On January 1, Brazil assumed the rotating presidency of the BRICS, a bloc initially formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which unites some of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Today, BRICS has expanded to include 22 countries, comprising full members and partner nations. Amid the uncertainties about the bloc’s future role in the global order – exacerbated by the policies of Donald Trump’s incoming administration in the United States – the Brazilian presidency arrives at a pivotal moment. This presidency offers significant opportunities but also presents challenges that will be far from easy to navigate.
Operating under the slogan “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance,” the Brazilian presidency has outlined two main priorities: fostering Global South cooperation and pursuing reforms in global governance. The deliberate choice of language reflects the BRICS’s ambition to position itself as a legitimate representative of the Global South while advocating for the reform of world governance without discarding multilateral institutions. However, the extent to which these goals might conflict with the Republican Party’s platform and President Trump’s vision for the international order remains to be seen. Moreover, the bloc faces internal pressures that are no less formidable.
As 2025 progresses, three key challenges are coming into focus. First, the bloc must determine whether the principles outlined in the 2024 Kazan Declaration will effectively shape its new agenda. Second, it must address the ambitious priorities set forth by the Brazilian presidency. Lastly, it will be faced with the challenge of sustaining member engagement in an increasingly complex and unpredictable global landscape.
The Future of the Kazan Declaration: A Coherent Agenda or a List of Aspirations?
Although not legally binding, Summit Declarations hold significant political and symbolic value, representing the shared language negotiated and agreed upon by member states. Diplomats from diverse nations dedicate weeks to securing concessions, refining language, and ensuring BRICS’ alignment with both international objectives and domestic audiences. This meticulous effort is evident in the Kazan Declaration, the document issued at the conclusion of the BRICS leaders’ summit under Russia’s presidency on October 23, 2024.
The declaration addresses well-known geopolitical issues, such as the need for reform of global institutions. It also contains shared positions on the Middle East conflict, while remaining conspicuously silent on the war in Ukraine. However, the Kazan Declaration extended far beyond these points. It is the most comprehensive and structured document the bloc has ever produced, encompassing a wide array of topics. Building on the joint statement by foreign ministers in Nizhny Novgorod in June 2024, it lays out a detailed and multidimensional agenda for cross-sector cooperation.
While the declaration outlines a clear program for the bloc, it also reflects internal contradictions and challenges. At times, it verges on verbosity in an attempt to unify nations with vastly different political systems and visions for the global order. Despite this, the Kazan Declaration serves as a critical charter of shared positions – or, at the very least, shared intentions. It also provides a roadmap for collaboration across a diverse range of sectors, including climate issues, critical mineral supply chains, and even sports initiatives. A closer reading of the declaration and an analysis of BRICS activities suggest that the idea of so-called de-globalization does not reflect the current global realities.
The document emphasizes coordinated positions on evolving frameworks related to sustainability, sanctions, and environmental and human rights policies. Notably, it underscores the human right to development – a contentious issue today due to its intersections with other rights. The proposal for a BRICS-regulated carbon market is particularly innovative, offering a fresh perspective amid the persistent stalemates in global climate negotiations.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Kazan Declaration also introduced a new membership category – the “partner country” – which effectively limits the influence of new entrants. In theory, Kazan created two distinct tiers within the BRICS: the original members and the first expansion members, and the potential new entrants with fewer rights. However, a partner country can apparently be “upgraded” to full membership with the approval by consensus of the full members; Indonesia, for instance, moved from partner country to full member earlier this month. This seems to suggest that the Guiding Principles for BRICS Expansion adopted in 2023 need some update. In any event, BRICS expansion highlights a longstanding challenge for the bloc: achieving consensus among its diverse members. With the addition of new participants, this challenge has only grown more pronounced, especially when there is disagreement about who is becoming part of the club, as happened with Venezuela.
Brazil’s Priorities for the BRICS Presidency: Moving Beyond Kazan?
In light of recent developments, Brazil’s presidency of the BRICS bloc faces the challenge of providing coherence and strategic direction to this increasingly complex grouping post-Kazan. The five priorities set by Brazil’s presidency are ambitious, reflecting both opportunities and challenges: (1) facilitating trade and investment within the bloc through the development of alternative payment systems; (2) promoting inclusive and responsible governance of artificial intelligence (AI) for sustainable development; (3) strengthening financial structures to address climate change, aligned with United Nations efforts; (4) fostering cooperation among Global South countries, particularly in public health; and (5) reinforcing the BRICS institutional framework.
When comparing the agenda outlined in the Kazan Declaration with Brazil’s proposed priorities, it seems that much of the former has been set aside in favor of areas that align more closely with the genuine interests of BRICS members. In other words, while Kazan may symbolize the bloc’s peak of expansion, Brazil’s presidency must now prioritize core objectives to inject focus and substance into the bloc amid global resistance.
Trade and investment remain top priorities, yet economic integration among BRICS members continues to be uneven. Some countries benefit from strong economic ties, while others encounter significant barriers to market access. The proposal to develop alternative payment systems inevitably invites discussions about “de-dollarization,” a concept likely to provoke strong opposition from Washington, as hinted by recent diplomatic statements and pointed social media posts.
Among the proposed areas of cooperation, AI governance stands out. However, the term “governance” raises concerns for international lawyers, who recognize the difficulties of harmonizing varying levels of technological advancement and interests to establish common rules. An intra-BRICS AI governance framework also risks sidelining other key players in the field. Even so, defining shared values for an “inclusive and responsible” governance model could strengthen the Global South’s position in advancing global regulatory frameworks.
On climate change and sustainability, BRICS must confront the glaring inadequacies of global regulation, particularly the persistent lack of consensus on climate financing. BRICS nations typically emphasize the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” underscoring the historical role of developed countries in greenhouse gas emissions. While the bloc can promote unified agendas for developing nations, it must also prepare for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. With Brazil hosting the COP30 climate change conference in Belém do Pará later this year, debates over financing are likely to re-emerge, and balancing the BRICS agenda with COP priorities will be crucial.
Perhaps the most promising objective is strengthening cooperation among BRICS members, a process that has grown organically due to the Global South’s deepening ties with China and Russia’s push to secure new partners following Europe’s diplomatic and economic disengagement after the Ukraine conflict. In this regard, the Kazan Declaration remains highly relevant, offering a clear framework for multi-level cooperation. The ability of BRICS nations to formulate joint policies could shape international legal norms and standards, particularly on issues like unilateral sanctions and shared positions on investment protection.
The larger question, however, is the institutional direction BRICS will take. The current two-tier structure of full members and partner countries reveals a democratic deficit that seems at odds with the bloc’s rhetoric of emancipation and inclusivity. While formalizing BRICS as an international organization would introduce more bureaucracy, it could also consolidate the bloc and streamline its extensive network of partnerships. Maintaining a looser framework, akin to the G-20, has its advantages, but transforming BRICS into a structured organization with headquarters, a secretariat, and professional staff could accelerate progress toward its goals. This institutionalization might well become Brazil’s most significant contribution during its presidency.
Brazil’s five priorities are far from simple to achieve. They encapsulate the bloc’s major aspirations while highlighting the profound challenges posed by the diversity of its member states. As Tolstoy famously observed: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” The same holds true for BRICS: Global South nations face challenges with unique complexities, requiring solutions tailored to each specific context.
Different Levels of Engagement: Navigating Stormy Waters
The 22 BRICS countries have distinct economic, political, and social structures, which naturally lead to divergent foreign policy agendas. As a result, the bloc accommodates various projects and differing levels of engagement among its members. For example, Brazil appears far less inclined toward taking an anti-American stance than some of its counterparts, due in large part to its historically close relationship with Washington. In this context, the position BRICS adopts in an increasingly turbulent international order characterized by escalating geopolitical conflicts will be crucial in shaping both the bloc’s future and its global perception.
For BRICS to continue expanding and attracting new members to bolster its influence and reinforce the broader narrative of the “Global South,” adopting a moderate and pragmatic stance appears far more sustainable than leaning toward extremes. However, the introduction of two membership tiers within the bloc already hints at internal divisions regarding its expansion strategy. It is reasonable to assume that as the group grows, the decision-making influence of the original members – particularly India, Brazil, and South Africa – could become increasingly diluted. This raises a key question for prospective BRICS members: what tangible benefits does joining the bloc offer? Simultaneously, longstanding members may also question whether remaining in the grouping continues to serve their national interests.
Brazil’s presidency, therefore, comes at a pivotal moment when diplomatic pragmatism must take precedence over some of the bloc’s more polarizing initiatives. It would be unrealistic to expect these initiatives to vanish entirely or for certain countries to cease advocating for BRICS to adopt positions that are, to varying degrees, antagonistic toward dominant global powers. Nonetheless, despite their differences, the BRICS nations are proving to be a viable platform for advancing shared agendas that address the key challenges faced by developing countries. Rather than glossing over the bloc’s contradictions, Brazil’s presidency should focus on strengthening the bloc’s capacity to respond to these challenges – which, in many respects, also represent significant opportunities.