In a recent podcast at NHS Media, Dr. Qamar Cheema has offered insightful perspectives on the dynamics surrounding Pakistan’s renewed application for BRICS membership. Discussing the complexities of international relations, he sheds light on India’s staunch opposition and the potential implications for Pakistan’s global positioning within the BRICS context.
Key Points
- India’s opposition hinders Pakistan’s BRICS membership due to terrorism allegations, creating a hurdle in achieving unanimous approval from existing BRICS members.
- BRICS represents a significant global demographic and economic share, emphasizing the importance of inclusion for Pakistan’s foreign policy despite its exclusion, impacting its global standing.
- India’s distinct role in BRICS influences discussions, yet its limited stance on global conflicts might affect its regional leadership within the “global south.
Dr Qamar Cheema stated that Russia’s news agency TASS recently announced that Pakistan’s Ambassador to Russia, Jameel Jamali, addressed Pakistan’s renewed application for BRICS membership. As we know the upcoming 2024 presidency of BRICS resides with Russia and in the previous year, the Russian President couldn’t attend the BRICS meeting held in South Africa due to sanctions imposed on Russia, and international law enforcement agencies were pursuing the Russian President. This led to his absence not only at the BRICS meeting but also at the G20 summit. However, despite the sanctions and ongoing conflicts like the one in Ukraine, the Russian President did visit China.
Pakistan, eyeing BRICS membership, faced opposition from India in the past, although Pakistan refrained from explicitly mentioning India during their earlier application. According to the rule, membership in BRICS or any other organization requires unanimous approval from all existing members, so Pakistan also needs approval of all members for its membership.
Dr Cheema said that while BRICS has expanded its membership to several new countries, Pakistan’s failure to secure membership could potentially lead to embarrassment. The recurring query pertains to India’s ability to indefinitely block Pakistan’s membership. India’s stance is anchored in its rhetoric accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorism, being a sponsor of terrorism, and engaging in cross-border terrorist activities.
In this pursuit, the question arises: Can China support Pakistan in its quest for BRICS membership? Until India, Russia, or other member countries approve Pakistan’s application, India can persist in its opposition. In the India-Pakistan context, conventional rules often seem absent. Both countries typically hold non-permanent memberships at the UN, occasionally agreeing to alternate in sustaining their positions in the UNSC. Pakistan aims to secure permanent membership in the UNSC within the next 1 to 2 years. Similarly, the case with BRICS suggests Pakistan’s inevitable inclusion. BRICS, representing 41% of the global population, houses the world’s sixth-largest country (Pakistan), contributing 24% to the global GDP and 16% to its trade.
Dr Cheema showed concern about Pakistan’s exclusion from such multilateral groups saying that it poses significant challenges to Pakistan’s foreign policy. Recent BRICS meetings saw India’s representation through Dr. Jaishankar on behalf of Narendra Modi. All BRICS members condemned the Israel-Palestine conflict, showcasing the emergence of alternative institutional arrangements. This underscores America’s apprehension toward China’s and Russia’s collaborative efforts in establishing institutional responses.
While India’s interactions with Washington, Paris, or Tel Aviv reflect its independent stance, its role within BRICS necessitates a different approach. India faces a challenge in maintaining a balanced approach in its future engagements, particularly concerning China and Russia. New member countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Argentina possess diverse approaches towards the West, with the UAE being pro-West while the rest maintain the status quo.
He explained Argentina’s inclusion in non-western institutional mechanisms is attributed to a lack of substantial gains from the West, indicating a growing anti-Western alignment, which America perceives. Pakistan’s aspiration for BRICS membership aligns with its economic and security objectives, distinct from historical rhetoric.
BRICS deliberated on the Israel-Palestine conflict, labelling forced Palestinian displacement as a war crime. However, the absence of a joint declaration on this matter was notably influenced by India’s presence within BRICS, a factor that aligns with U.S. interests and India’s success in shaping BRICS discussions. Despite being part of the “global south leadership,” India’s inability to assert a strong political narrative on global conflicts, particularly in the Middle East (referred to as West Asia by India), may marginalize its regional position.
While China, Russia, and India possess formidable military capabilities, their ability to act unilaterally remains limited as they remain accountable to other global powers. India’s strength lies in its strong bilateral relationships, founded on its political maturity.
In conclusion, Dr. Cheema said it is posited that India holds the capacity to obstruct Pakistan’s BRICS membership owing to its influential position. However, India might also adopt a passive stance on this issue, prioritizing permanent UNSC membership over BRICS. India’s future stance on this matter remains a subject of curiosity, and the absence of BRICS membership for Pakistan in 2024 raises questions about its relevance globally and within the “global south.”
