BETWEEN G7 AND G20

Over the past months, the global geopolitical focus has shifted significantly towards the Asia-Pacific region. The trending events of the fortnight were the BRICS Summit and the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), which were particularly remarkable in terms of the attempts of the participants to build a multipolar system of international relations. But will BRICS have enough potential to accomplish this task?

This year, the BRICS summit was held in the Chinese port city of Xiamen. The local media highly praised the event, and cited some indicators as evidence: the five member-states unite 3 billion people and produce a GDP amounting to $16.8 trillion. Since its inception, the volume of trade and foreign investments has grown by 94% and from 7 to 12%, respectively. The contribution of the member-states to the world economy exceeds 50%. The number of partners is also growing. Thus, this year, the heads of Egypt, Tajikistan, Mexico, Guinea, and Thailand joined the existing format thanks to the Chinese initiative. The agenda of discussions was also expanded and now includes the issues concerning the security, humanitarian support, space, health, information security, and alternative energy.

The closed-door meetings were followed by the release of a final joint declaration including 68 items and official comments for the media. Among the most interesting decisions is the agreement on establishment of a bond fund in national currencies for direct investments, where appropriate, and the possibility of creating a BRICS crypto currency as an alternative to other payment instruments. In addition, the countries advocated the expansion of cross-border online trade and the creation of a common television channel.

It is evident that some decisions and statements contradict the opinion of the Western countries. For example, the BRICS member-states called for the implementation of the Paris Climate Accord. This is especially relevant in the context of the damage caused by the hurricanes in the U.S. Not only ordinary Americans, but also public figures, celebrities and politicians increasingly criticize Donald Trump for his decision to withdraw Washington from the Paris Climate Accord. BRICS has also advised against the protectionism and the policy of unilateral sanctions. The Xiamen Declaration supports the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan on the Iranian Nuclear Issue, the existing format of negotiations on the settlement of the situation in Syria adopted in Astana, as well as the resumption of negotiations on the situation in Yemen.

Meanwhile, the Western media highlighted the weak points of the BRICS summit, especially unequal levels of economic development in member-states and the lack of a common ideology. It is noted that China is the only real economic ‘driving force’ in the organization, and that is the only reason why the performance indicators of the member-states look so impressive. Thus, by the beginning of the 2030s, the BRICS countries will beat the developed countries by the combined economic power but simply because the Chinese economy is estimated to exceed the size of the U.S. economy by 2020.

In addition to economic inequality, there is also a rather noticeable political aspect of the problem. In fact, China and Russia cannot be compared with South Africa and Brazil, or even with India, in terms of their international influence. The contradictions between the member-states, such as the border conflict between China and India near the Doklam plateau shortly before the summit, also spoil the prospects for the BRICS. In general, China and India are long-standing rivals, and India’s warm relations with the United States and the ‘all-weather friendship’ between China and Pakistan further aggravate this confrontation. And this is just a single example. However, Delhi and Beijing responded by saying that they have never referred to Doklam in Xiamen, while the local journalists have emphasized the benefits of pragmatic relations and the need for a multipolar system of international relations whenever possible.

Incidentally, the BRICS summit was followed by the 3^rd Eastern Economic Forum held on Russky Island of Vladivostok, where the leaders of South Korea and Japan, Moon Jae-in and Shinzo Abe, joined the Russian president Vladimir Putin. Both Seoul and Tokyo have generously demonstrated their friendly intentions and interest in relations with Russia. But the Chinese leader was absent in Vladivostok, which can be explained  by the inconvenience that Mr. Xi might feel in the format of the event. Apparently, Xi Jinping is more interested in really large-scale economic projects, which were missing in EEF’s agenda. Currently, the political aspects of relations between Russia, South Korea and Japan overweigh their financial interests, although Moon Jae-in and Shinzo Abe have lavishly praised Putin's project on the development of the Russian Far East. Japan is more concerned about its territorial issue and China's expansion in the region, while South Korea has obvious problems with its northern neighbor.

North Korea has been keeping the whole world in suspense lately. It is not surprising that this problem was one of the main topics of discussions during both the BRICS and EEF, particularly the launch of a North Korean missile that flew over the territory of Japan on August 28, as well as a nuclear test conducted on September 3. Russia and China do not recognize the nuclear status of Pyongyang, but insist that it is possible to solve the problem only through political and diplomatic means. During his final press conference in China, Putin said that the reason for the persistence of the North Korean leadership could be the negative experience of the U.S. and Western policies towards the authoritarian regimes that had agreed to cooperate with the international community. Therefore, the North Koreans believe that nuclear weapons are the best guarantors of their security. At the same time, the Russian president called the use of anti-missile systems against North Korea "pointless", since this country also maintains long-range artillery and Multiple Rocket Launcher Systems (MRLS) with a range of up to 60 kilometers. According to Putin, one should not force North Korea into a corner.

It is noteworthy that yet another bill on sanctions has been adopted in the U.S. recently, which puts Russia on the same list with North Korea and Iran. According to new information surfaced on September 11, the Trump administration is considering an option to create a compact nuclear weapon to contain both Russia and North Korea. The Trump administration says that the new weapon should be inexpensive, and the damage it causes to the enemy is insignificant. Perhaps this is another argument in support of the opinion that the North Korean crisis is beneficial for the regional countries to solve their geopolitical tasks. The deployment of the American THAAD system in South Korea, which is allegedly designed for high-altitude over-atmospheric interception of short- and medium-range missiles, also supports this argument. That is, intended formally for the defense of Seoul from North Korea, THAAD actually is a source of concern for China and Russia. This much resembles the story we have previously heard about the U.S. missile defense systems deployed in Europe to protect against Iranian missiles.

As the Chinese president said at the BRICS summit, the member-states should jointly present a common position on solving problems of global development and peacekeeping, work together to establish a new type of international relations. Apparently, the North Korean crisis is definitely a challenge for the BRICS countries. It keeps the region in tension while neither Russia nor China needs the millions of refugees, abandoned nuclear and chemical weapons, and the likely advance of the U.S. troops to the proximity of their borders.

On the other hand, the North Korean crisis is obviously not an issue that can be solved by the BRICS. Rather, the organization is set up to align the positions of the leaders of the member-states. BRICS is not a political or military alliance. It is unlikely that it will ever be the one. But the five countries have a future regardless of differences in their political and economic potentials, geographical distances from each other, as well as linguistic and cultural differences. We can say that the organization has found its place between G7 and G20. In other words, it is going to be increasingly difficult for G7 and G20 countries to align themselves without regard to BRICS.