Countries around the globe were quick to denounce Russia’s attack on Ukraine. President Biden even branded Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal.”
Noticeably absent, however, are statements of public condemnation from Brazil, South Africa, India and China — whose ambassadors met this week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Along with Russia, these four countries make up the key power brokers known as the “BRICS.” Formed in 2006, this group represents more than 40 percent of the world’s population and almost a quarter of global gross domestic product.
Surprised at the silence? Don’t be — our recent research explains how this rising bloc has been working to challenge the international status quo dominated by the United States and its Western allies.
Biden called Putin a ‘war criminal.’ That’s risky.
What was the BRICS’ response?
The BRICS’ silence was evident on March 2, when 141 out of 193 U.N. members passed a resolution denouncing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Brazil voted in favor of the resolution and its permanent representative to the U.N. expressed concern for the worsening humanitarian situation — but objected to sections that explicitly called out “Russian aggression.” Brazil also criticized the Western-orchestrated sanctions against Russia. President Jair Bolsonaro — who met with Putin in Moscow just days before the invasion — stressed Brazil’s “solidarity” with Russia and has since vowed to remain neutral on the war.
Surprising many observers, South Africa abstained from the vote, criticizing the resolution for its strongly worded language against Russia. India and China also abstained. Maintaining a focus on the safety of Indian nationals trying to leave Ukraine, India expressed its hope for a resolution of the conflict and called for respect of international law — but abstained from the vote.
China, the superpower many hoped would act as a broker between Russia and the West, blamed NATO for the war in Ukraine and made it clear that its friendship with Russia has “no limits.” China’s ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang, articulated in The Washington Post that Ukrainian sovereignty must be respected, but failed to implicate Russia in the breach of that sovereignty.
Why are the BRICS giving Putin a pass on Ukraine?
The BRICS have collectively emphasized sovereignty and the international legal principle of nonintervention as the main tenets of their foreign policy. While stopping short of validating Russia’s territorial claim to Ukraine, these countries have affirmed Putin’s “legitimate security concerns,” particularly with regard to NATO expansion.
Our research shows that the restraint demonstrated on the part of the BRICS is neither exceptional nor accidental. Despite differences and occasional tensions among BRICS members, cohesion among the group extends back to the early 2000s when the group began to form a bloc to challenge the United States and its Western allies. The BRICS established the New Development Bank to compete with the World Bank, and members of the group collaborated to counter the Western powers in the World Trade Organization. And a BRICS-led initiative to challenge the U.S. dollar as the main international currency seeks to create a wider sphere of influence, as well as the ability to bypass potential U.S. sanctions.
Ukrainians are rallying global support via social media. But don’t call it a TikTok war.
The BRICS formation as a bloc against the West is reflected in their voting behavior in the U.N. General Assembly — the town hall of international politics. Within the General Assembly, all countries have a voice and a vote, but like any town hall, discontented members frequently express their frustration with the rules of the game.
While the U.N. takes hundreds of votes every year, some, such as the recent resolution condemning Russia, are particularly significant. Early into the 2000s, a remarkable pattern emerged in the General Assembly in which the BRICS countries began to vote together as a bloc. At the same time, these countries positioned themselves against the defenders of the status quo, namely, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K.
Why are the BRICS unhappy with the global order?
What explains the dissatisfaction that prompted these countries to form a bloc to challenge the status quo? The answer, in three words, is influence, status and norms.
The BRICS have repeatedly expressed frustration with their lack of influence in Western-dominated international institutions. In the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, for instance, countries’ voting power has failed to reflect the economic clout of the BRICS.
More than just influence, the BRICS also vie for recognition. Status elevation has been a key part of China’s foreign policy after the Cold War. Likewise, Brazil, India and South Africa all seek to elevate their status by pushing (unsuccessfully) for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
And a third source of the group’s dissatisfaction is the dominance of liberal Western norms and principles like human rights protections and humanitarian intervention, which they charge that Western powers used to justify regime change in Libya.
The invasion puts Russia’s BRICS partners in a tough spot
Putin’s war in Ukraine creates economic costs for these four close partners, and violates their foreign policy orientations supporting sovereignty. Will the BRICS continue to keep largely quiet?
As the hostilities drag on, that’s unlikely. One possible scenario is that the BRICS will break their silence. Patience with Russia could wear thin as Putin’s war continues to contravene norms of nonintervention, leads to a growing civilian toll and further increases the costs and disruptions to the global economy. This may turn Russia’s BRICS partners toward condemning the invasion.
Of course, it’s possible that the current silence may morph into more active support for Russia. India reportedly has begun buying Russian oil despite Western sanctions, and Indian banks are exploring a rupee-ruble workaround to help Russian exporters stalled by sanctions on international payments. These may be an ominous sign that India might be willing to openly support for Russia.
The United States has continued to warn the Chinese military against supporting Russia in the conflict. But for now, rather than risk fracturing the group in the face of Western solidarity, the BRICS appear to have chosen to keep their bloc intact despite the political dilemmas this war has exposed.
Don’t miss any of TMC’s smart analysis! Sign up for our newsletter.
Martin Binder is associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Reading. Autumn Lockwood Payton is lecturer of political science at the University of Dayton. Their most recent work on the BRICS group appears in the British Journal of Political Science.
