The author is Visiting Professor at China Foreign Affairs University and a Senior Fellow at Policy Center for the New South.

ISTANBUL

The post-World War II liberal international order—crafted in the aftermath of global devastation—once promised peace, prosperity, and progress. For decades, this system, anchored in Western ideals and leadership, seemed unshakable. But now, cracks have widened. The order's structural asymmetries, its selective application of norms, and its growing irrelevance to the aspirations of the Global South have rendered it no longer the undisputed framework for world affairs. At this critical juncture, the BRICS+ grouping—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, with prospective new members—offers not just an alternative forum, but a distinct vision of international governance grounded in multipolarity, trade, respect, and representativeness. This potential for a more inclusive global governance structure should inspire hope for greater equity.

Beyond Anti-Western narratives

It is crucial to state unequivocally: BRICS+ is not anti-Western. It is, rather, post-Western. It represents an evolution beyond the rigid hierarchies of the past, offering a more inclusive platform for global discourse. This alone makes BRICS+ an object of deep discomfort for those who have long equated order with domination, and stability with control. The idea that emerging powers can operate beyond the West’s ideological orbit challenges the core assumptions of the post-war international order.

Indeed, the West's discomfort with BRICS+ borders on apprehension. Behind the polite diplomacy lies a visceral fear: that the pillars of Western hegemony—economic supremacy, military alliances, and normative dominance—may no longer be sufficient to uphold the status quo. The rising legitimacy of BRICS+, its increasing appeal to countries beyond its original five, and its capacity to project a new ethos of international engagement all point to the emergence of a more pluralistic world—one that refuses to conform to Cold War binaries or post-Cold War triumphalism.

What truly sets BRICS+ apart is its quintessential commitment to a multipolar world. This is not a rhetorical flourish—it is the bloc's founding principle and enduring compass. Unlike the G7, whose cohesion rests on ideological alignment and entrenched privilege, BRICS+ thrives on diversity. BRICS+ encompasses Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia, uniting democracies, major and middle powers, distinct cultures, and diverse civilizational perspectives. Such complexity, often cited as a weakness, is its strength. It mirrors the global reality—heterogeneous, plural, and multipolar.

And yet, it would be a profound mistake to read BRICS+ merely as a platform for Chinese power projection. China, without a doubt, commands global influence—evident in its Belt and Road Initiative, its comprehensive trade relations, and its institutional engagements with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), ASEAN, and other regional organizations. It is already the leading trading partner for many nations across continents. If China sought global dominance, there are other multilateral platforms better suited for that ambition. BRICS+, on the contrary, is not a theatre for hegemony, but a space for creating a more diverse, multilateral, and non-hierarchical international order. China's participation is strategic, yes—but it is essential to emphasize that it is far from hegemonic, providing reassurance about the bloc's intentions. It is part of a collective effort to redesign the global system in a manner that better reflects 21st-century realities.

Numbers also support the rising relevance of BRICS+. Together, BRICS+ countries represent over 40% of the global population and nearly 32% of global GDP (measured in purchasing power parity), surpassing the G7's approximately 30%. In 2022, BRICS+ accounted for almost 18% of global trade, and by 2028, it is projected to account for over 50% of global economic growth. While the G7's share of global GDP continues to decline, BRICS+'s contribution to global economic momentum is expanding steadily. Furthermore, China and India alone are expected to contribute over one-third of global GDP growth over the next five years.

Priorities for BRICS+

However, to truly fulfil its promise, BRICS+ must do more than meet, speak, and symbolize. It must prioritize the expansion of trade, technological cooperation, and financial connectivity within its membership. Intra-BRICS+ commerce must be seen not merely as an economic imperative, but as a political one. The bloc's backbone must be economic interdependence, forged not in response to sanctions or exclusion, but through a proactive commitment to building shared prosperity on its terms. Currently, intra-BRICS+ trade remains underdeveloped, accounting for only around 6% of their total trade volumes. The urgency of increasing this figure should be the bloc's top priority, making the audience feel the need for immediate action in this area.

Equally urgent is the need to address the lack of mutual knowledge among BRICS+ nations themselves. This remains perhaps the bloc's greatest unspoken challenge. Despite their geographic reach and cultural richness, a worrying unfamiliarity persists—businesses are hesitant, academicians rarely exchange information, and policymakers too often rely on Western interlocutors for insights into their partners. This vacuum breeds misperception, inefficiency, and strategic underperformance.

For this reason, I have long advocated the creation of a BRICS+ educational and cultural exchange initiative—an "Erasmus of the South." This Gandhi-Yatsen Programme, as I propose it, would foster academic mobility, joint research, youth diplomacy, and professional secondments among BRICS+ countries. Named after two iconic leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Sun Yat-sen, this programme aims to foster a deeper understanding and appreciation of each other's cultures, histories, and perspectives. More than treaties or declarations, it is these human bridges that cultivate durable bonds of trust. Economic exchange alone cannot replace cultural intimacy and people-to-people interactions. When both move together, a new political consciousness emerges—one that resists division, embraces complexity, and sees the world from more than one center.

Battling the narrative warfare

The challenge for BRICS+, however, goes beyond institution-building. It lies in confronting the narrative warfare waged against it. Dismissed as incoherent, disjointed, or lacking ambition, BRICS+ has long been subjected to a rhetoric of diminishment. However, this skepticism is less about its internal dynamics than about external anxieties. The West fears not what BRICS+ is, but what it could become. A space free from conditionality. A market large enough to set its own rules. A coalition capable of reshaping development thinking. And most dangerous of all—a voice that cannot be ignored.

BRICS+' most significant test, therefore, will be not just geopolitical, but strategic. It must redefine the terms of debate, articulate its standards of success, and refuse to be measured by frameworks that were never designed to accommodate its existence. It must not emulate the G7 or NATO—but forge its path, animated by the experiences, hopes, and aspirations of most of humanity.

As the liberal international order strains under the weight of its inconsistencies—championing globalization while retreating into protectionism, extolling democracy while selectively applying it—BRICS+ offers a more honest compact. One based not on uniformity, but mutuality; not on coercion, but cooperation; not on dominance, but dignity.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.