because major powers were unwilling or unable to provide effective collective enforcement; the United States never joined, while aggression in the 1930s exposed the organisation’s weaknesses.

Those failures contributed to the creation of the United Nations after the Second World War.

Today, the UN faces a different but related challenge: its institutions increasingly reflect the power structure of 1945 rather than the twenty-first century.

UN debates have repeatedly highlighted deadlock, veto politics and demands for greater representation for Africa, Asia and Latin America. The Secretary-General has himself argued that global institutions must reflect today’s realities.

For BRICS, this creates both an opportunity and a responsibility.

Its growing economic, demographic, energy and mineral weight gives its members greater collective influence.

Whether that influence produces a more representative international system will depend not on confrontation alone, but on sustained cooperation, economic integration and the ability to offer practical alternatives to unilateralism.

– CAJ News