Follow us on social

google cta
2023-08-23t152346z_563682559_rc2ot2am2bt2_rtrmadp_3_brics-summit-scaled

BRICS just announced an expansion. This is a big deal.

The message from Johannesburg was loud and clear. But is Washington listening?

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

BRICS, at the conclusion of its summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, announced an expansion with the addition of six new member states — Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. This is a big deal. It is the first expansion of the grouping since 2010, when South Africa joined, and the biggest step since the 2015 founding of its New Development Bank.

The expansion will bring in deep-pocketed and energy-rich Gulf states, will enhance Africa and Latin America's representation, and showcase the great diversity of the member states’ domestic political systems. It also embeds regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran into what is starting to look like a broader multilateral institution, which could help cement the two's growing thaw.

It was likely that the summit would result in certain concrete criteria being defined for admitting new members. But announcing the actual admission of specific new members was a surprise.

The expansion— and the still-long waiting list of close to 20 states — is a demand signal for alternative structures for solving common challenges and furthering interests of Global South states, which are not being satisfied in the current global order. 

Almost all Global South states in BRICS — old and new — are certainly not anti-American (many of them are close U.S. partners and two have American troops stationed on their soil), but they want to evolve alternative geoeconomic structures that can fill the deep gaps and deficiencies in the current US-led order.

The key for BRICS now is to translate expanded membership into enhanced efficacy of its institutions. Typically as a club expands, delivery challenges grow. There is no question that BRICS still has much hard work to do to create a robust organization on the ground. But this is a grouping on the move.

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, by pointing to the diversity of interests of its members in a recent press conference, seemed to dismiss BRICS' significance. If so, that is a mistake. As the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi has noted, the admission of Iran, for example, is a sign that the U.S. is no longer able to act as a gatekeeper controlling the entry of states it doesn’t like into major global groupings — yet another sign that the era of unipolarity is coming, or has already come, to an end.

Washington should respond to the message from Johannesburg by repairing its currently deficient, sometimes counterproductive, policy approach to the Global South. By doing so, it will recover its own eroding credibility and influence and help in the faster resolution of major global challenges facing the planet.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attends a meeting with South Africa's Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 23, 2023. Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.