By Ademola Adebisi
The summit of the bloc of states known as BRICS whose name must definitely change as from January, 2024, when the admission of six new members (Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates), will take effect, was recently held in Johannesburg, South Africa. It will be recalled that, when the fraternity started in 2009 it was known as “BRIC”, an acronym which was minted by Goldman Sachs economist, Jim O’Neil, from the names of it pioneer members namely, Brazil, Russia India and China. When South Africa joined the fold in 2010, it became “BRICS”. This year’s summit will no doubt, have a sobering emotional effect on its members and possibly spur much more commitment of members to the raison deter for the formation of the group. This is because, the president of one of its founding members, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, could only make soft appearance (via zoom) at the meeting given the warrant of arrest placed on him by International Criminal Court on the allegation of abduction of Ukrainian children to Russia in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This allegation Russia has denied; Russia is not a party to the ICC convention. Yet, Putin’s arrest has been ordered. Believing that this is another manifestation of unipolar policing of the global system by NATO and its American moving spirit, and an injustice, the BRICS cannot but intensify its efforts to fragment the global system into a multipolar configuration which will engender balance of power and socio- economic justice. Thus, for example, the dollarization of the global economy which has given the US economic advantage cannot but provide BRICS further impetus to challenge America’s economic dominance by embarking on progressive de-dollarization of the world economy.
Read Also: Nigeria eyes regional hub with new ports’ modernisation
While this competition may appear a threat to global unity to solve common global problems, it is certainly inevitable. Yet, the international community must not lose sight of the need for unity and cooperation to confront these common challenges – climate change, poverty, deadly diseases and famine among others. It is with this spirit of unity and cooperation that, the UN Secretary – general, Antonio Guterres, in his message to the BRICS confab appealed for global unity and subtly preached against global fragmentation. He said: “that is what the world needs, unity of action and unity for justice, we are confronting existential challenges.” He then cautioned: “as the global community moves towards multi-polarity, we desperately need – and I have been vigorously advocating for – a strengthened and reformed multilateral architecture based on the UN charter and international law. We cannot afford a world with a divided economy and financial system with diverging strategies on technology including artificial intelligence and with conflicting frameworks. I have come to Johannesburg with a simple message in a fracturing world overwhelmed by crises; there is simply no alternative to cooperation”.
He concluded: “humanity will not be able to solve common problems in a fragmented way”.
His position is indeed understandable as a key driver and a rallying point for an organization seeking to promote global peace, global good and global safety. But in this current fierce struggle for power and dominance, will states listen? Yes, states will just listen but they will not relent in fragmentation. Nothing proves this better than the criticism of the Nigerian state by some Nigerians for not joining in the fray and forays of BRICS. To these Nigerians, by not enrolling now, it is considered a foreign policy deficit. Yet, there exists a school of thought that holds that, for not joining, Nigeria has adhered to its principle of non-alignment as a part fulcrum of its foreign policy. For this, they hold that Nigeria should be commended. With these views, the contention between centrifugal and centripetal forces on the world stage is cascading to Nigeria to shape our policy choice on BRICS.
When asked by journalists why Nigeria was not invited to join the group, the vice -president, Kashim Shetima, revealed that, Nigeria had not applied to join the group and that the president would take a decision after exhaustive consultations must have been made with all relevant stakeholders. Let me at this point therefore problematise the emerging contentions on this issue thus: must Nigeria sit on BRICS? For some good reasons, Nigeria need not be left out of this circle. One, joining the group will be in consonance with one of our foreign policy objectives that, Nigeria should be part of the struggle for a just world economic order. No doubt, one of the major objectives of BRICS is to pursue this cause. A world economy, denominated in dollar and which has given America and its allies undue advantages over the rest members of the international community, calls for restructuring and alternatives. Two, although Nigeria must have been enjoying bilateral relations with BRICS members and also meet them on several other multilateral platforms, joining will of course, further deepen Nigeria’s relations with those countries. Third, Nigeria will also profit from the benefits that often attend international comradeship. Fourth, it can enhance Nigeria’s global visibility.
However, in spite of these seeming reasonable attractions, it is truly imperative for Nigeria to first discuss and watch exhaustively before it joins. We need not to be in a hurry. Most times, when South Africa is mentioned ahead of Nigeria at any forum, we often assume that South Africa has seized the initiative from us. We don’t pause to ask: has South Africa not acted in a hurry? Has it actually and correctly acted in its own national interest? Can South Africa not commit error in its foreign policy judgement and conduct? Are Nigeria’s national interests and priorities not different from South Africa’s? Are the subterranean determinants of the two countries’ foreign policies not different?
Further, we need to critically examine the objectives of the group vis-à-vis our national interest, which is another constitutional objective of our foreign policy. If our membership will promote our interest, we need not be encumbered by the principle of non-alignment. For non-alignment does not mean neutrality. It in the main, suggests that, we could align with wherever our interest lies- East or West or both at the same time. Even if at the end of the consultations the indicator is that we should not join now, it should not be seen as diminishing on our foreign policy, global visibility and African leadership pride.
For example, Russia and some other countries are not members of OPEC, yet they have been able to maximize their interest in the world oil market and they are recognized as OPEC+ (plus), a force which cannot be ignored in global oil politics. In another example, when Britain perceived that its interest would not be better served in the European Union, it exited America has also been in and out of the UNESCO based on the dynamics of its national interest. From 1815, Switzerland maintained the policy of military neutrality. It did not join the United Nations Organization until 2002. It is not also a member of the EU because of its policy of neutrality and the love of its sovereignty. Yet, the tiny European country has been pursuing what experts have described as “active foreign policy” dominated by bilateral relations even with international institutions. It. has also, without being an outstanding multilateral player, become a safe haven for financial capital across the world and the headquarters of a number of world organizations and committees.
As at present, Nigeria is a member of so many multilateral agencies, most of which are liabilities to the country. By 2017 when the government of Muhammadu Buhari embarked on the policy of rationalization of Nigeria’s membership of international institutions, Nigeria was a member of over 200 institutions. In some we are the major financier reaping less benefits; in some we owed huge debt in dues. Indeed, the rationalization exercise was still ongoing by the time President Buhari concluded his tenure. In any event, if Nigeria must sit on BRICS which is still crystalizing, it must be in the national interest and not also at the speed or pace of South Africa and Ethiopia or any other state around the world.
• Dr. Adebisi teaches politics and international relations at, Elizade University, Ilara-Mokin, Ondo State.