BRICS: Rising Tensions and Opportunities in Global Cooperation
BRICS is reshaping global power, challenging the West while facing internal struggles. Will South-South cooperation redefine alliances or deepen divisions?
As geopolitical tensions mount, the BRICS bloc continues to assert its role in reshaping global power dynamics. Facing pressure from Western nations, particularly the United States, BRICS has emerged as a counterweight to traditional economic and political alliances. But as the bloc strengthens its influence, internal and external challenges pose critical questions about its long-term trajectory.
BRICS Through the Lens of Experience
For Professor Gustavo de Carvalho, a public policy and multilateralism expert with over 15 years of experience, BRICS is more than just an economic and political alliance—it is a platform for reimagining international cooperation. Having worked extensively across Brazil and South Africa, de Carvalho offers unique insights into the bloc’s evolution.
"Being part of BRICS is not just political; it’s about building bridges across nations," he notes.
His perspective underscores the deeper significance of BRICS beyond economic partnerships, positioning it as a movement that challenges Western dominance in global governance.
U.S.–South Africa Relations: A Delicate Balancing Act
Tensions between the United States and South Africa have intensified, largely due to South Africa’s stance on land expropriation and its growing alignment with BRICS policies. The strain is evident in trade negotiations, particularly concerning the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which provides preferential access to U.S. markets.
South Africa faces a complex diplomatic balancing act: maintaining historical ties with the West while strengthening partnerships within BRICS. The broader implications of these tensions could redefine trade dynamics in the region, potentially pushing South Africa toward greater economic independence from traditional Western markets.
Brazil’s Pivotal Role in BRICS Leadership
As Brazil prepares to assume the BRICS presidency in 2025, it faces a critical moment in its leadership on the global stage. The country’s domestic challenges—including political polarization, economic instability, and environmental concerns—cast uncertainty over its ability to spearhead the bloc’s ambitious agenda.
Hosting the COP 30 climate summit in December serves as a crucial test for Brazil’s commitment to global environmental leadership, particularly in protecting the Amazon rainforest. According to de Carvalho, "Brazil's leadership in BRICS could set the tone for future discussions on multilateralism." However, the question remains: Can Brazil navigate its internal challenges while positioning itself as a key driver of BRICS initiatives?
A Push for Local Currency Trade
One of BRICS' most ambitious economic initiatives involves reducing dependence on Western-dominated financial systems, such as SWIFT, by promoting trade in local currencies. While the idea has gained traction, progress remains slow due to the diverse economic priorities of member states.
The development of an alternative payment system highlights BRICS’ long-term goal of economic self-reliance. However, achieving consensus among its members remains a challenge, reflecting the broader complexities of multilateral cooperation within the bloc.
Turkey’s Expanding Footprint in Africa
Beyond BRICS, Turkey has been making strategic inroads into Africa, leveraging economic, political, and defense partnerships to strengthen its influence. With rising trade and investment, Turkey has integrated cultural diplomacy—such as educational programs and television productions—into its foreign policy approach.
In the defense sector, Turkish drone technology has become increasingly popular among African nations, reinforcing its role as a significant player in the region. As Turkey expands its diplomatic presence, its engagement serves as a case study of how emerging powers can effectively deploy soft power to solidify international partnerships.
The Future of South-South Cooperation
At the heart of BRICS’ vision is the concept of South-South cooperation—collaborations between developing nations aimed at reducing reliance on Western institutions. However, for these partnerships to be truly transformative, they must move beyond symbolic gestures.
De Carvalho stresses the need for deeper institutional integration and knowledge-sharing, particularly between Africa and Latin America. Strengthening these ties could provide a viable alternative to traditional alliances, reinforcing economic resilience among emerging economies.
Conclusion: A Critical Juncture for BRICS
As BRICS navigates mounting global pressures, its resilience will be tested by both internal divisions and external scrutiny. The bloc’s ability to foster meaningful South-South cooperation could redefine international relations, presenting an alternative to Western-led global governance.
With Brazil’s leadership on the horizon, the coming years will be pivotal in determining whether BRICS can evolve into a truly influential force—or whether its ambitions will be hindered by geopolitical complexities and internal discord.
The key issues at play here - A few important points about South Africa:
The racial tensions in South Africa was being amplified and instrumentalised by local politicians and citizens themselves there nearing boiling point combined with the introduction of additional/new laws targeting/affecting white people. It was not the USA administration instrumentalising it/inflaming it.
Professor Carvalho speaks about "the demands of small minority groups in South Africa that claim the expropriation law would target white farmers" and that "the reality is far more nuanced than that". The impression given by him and by virtually all media outlets is that it's just a storm in a teacup and it's actually all just about South Africa's ICJ case.
However, it's deeper than that - the Trump administration has taken an "anti-Woke policy" stance on many issues and specifically boycotted the G20 conference in SA because of South Africa's chosen themes at the conference:
"Rubio on social media has dismissed South Africa’s G20 theme of solidarity, equality and sustainability as “DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and climate change.”
https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-g20-finance-united-states-38d1cd4734b415df04cf5774cb799bc9
"South Africa had hoped to make the G20 a platform for putting pressure on rich countries to do more to tackle climate change, and to give more towards poorer countries' transitions to green energy and adaptation to worsening weather."
https://www.reuters.com/world/g20-finance-ministers-central-bankers-meet-amid-fractious-geopolitics-2025-02-26/
The US not attending the G20 had a knock-on effect and several other nations' representatives didn't turn up either (including China and India) - see the link just above. In a nutshell, the US is taking an anti-globalist stance while South Aftrica [and other BRICS-members] have strong pro-globalist positions - this is the real division. The US taking up the cause of the protection of property rights within S.A. makes more sense within this context.
To assist Prof Carvalho with understanding some of he nuances surrounding land issues in South Africa I can recommend that he watches this documentary film made about the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhMqc7exTus
A very important point that is missed by all and sundry is that much/most of the farmland occupied by white farmers (in the south-west of S.A.) was settled by them BEFORE the Black African tribes migrated into Southern Africa - this is simply a historical fact - see Bantu Expansion - and note the historical migration and settlement patterns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2CkqHdkUcI
[There were nomadic groups already in South West of SA but not Bantus]
Other land owned by white farmers are due to the fact that there were independent republics called the Boer Republics in South Africa and the land was negotiated and traded for. Later the British dissolved the Boer Republics after colonising the entire region and calling it "a (one) country", but the land-ownership is still in white farmers lands primarily in those parts where the former Boer Republics existed, even tough the republics don't exist anymore - see Boer Republics - maps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_republics
Note that in the Bantu Expansion Video above the maps show that Bantus never reached/arrived in the South West of the country. Now that the country is "one" (because it was artificially created later) these expropriation laws also affect the land areas settled by white people first. Because everyone ignores the above, everyone gets it wrong with regards to "why/how does white people have/own so much farmland in South Africa". The first time whites met blacks (Bantus specifically) was more than 100 years after they arrived in Southern Africa - see from 18 mins 30 secs:
https://youtu.be/qhMqc7exTus?t=1111