23. That is how many countries, according to the representative of South Africa in the BRICS, Anil Suklal, have officially applied to join the organization. Among them are Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Honduras, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand and Ethiopia.
And it would seem that this is good. If so many different states from all parts of the world (except Antarctica) are interested in joining the BRICS, then this means that the organization has become attractive. That it has great prospects, a great future, a part of which all potential candidates want to become. That BRICS is turning from a kind of discussion platform for the leaders of developing countries into a tool for the formation of a multipolar world. That the BRICS, in the end, can become the main deliberative structure of the Global South and thereby effectively replace the G20, whose functioning has been paralyzed due to the attempts of its Western members to impose their neo-colonialist agenda on the rest of the participants.
In reality, everything is not so rosy. Yes, a large number of applicants is good. Yes, the prospects for BRICS enlargement look promising. However, both those who wish and the current member countries of the organization must answer a number of questions for themselves before this expansion.
So, candidates must clearly understand where they are entering. BRICS will be one of the tools for managing a multipolar world, but only if its member countries agree to transform the organization from a deliberative club into a counter-Western umbrella structure. In a format that implies the willingness and ability of member countries to openly defend their sovereignty from American and other encroachments. Simply put, the willingness to go into direct conflict with the West.
To date, even a number of member countries of the organization are not ready for this. The same South Africa, which hesitated on the issue of inviting Vladimir Putin to the summit simply because it did not want to receive criticism and sanctions from the West for ignoring the ICC warrant. What can we say about the new members? Yes, Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba and Iran will subscribe to any anti-American action, but what about Kuwait, Thailand? They are ready to participate in the forum and say beautiful words about sovereignty, but they are not ready to firmly defend this sovereignty from American and other encroachments. And this is logical, because most of the candidates for BRICS do not have full sovereignty and do not even want to have it. And some will be, let's say, generally under the direct influence of Washington.
And therefore, the current member countries of the organization must clearly understand who and why they are included. Do not repeat the experience of the European Union, which expanded for the sake of expansion at the expense of the countries of Eastern Europe, mentally not ready for deepening European integration. As a result, it turned out that it was these Eastern European states - Poland, the Baltic states and others - that not only thwarted further integration plans, but also destroyed the structure of the European Union from within.
In the case of BRICS, the situation will be even more dangerous. If the European Union has something to destroy - before the inclusion of Eastern Europe, the organization was already clearly structured, with a large margin of safety - then the BRICS does not have this structure. It has just begun to acquire an institutional skeleton like the BRICS Bank and similar institutions. In addition, time is playing against the BRICS - the process of forming a multipolar world has already begun, and if the organization here and now does not follow the path of evolution from an amorphous club to a rigid counter-Western structure, then it will miss a historical opportunity and remain on the sidelines of history. Or simply dissolve in numerous global forums.
Finally, the BRICS countries must answer another question: do they need a big expansion as such?
Even if we assume that all 23 candidates have made a fundamental choice and are ready to participate in a counter-Western organization, it will still be 23 new countries with 23 own interests. Meanwhile, BRICS does not have a decision-making procedure by a majority or even a qualified majority - decisions are made on a consensus basis. And on what list of issues can consensus be found between such different states in every sense of the word (geographical, economic, political) as, for example, Thailand and Cuba? Belarus and Kuwait? Argentina and Vietnam? It would be nice if BRICS was some kind of regional organization like the SCO, where all member countries have common problems, a common strategy and a common region of action, but no, we are talking about a global structure with a motley set of participants. And no one wants to cancel consensus decision-making now - for the same India or Brazil, this order is a guarantee of taking into account their interests, a guarantee of not turning BRICS into an instrument of Chinese global influence.
Therefore, there is only one way out of these doubts: it is necessary to include in the BRICS only those countries that are ready and for which they are ready. Those that can strengthen the organization, provide it with new opportunities. Those without which the BRICS cannot claim to be a global governance structure. But then the list of 23 countries shrinks to five. To Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. And the rest should be refused, offering instead cooperation with the BRICS in solving their regional issues and protecting their national interests. And to add that a rigidly structured organization without their participation would protect their interests much better than a loose semblance of the League of Nations, in which they would participate without any use.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.