Chinese President Xi Jinping’s absence from this week’s BRICS Summit in Brazil marks a significant departure from tradition, raising eyebrows regarding the internal political landscape within China and the cohesion of the BRICS alliance itself. This decision was officially attributed to a “scheduling conflict,” alongside Xi’s earlier engagement with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. However, experts express skepticism about this explanation, suggesting that the move reflects deeper issues, including Xi’s potentially waning control over the Chinese military and increasing assertiveness from civilian rivals. Premier Li Qiang is set to represent China at the summit, continuing a trend of Xi reducing his international presence, a move that some analysts interpret as foreboding regarding China’s domestic stability.
The implications of Xi’s absence extend beyond personal politics; they highlight potential fractures within the BRICS group itself. Gordon Chang, a U.S.-China relations expert, underscores the significance of Xi’s non-attendance, stating it illustrates a shift in the group’s dynamics, particularly as countries like Brazil and Indonesia impose tariffs on Chinese imports due to concerns over trade practices. These tensions indicate an emerging rift within the alliance, suggesting that China may no longer dominate its relationships with these nations, especially as they express discontent over perceived unfair economic behavior.
Additionally, rising tensions between China and India have contributed to Xi’s decision to abstain from the BRICS summit. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is anticipated to play a prominent role, further complicating Xi’s participation. Experts assert that historical animosities and conflicting interests between China and India could hinder productive dialogue within the BRICS framework. Compounded by global trade pressures, these factors paint a picture of a summit characterized by underlying rivalries rather than unified purpose.
While BRICS was established as a collective resistive force against Western hegemony, particularly that of the G7, its ideological diversity and fragmented collective identity remain significant obstacles. The bloc, which includes twelve full members and numerous partners, collectively wields considerable economic power, accounting for more than 60% of global GDP. However, discontent within the alliance, fueled by China’s trade practices, raises doubts about genuine collaboration and solidarity among its members. Analysts describe the uneven relationships within BRICS, exemplified by countries’ individual motivations conflicting with broader coalition goals, emphasizing a lack of real incentive for unity.
BRICS’s ambitions to develop a shared alternative financial system or currency to rival the U.S. dollar have garnered significant attention. Yet many experts caution against overestimating these ambitions, arguing that diverging interests among member nations limit any serious challenge to dollar dominance. While some suggest that BRICS nations are incrementally moving away from dollar dependence toward their own currencies, the realities of this shift appear to be more complex and gradual than revolutionary. The notion of a unified BRICS currency is dismissed by several analysts as more speculative than substantive, suggesting that such plans may face considerable hurdles.
Ultimately, Xi Jinping’s absence from the summit can be interpreted in various ways: a sign of instability within the Beijing government or an expression of confidence in China’s influence over BRICS. Some experts believe that Xi’s power allows him to delegate responsibilities, suggesting that he can maintain control of international narratives even without attending the meeting. Regardless of the interpretation, one thing remains evident: BRICS is in a state of flux, grappling with internal contradictions amid considerable geopolitical aspirations, raising critical questions about its future coherence and trajectory in the global arena.
