As the world’s economic tectonic plates shift, the BRICS alliance—now expanded to 11 nations—finds itself at the center of a fierce debate over global trade, protectionism, and the future of multilateral cooperation. The most recent flurry of summits and statements, culminating in a hybrid BRICS leaders’ meeting on September 9, 2025, has ignited both optimism and skepticism across capitals from Pretoria to Beijing, New Delhi to Brasília.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, addressing the virtual gathering, did not mince words about the challenges facing his country and the broader Global South. He pointed to “seismic shifts in global trade,” intensifying competition, and growing geopolitical tensions as factors threatening economic stability. “Unilateral tariff actions contribute to an increasingly protectionist environment which poses great hardships and danger for the countries of the Global South,” Ramaphosa said, directly linking these moves to rising unemployment and sluggish growth in South Africa, according to GCIS.
Ramaphosa’s remarks underscored his government’s support for BRICS-led efforts to bolster economic resilience and strengthen the global multilateral system. He called for diversifying South Africa’s trade and investment partnerships—not just across Africa but stretching to Asia, the Gulf, the Americas, and Europe. “Africa must be the beating heart of global trade, not merely an exporter of raw materials,” he declared, highlighting ongoing efforts to consolidate the African Continental Free Trade Area. Yet, he also stressed the importance of preserving the multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations at its core, while pushing for reforms to address longstanding imbalances.
But not everyone in South Africa’s political landscape is convinced. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party was quick to criticize Ramaphosa’s approach. Spokesperson Thembi Msane accused the president and the “so-called Government of National Unity” of acting out of desperation rather than strategic foresight. “South Africa’s historical failure to build a strong industrial foundation and our continued reliance on a 1960s/70s economic model without proper state capacity is at the root of our problems,” Msane argued, as reported by GCIS. The EFF, while supporting deeper BRICS engagement, insists it must be “a deliberate strategy for building sovereign industrial and technological capacity,” not a knee-jerk reaction to Western pressure. Without such focus, they warned, “a shift to BRICS would be nothing more than a bandage over a structural wound that requires a surgical solution.”
Other parties echoed similar concerns, but with their own twists. The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), referencing former president Jacob Zuma’s “progressive” tenure, championed BRICS membership and the push for a BRICS bank to foster local currency use. MKP spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela lamented the “impunity of trading with the West,” particularly given the burdensome loans South Africans have endured. The African Transformation Movement (ATM) lauded the BRICS pivot for its potential to boost trade, investment, and access to technical expertise, but ATM spokesperson Zama Ntshona chided the Ramaphosa administration for moving “seven years later than expected.”
Meanwhile, South Africa’s largest labor federation, Cosatu, painted a grim picture of the economy. With a staggering 42.9% unemployment rate and sluggish growth, Cosatu’s Matthew Parks expressed alarm at the impact of recent US tariff hikes on South African agricultural and manufacturing exports. “We fear this may see many farm and manufacturing job losses,” Parks said, urging the government to expedite talks for a new, mutually beneficial trade agreement with the US while also supporting domestic companies battered by both foreign tariffs and homegrown challenges like unaffordable electricity.
Across the Indian Ocean, the tone at the BRICS summit was similarly charged. China’s President Xi Jinping used the occasion to double down on Beijing’s narrative as a defender of global openness and multilateralism. “Economic globalisation is an unstoppable historical trend,” Xi declared, according to CGTN. He criticized US tariffs for fostering isolation and global uncertainty, and called on BRICS members to “uphold openness and inclusiveness, safeguard multilateralism, and strengthen cooperation to build a community with a shared future for humanity.”
Xi outlined three core proposals: defend fairness and justice through multilateralism, advance openness and win-win cooperation to protect international trade, and foster solidarity for common development. His remarks were not just rhetoric; they referenced concrete initiatives such as the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), introduced at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit just days earlier. The GGI, as Xi described it, is a roadmap for “galvanising joint global action for a more just and equitable global governance system,” with the United Nations at its center.
China also touted the success of the New Development Bank (NDB), a flagship BRICS institution that has financed over 100 projects totaling nearly US$40 billion. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres weighed in, describing the GGI as “anchored in multilateralism” and consistent with the UN’s role at the core of the global order, according to CGTN. Brazilian presidential adviser Celso Amorim agreed, calling China’s proposal significant at a time when “some countries are undermining the multilateral trading system.”
Yet, for all the unity projected on the virtual stage, cracks in the BRICS edifice remain. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, representing his country in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence, used his platform to urge BRICS members to address trade imbalances. “India’s biggest trade deficits are with BRICS partners,” Jaishankar pointed out, highlighting a record $99.21 billion deficit with China alone for the fiscal year ending March 2025, as reported by Chinese customs data and CNBC. Bilateral trade with Russia hit a record $68.7 billion, with India’s deficit largely driven by oil imports.
Jaishankar’s comments reflected India’s pragmatic approach: while New Delhi sees BRICS as mainly an economic initiative, China and Russia often view it as a geopolitical counterweight to Western influence. The US, for its part, has not sat idly by. President Donald Trump’s tariffs—up to 50% on Indian goods, and 30% on Chinese goods—have roiled trade talks and prompted accusations of “tariff blackmail” from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. “Tariff blackmail has been normalised as a tool for conquering markets and interfering in domestic issues,” Lula said, adding that BRICS nations have been victims of “unjustified and illegal trade practices,” as cited by AFP.
Despite these tensions, there were signs of diplomatic fence-mending. Trump, speaking from the Oval Office, noted that India had offered to cut tariffs on American imports to zero, though he complained the move came too late. Modi, in turn, responded on X (formerly Twitter), “deeply appreciate and fully reciprocate President Trump’s sentiments and positive assessment of our ties.” As Chatham House’s Chietigj Bajpaee observed, “while India sees the US as a key strategic, technology and defense partner, Washington sees India as a counterbalance to the rise of China.”
Still, experts caution that the BRICS grouping, for all its size—nearly 40% of global GDP—and ambition, is far from monolithic. As Dr. Andrea Ghiselli of the University of Exeter noted, “BRICS and SCO countries remain a highly heterogeneous group with divergent interests and varying relationships with China.” Many continue to value good relations with the US despite current tensions, raising doubts about how much substance lies behind the symbolic unity.
As the dust settles from this latest round of summits, one thing is clear: the push and pull between protectionism and multilateralism, national interest and global solidarity, will continue to shape the world’s economic landscape for years to come.
