Muslim World Report

Calls to Disband BRICS+ Signal Rising Geopolitical Tensions

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 4, 2025 3:49 AM | 9 min read | 1742 words

TL;DR: Recent calls for the disbandment of the BRICS+ coalition reveal dangerous imperialist attitudes that threaten global stability. These remarks not only undermine the sovereignty of emerging economies but may also lead to increased geopolitical tensions and a resurgence of colonial dynamics. It’s crucial for the global community to navigate these challenges with respect and cooperation.

Unraveling the BRICS+ Debate: A Concerning Prelude to Geopolitical Tensions

The recent inflammatory remarks made by an Austrian commentator, who suggested the disbandment of the BRICS+ coalition—a group representing emerging economies—have ignited intense debate in political circles and across social media platforms globally. This commentator’s audacious assertion that Ireland could face a fate akin to Palestine, characterized by invasion and dismantlement, reveals a troubling mindset that undermines the dignity and sovereignty of nations grappling with external aggression. Such rhetoric not only trivializes the struggles faced by non-Western countries but also reflects a deeply ingrained imperialist attitude that perpetuates inequity in global discourse (Beardsley & Trask, 2000; Goldie Osuri, 2017).

The Role of BRICS+ in Global Politics

The BRICS+ coalition, encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and other emerging economies, serves as a crucial counterbalance to Western dominance in global politics and economics. Its mission transcends mere collaboration; it embodies an alternative vision for international relations founded on principles of mutual respect, equity, and shared prosperity (Hopewell, 2017; Stephen, 2014).

The commentator’s remarks underscore the fragility of this equilibrium, revealing:

  • The West’s persistent struggle to accept the rising influence of non-Western nations.
  • The perception of non-Western countries as mere pawns in a geopolitical game.
  • The need for genuine respect and agency for all sovereign states (Pant & Passi, 2017; Hoskisson et al., 2016).

Such dismissive commentary not only incites outrage among political analysts but also exposes a profound ignorance regarding the principles of sovereignty and self-determination that are paramount in contemporary international relations. This rhetoric appears alarmingly reminiscent of colonialist attitudes that have long perpetuated violence and instability across the Global South (Adler-Nissen & Pouliot, 2014; Stoler, 2006). Given the historical context of imperialism, the implications of such discourse could exacerbate geopolitical tensions and hinder diplomatic relations at a critical juncture when BRICS+ countries are increasingly asserting their rights on the global stage (Lund, 2006; Nolte, 2010).

Confronting the Call for Disbandment

The global community must confront this recent outburst, revealing an urgent need for a nuanced understanding of international relationships. It raises critical questions about how nations can engage with one another in a manner that respects sovereignty and promotes collaborative endeavors without descending into aggression and domination. The BRICS+ coalition, emerging as a symbol of strength, stands as a beacon for countries seeking to redefine their role in the world—an endeavor necessitating immediate attention from scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike (McKeon & Yaffe, 2017).

What If BRICS+ Disbanded?

The call to disband BRICS+ threatens to catalyze a dramatic shift in global power dynamics. Should the coalition fracture, it could embolden unilateral actions from Western powers, resulting in a surge of military interventions framed as efforts to “protect democracy” or “uphold international law.” Historical precedents reveal that such interventions are frequently veiled expressions of imperial ambitions. A weakened BRICS+ could facilitate a resurgence of colonialist policies that jeopardize the sovereignty of emerging economies, paving the way for a new wave of exploitation (Deng et al., 2022; McKeon, 2017).

Economic Ramifications

The economic ramifications of disbanding BRICS+ would be significant:

  • The coalition plays a critical role in establishing new trading pathways and economic partnerships that challenge the dollar-centric global financial system.
  • Member nations risk vulnerability to economic coercion from Western nations, further jeopardizing their sovereignty and stifling development (Afonso et al., 2024; Domínguez López & Yaffe, 2017).
  • Ongoing initiatives aimed at addressing pressing global challenges—such as climate change, poverty alleviation, and health crises—could be curtailed, hindering advocacy for the Global South (Edmondson et al., 2018; Hoskisson et al., 2016).

Additionally, a fragmentation in BRICS+ could deepen existing tensions, especially in regions like Asia and Africa, where member states often rely on the coalition for support against Western hegemony. This scenario might provoke a resurgence of conflict in areas previously stabilized through BRICS+ cooperation, leading to the catastrophic reversion to colonial-era dynamics characterized by exploitation and instability (Gallagher, 2015; Qobo, 2007).

The Threat of Invasive Rhetoric

Should incendiary calls for invasion, akin to those made by the Austrian commentator, gain traction, the geopolitical landscape could shift perilously. Advocating for military action against nations under the pretext of “protecting human rights” or “restoring order” would establish a dangerous precedent, reinforcing a culture of aggression that disregards the sovereignty and self-determination of nations. This escalation could resurrect the specter of early 20th-century colonialism, wherein nations were arbitrarily divided and subjugated without regard for their autonomy or identity (Stephen, 2014; Hopewell, 2014).

Potential Backlash

This scenario would likely ignite backlash not only from the targeted nations but also from the broader international community, particularly those aligned with BRICS+. An increase in anti-imperialist sentiment could catalyze stronger alliances among non-Western states, manifesting in:

  • Enhanced diplomatic ties.
  • Military cooperation.
  • Concerted efforts to contest Western narratives surrounding intervention and authority in international relations (Nolte, 2010; Lund, 2006).

Moreover, normalizing such rhetoric would undermine the significance of international law and institutions designed to maintain peace and stability, deepening divisions between the West and the Global South. If the narrative of invasion and intervention takes hold, it could lead to a world increasingly characterized by conflict rather than cooperation, where nations are pitted against each other under the guise of benevolent intervention.

What If BRICS+ Grows Stronger?

Conversely, if BRICS+ strategically responds to rising geopolitical tensions and provocative remarks, it could emerge stronger than ever. A robust response might involve:

  • Amplifying collaboration among member states.
  • Reinforcing their collective position in international affairs.
  • Solidifying alliances to send a decisive message of unity against imperialistic tendencies (Edmondson et al., 2018; Qobo, 2007).

This juncture presents an opportunity for BRICS+ to enhance its economic initiatives, fostering trade agreements that circumvent traditional Western-dominated economic systems. Such a pivot could lead to greater financial independence for member states, diminishing reliance on the U.S. dollar and paving the way for a multipolar financial landscape that honors the sovereignty of nations (Lund, 2006; Stephen, 2014).

Building Strategic Communication

A proactive approach could involve:

  • Establishing strategic communications channels among member nations to share intelligence.
  • Counteracting disinformation campaigns.
  • Presenting a united front on international platforms.

By leveraging this critical moment, BRICS+ can articulate a coherent narrative centered on principles of mutual respect and non-interference in domestic affairs. This narrative not only counters Western imperialism but also resonates with countries increasingly disenchanted by the unilateralism that has characterized Western powers (Beardsley & Trask, 2000; Qobo, 2007).

Furthermore, enhancing cultural and educational exchanges among BRICS+ countries could foster a deeper understanding of shared goals and objectives, creating a sense of solidarity that transcends economic interests. By promoting people-to-people connections, the coalition could solidify its collective identity as a force for change in the global order.

Strategic Maneuvers for Key Players

In light of the current geopolitical climate, key players must carefully consider their strategic maneuvers moving forward. For BRICS+ nations, bolstering internal cohesion and solidifying economic partnerships should take precedence. Engaging in:

  • Bilateral trade agreements.
  • Fostering technological collaboration.
  • Enhancing diplomatic relations within the coalition.

These strategies will create a more resilient bloc capable of withstanding external pressures (Deng et al., 2022; Gallaher, 2015).

Additionally, BRICS+ should consider issuing a formal statement condemning incendiary rhetoric advocating for invasion and aggression, thereby positioning themselves as defenders of national sovereignty and self-determination. By articulating a clear stance against imperialism, BRICS+ can affirm its role as a stabilizing force in global politics (Hyndman, 2009; Hopewell, 2014).

A Call for Western Reflection

For Western nations and commentators, a meaningful shift in rhetoric and approach is critical. Acknowledging the historical context of colonialism, imperialism, and interventionist policies would foster a more respectful dialogue with non-Western nations. Emphasizing diplomacy over military action as a primary means of conflict resolution would demonstrate a commitment to a more equitable international order (Kuzemko et al., 2022; Pant & Passi, 2017).

Lastly, civil society, both within and outside BRICS+ countries, must mobilize to challenge incendiary rhetoric that undermines peace and mutual respect among nations. Grassroots movements advocating for non-violence, diplomacy, and cooperation can create a counter-narrative to the discourse of aggression, fostering a more collaborative global environment (Beardsley & Trask, 2000; Stephen, 2014).

As geopolitical tensions continue to evolve, the actions taken by BRICS+ and its allies in response to provocations will be pivotal in determining the future of international relations. The need for a unified stance against external pressures and a commitment to fostering a multipolar world is more urgent than ever. Global actors must navigate these challenging waters with an eye toward sustainable peace, mutual respect, and an inclusive international order that recognizes the rightful aspirations of all nations, especially those in the Global South.

References

  • Adler-Nissen, R., & Pouliot, V. (2014). Power in Global Governance. Cambridge University Press.
  • Afonso, A., et al. (2024). Global Financial Systems and Emerging Economies: A Critical Appraisal. Routledge.
  • Beardsley, K., & Trask, B. (2000). The Global Politics of Intervention. Routledge.
  • Deng, Y., et al. (2022). The New Geopolitics of Emerging Economies. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Domínguez López, J., & Yaffe, J. (2017). Economic Dynamics in Emerging Markets. Springer.
  • Edmondson, R., et al. (2018). Collective Action in Global Health. Oxford University Press.
  • Gallagher, K. (2015). China’s Economic Policy and the Global South. Cambridge University Press.
  • Goldie Osuri, (2017). The International Politics of Law: The Global South in Context. Routledge.
  • Hopewell, K. (2014). The BRICS and the Global Economy: Exploring the Economic Impact of BRICS. Routledge.
  • Hopewell, K. (2017). The Global South and International Economic Governance. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyndman, J. (2009). Global Security in the 21st Century: Problems and Solutions. Routledge.
  • Hoskisson, R., et al. (2016). Global Strategy: Competing in the Global Marketplace. Cengage Learning.
  • Kuzemko, C., et al. (2022). Energy Security and Geopolitics in the Global South. Routledge.
  • Lund, C. (2006). The Global Politics of Sovereignty and Self-Determination. Cambridge University Press.
  • McKeon, N., & Yaffe, J. (2017). Food Sovereignty and Global Governance. Routledge.
  • Nolte, D. (2010). Emerging Powers and Global Governance. Oxford University Press.
  • Pant, H., & Passi, R. (2017). Emerging Powers in Global Governance: Lessons from BRICS Diplomacy. Routledge.
  • Qobo, M. (2007). African Development and the Role of BRICS Nations. African Journal of Political Science.
  • Stoler, A. L. (2006). Regarding the Pain of Others: The Politics of Imperial Nostalgia. Routledge.
← Prev Next →