Connect with us

World

The Moment of Truth for BRICS: Challenges, Opportunities and the Way Forward

Published

on

Elisee Isheloke BRICS challenges

By Kester Kenn Klomegah

As already known, BRICS is an association of five major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. South Africa joined the association in 2010.

The BRICS has a significant influence on regional affairs and very active on the global stage. All of them are members of the G20.

While the group has received both praise and criticism from different corners of the world, BRICS is steadily working towards realizing its set goals, bilateral relations among them are conducted on the basis of non-interference, equality and mutual benefits.

In this exclusive interview, Dr Byelongo Elisee Isheloke, who is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Cape Town and has scholarly researched some aspects of BRICS for the past 10 years, spoke with Kester Kenn Klomegah about his observations, the existing challenges, opportunities and the future perspectives of BRICS. Here are the interview excerpts;

South Africa joined BRICS in 2010, a decade ago, and so, how do you assess South Africa in BRICS these years? What are its greatest contributions to the development of the group?

I would say South Africa is strongly committed to its engagement in the BRICS. It has hosted two of its summits. As an active member, it has what it takes to deliver despite the internal economic crises in South Africa. I think over the years, South Africa grew in confidence within the partnership, particularly when the first BRICS summit took place in Durban South Africa.

In the Durban 2013 BRICS summit, African presidents were invited to join leaders of BRICS and the theme evolved around Africa. In this context, South Africa regained its muscles as a BRICS member.

South Africa, therefore, represents Africa well in the BRICS, in a way, and I think the African countries should support it. The only thing I think people want is to be more involved. While the BRICS started as a partnership of political nature, now that it has embraced economic development, the voice of the people must be heard.

The major problem of South Africa is that it is not robust economically compared to its BRICS counterparts, and its economy has been performing badly since the 2008/2009 world’s economic crisis.

It has been a zero growth economy ever since; if any growth, then it has been below 1 per cent. South Africa has struggled to stabilize its economy during the past few years, and now the COVID-19 has exacerbated this but it is common to many countries around the world.

In your previous discussion, you talk about a transition from politics to economy. How do you see BRICS influence on international issues, its collective position on the global arena?

BRICS did not transit from politics to economy as such but put emphasis on economic projects. BRICS leaders still talk global politics while experts guide the leaders on foreign policy issues. For me, I think it is a very good approach going forward. BRICS must deliver on capital-intensive infrastructure development, and the funding from the New Development Bank (BRICS) is critical in this regard. With good policies in place, this will help the SADC region and the rest of Africa. It is great that the branch of this bank operates from Johannesburg in South Africa.

Furthermore, I must say that BRICS influence on international scale is dented by minor problems in the organization. For example, the diplomatic conflict between India and China, the fact that both Russia and China wants to be in a position of favour with the United States on diplomatic ground, this is not helping its influence globally.

“I think BRICS must clean its home, or clean before its door, if it wants to be the balancing power in international affairs. The other problem is the capital issue. At the moment, the BRICS do not have the muscles to outcompete the Bretton Wood Institutions, the World Bank and IMF. More investment, more capital is needed in the BRICS Bank.

In the past, there was the lack of synergy in diplomatic position as far as the BRICS is concerned. In the UN Security Council, for instance, the BRICS have to consult in order to accommodate views on issues of global importance.

We know that South Africa is a member of the SADC and there is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), another SADC country, which has a plethora of problems of security and economic nature. I think that any assistance from such an organization (BRICS) would be appreciated.

Quite recently, more than 200 civilians known as the Bembe people were massacred in the eastern DRC by Ngumino and Twagineho militias. These militias are of foreign origin to the DRC. This news is not broadcasted in South Africa, if the BRICS could invest more in peace-keeping mission, maybe help the current government, perhaps it could help the failing Monusco, a UN mission in the DRC.

It is such engagement that can make the BRICS shine internationally. They need a collective position on global issues. This is just one example.

In relation to economy and trade, what are your arguments about collaboration among BRICS? Do you also see China and India racing for global dominance, and Russia steadily raising its business profile on global stage?

With regard to this question, this is what I have to say. In fact, trade protectionism is only good temporarily and it works only in the short run. It is not sustainable as a policy in the long term. We know in the 17th century it was promoted in European countries but there was a time when the Laissez-faire ideology took precedence on economic isolationism. We also know that a couple of BRICS countries have a communist background (Russia and China). What I can say is that China opened up its economy to trade, and for more than 30 years, it manage to build a robust economy (now considered the 2nd largest after the United States) with potential prospects of outperforming the United States. I think we can learn from the Chinese economic success.

The COVID-19 situation may help change the forecasts but free trade has proven over the years to be highly supportive to the economy of nations. This does not mean one needs “to throw away the baby with the water” when it comes to the gain obtained during the socialist approach to economic development.

The BRICS countries should find a way of striking a balance between the two economic systems. But frankly speaking, an open economy leaning more towards free trade is what I would recommend for an emerging economy.

Now, even countries where the economy is freer like South Africa and India, we see that the major hindrance is corruption and bad governance in certain instances. If the BRICS can address these obstacles or hurdles, they will have a better chance of winning.

In China, human rights abuses shouldn’t be covered up; doing-Business with countries where dictatorship and abuses are evident should it be alright.

In addition, there will be areas where BRICS will compete, and this is healthy to any economy, but there must be more focus on what BRICS can do together to address abject poverty, growing unemployment and human rights abuses.

China and India need to talk more to address their differences. The future of BRICS depends, to some considerable extent, on their good relations. The race for dominance if military is dangerous. I think they need to talk as friends and partners. The rest of the BRICS should mediate in this regard.

Many experts still question the role of BRICS members in Africa. It is important here to recall that Russia was involved in helping African countries during their struggle for independence and that was the Cold War. It lost its influence after the split of the USSR. Currently Russia’s foreign policy largely seeks to regain what it lost to the United States and China and other foreign players in Africa. But for our Russian partners, Africa needs sustainable development, and not military weapons and equipment. Africa is looking for foreign players to invest in infrastructure and play large part economically.

In your post-doctoral research on BRICS, and in your article to The Conversation, you mentioned what South Africa can offer or shared with other members. Is it possible to restate explicitly the kind of “beneficiation” here?

I would make known, first, that as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cape Town, my academic investigation deals with the impact of and the challenges towards mineral beneficiation policy interventions in the SADC region. This has some importance for foreign players looking opportunities to invest in mineral resources in the SADC.

Having said the above, I am more than prepared to embark on a project that will help BRICS to understand the effects of BRICS partnership on mineral beneficiation in South Africa and within the Southern African Development Community.

In this connection, I think South Africa has a lot to offer to the BRICS. There must also be a consensus with other African countries. Understandably, South Africa can be an investment gateway to Africa. As the presiding head of the African Union, South Africa represents the interests of the AU in BRICS.

On beneficiation, South Africa has a tremendous experience on nuclear power that, if used for energy, could help the beneficiation industry in the country. One needs to be cautious of deviations in that regard, not that I am suggesting South Africa would deviate, but care needs to be observed by all member countries on that issue. As a pacifist, I would advise that African countries look at alternative, renewable energy sources. A gradual approach to beneficiation and a dialogue between trade partners will take the BRICS partnership to another level as far as South Africa is concerned in the BRICS.

How do you assess the current coronavirus spread and its impact, especially among BRICS, (Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa) and allegedly (yet to be proved) virus originated from China (BRICS member)?

The BRICS are hit by the COVID-19 crisis just like any other country. As we know, the COVID-19 started in Wuhan, China, and then spread in no time to all the continents. It is however important to note that China closed its borders and cooperated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to alert other countries. On the other hand, in Africa, we saw China helping the African Union (AU) with PPEs and other test equipment. This should be appreciated.

Whether the alert came late or not, I do not have any means to determine that. Why would China want to do that? Instead of pointing fingers to others, I think it is time the world learns from the threat we face together as humans and find a common ground to halt (stop) the spread of COVID-19. It should be an opportunity to re-engineer our health facilities and capabilities for a better tomorrow for all.

Personally, I would call for cooperation between BRICS and non-BRICS countries (the United States and Europe for example to get involved). Failing to do that will be a recipe for more complications.

What do you think of BRICS collaborating on COVID-19 vaccine? Do you see “cooperation or competition” among its members (China, India and Russia) racing for global market with the vaccine?

Interestingly, I see both cooperation and competition. But I think we need more cooperation and sharing of the information. The BRICS must remember what they owe the world. Cooperation should be on all aspects of life. We hear stories of people of colour being ill-treated in China for example. I think the authorities should investigate that and take appropriate actions to care for others with dignity.

In South Africa as well, the refugee community was almost neglected in the management of the COVID-19. I am glad the government decided to do something about it. BRICS scientists, as well, need collaboration to come up successfully with a solution or vaccine.

Efforts by other scientists need to be taken into account. And as regards Africa, an African solution to Africa’s problem approach should not be neglected or relegated to the backyard. BRICS are partners, they can help each other but they should not replace own efforts towards security and safety.

Vaccine or solutions to the pandemic should not be profit-orientated. In Africa, we believe in Ubuntu. I think our BRICS leaders will not do such a mistake. I am highly optimistic on that.

Generally, what would you consider as the key challenges amid the coronavirus pandemic that has shattered the economy, and how do you see the future of BRICS?

The pandemic has, indeed taken a heavy toll on the global economy. As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), Brazil, India, Russia, China, and of course, South Africa have high infections after the United States.

The key challenges during the COVID-19 era are: Unpreparedness of the BRICS countries. It came as a surprise and BRICS were caught pants down in most instances. We should view the COVID-19 as an opportunity for better planning, re-engineering of our health facilities and capabilities for prevention.

Lack of financial resources. The poor countries in a dire situation. Most countries had no financial muscles to acquire respirators and PPEs. Russia and China managed to build specialized hospitals within a short time to contain the situation. This is an area where the BRICS Development Bank could make the stark difference if steered in the right direction.

Insufficient coordination. As for the case of South Africa, it is good that the government took the scientific approach in managing the situation. Coordination with public-private partnership could enhance the ability of the state apparatus to serve everybody regardless of their origin. There is still time to ensure that poor including refugees and asylum seekers are humanly served. We cannot be selective in enforcing human rights. Medical assistance, in time of coronavirus, be regarded as basic human right for all. A better coordination will therefore help not only South Africa, but all the countries.

Last but not the least, a holistic approach to fighting the pandemic should be promoted. A human being is not just a body, but it is also a spirit. While scientists and decision makers propose solutions, it must be done in conjunction with means that uplift the spirit as well.

Faith based organizations should equally have a role to play to help the government and to provide interventions of psychological and spiritual nature. A healthy body in a healthy spirit is what we need.

Otherwise, any solution will be half-baked and unsustainable. All the stakeholders must work together. This is not only for South Africa or for the BRICS, but it is also for the entire world.

There is a lot of negative news on TV and Radio channels about the corona. It is time the media grasps the opportunity to serve humanity by focusing on giving hope rather than destroying hope. A balance needs to be set in this regard as well. Media have to exhibit a more constructive role for a better world.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

World

Russian Researchers Roadmap Africa’s Investment Sectors for Entrepreneurs

Published

on

Professor Irina Abramova Russian Researchers

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

The Centre for Transition Economy Studies of the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences held a two-day scientific conference under the theme: “Industrial Development Strategies of African Countries” on March 18-19. The conference was opened by Professor Irina Abramova, Director of the Institute for African Studies. More than 40 researchers and experts from Russia, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt and North Macedonia took part in the event.

The conference focused on a wide range of significant issues related to Africa’s industrial development, the modernisation of the African production base, and the potential for Russian-African cooperation. The in-person part of the conference focused on the development of the manufacturing and extractive industries, special economic zones, energy and transport infrastructure, digitalisation, and the agro-industrial complex. The second day of the conference was conducted as an online discussion in English, featuring African colleagues on the localisation of production chains in Africa, covering both agricultural and mineral processing.

Topics of the Conference included:

  1. Continental, regional and national programs and plans of industrial development in Africa. Prospects of continental and regional production chains.
  2. Study of the manufacturing market in African countries: manufacturing and agro-industrial complexes
  3. Energy, transport, and digitalisation: necessary infrastructure for industrial development.
  4. Interests of Multinational Corporations in Africa: conditions, forms of activities and geographical distribution. The role of free economic zones.
  5. Government policy regarding Multinational Corporations and control over export-import flows.
  6. The role of international organisations and activities of external actors.
  7. Possible areas and prospects for expanding mutually beneficial cooperation for Russian companies in Africa.

Experts in African studies from Russia, as well as representatives of the Russian government and business circles involved in trade and economic cooperation with African countries, actively participated. One of the significant outputs presented at the plenary session of the conference was the full-text on the African Development Strategy database created by Professors D. A. Degterev and A. D. Novikov, together with the staff of the IAS. The database covers more than 400 official strategic planning documents across 53 countries on the continent for the period 1997–2025. It systematises them under six thematic areas: long-term and medium-term development strategies, industrial policy, ICT, agriculture and the water sector.

The plenary session featured nine reports covering key dimensions of Africa’s industrial development. There were issues of trade and industrial potential of the continent that were highlighted in the report on the export specificity of African machine-building industries: based on ITC Trade Map data (2019–2024) that shows duties of South Africa, Tunisia, and industrial production, including on intracontinental markets.

Institutional mechanisms of Russian-African economic cooperation were reviewed in the report on the activities of Intergovernmental Commissions: the number of these ICC increased from four (4) in 2023 to nine (9) in 2025, and the volume of investment funds to support African projects is planned to increase, at least, to Rouble 5 billion for 2026–2027.

The conceptual dimension of financing industrialisation was presented through a critique of universal Western narratives and the justification for the need for an “application finance strategy”—a country model that takes into account the economy of Africa. Practical aspects of Russia’s investment presence in Africa are characterized on the example of projects in the countries of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) with an emphasis on the specific risks of the subregion (DM Sinitsyn, VEB.RF). Digitalisation and artificial intelligence development in sub-Saharan African countries were also analysed and presented at the conference.

Russian-African cooperation in the field of technologies and education was covered in the reports on the transfer of agrobiotechnologies through the Afro-Russian Centre for Technology Development in Kampala, within which, in 2025/2026, this period, in which concretely 467 citizens of African countries were trained in Russian universities (NA Goncharova, FGBU “Agroexport”).

The competitive struggle of foreign players for African markets and the possibilities of Russian participation were considered in the reports on the position of the continent on the world energy markets, supplies of ground vehicles, and activities of pharmaceuticals for Africa. The digital dimension of industrialisation was covered by the reports on the cyber potential of West Africa, the formation of data processing centres in the industrial strategy of South Africa, and the digitalisation strategies of Algeria and Morocco.

The theme of most speeches, at the conference, became a reflection on the ‘disconnection’ between the proclaimed goals of industrialisation and the actual structure of African economies: despite the widespread proliferation of pre-national strategic documents, industries in the continent’s total GDP has not exceeded 10–12% for more than two decades, and exports still comprise mainly unprocessed raw materials.

In this regard, a number of reports justify the need to transition from external financial models formed by international organisations to sovereign country strategies based on state political, industrial and human resources. Global South—including, to deepen Russian-African cooperation in the spheres of technology, education and investment.

A collective monograph is, however, planned for publication following the conference. The event included the presentation of the full-text database on African development strategies, prepared by the team of the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Continue Reading

World

Court Finds Lafarge, Eight ex-Employees Guilty of Terrorism Financing

Published

on

Lafarge Africa

By Aduragbemi Omiyale

A court in Paris, France, has found notable French cement manufacturer, Lafarge, and eight of its former employees guilty of terrorism financing.

Delivering the judgment on Monday, Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez held that Lafarge paid some members of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS) in Syria about $6.5 million (€5.59 million; £4.83 million) between 2013 and 2014 to protect its plant operating in northern Syria.

The court said this action provided oxygen for the terror group to operate and carry out its violent acts.

The former chief executive of the company, Mr Bruno Lafont, was also found complicit and has been sentenced to six years.

“It is clear to the court that the sole purpose of the funding of a terrorist organisation was to keep the Syrian plant running for economic reasons. Payments to terrorist entities enabled Lafarge to continue its operations,” the judge said, adding that, “These payments took the form of a genuine commercial partnership with IS.”

The factory in Jalabiya, northern Syria, was bought by Lafarge in 2008 for $680 million and began operations in 2010, months before the civil war began in March 2011, following opposition to then-president Bashar al-Assad’s brutal repression of anti-government protests.

ISIS jihadists seized large swathes of Syria and neighbouring Iraq in 2014, declaring a so-called cross-border “caliphate” and implementing their brutal interpretation of Islamic law.

To keep its plant running and protect its employees, Lafarge, between 2013 and September 2014, paid about €800,000 to secure safe passage and €1.6 million to purchase source materials from quarries under the control of the jihadist groups.

According to the BBC, Lafarge acknowledged the court’s finding, which it said “concerns a legacy matter involving conduct that occurred more than a decade ago and was in flagrant violation of Lafarge’s code of conduct,” describing the decision as an “important milestone” in the company’s actions to “address this legacy matter responsibly.”

Continue Reading

World

Afreximbank Grows Assets to $48.5bn as Profit Hits $1.2bn

Published

on

Afreximbank

By Adedapo Adesanya

African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) has posted a robust financial performance for the 2025 financial year, with total assets and contingencies climbing to $48.5 billion.

This further shows its growing influence in financing trade and development across Africa and the Caribbean.

The Cairo-based multilateral lender, in its audited results released on April 9, reported a 21 per cent surge in total assets from $40.1 billion in 2024, underscoring sustained balance sheet expansion despite global economic headwinds and rating concerns.

Net loans and advances rose by 16 per cent to $33.5 billion, driven by strong disbursements into critical sectors including manufacturing, infrastructure, food security and climate adaptation, areas seen as pivotal to Africa’s long-term economic resilience.

Profitability remained strong, with net income climbing 19 per cent to $1.2 billion, up from $973.5 million in the previous year. Gross income also edged higher by 6.06 per cent to $3.5 billion, reflecting steady revenue growth supported by the bank’s expanding portfolio of trade finance and advisory services.

Afreximbank maintained solid asset quality, with its non-performing loan (NPL) ratio at 2.43 per cent, broadly stable compared to 2.33 per cent in 2024. This performance highlights disciplined risk management even as lending volumes increased across diverse markets.

Liquidity remained a key strength. Cash and cash equivalents rose significantly to $6.0 billion from $4.6 billion, while liquid assets accounted for 14 per cent of total assets, comfortably above the bank’s internal minimum threshold of 10 per cent.

Shareholders’ funds grew 17 per cent to $8.4 billion, supported by the strong profit outturn and fresh equity inflows of $299.4 million under its General Capital Increase II programme. The bank’s capital adequacy ratio stood at 23 per cent, well above regulatory benchmarks, providing a solid buffer for future growth.

Operating expenses increased to $459.2 million from $367.7 million, reflecting staff expansion and inflationary pressures. However, Afreximbank retained cost discipline, with a cost-to-income ratio of 21 per cent, still significantly below its 30 per cent ceiling.

The bank successfully tapped international capital markets, raising over $800 million through Samurai and Panda bond issuances in Japan and China during the year. The move helped counter concerns raised by some rating agencies and reaffirmed Afreximbank’s strong funding access and credibility.

Commenting on the results, Senior Executive Vice President, Mrs Denys Denya, said the performance reflects resilience and strategic execution amid a challenging global environment.

“Despite continuing global geopolitical challenges and disruptions caused by some rating actions, the Group delivered excellent financial performance in 2025,” he said.

He noted that the results cap a decade of transformative leadership under the erstwhile President, Mr Benedict Oramah, with the bank already ahead of most targets under its Sixth Strategic Plan, which runs through 2026.

Mr Denya added that newer subsidiaries, including the Fund for Export Development in Africa (FEDA) and AfrexInsure, are now profitable, contributing to earnings growth and strengthening the group’s diversified structure.

“The Group’s balance sheet is at its strongest level ever, with liquidity levels and capitalisation well above target and good asset quality,” he said.

Afreximbank said it is entering the 2026 financial year with strong momentum, positioning itself to scale impact, deepen trade integration and drive value addition across “Global Africa.”

Return metrics remained stable, with return on average equity at 15 per cent and return on average assets improving slightly to 3.04 per cent, signalling efficient use of capital.

With a fortified balance sheet, rising profitability and sustained investor confidence, Afreximbank said it is firmly on track to consolidate its role as a key engine of trade-led growth across the continent.

Continue Reading

Trending