KARACHI: In an increasingly fragmented world order, where alliances are being redrawn and traditional power structures shaken, the BRICS grouping has surged to the fore as an alternative axis of global influence. Originally a compact between Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, BRICS has undergone both ideological and institutional metamorphosis. It now champions the Global South’s voice, as evidenced in its latest summit held in Rio de Janeiro – one punctuated by expansionist ambition and a sharpened rhetoric against Western economic hegemony.
Amid growing divisions within major economic forums like the G7 and G20 – further strained by the U.S. president’s “America First” stance – BRICS is positioning itself as a platform for inclusive multilateral dialogue during an era marked by geopolitical unrest and escalating trade disputes. In a joint communiqué issued at the opening of its summit in Rio de Janeiro, BRICS members cautioned that increasing tariffs pose a serious risk to global trade, subtly echoing their ongoing criticism of US tariff-driven policies.
The United States, particularly under President Donald Trump’s renewed aggressive rhetoric, has not taken kindly to this burgeoning multilateralism. In a post on Truth Social, Trump ominously warned that any country aligning itself with what he dubbed the “Anti-American policies” of BRICS would face an additional 10% tariff – with no exceptions. The timing of this statement, issued just hours after BRICS leaders collectively criticised US-driven tariff wars, reflects a deepening ideological rift in global economic diplomacy.
But what truly is the mission of BRICS? Why is it rapidly attracting countries, and where does Pakistan – an ever-pivotal geopolitical actor – stand amid this geopolitical churn?
A multipolar dream or economic rebellion? From its inception in 2009, BRICS has envisioned itself as a coalition of major emerging economies determined to recalibrate global governance frameworks, long seen as monopolised by Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. With each successive summit, this bloc has advanced calls for a more representative international order – wherein developing nations are not mere spectators, but active shapers of policy.
At this year’s summit, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva drew a striking parallel between BRICS and the Cold War-era Non-Aligned Movement. “With multilateralism under attack, our autonomy is in check once again,” he proclaimed. The message was unmistakable: BRICS aspires to become the political and economic conscience of the developing world.
The bloc now commands immense influence – representing over half the world’s population and more than 40% of global economic output. It is increasingly presenting itself as a haven for equitable growth, sustainable development, and an inclusive financial order. Proposals like the BRICS Multilateral Guarantees initiative and talks of a shared digital currency underscore this ambition. In climate diplomacy, artificial intelligence governance, and UN reform, BRICS positions itself as a legitimate counterbalance to the Western-led order.
BRICS’ allure has only grown amid rising Western protectionism and economic nationalism. With its latest additions – Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE – the bloc now comprises 10 nations. According to credible sources, over 30 additional countries have expressed interest in joining either as full members or strategic partners.
Saudi Arabia, though cautious, continues to participate in high-level dialogues. Indonesia has been more assertive, with senior economic minister Airlangga Hartarto attending the summit and subsequently flying to Washington for critical tariff talks – a delicate balancing act between two poles.
The appeal lies not just in economic diversification, but in geopolitical affirmation. Joining BRICS is increasingly seen as a declaration of sovereignty, a stance against unilateralism, and an endorsement of multipolarity.
Pakistan and BRICS: For Pakistan, the BRICS orbit is both enticing and treacherous. Long considered a strategic partner of China – its ‘iron brother’ – Pakistan has much to gain from the bloc’s expansion. China, a core BRICS member, has reportedly encouraged Pakistan to explore observer or partnership status. Given the shared interests in infrastructure development, currency stabilisation, and opposition to Western economic conditionalities, BRICS could provide a fitting platform for Islamabad’s long-term economic and diplomatic vision.
For Pakistan, joining BRICS could unlock multiple strategic and economic benefits. Access to the BRICS-led New Development Bank would offer an alternative financing channel, less constrained by the conditionalities of Western institutions like the IMF. It could also facilitate greater trade integration with fast-growing economies across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while enhancing Pakistan’s role in shaping global policy on climate, digital finance, and multilateral reform. Importantly, membership would amplify Islamabad’s diplomatic voice on issues such as Palestine, Kashmir, and global governance – aligning it with a bloc that increasingly represents the aspirations of the Global South.
But Pakistan treads a cautious line. With a struggling economy, a pressing need for IMF packages, and a heavy reliance on trade access to Western markets, especially the United States, any overt alignment with BRICS risks immediate consequences. Trump’s declaration of an additional 10% tariff on countries perceived as siding with BRICS sends a clear warning.
Moreover, Pakistan’s external financing needs for FY2025 – estimated at over $20 billion – compel it to remain within the good graces of multilateral Western institutions. The risk of sanctions, trade blockades, or financial exclusion cannot be discounted.
Yet, the ideological alignment is hard to ignore. BRICS’ unwavering support for Palestine – declaring Gaza an “inseparable part of the occupied Palestinian Territory” and condemning Israeli aggression – resonates deeply with Pakistan’s diplomatic positioning. Islamabad has historically championed the Palestinian cause and finds increasing convergence with the bloc’s moral stance on global conflicts.
If Pakistan does choose to enter BRICS, even as a dialogue partner or observer, it will signal a pivot towards a multipolar worldview. It could mean deeper integration with the New Development Bank (NDB), greater trade reliance on China, Russia, and the Middle East, and perhaps a reduced dependency on IMF-style reforms.
However, the cost could be severe. US-Pakistan trade stood at $8.4 billion in 2023. If Trump’s tariffs materialise, the textile-heavy export economy could suffer, potentially jeopardising hundreds of thousands of jobs. Remittances from Pakistani diaspora in the US – currently among the top five corridors-could also be indirectly impacted if diplomatic ties deteriorate.
Still, there is growing sentiment within Pakistan’s policymaking circles that the time has come to diversify its alliances. The future may not lie in choosing sides, but in adroitly engaging with both poles – joining BRICS while preserving critical ties with the West.
Between two worlds
The global chessboard is shifting, and the BRICS bloc is no longer a footnote in economic diplomacy – it is now a headline act. As Trump threatens fresh economic hostilities, developing nations are left with a stark choice: toe the line of old alliances, or embrace a new global logic rooted in shared development and strategic autonomy.
For Pakistan, the decision is not binary, but complex. The opportunity to participate in BRICS’ broader vision offers a chance to reclaim diplomatic agency and pursue south-south cooperation. Yet the looming threat of Western economic retribution means the path forward must be measured, strategic, and rooted in pragmatism.
BRICS may well become the non-aligned movement of the 21st century. Whether Pakistan joins its ranks or merely courts its ideals from the margins will depend not just on geopolitics-but on bold and balanced statecraft.
Moreover, Pakistan’s external financing needs for FY2025 – estimated at over $20 billion – compel it to remain within the good graces of multilateral Western institutions. The risk of sanctions, trade blockades, or financial exclusion cannot be discounted.
Yet, the ideological alignment is hard to ignore. BRICS’ unwavering support for Palestine – declaring Gaza an “inseparable part of the occupied Palestinian Territory” and condemning Israeli aggression – resonates deeply with Pakistan’s diplomatic positioning. Islamabad has historically championed the Palestinian cause and finds increasing convergence with the bloc’s moral stance on global conflicts.
If Pakistan does choose to enter BRICS, even as a dialogue partner or observer, it will signal a pivot towards a multipolar worldview. It could mean deeper integration with the New Development Bank (NDB), greater trade reliance on China, Russia, and the Middle East, and perhaps a reduced dependency on IMF-style reforms.
However, the cost could be severe. US-Pakistan trade stood at $8.4 billion in 2023. If Trump’s tariffs materialise, the textile-heavy export economy could suffer, potentially jeopardising hundreds of thousands of jobs. Remittances from Pakistani diaspora in the US – currently among the top five corridors-could also be indirectly impacted if diplomatic ties deteriorate.
Still, there is growing sentiment within Pakistan’s policymaking circles that the time has come to diversify its alliances. The future may not lie in choosing sides, but in adroitly engaging with both poles – joining BRICS while preserving critical ties with the West.
Between two worlds
The global chessboard is shifting, and the BRICS bloc is no longer a footnote in economic diplomacy – it is now a headline act. As Trump threatens fresh economic hostilities, developing nations are left with a stark choice: toe the line of old alliances, or embrace a new global logic rooted in shared development and strategic autonomy.
For Pakistan, the decision is not binary, but complex. The opportunity to participate in BRICS’ broader vision offers a chance to reclaim diplomatic agency and pursue south-south cooperation. Yet the looming threat of Western economic retribution means the path forward must be measured, strategic, and rooted in pragmatism.
BRICS may well become the non-aligned movement of the 21st century. Whether Pakistan joins its ranks or merely courts its ideals from the margins will depend not just on geopolitics-but on bold and balanced statecraft.
