Egypt and Ethiopia have blocked the BRICS declaration in support of South Africa for seats on the UN Security Council.
Although BRICS is expanding, it probably means that more members will have more opportunities for disagreement, including among African members.
This was revealed at the recent BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Rio de Janeiro. Unusually, the rally failed to issue a consensus communicae due to objections from two new African members who joined Egypt and Ethiopia in 2023.
Until then, South Africa was the only member of Africa. It was recognized in 2010 by Brazil, Russia, India and China. At the 2023 Johannesburg Summit, five BRICS leaders invited Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Argentina declined and Saudi Arabia said nothing, so Brick became Saudi Arabia as observers and nine-man club.
Last year, under the Russian presidency, BRICS invited Indonesia to invite 13 countries to become “partners” and provided a route to membership. Indonesia became full members this January, with Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan being accepted as partners.
Not all five core members are equally enthusiastic about expanding. Russia and China were the most enthusiastic of India and Brazil, while South Africa was somewhere in between.
The Rio Conference exposed the division among core BRICS members and African members. Host Country Brazil declared it would be a draft for leaders to adopt at the July summit. The declaration included a regular paragraph calling for reforms to the UN Security Council (UNSC) to make it more globally representative.
However, “normal” was a relative term, and the devil was in detail on this delicate matter. For many years, BRICS has always supported the desire to acquire permanent seating in the expanded UNSCs of Brazil, India and South Africa. However, it was not clearly stated that the two BRICS members, who already own China and Russia, who already have permanent seats, were opposed to the new permanent members.
In the 2022 Beijing Declaration, “China and Russia reiterated the importance of obsessing with the status and role of Brazil, India and South Africa in international affairs, supporting their desire to play a greater role at the United Nations.”
In 2023, Johannesburg II’s declaration gently pushed the envelopes by playing a greater role in international affairs (particularly the United Nations) (particularly the United Nations) by emerging countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the legal aspirations of Latin America, including Brazil, India and South Africa.
South African officials welcomed this, noting that the phrase “including its Security Council” was the closest thing for Russia and China, leading to supporting Brazil, India and South Africa’s aspirations.
However, last year’s summit in Kazan, Russia, Egypt and Ethiopia joined the club, bringing attention from a new direction. The African Ezlwini consensus states that the continent should acquire two permanent seats in the expanded UNSC.
And while acknowledging King Johannesburg II, the Kazan Declaration supported the “legal aspirations of emerging and developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, in order to play a greater role in international affairs, particularly in the United Nations (UN). We recognize the legal aspirations of African countries as reflected in Ezlwini’s consensus and the Sirte Declaration. There was no mention of Brazil, India or South Africa.
Then came the Rio Conference last month. The minister disagreed with the communica- tion or declaration because Ethiopia and Egypt “opposed some of the previously approved plans to reform the UN Security Council by granting a permanent seat to South Africa,” a secret African report.
However, Crispin Philli, spokesman for South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Minister Ronald Lamora, said, “The divergence of negotiations only occurs between Brazil, India, Ethiopia and Egypt, and is linked to specific references to potential new and persistent UNSC members. South Africa did not engage in this debate.” He said that South Africa “complete” supports Ezlwini’s consensus.
Another South African official told the ISS that Brazil, and so much India, had decided that their desire for permanent seating in Brazil, India and South Africa should be mentioned. It appears that Brazil and India have noticed that the aspirations of these three original BRICS members were being suppressed by the club’s expansion.
At that point, Egypt and Ethiopia opposed because they believed South Africa was given priority over other African states. Eventually, Brazil removed references to South Africa and returned to Kazan, although it had specific references to Brazil and India. However, Ethiopia and Egypt refused to support the Communique anyway. And they argued that even fewer “chairman summary” would record their objections to the paragraph on Security Council reform.
why? The impression of one official was that Egypt and Ethiopia wanted to move away from the old language, but in addition, they tried to punish Brazil with what they were considered a divisive negotiation strategy. If this spat did nothing else, it shows how deeply the African nation is divided on this issue of who gets those permanent seats.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
Perhaps by embracing new members, it suggests that South Africa has at least weakened its position in the world. It was hit by a return to Ezlwini, as it had progressed in persuading Russia and China to embrace a desire for a permanent UNSC membership.
If you believe in the paradoxical concept of recognizing the sovereignty of a state in order to gain greater collective sovereignty, South Africa may be stronger with a bigger brick, as is perhaps the case with Egypt and Ethiopia. However, I think that the great strength is far more than rhetoric.
As Africa’s Confidential points out, the Kazan Summit has become more politically resistant, including attacks on Western sanctions on Russia, Israel’s attacks on Gaza, and Bretton Woods’ institutions. They have not been very successful in setting up alternatives to the rapid payment system that excludes Russia, as well as other proposals to avoid Western sanctions by Russia.
“If BRICS fails to agree to the policy, there is little chance that it will become a geopolitical rival to the G20 or the European Union,” the journal concluded.
Of course, that was early on. BRICS is still expanding, and its future is unknown. However, Riospat suggests that it would mean greater difficulty for more members to reach an agreement on the entity.
Peter Fabricius, consultant at ISS Pretoria
