Although thousands of kilometers away, while the IMF and the World Bank gathered at their annual meeting to analyze global economic developments and the prospects and challenges of the coming year, in Kazan, Russia, at the same time, October 22-24, the BRICS proceedings were held, precisely less than two weeks before the presidential elections in the USA.

This meeting attempted to show the new countries seeking to join the founding group of BRICS, (consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) that the current international institutional structure has not brought peace and prosperity to everyone in the world, even though they couldn’t substantiate this argument. At a time when we are witnessing a gradual return to opposing blocs, two points of view emerge. On one side, there is a world seen from Kazan, the capital of Russia’s Tatarstan, and on the other, one from Washington and the G7 countries. The former seeks the creation of a new economic-political status, while the latter aims to preserve the current economic and political status in the international arena.

With a UN Security Council increasingly seen as merely a Western club, blocked by the vetoes of some G7 countries, Vladimir Putin aimed, at the latest BRICS meeting in Kazan, to break out of isolation and regain the political and economic presence of his country within this bloc. So, in addition to trying to create the impression that he is leading a cluster of developing economies representing 45% of the world’s population and over a third of global wealth, he was also attempting to establish an increasingly antagonistic counterweight to the West.

From this perspective, the expansion of BRICS with Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, and with Saudi Arabia in the "waiting room," already signals the growth of this organization and was promoted as the end of Russia’s isolation in the world. It was no coincidence that a dozen leaders were invited to this meeting, including the president of Iran and Turkish President Erdogan, the first leader from a NATO country.

The question arises: within this grouping, is the appearance of greater economic and political cooperation possible among members that include rivals such as China and India, or countries with complicated relations like the United Arab Emirates and Iran? It seems that this is complicated and somewhat different, and not easy. And here’s why: What is important right now in the global analysis of this activity by the world media is to illuminate the alternative. They had to demonstrate that, as pointed out by many participating states, the current institutional infrastructure dominated by the West has not brought peace and prosperity for all. This was the main thesis of this meeting, one that all participants were expected to defend.

WHAT WERE THE MAIN ECONOMIC DECISIONS?

At the last meeting of BRICS, held from October 22 to 24, 2024, in Kazan, Russia, the importance of political, economic, and financial cooperation between members was emphasized, with special attention to the expansion of the use of national currencies in international trade. The problem of the monetary union and the Bank of BRICS brought these main elements to the surface:

It was decided to increase the use of national currencies in business transactions between members to reduce dependence on the US dollar and the euro. The proposed system would facilitate smoother trade and reduce vulnerability to Western sanctions, particularly for members such as Russia and China.

On the other hand, it would create the premises for the integration of all participating countries into a unique market where the value of the local currency is transformed into an international means of payment within BRICS. To realize this, the idea was proposed by China to create an international platform from all countries not only to facilitate payments in local currency but also to greatly reduce payment costs in terms of competitiveness.

It remained a long-term project to create a common currency in the concept of the euro because, before reaching this stage, the participating countries needed a reconciliation of fiscal systems, economic policies, and, above all, a gradual process of merging national currencies into a basket of currencies of the union, similar to the monetary snake that once existed in the EU. Discussions at the specialist level led to the political decision to create an international payment platform and later to a digital currency that would be equivalent to all local currencies.

To the question of who would guarantee the unwanted flows of local currencies and their exchange rates, the answer was the BRICS Bank (NDB), which would create new funds to play the role of the IMF for specific countries.

The third economic element discussed at the last BRICS meeting was regional economic development. To strengthen the role of the South in world trade, China tried to create a regional market within BRICS without barriers to increase both trade exchanges between members and the movement of capital. This met with some disapproval from India, which required its repositioning not only within the BRICS countries but also in the global world market. The reports of this organization with the WTO are still not discussed enough and left as part of the technical discussions to realize an informative relationship for the next meeting.

US AND EU, COMMENTS AND POSITIONS

During the last BRICS meeting, the US Department of State reacted to the dedollarization efforts of the member countries of this forum. The department stated that the United States does not ask its allies to choose between America and other countries, arguing that it offers benefits and values through democratic governance and respect for human rights, values that it claimed many members of BRICS do not completely uphold. However, Western analysts argue that a monetary union among BRICS is still far off and unlikely to be achieved in the short term, due to internal differences among the group's members. While many countries in the Global South are attracted to the idea of a more equal financial order, the United States sees the initiative as a direct challenge to its global economic influence, especially at a time when it is facing growing antagonism from Russia and China. In addition, the United States also criticizes BRICS' ambiguous position on the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. For the European Commission and EU countries, the BRICS summit was a total failure.

"We took into account Kazan's statement, and we can only repeat that the BRICS summit was another attempt by Putin to waste his next presidency and get out of international isolation."

Supporters of BRICS, especially in developing countries, see the bloc's expansion as a positive step toward creating a multipolar world, reducing the dominance of Western powers and giving a stronger voice to the Global South.

The BRICS economies now represent nearly half of the world's population and are increasingly pushing for alternatives to US-dominated financial systems, such as the use of local currencies in trade, which has been a growing trend since 2022. This has been further motivated by sanctions against Russia and other BRICS members. However, not all perspectives are rosy.

Some critics, particularly in the Western media, argue that despite these ambitions, BRICS faces internal divisions and challenges in creating a unified agenda. The reluctance of India and Brazil to fully support further enlargements shows that not all member countries are aligned with the strategy. Moreover, the bloc is still far from realizing some of its boldest goals, such as creating an alternative global currency to rival the US dollar. The global press also highlights the growing importance of Middle Eastern and Far Eastern powers in this multipolar environment. Countries such as Thailand, Mexico, and Algeria, which have expressed interest in joining BRICS, are positioning themselves between the Western blocs and those associated with BRICS, maintaining strategic autonomy rather than fully committing to either side. All Western analysts and independent international media share the opinion that this summit was a showcase that hid the internal contradictions of this organization and that its objectives are far from being fulfilled. / Panorama

*Prof. Dr Anastas Angjeli is an academician, economy expert, former Minister of Finance and MP, founder and president of the Mediterranean University of Albania