As the global landscape shifts, BRICS, a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and new members such as Egypt, UAE, and Iran, has become a key player in the push for a multipolar world. With its expanding influence, BRICS+ challenges Western hegemony and seeks to redefine global governance. Yet, the bloc's ambitions are met with complex security dilemmas, varied political ideologies, and operational constraints in implementing counterterrorism initiatives. This brief explores how BRICS+ emphasizes a new world order through its strategic decisions while facing unique security challenges and suggesting future pathways for its role on the global stage.
BRICS as a multipolar Force
BRICS+ seeks to shift away from a Western-led unipolar system by promoting greater equity in international relations and security. The bloc, representing 45% of the world’s population and 28% of global GDP, aims to assert itself as a protector of Global South interests and as a balancing force against Western influence. Recent summits have seen members call for reforms to institutions like the UN Security Council and emphasize sovereignty and non-interference, particularly in matters of national security and counterterrorism. In the 2024 Kazan Summit, members committed to collective security efforts that include bolstering counterterrorism measures and safeguarding regional stability, an essential concern for countries like India, Russia, and Egypt, which are highly affected by cross-border terrorism.
Moreover, BRICS members recognize the need for autonomy from Western-dominated intelligence networks and frameworks, which often prioritize Western security concerns. The bloc has also increasingly promoted the use of local currencies in cross-border trade and is exploring alternatives to dollar-denominated transactions. Such initiatives signal BRICS’s intent to lessen dependence on Western financial systems, which can also serve as a security measure by minimizing exposure to sanctions and financial manipulation often used by Western countries as foreign policy tools.
Security Dilemmas and Divergent Threat Perceptions
Despite BRICS’s collective security aims, member countries face complex security dilemmas. The bloc spans diverse regions with distinct security concerns, India faces border tensions with China and Pakistan, Russia is engaged in conflicts that draw heavy Western sanctions, while countries like South Africa and Brazil focus on internal stability and regional security. These divergent priorities lead to varied threat perceptions, making it challenging to establish a unified approach to global security.
For instance, while Russia and China are motivated to counterbalance NATO’s influence, India’s security concerns lie in regional tensions and managing terrorism, especially from non-state actors. As a result, a coordinated BRICS security policy is difficult to implement, as members prioritize different threats and often pursue unique, and sometimes conflicting, alliances. This issue is further complicated by the inclusion of countries with closer ties to the West, like India, which maintains significant defence and intelligence partnerships with the U.S., and UAE, which has strong trade relations with Western nations.
Counterterrorism and Intelligence Cooperation
A core component of BRICS’s recent summits has been a focus on developing counterterrorism frameworks that protect member states from extremist threats. BRICS+ members, notably Russia, India, and Egypt, have been vocal about the need to combat terrorism more effectively by strengthening regional intelligence sharing and enhancing mutual assistance. The Kazan Summit highlighted the establishment of a cross-border information-sharing initiative, aiming to facilitate rapid intelligence exchange among member states. However, achieving robust intelligence cooperation is challenging given the differences in political systems, intelligence priorities, and levels of transparency among BRICS+ members.
The counterterrorism matrix within BRICS+ illustrates these complexities. Members like Russia and China, for instance, are more centralised and may struggle to share intelligence openly, whereas democracies like India and Brazil operate with more constraints and legal checks on intelligence sharing. These differences lead to a security dilemma within BRICS while countries recognize the benefits of joint counterterrorism measures, they may also view each other with suspicion, wary of disclosing sensitive information that could be used for political leverage. Such mutual mistrust could dent efforts to build a fully integrated counterterrorism framework within BRICS+ Future Pathways: Navigating Security and Stability in a Multipolar World
1.Regional Security Alliances:
BRICS could focus on developing regional security frameworks that address the specific security concerns of different members. This approach would allow BRICS+ to concentrate on local issues such as counterterrorism in South Asia or tackle maritime security concerns in Southeast Asia without forcing members into a singular security doctrine. By adopting flexible, region-specific security strategies, the bloc could enhance stability while allowing each member to prioritize its distinct security needs.
2. Collaborative Intelligence Networks:
A feasible path forward involves creating a decentralised BRICS intelligence network that respects national autonomy while promoting counterterrorism collaboration at a unified accredited jurisdiction. This network could function as a secure platform for real-time information exchange, focusing on cross-border crime, extremism, and cyber threats, which impact most BRICS members. Such a framework would require a set of shared data protocols and standardized reporting to mitigate concerns around information misuse and maintain transparency within the bloc.
Instead of aligning entirely with either Western or Eastern security models, BRICS could develop its own security protocols and doctrines. By leveraging its collective strengths, such as the combined military and intelligence capacities of Russia, China, and India, BRICS could establish an independent security architecture focused on non-interference and mutual assistance. This framework could prioritize defense mechanisms and intelligence that align with the specific threats faced by the Global South, positioning BRICS+ as a protector of smaller nations within a multipolar order. 4. Expanding Soft Power through Peace Diplomacy:
BRICS+ could amplify its influence through peace diplomacy, offering a non-aligned stance on global conflicts. Members could use forums like the UN to promote conflict resolution frameworks that emphasize sovereignty and non-interference, appealing to nations that are wary of the interventionist tendencies of Western powers. By engaging in peace-building initiatives and mediating conflicts in volatile regions such as the Middle East or Africa, BRICS+ could reinforce its role as a diplomatic counterbalance to Western military alliances, enhancing its soft power in the process.
Conclusion
While BRICS+ has the potential to reshape global governance, its path to unity is complicated by security challenges, ideological divides, and trust issues among members. The bloc’s recent expansions and counterterrorism initiatives highlight the complexities of managing diverse political systems and threat perceptions. To become a dominant force in global security, BRICS+ must prioritize flexible, regionally tailored strategies that respect each member’s distinct concerns. As a multipolar world emerges, BRICS+ has a unique opportunity to establish alternative global security norms that contrast with Western interventionism. Success will depend on its ability to balance security priorities with political diversity, foster mutual trust, and implement autonomous frameworks for defence and counterterrorism. By blending ambition with pragmatism, BRICS+ can help build a new world order where emerging economies actively shape the rules of global security.