Transcription
It is unacceptable that the so-called G7, which accounts for less than a third of global production, continues to determine the policy and practice of the Bretton Woods institutions, while BRICS countries, which contribute about 40% of global gross domestic product, do not have comparable influence.
In the midst of significant tectonic shifts in the geopolitical and geo-economic landscape, BRICS is increasingly being called upon to serve as a stabilizing force that helps achieve balance in international relations, actively working to shape a positive global development agenda based on consensus and equality. Only such a collaborative approach, not confrontation or zero-sum games, can effectively deliver the positive results we all desire. It is important to ensure the interests of all participants and more broadly of all constructive members of the international community.
We see a steadily increasing and widespread recognition that BRICS serves as a central focal point for forces advocating for a more just, multipolar world order. In order to ensure stability amid global uncertainty, we believe it is absolutely necessary to focus our cooperation on tangible, practical projects that have a direct impact on steady economic development and the prosperity and well-being of our peoples. In this context, it is important to continue developing mechanisms for cross-border settlements that are resilient to external risks, primarily in national currencies, as well as infrastructure to boost mutual trade.
Our collective contribution to the world economy is steadily increasing, currently accounting for almost 40% of global gross domestic product, and this figure is even higher when partner countries are included. However, dynamic development is impossible without innovation, including artificial intelligence technologies. The joint statement adopted by BRICS leaders last year established a shared vision of our countries in this area. We believe it is a timely task to begin implementing the agreed upon principles at the UN platform, including ensuring digital sovereignty, as well as equal and fair access to technologies and data.
Given the complex nature of threats to international stability, we pay special attention to strengthening cooperation within the BRICS format to counter terrorism, extremism, corruption, illicit drug trafficking, and to ensure security in the use of information and communication technologies. Such joint work is especially relevant in circumstances where a number of countries use the aforementioned issues as a pretext for economic, political, and even military pressure on governments they find undesirable. We support the chairmanship's intention to intensify the activities of the BRICS expert network on asset recovery. This could contribute to the development of common approaches to the task of repatriating illicit funds for further promotion at the UN and other international platforms.
There is a significant gap between the actual distribution of global economic potential and the level of representation of the world's majority countries in global governance. In major and influential international organizations, including the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system, institutions that were originally established under a vastly different global balance of power and influence, the overwhelming dominance and control of the so-called historical West still persists to this very day. Correcting this injustice should be facilitated by restructuring the activities of the relevant institutions in accordance with the actual balance of power in the modern world. This should increase the effectiveness of the entire international architecture and eliminate the dividing lines that have been created within it. The global financial system must be transparent and non-discriminatory, providing all participants with equal access to opportunities and instruments.
It is unacceptable that the so-called G7, which accounts for less than a third of global production, continues to determine the policy and practice of the Bretton Woods institutions, while BRICS countries, which contribute about 40% of global gross domestic product, do not have comparable influence. I would strongly encourage you to take a very close look at the official IMF statistics on lending over the past 3 or 4 years. And you will certainly find that the nation of Ukraine has actually received substantial loans amounting to almost 600% of its quota. This is a figure several times greater than the total amount that all the various member countries of the African Union have received from the IMF in that same period. To be fair, it is important to note that the BRICS countries together already hold more than 18% of the votes in the fund, which already allows them to exert a significant influence over key strategic decisions, but only if there is a unanimous consensus within the group. We see no added value in the process of allocating additional seats to the countries of the collective West, who are already significantly overrepresented on the council, and continue to claim an exclusive monopoly on shaping the global agenda.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, stood before the BRICS ministerial council in New Delhi and made an argument that was not about ideology. It was about math. He said the G7, the group that includes the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada, accounts for less than a third of global production, but continues to determine the policy and practice of the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. He then pointed to the other side of the ledger. BRICS states, he said, now contribute about 40% of global GDP but have no comparable influence over those same institutions. The gap between economic weight and institutional power is the argument Lavrov came to New Delhi to make. And it is the argument that gives BRICS its reason to exist.
Lavrov went further than the numbers. He said the key institutions of global governance had been formed under a completely different balance of power. That is a direct reference to the post-World War II order, when the United States and its allies designed the financial and political architecture that still governs international trade, lending, and monetary policy. Lavrov argued that the world financial system must be transparent and non-discriminatory, providing all participants with equal access to opportunities and tools. The framing positions BRICS not as a rival to the existing [music] order, but as a correction to it. A block that says the system is outdated and the countries that built it are no longer the only ones that matter. Whether BRICS has the institutional capacity to deliver on that framing is the question that separates the speeches from the outcomes.
Lavrov described BRICS as a rallying point for forces advocating a fairer, multipolar world order. That phrase, "rallying point," is not accidental. It positions the block as more than a discussion forum. It frames it as a convergence point for countries that want to re-shape how global decisions are made. He said that in order to ensure stability in the context of global instability, BRICS cooperation should focus on practical projects that have a direct projection on progressive economic development and ensuring the well-being of their peoples. The emphasis on practical projects over declarations is notable. It acknowledges, without saying it directly, that BRICS has been criticized for producing statements that do not translate into institutional change. Lavrov is signaling that Russia wants the block to move from rhetoric to infrastructure.
Lavrov's visit to New Delhi lasted from May 13th to 15th. During that time, he participated in BRICS plenary sessions on global affairs, sustainable development, and cooperation. But, the bilateral meetings on the margins may have carried as much weight as the formal sessions. Lavrov held direct talks with the foreign ministers of Iran, Thailand, Brazil, Egypt, and Malaysia. The Iran meeting is the most significant in the current context, given Russia's strategic alignment with Tehran and the ongoing Gulf crisis. But, the meetings with Thailand and Malaysia suggest Moscow is also working to deepen ties across Southeast Asia, a region that is largely avoided taking sides in the US-Russia or US-Iran confrontations.
So, this is what Lavrov brought to New Delhi, an argument built on numbers that are difficult to dispute. The G7 controls institutions that were designed when it represented the dominant share of global output. It no longer does. BRICS now accounts for a larger share of GDP, but has no equivalent voice in [music] the institutions that set the rules. Lavrov is telling the room that the architecture of global governance needs to change, and that BRICS is the vehicle for that change. Whether the block can translate that argument into institutional reform, alternative financial mechanisms, or coordinated policy that actually shifts how global decisions are made is the test that will determine whether Lavrov's rallying point becomes a turning point or remains a talking point. Subscribe to WLA for daily geopolitical analysis.