As I am writing this essay, the first day of the BRICS Summit chaired by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro has concluded. Some official statements have already been released, all centered on highlighting the importance of the Global South to emerge and thrive in a world so far dominated by developed nations from the West.

With both President Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin of Russia absent, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India surely can take advantage of the stage, championing together with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil the role of the developing nations.

“The Global South has often been a victim of double standards. Whether it is development, distribution of resources or security-related issues, the interests of the Global South have not been prioritized; India has always considered it its responsibility to rise above its own interests and work in the interest of humanity, " said PM Narendra Modi at the 17th BRICS Summit

It could be tempting to discuss the double standards of the Prime Minister who has always been very keen to cement his relationship with the Global West, especially with the leaders of the G7 but let’s set this aside.

Instead, let’s focus instead on what the BRICS could represent for a country like Nepal. There is no doubt that BRICS can have an important role in reinforcing a multipolar order. At the same time, there is the risk of this bloc polarizing the world further, especially if Russia and China succeed at pushing a strongly anti-western narrative.
It is one thing to lament the unfairness and imbalances facing the Global South, but a completely different matter if there is an open, continuous and unabated hostility toward the West in the way that both Russia and China are keen to unleash. This is the dilemma that Indonesia is facing as the latest nation officially joining the bloc as a full member.

Indonesia, like India, is one of the strongest representatives of the modern non-alignment in foreign policy. De facto, there is no longer a united nonaligned movement of nations but rather, we are talking of the strategic approach of nations like India, Indonesia and Nepal. With the multiple geopolitical crises arising, non-alignment is increasingly becoming a difficult balancing act for the capitals embracing it.

Therefore, the BRICS has a strong purpose and clear mission but only at a theoretical level because in practice, the bloc remains divided. It is one thing to rally around high rhetoric clamoring for justice and equality in the world but it is another thing to put together a coherent set of initiatives, considering also the divergent views that its members have on human rights and democracy.

Yet, there is no doubt that the BRICS cannot become a united and coherent geopolitical bloc, it has some geopolitical aspirations, given the fact that it has been welcoming new members for quite some time. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were officially accepted in 2023 during the South African chairmanship of the BRICS.

In practical terms, there is already a BRICS “global” bank, the New Development Bank (headquartered in Shanghai) under former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. While the NDB’s work is still somehow disappointing and underperforming, the potential is clear despite a “sibling” rivalry with Chinese’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). In addition, the Brazilian Presidency this year has been extremely careful at promoting very concrete areas of cooperation like climate change and artificial intelligence.

These factors make BRICS more relevant than G20 and G7, groups that, by design, are to be much more loose and unstructured platforms. Taking into account the strengths and the potential of BRICS but also its structural weaknesses, especially now that it is at risk of losing its strategic focus with its expanded (and diverse) membership, could it be worthy for Nepal to consider applying for a partner status membership?

There are many nations with this looser and less demanding type of affiliation, officially called the “BRICS Partner Countries”. It is an increasingly large group (as per now, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Nigeria have this status). These are nations that want to ride on the potential of BRICS without a full commitment to it. While they can bring an additional collective strength, these nations further stress the internal divide between democracy and authoritarian nations already existing among the full members of the BRICS.

It would not be unimaginable for Nepal to consider this level of partnership with the BRICS. Most importantly, Nepal would gain some visibility and have some tangible gains, especially in terms of enlarging its very limited global presence and establishing more South-South partnerships.

But, strategically speaking, the number one priority for Nepal would be to find ways to reactivate the process of cooperation in South Asia. The SAARC, despite being moribund, should remain the “North Star” for the country’s foreign policy. BIMSTEC and initiatives like “Nepal-India-Bangladesh Corridor could play an important role but none can match the unlimited potential of the SAARC.”

BIMSTEC, no matter its added significance, would never play a fundamental role like the SAARC. The former is a connector, a bridge between two different regions, South Asia and Southeast Asia and Nepal needs to expand its relationship with a nearby region with an incredibly dynamic market. But, in matters of international cooperation and possibly regional integration (the former is the linchpin for the latter), Nepal needs to find an “engine” to maximize its economic potential and develop holistically while eradicating poverty.

Such a propeller can be only found in South Asia and it is called SAARC. With SAARC, there would be a real possibility of creating a common pan-South Asian market and united regional economy. But we all know the current status of this regional body that has been adversely impacted by the relationships between India and Pakistan. There might be creative ways for Nepal to restart the process of regional cooperation but perhaps, Nepal needs to think of itself as its engine rather than delegating this essential and yet untapped function to a regional body.

It might be high time for Nepal to think differently and out of the box and overcome the structural obstacles from two nations in the region that are not interested in leaving the past behind.
Regional cooperation and regional integration in South Asia cannot be blocked by a risky rivalry that, if left unchecked and uncontrolled, can threaten the whole region. Why should not Nepal expand its horizon and strategically imagine itself as a member of bigger forums while also not giving up its strategic interests in its own backyard and truly push for reviving the dream of a more united South Asia?