BRICS Cooperation, Economic Priorities, and the Role of Youth -Sadegh Bashireh

Sadegh Bashireh – Ph.D. Candidate of International Law at Allameh Tabataba’i University
2025/11/04

Although the BRICS member states possess significant abilities in various fields including geopolitics, cultural diversity, and military strength, their most remarkable asset lies in their economic potential. According to a recently published report, BRICS accounts for 46% of the world’s population, 40% of oil reserves, 45% of oil production, 32% of the earth’s land surface, 30% of net domestic product, 37% of global GDP, 20% of gold reserves, 30% of foreign direct investment, 42% of grain production, and 40% of grain consumption. A review of the background behind the establishment of this international body shows that these very potentials of BRICS countries, as emerging economies, constituted the main driving force for its creation. (Milad Torabifard, “BRICS; History, Function, and Considerations for Iran's Joining This Group”, Parliament Research Center, 2022) But can this latent potential truly be realized? Can BRICS, as an international actor, effectively enhance the economic position of its members and bring about meaningful transformations? At first glance, everything seems ready. In my view, the current juncture requires strategic decision-making, and much now depends on the political will of BRICS members. This is particularly evident in recent months, as the rise in BRICS activity has coincided with escalating threats from U.S. President Donald Trump against BRICS and its members.

The critical question, however, is whether such threats can undermine the determination of BRICS states. Imagine if the U.S. President were not accustomed to coercion, intimidation, and unilateralism, but instead sought to dissuade each BRICS member from cooperation through inducements and alluring offers. Could such strategies weaken their resolve and eventually dismantle their collaboration within BRICS? Answering these questions is crucial, as the way in which BRICS members respond under such circumstances will shape its future. It is the members themselves who will ultimately decide whether BRICS evolves into a useful, effective, and progressive international institution—or degenerates into a ceremonial body that exists only in name.

On this basis, and in response to the questions raised, this note seeks first to outline the challenges of cooperation among BRICS members, then to suggest possible ways of overcoming these obstacles. Finally, it will highlight the special role of youth in navigating this path. Before addressing these substantive issues, however, it is essential to provide background for readers less familiar with BRICS: What is BRICS? Who are its members? And what objectives does it pursue? A brief overview of these fundamentals will provide the necessary foundation for the discussion that follows.

About the BRICS

Based on information available on the official BRICS website, the BRICS grouping, originally coined in 2001 by economist Jim O’Neill to describe emerging economies, has since evolved into a dynamic multilateral forum. He highlighted the significant economic growth of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The inaugural BRICS meeting took place in 2006 at the level of Foreign Ministers, coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The first summit of heads of state occurred in 2009 in Ekaterinburg, Russia. In 2011, South Africa joined the group, leading to the addition of the letter "S" to the original acronym, marking the first expansion of BRICS. The second expansion was announced during the Johannesburg Summit in 2023, which welcomed six new members. Today, BRICS includes eleven countries: the original five—Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa—and six new members set to join in 2024-2025: Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. According to the Johannesburg Declaration, leaders also established a category for BRICS partner countries during the Kazan Summit in 2024. Currently, the partner nations include Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

Strategic Challenges facing BRICS

As noted above, BRICS encompasses a diverse range of actors, most of which are rapidly emerging economies. This diversity and dynamism represent both an advantage and a challenge. In the introduction to this post, I highlighted the abilities of BRICS members. Yet it must also be recognized that emerging economies inevitably have significant economic partners outside BRICS who may view its rise with concern. These external actors can exert considerable influence. The threats posed by the United States exemplify this dynamic: Washington perceives BRICS as an economic threat, and its so called “countermeasures” have likewise been economic in nature. The United States has launched a tariff war against BRICS members—an especially serious obstacle for emerging economies in the global arena.

Against this backdrop, BRICS has increasingly drifted away from its original economic orientation. The final statement of the 2025 BRICS Summit in Brazil reflects this shift, as it addressed a broad array of political, military, and other issues. Plans are now underway for a joint military exercise by BRICS members in South Africa.

For some, this has reinforced the mistaken assumption that BRICS must confront U.S. unilateralism on every possible front. I am not opposed to countering unlawful unilateralism by the United States, nor do I object to such measures in principle. Yet one must recall that the core purpose and primary strength of BRICS has always been economic—and that the United States, as a principal opposing actor, has chosen to focus precisely on this domain. Under these circumstances, is it truly rational for BRICS to expand its activities into other areas, rather than concentrating on strengthening economic relations among its members? Especially given that BRICS has yet to fully achieve success even in its founding mission, and remains a relatively young institution.

In fact, the question is not whether BRICS should confront unilateralism or not. Because basically, one of the important functions of organizations like BRICS is to strengthen multilateralism in the global South with the aim of balancing the hierarchy of the traditional order and, consequently, preventing the continuation of unilateralism of powers. Rather, the main question is how, taking all aspects into account, BRICS can achieve such goals?

International institutions are the product of cooperative patterns—whether voluntary or compelled—formed on the basis of mutual interests, be they maximized or minimized. Through repetition and consolidation, such patterns crystallize into structured cooperation (Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984, p. 10.). This, in turn, shapes the expectations of international actors, enabling them to anticipate one another’s behavior. The first outcome of this process is trust-building and the establishment of reputation among parties, both of which are essential for the continuation of cooperation within institutional frameworks (Hadi Dadmehr, Reputation in International Law and International Relations, Majd, 2014, p. 103.).

Consequently, the decisions taken by states at critical junctures can prove decisive. Whether compelled or voluntary, these decisions may undermine trust-building and credibility, ultimately destroying cooperation altogether. This is precisely why, at the beginning of this post, I emphasized that the future of BRICS depends above all on the political will of its members.

The way forward for BRICS

In this context, defining BRICS primarily as an entity whose role is to counter unilateralism is misguided. Such a claim is essentially political. The foreign policies of states are driven by their interests. As rational actors operating in an anarchic international system, states make decisions based on whether cooperation within an international institution aligns with their interests (Duncan Snidal, Political Economy and International Institutions, 16 INT'L REV. L. & ECON, 1996, p. 127.). Their willingness—or unwillingness—to cooperate at critical junctures results from a calculation of costs and benefits. Therefore, it is insufficient to simply argue that BRICS must oppose unilateralism, because it is entirely possible that at some point the interests of one BRICS member may lie in pursuing, or even aligning with, unilateral action.

In such circumstances, states rarely act on the basis of preordained duties or abstract moral commitments. For this reason, I do not find political cooperation for the sake of an economic objective to be effective. History has seen numerous international organizations founded on political goals; while they may have initially facilitated cooperation, shifts in state policies often rendered such organizations ineffective. I hope this doesn't upset anyone, but in my opinion, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is a clear example of this. By contrast, economic incentives are far more likely to generate lasting political bonds (Sadegh Bashireh, Analysis of international organizations, Afarinandegan Publication, 2021, p. 129). In fact, political convergence is often the result of economic integration. The European Union (EU) is an explicit example of this logic. Of course, one must recognize the significant differences between BRICS and the EU, and it would be unrealistic to expect BRICS to follow the same trajectory.

Nevertheless, deepening economic cooperation can so tightly interweave the interests of BRICS members that their future decision-making becomes strongly shaped by these shared benefits. In such a scenario, states would increasingly define their policies around their economic interests. Put it differently, by expanding mutually beneficial economic activities, BRICS can raise the costs of non-cooperation to such an extent that members consistently see their own advantage in remaining within the framework of BRICS, rather than pursuing conflicting alternatives. In this way, even when conflicting interests arise, BRICS would remain the preferred option. To put it succinctly, if BRICS does not serve as a platform for economic exchanges, it risks becoming the subject of exchange itself.

At present, however, such deep linkages among BRICS members have not yet taken shape, and the organization remains in its infancy. In line with the insights of liberal institutionalism, this makes civil society particularly significant (Barbara Koremenos, Institutionalism and international law, 2011). Youth, as an integral part of civil society, hold an especially important role. In what follows, I will outline how young people can contribute to shaping BRICS. Yet before addressing their role, I must stress once again that BRICS must first and foremost define its purpose correctly, as argued above. Only with this perspective can one meaningfully speak of the role of youth in advancing BRICS.

The role of youth

Youth can assist their governments in advancing the goals of BRICS at three levels:

First, young people can monitor the performance of their governments with respect to BRICS commitments. This can take the form of a public demand for their governments to honor such obligations. Youth should also warn their leaders about the costs of non-cooperation within BRICS. This role becomes even more significant when we recognize that at times states may see little immediate material gain in cooperating with BRICS—or may even perceive short-term advantages in stepping away. In such cases, it is up to young people to remind their governments of the long-term strategic importance of BRICS. They should emphasize that developing deeper ties among BRICS members can yield economic benefits over time, and that patience is needed to allow constructive relationships to mature. But can youth alone convince their governments? Their potential is considerable, yet their voices may not be heard strongly enough on their own. The solution lies in complementing this role with further action, which leads to the second point.

Second, young people must engage in public diplomacy, working to explain and promote the importance of BRICS within their societies. Public support can greatly facilitate and accelerate intergovernmental cooperation. In fact, cooperation with BRICS can be elevated into a national demand. At this stage as well, economic benefits are likely to prove more persuasive to the public than abstract political gains. The reality is that BRICS thrives on the intertwined economies of its members. Any pragmatic observer can recognize economic advantages when backed by numbers and statistics. At the beginning of this note, I outlined the economic potential of BRICS members; such potential will only be realized through the political will of member states. Binding their economies together in ways that create unbreakable ties requires consistent effort, and youth must play an active role in encouraging governments to continue along this path.

Third, many of the challenges BRICS is currently addressing—such as climate change and artificial intelligence—are new global issues that demand up-to-date knowledge and innovation. These are precisely areas where young people can make the greatest contribution. Youth must study these subjects and present practical, actionable solutions. This is their comparative advantage, and governments must learn to trust them in this regard. By taking initiative, young people can strengthen trust not only among themselves but also between themselves and their governments. The future will be shaped by the younger generation, and they are destined to become the leaders of tomorrow. Addressing new global issues provides the best opportunity for youth to demonstrate their capabilities. Through technical and expert contributions, they can influence government decision-making. In this way, BRICS—and indeed the world—can benefit from the creativity and knowledge of its youth.

Regarding youth participation, the UN Security Council Resolution 2250 (2015) is inspiring and confirms what was said in this note on the role of youth, although this resolution focuses on the issue of international peace and security. The UN Pact for the Future (2024) in its section entitled Youth and Future Generations, also addresses measures to develop the capacities and increase the participation of youth at the national and international levels, which indicates the attention being drawn to this important issue.

But can these three roles be realized without proper organization? I believe the vast potential of youth can only be fully harnessed through a structured mechanism. For this reason, in my brief address at the 2025 BRICS Youth Council Summit in Brazil, I proposed the creation of a permanent BRICS Youth Union as an institutional framework for youth activities. Until such a body is established, however, BRICS youth must engage in innovative and impactful initiatives on their own. At present, a Memorandum of Understanding has formally provided a foundation for youth engagement within BRICS. While youth activity should not be confined solely to this framework, it is important to preserve and utilize this achievement as a step toward the eventual establishment of a youth union.

Conclusion

BRICS is neither an international organization with legal personality nor a cohesive or fully institutionalized economic union. It is an international forum whose primary aim has been economic convergence, and for now it must remain focused on that objective. Despite the extraordinary economic capacities of its members, BRICS will still face considerable challenges in realizing its economic goals. Expanding its activities into other domains, while not undesirable, may well exceed its fragile capacities at this stage. All current initiatives should therefore be concentrated on and shaped around BRICS’s economic functions. Achieving these economic objectives will undoubtedly pave the way for a stronger entry into other areas in the future. At present, BRICS requires careful nurturing in order to grow.