The BRICS Summit and Türkiye
BRICS currently comprises ten nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. It represents about half of the world’s population. According to estimates, it now accounts for 37.3 % of the world’s GDP. It owns 44.35% of the world’s oil reserves.
Some BRICS members are democracies but many are not. Their relations with one another are not free of problems. Over the last two decades, China and India have improved their diplomatic ties. However, they are still competitors with a long history of conflict. Ethiopia and Egypt are parties to a longstanding dispute over a hydroelectric dam on the Nile River. Iran and Saudi Arabia resumed relations last year under a China-brokered deal but remain regional adversaries. Nonetheless, leading members of the group see themselves as powers balancing the West with growing international support, and others see their membership as a message of independence, regardless of their close relations with the West.
BRICS has long sought to present a united front against what its members see as an unbalanced global order that the US and Western Europe dominate. They believe that the West’s much touted “rules-based international order” is only a cover-up for its double standards and prioritization of narrow self-interests no matter what. Such positions are viewed with considerable sympathy in the Global South and East where the West has steadily lost moral ground.
The EU engages with BRICS countries individually.
More than thirty countries and twenty heads of state attended BRICS’s 16th summit in Kazan under President Putin’s chairmanship. UN Secretary-General Guterres was also present at the summit. The Kremlin called it one of the “largest-scale foreign policy events ever” in Russia. Thus, the summit was widely seen as an occasion for Mr. Putin to show the world that Russia does not stand alone despite the war in Ukraine.
Two documents published in Kazan are worthy of attention. First, “The Kazan Declaration, Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security”[i] and second, the “Joint Statement of the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations”.[ii]
Through these documents, member states reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism.
They expressed deep concern about the disruptive effect of unlawful unilateral coercive measures, including illegal sanctions, on the world economy, international trade, and the achievement of sustainable development goals.
They stressed the urgent need for an immediate, comprehensive, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and detainees from both sides, an unhindered and sustainable supply of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, and cessation of all aggressive actions. They denounced the Israeli attacks against humanitarian operations, facilities, personnel, and distribution points.
They also expressed support for “the establishment of a sovereign, independent, and viable State of Palestine in line with internationally recognized borders of June 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital living side by side in peace and security with Israel.”
The brief paragraphs in both texts dealing with the war in Ukraine only recalled national positions concerning the situation in and around Ukraine as expressed in international fora. Both texts said that the participants noted with appreciation proposals aimed at a peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. The Kazan Declaration also said, “We emphasize that all states should act consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation.”
Before the Kazan Summit, under President Putin’s chairmanship, Russian officials indicated that another 30 countries wanted to join BRICS or seek closer ties with the club. Attention focused mostly on Türkiye, a NATO member.[iii]
Despite on-and-off expressions of intent to join BRICS by the governing AKP government, the people of Türkiye only learned from Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs aide, that Ankara had officially applied “for full membership” in the bloc that Russia chairs this year and the application will be considered.
On September 6, two days after Mr. Ushakov’s remarks, Foreign Minister Lavrov was asked about Ankara’s application.
He said, “I am operating on the assumption that the national leadership has serious intentions when it makes such statements… The main requirement for full members of the group and countries that are developing various forms of cooperation with it is to share common values. It is not the values the EU is defending in Ukraine, claiming that Ukraine is protecting ‘European values’ and so they must protect these ‘values’ too.”
He added, “At last year’s summit in Johannesburg, it was decided to instruct the ministers of foreign affairs and experts to prepare recommendations on the criteria to be applied to a new category of colleagues invited to BRICS events – partner countries.”
On October 3, Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov said that the possible BRICS expansion in the future would occur through establishing certain criteria for partner states. “The association has agreed on important criteria for a partner state through which BRICS can expand further,” Ushakov told reporters. He added that the BRICS leaders have given the green light to a 13-member format without disclosing the names of potential new members “because it will be necessary to discuss with them how ready they are for full-fledged or any other BRICS membership.”[iv]
During his meeting with President Erdogan in Kazan, President Putin, after warmly welcoming his guest said, “I know that Turkiye is interested in establishing closer cooperation with the group, and we see great opportunities here, given your country’s international influence and unique geopolitical role to connect the eastern and western parts of Eurasia… Russian-Turkish relations are of a good-neighborly and constructive nature, rooted in a long-standing history of partnership across a wide range of areas.”[v]
To assess Ankara’s interest in BRICS membership one has to look back.
Türkiye, a NATO member, signed a Customs Union Agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognized as a candidate for full membership on December 12, 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. Accession negotiations started on October 3, 2005. That was an occasion for a great celebration in Türkiye because these negotiations acknowledged our being a democracy and opened a path to greater prosperity.
Nearly two decades later, the accession process is dead and buried, essentially for two reasons: firstly, Turkish democracy’s steep decline, and secondly the fact that the EU would never have embraced Türkiye as a full member even if it had remained on the democratic path. How can we forget that ours is the country European powers tried hard to confine to a small stretch of central Anatolia at the end of the First World War? Atatürk sent those plans to the dustbin of history. He launched unprecedented reforms which moved Türkiye to an upper league. The Cold War and our sending troops to Korea enabled us to join NATO. However today, even our membership in the alliance is under the shadow of our worsening relations with the West. Our relations with Washington desperately need a reset. Easier said than done.
The critical point is, had Türkiye remained on the democratic path, even without EU membership, and avoided getting involved in regional conflicts, it would have earned itself a unique, globally respected, and regionally envied status, and even more importantly it would have created a great opportunity to leave behind for good the internal problems that confront us today. Unfortunately, we failed to see that the only solution to all our problems was enhanced democracy. Our involvement in the Western intervention in Syria marked the beginning of the downturn. Today, with an economy in dire straits, we face challenges ranging from lawlessness, misgovernance, petty politics, lack of clarity on fundamental issues, and lack of direction. Who is responsible for this historic failure? The AKP government of the past two decades. Who is paying the price? Türkiye.
Had we succeeded in our quest for democracy and kept our relations with the West on track, as a member of NATO and a partner of Europe, I could have supported our interest in becoming a democratic BRICS partner state, even a BRICS member, as a balancing act, and as a step toward furthering our dialogue with its members, in particular with China and India. However, today, our joining a group of mostly authoritarian states and embracing their “membership values” rather than meeting the criteria for democracy, even if EU membership was never in the cards, is sad.
Once the parameters of Ankara’s prospective link with BRICS become clear, our parliament must discuss the issue for approval. And if that were to happen, it is likely to be supported by the opposition. After all, like Western confidence in Türkiye, Turks’ confidence in the West is fast eroding.[vi]
Tomorrow marks the 101st anniversary of the declaration of the Turkish Republic and we shall reaffirm our eternal gratitude to Türkiye’s founding father Atatürk.
[i] https://cdn.brics-russia2024.ru/upload/docs/Kazan_Declaration_FINAL.pdf?1729693488349783
[ii] https://cdn.brics-russia2024.ru/upload/docs/2024-06-10-Joint_Statement_of_the_BRICS_Ministers_of_Foreign_Affairs-International_Relations_Nizhny_Novgorod-Russian_Federation.pdf?1718093535356452
[iii] https://diplomaticopinion.com/2024/09/16/turkiyes-support-for-ukraine-and-membership-in-brics/#more-2570
[iv] https://tass.com/world/1860213
[v] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75378
[vi] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/10/16/turks-lean-negative-on-erdogan-give-national-government-mixed-ratings/