Asean won’t become obsolete just because a few members join Brics

The latest Brics summit in Kazan, Russia, was attended by 36 leaders and top officials, as more countries seek to join the grouping that appears to offer an alternative to the Western-led system.

A geopolitical bloc, Brics – named after its earliest members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – is also increasingly a geoeconomic bloc as economic partnerships grow.

Member states now include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), while partner countries have expanded to include Asean members Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand.

Interest from others in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is growing. Laos’ president, Thongloun Sisoulith, attended the summit and Myanmar has expressed the desire to join Brics as an observer.

For Asean, the question is: if its members join Brics, will it make Asean less relevant or threaten obsolescence?

Given that Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand represent over 480 million people, more than 70 per cent of the Asean population, their interest in becoming full Brics members may well affect Asean cohesion, alignment and the bloc’s unique role and influence in the global economic order.

But what makes Brics so attractive to developing nations, particularly those in Southeast Asia?

First, Brics aims to show more inclusivity than other groupings. Indonesia, for instance, is the world’s largest Muslim democracy, while Malaysia and Thailand are multicultural constitutional monarchies, and Vietnam is a socialist republic.

As long as countries share similar goals, they are welcomed. This gives Brics a distinct strength and perspective.

Second, even within Brics, there is a diversity of stances on how members pursue economic development and growth alongside human rights and other democratic freedoms.

It offers cooperation despite different development pathways and focuses on shared goals, rather than intervening in each other’s domestic politics. For Asean members, this is a comfortable environment.

Third, Brics members are influential in their respective regions. Brazil is the largest nation in Latin America. Russia is the world’s largest country by area and a very consequential power straddling both Europe and Asia. India is the giant of South Asia and China the juggernaut of East Asia.

That Africa is represented by South Africa and Ethiopia, while the Middle East is covered by Iran, Egypt and the UAE, shows the vast potential of Brics and its sheer array of resources and diplomatic power.

For Southeast Asian states, deeper cooperation with these major economies across Latin America, Africa and the Middle East potentially through Brics offers valuable connections to regions vital for trade and resources.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important factor is that Brics claims to represent the voices of the Global South, which remains lacking in leadership.

Amid a growing gap and expanding complexities between the Global North and South, Brics is more closely aligned with Southeast Asia in trying to address the underlying issues with the developed world.

For instance, Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono said at the Kazan summit that the country’s interest in joining Brics is aligned with the Prabowo administration’s priorities such as achieving food and energy security, even as Indonesia shares the bloc’s geopolitical concerns.

Even so, that some Asean members interested in full Brics membership are also applying to join the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has given rise to some controversy. Indonesia and Thailand, for instance, have begun accession talks with the OECD.

But we argue that the OECD and Brics are different in nature and have distinct starting points: the OECD offers support to reform national practices to meet international economic standards while Brics offers an alternative economic governance framework.

In any case, wanting to join both the OECD and Brics is consistent with the hedging strategies of many Southeast Asian states, which favour engaging in different models of cooperation.

This approach lets them maximise opportunities for growth while reducing dependency on any single alliance by balancing relationships through multiple economic frameworks.

Such an approach ensures Asean would not become obsolete. It would, arguably, even strengthen Asean’s role as a regional hub, allowing members to leverage the strength of both traditional and emerging alliances.

By connecting with Brics, Asean potentially amplifies its voice on the global stage, allowing its members to play a bigger role in international policymaking and fostering economic cooperation across diverse partnerships.

But for Asean to maintain its global economic alignment, its members must remember their roots in the bloc – they should approach Brics collectively, instead of individually.

This would ensure the Southeast Asian region’s interests are better represented on the global stage, while growing Asean’s clout.

However, it is also understandable that states would want to pursue their unique national interests in Brics individually.

If by advancing their own agendas, Southeast Asian states can gain recognition and resources as well as influence, it would also ultimately contribute to the region’s growth.

Significantly, the Kazan summit was convened just one month before the G20 summit in Brazil. For years, the Group of 20, comprising the world’s largest economies, has been criticised for being ineffective and lacking an equitable regional balance.

Realising the Brazil presidency’s theme of promoting a just world will require concerted and concrete efforts from the rest of G20.

The US presidential election will also undoubtedly be an instrumental factor in the future of Brics. If the new president decides to play a less collective, more pragmatic role in global leadership, Brics might assume greater relevance.

Weakening North-South synergy and the sinking leadership of the Western world will only encourage the emergence of Brics in the coming years.

---

This article by Noto Suoneto and Brice Tseen Fu Lee first appeared in South China Morning Post on 4 November 2024. It is featured here as part of our Member Publications archive.