Dr Naledi Pandor: The time for a progressive global agenda is now

Chairperson of the session

Excellencies

Distinguished guests

Ladies and gentlemen

Comrades

Warm greetings to you all, it is a great honour to have the privilege of addressing you in this first session of an important and timely symposium.

The world today stands at an inflexion point, facing a rabidly hostile and vengeful unipolarity, a deepening crisis in multilateralism and respect for international law, rampant greed and odious wealth, grinding poverty, and the visible effects of disasters and climate change.

In her valuable book, Shock Therapy (2008), Naomi Klein illustrates cogently that none of these developments are accidental. They are, she suggests, manifestations of the practice of “shock and awe”, a strategy of the powerful designed to use war threats and civil conflict to generate sufficient chaos for rampant looting of the resources of developing nations and thus fossilise their dependence on the most powerful nations for rescue and survival. Aiding these governments are the established Bretton Woods Institutions that implement a well-known set of practices that include economic meltdown, state austerity plans, and reversals of public service programmes that provide basic services.

It is very encouraging that the organisers of the symposium have chosen to confront this well designed practice of ensuring nations of the South never successfully overcome their disadvantages, however, Kleins descriptive analysis points to the need for all of us to devote careful attention to the nature of the problem we are confronting and to the planning of effective and appropriate responses. Essentially, we are confronted with a complex and devastating context and related challenges and responses in excellent rhetoric and well-drafted speeches are not sufficient to the task.

The are several key issues that must be confronted.

Firstly, the notion of the USA as the global fulcrum has persisted for a very long time and while seen as a threat to multipolarity, there is little evidence of the ability to challenge this powerful posture of the USA.

Second, key emerging powers such as India and perhaps China do not regard themselves as an equivalent ideological counterweight to the dominant West. Their major concern seems to be to build economic success rather than establish a more progressive global identity and set of relationships.

Third, Africa has failed to overcome centuries of colonialism and allowed poor capacity, low growth and dependency to frame its geopolitics. The reliance on the extraction of mineral resources for generating public revenue has delayed industrialisation and productive capacity on the continent. The present role of the African Union and efforts to implement Agenda 2063 suggest there is a possibility of genuine progress in Africa.

Fourth, growing breaches in respect for international law suggest that global cohesion around agreed norms of international relations is fraying and requires firm global affirmation. This would include a firmer commitment to real UN reform and to enhanced support for a robust, renewed and efficient United Nations.

Fifth, BRICS enlarged without the foundation of a clear political agenda, resulting in an amorphous grouping that has to find common ground in a rapidly unravelling geopolitical environment.

All these factors require dedicated and focused attention. If it is agreed that BRICS could become a leader of progressive ideals, we should consider creating to encourage a group of well-resourced strategic thinkers to work closely with the leaders of BRICS in setting out a vision of a transformed world in which BRICS plays a key strategic development role. The current BRICS presidency appears open to deliberating a more strategic role for BRICS, so the moment to institute a process toward a changed political orientation is now.

While BRICS has made important strides in the 17 years of its existence, all of us know that it has largely been a consensus-oriented formation that has not too clearly articulated an intention to reshape world affairs or the existing multilateral system. The boldest signal that this attitude had shifted was evidenced by the creation of the New Development Bank. The success of the bank in advancing a BRICS-focused investment agenda points to the immense capacity for progressive change that is latent within BRICS. The bank needs increased shareholders and a stronger partnership with banks that invest in development.

Recent global events have demonstrated stark differences in political postures among the BRICS member states. On the matter of the Russia-Ukraine war, BRICS countries had divided views. With respect to the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it was difficult to secure a common BRICS perspective, and the 2023 declaration on this was truly historic. Nonetheless, while there was condemnation of the slaughter of innocents, there continued to exist active relations between Israel and some of the members of BRICS. Perhaps even more worrying was the failure of BRICS to propose solutions or intervene as the war crisis deepened. Once more, this forum and perhaps the BRICS think tanks should propose to BRICS leaders that if they intend to influence and shape world affairs, they need to be visible as a collective, engendering peace mission negotiations and Constitutional settlements.

Of course, BRICS cannot achieve this alone. And our major challenge is the large number of somewhat amorphous organisations that are supposed to advance a progressive agenda but fail to do so.

BRICS leaders should convene meetings and agree on joint actions with leaders of ASEAN, the African Union, G77 plus China, NAM and other regional formations. They should agree on a common progressive agenda, one that seeks to end nuclear arms proliferation, climate degradation, and exploitation of the vulnerable and marginalised. Two BRICS members achieved the incredible result of significant poverty reduction in the past four decades. There is much that India and China could do in setting a new South-oriented global agenda. Their lessons can be shared with the African continent, the Caribbean and other regions to ensure that they too can play an independent role in world affairs.

BRICS Ascendant implies a formation that publicly articulates support for multilateralism, that promotes gender equality, African development, peace and security. The BRICS should work closely to save the multilateral system as one that is reformed yet still primarily represented by the United Nations. BRICS should lead in active support and implementation of the SDGs and other progressive global strategies. The world needs the hope of a clearly articulated progressive agenda, one that can inspire and galvanise global action for the good.

The BRICS must revive progressive and ideologically active trade unions and allow workers to be the vanguard for radical change. Unions have become too absent and submissive in global affairs; they acquiesce to the oppression of workers and need to alter their course. BRICS should also work to strengthen the NDB into a global financing mechanism and ensure it invests in sustainable development and acts differently from Bretton Woods institutions. It must, however, be a successful bank and not collapse due to the lazy and corrupt practices of borrowers.

Finally, all of us gathered here must communicate with communities and organs of civil society and persuade the majority that the current attacks on progressive policies and institutions pose a direct threat to them and that mass mobilisation and joint action can help create a better world. BRICS is the only forum that can take up this challenge. BRICS has a wide range of structures, and PI should connect with them to discuss the unravelling of progressive ideals and to assist them in unlocking the incredible latent power that exists in the growing BRICS formation.