The BRICS declarations quite clearly and unambiguously name the causes of many of today’s global problems. They are associated with the persistent inequality between the West and the Non-West, with the practices of neo-colonial exploitation that the West carries out in relation to developing countries. There are practically no such words in the declarations of the G20. Problems of global development seem to arise out of nowhere, and there is practically no analysis of their causes, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Oleg Barabanov.
The preparation of joint declarations is a prominent feature of modern multilateral diplomacy. They accompany almost every summit of international organisations and associations. As a rule, these are deeply developed documents that are detailed and comprehensive, often reaching several dozen pages in length. In conditions where most of the discussions at the summit take place behind closed doors, with the exception of brief public speeches by heads of state at the beginning of the meeting, these final declarations become the main public document to follow the summit, and sometimes the only one.
Therefore, the study of multilateral diplomacy from the outside, to a certain extent, entails the study of the texts of these declarations. It is clear that such an approach may seem partly scholastic. Naturally, the final declarations do not reflect a number of aspects of the negotiations, primarily acute and controversial points in the discussion, on which there are disagreements between the countries participating in the summit. Otherwise, they are included in the text of these documents in a veiled form, reflecting a compromise. At the same time, statements are important primarily because they show on what issues states and their leaders have managed to reach consensus. In addition, in many international associations it has already become a tradition that annual summits are not isolated events, but only the culmination of a whole cycle of meetings and discussions at the lower, ministerial and expert levels, which are held throughout the year. Thus, most of the points of these declarations receive deep and comprehensive elaboration both analytically and in terms of their practical feasibility. Naturally, it is assumed that the results of all these preliminary discussions are taken into account when preparing summit declarations and thus do not hang in the air, they do not remain simple rhetoric. Moreover, since the summits of many international associations and structures are held regularly, either every year or every two or three years, their final declarations are no longer isolated documents, but a whole array of interconnected texts. Here the aforementioned limitations of the approach, that the study of multilateral diplomacy is reduced to the analysis of texts, become a plus and provide additional opportunities for research.
First of all, because it is already possible to apply the methods and approaches of semantic analysis in all its fullness to the array of texts. This semantic analysis becomes especially significant if we assume that the texts reflect values. Thanks to this, using these declarations makes it possible to determine the value platform to which the participants of a particular international structure adhere. In the context of prioritizing attention to global values in modern world politics and what could be called the “values war” that accompanies geopolitical and cultural fault lines, this is already becoming fundamentally important. In addition, a comparison of declarations from different years allows us to trace the evolution and dynamics of these value platforms, to highlight those stable elements that remain unchanged for a long time, and, on the other hand, those postulates which change and disappear from year to year.
It is also natural that such value platforms are reflected in the clearest form in the activities of international structures that unite like-minded people in world politics. Such structures undoubtedly include BRICS, which has become a symbol of solidarity between the states of the Global Non-West and the South. On the other hand, final declarations are also issued by structures that include the representatives of different poles of the modern world. Here, one of the most illustrative examples is the G20, where both Western and non-Western countries meet at the same table.
Therefore, a comparative analysis of the BRICS and G20 declarations in recent years shows a qualitative difference between them. It consists of the following.
First, the BRICS declarations quite clearly and unambiguously name the causes of many of today’s global problems.
Second, the BRICS declarations also clearly formulate proposals on how to correct the current situation. They directly follow from the afore-mentioned causes of global problems and therefore are based primarily on the need to overcome inequality in the world, and on the rejection of attempts at dominance and hegemony by Western countries. This general approach leads to recommendations on resolving specific problems, be it imbalances in the global financial system, the problem of poverty, the digital divide, etc. In the G20 declarations, on the contrary, the only recommendation is “overcoming the lack of political will.” This lack of political will migrates from point to point and from one year to another. But for some reason this very political will never appears.
Third, the BRICS declarations trace common goals that persist from year to year and are politically and semantically stable. The main one is the construction of a truly fair multipolar world. A related goal is the fair redistribution of influence and world wealth from the West to the Global Non-West and the South. All practical activities of BRICS are dedicated to these goals. It is precisely the attractiveness of the BRICS goals that has led to the fact that in the last two years, several dozen countries have declared their desire to join BRICS or take part in its activities. This led first to the expansion of BRICS, and then to the formation of a circle of partner countries. In the G20, judging by the texts of declarations, one sometimes gets the impression that the only goal there is “we are for everything good and against everything bad.” It is understandable against the background of such a goal that no one is eager to join the G20; there is not such a wave of statements as in BRICS.
Finally, the fourth thing is that BRICS is truly united by a single value platform. Over the past few years, in the declarations of the summits, it has acquired its semantic stability in terms of wording continuity. As a result, the declarations of recent years rightly speak of the spirit of BRICS as a very real symbolic and value phenomenon that is present in the modern world. Is there a G20 spirit? Obviously not.
Since it so happened that the G20 presidency has now been held by developing countries for four years in a row (Indonesia, India, Brazil and next year by South Africa), there has been much talk that this will change the world for the better. But has the world changed as a result of these presidencies? Obviously not. The geo-economic rift between the West and the non-West is still its defining feature.
However, to be fair, it should be said that the declaration for the Brazilian G20 summit partly differs from the “standard” declaration of this structure. In the Brazilian year, a new international structure was created: the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty. It was said that more than 80 countries already intend to participate in it. However, the question arises: what is wrong with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)? If it is bad, then wouldn’t it be better to correct it than to create a practically parallel structure? In addition, the majority of the countries in the declared executive committee of the new alliance are from the West, which means that the same thing will happen again. In this regard, it is quite significant that in the Brazilian declaration of the G20, where appropriate curtseys were made in relation to many UN and similar structures, such as the World Health Organization, FAO remained apophasis. By and large, it was simply not mentioned, as if it does not exist at all.
In addition, several more interesting points were included in the Brazilian declaration. These are the obligations of the participating countries to deny state subsidies to the oil and gas sector, to introduce a progressive tax scale, and the obligation (precisely obligation, this word is in the text) to reform the UN Security Council. In general, however, this does not change the overall picture. In the Brazilian declaration of the G20, the same “lack of political will” is declared in a number of points as the main cause of all the troubles in the world. Nothing has changed here, the same “class-specific peace.” A couple of years will pass and it will become clear that again the lack of this will has prevented the implementation of the Brazilian proposals. And they will remain the same unfulfilled good wishes, like many of the previous ones.
