Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim is the Head of Department, Political Science and International Relations, the University of Abuja and Director of Contemporary Africa-China Research in Nigeria. He was part of the just-concluded BRICS Media Forum which took place before the main BRICS Leaders Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. In this interview with the Daily Trust on Sunday, he speaks on some key issues decided at the event.
How do you see the 2023 BRICS Media Forum?
The sixth BRICS Media Forum which was held in Johannesburg has been a greater mechanism in building awareness and engaging the media in implementing so many decisions made by the media leadership, especially in consolidating all efforts in the alternating media reportage as what constitutes global leadership for development, security, civilization as well as changing the narratives of Western media reportage, especially which tarnishes the reputation of the BRICS member-states as well as developing nations.
So, the media forum for BRICS in 2023 upheld a kind of element of massive awareness creation which by extension will actually make the general population of member-states understand that the media is really contributing immensely towards promoting BRICS. It deals with the theme of BRICS and Africa dealing with justice as a mechanism for Africa’s growth and development as well as the media in reinvigorating Africa’s growth.
Conversations were held. Panelists have spoken and most of the resolutions reached are that: the media has a greater task ahead. Apart from this, there is a particular need for broader coupling between African states as well as BRICS member-states in terms of technical, educational, industrial sharing, and many more which could actually be effective in that particular growth for African states that would actually result in development.
Tribunal: Witnesses say APC guber votes shortchanged
AGRO SOLUTIONS: New report suggests farming reforms to stop ticking bomb of bird flu
So, how do you see some of these resolutions implemented, especially when it comes to partnering, training, technology, and education? Because many of the African countries don’t have the capacity to do that.
You see, the idea of sharing has been developed by China. If there’s no BRICS for example today, there’s FOCAC which is the Forum for China-Africa Cooperation. And China is actually doing greatly in making sure that there is win-win cooperation between China and African states. There is a kind of industrial partnership that deals with dual cooperation in terms of production and manufacturing in Africa between African states and China.
So, it’s a good initiative in which BRICS will single-handedly aid African states to actually rediscover themselves in terms of industry as well as technological breakthroughs. That would actually help in cementing the particular relationship between this duo. And that will actually take Africa away from that particular brink of falling victim to recolonization by hitherto colonial powers, especially those belonging to the G-7.
So, the media forum has been successful even before now. The fifth one and the sixth one are also astonishing, looking at the level of participation. So, we hold the belief that Africa will soon take a kind of pathway to growth and development, especially when we have more African states join BRICS for development as well as for changing the cause of history, and in making a shift in global leadership in creating a new world order.
There is talk of expansion of the BRICS. Many countries have applied to join, including some from Africa. What kind of benefit do you think this would bring because we have so many kinds of groups of nations at different levels: G-20, G-7, AU, UN and you have the China-Africa Summit, Russia-Africa, US-Africa, European Union-Africa, and a lot of others?
You know, it’s rather inherent for any economic forum or integrating bloc to get expanded. The G-5 has never expanded. But the G-6 originally had West Germany, Japan, France, Italy, the US and the UK; you know, it continued to expand to G-7 by admitting Canada as part of the G-6. Canada made it G-7 and later included Russia to form the G-8. So it’s rather natural for organisations as well as economic forums to actually expand by recognizing other nations and states which can actually contribute immensely to the maturation of that particular organization. So, for BRICS the expansion is indispensable because there’s the need for more socio-economic and political cohesion that should be recorded within it.
The challenge is India because it is not actually certain that it might not actually exit the BRICS. So, if we have more membership, I could recall Professor John of Chicago University who believes that China can never rise peacefully, so if China cannot rise peacefully due to the bullying of the United States of America and the West. The creation of tension in China, especially with Taiwan and Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and the rest of them, so there is a need.
The European Union, which was exclusively an economic union, also came to have a military wing which is known as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. So, to actually arrive at that, the Soviets also had their own military wing which was Warsaw which later collapsed with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. So, the rise of the BRICS is for protecting the interests of member states otherwise, the efforts put in place by the BRICS members could also be jeopadised by the United States of America and the West. Look at what happened to the Nord Stream pipe. It was destroyed by the United States of America. So, there’s a need for the BRICS to actually expand on its own ramifications: politically, economically, socio-culturally, militarily, and morally, so as to contain futuristic challenges that could actually serve as obstacles or impede member states growth and development.
But some commentators say the BRICS at the moment doesn’t have the requisite institutional framework to bring in other nations, especially at this level of expansion that we are talking about, where like more than 20 countries have applied to join.
The only issue we have or the challenge with the restructuring of BRICS is the nomenclature. If you’re going to add two, four, or six alphabets, it’d be very difficult to mention. But there’s this particular specification that you call NATO plus, so then we have BRICS plus. So, all other nations, and states that would actually join BRICS later should belong to the plus. The BRICS should be permanent, which is B. R. I. C. S. Now Argentina, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Indonesia, even Nigeria, Algeria, and Egypt—all these countries are willing to actually be part of this particular historical bandwagon. It would be rather positive if these particular members or new members willing and wishing to be part are actually admitted. But BRICS should also consolidate efforts to make sure that many African states are actually included. Because Africa is the future, the natural resources needed by the industrial West are naturally endowed in Africa. So, that is where BRICS should actually consolidate its efforts, making sure that in admission into BRICS Africa is given more priority.
But why are countries like South Africa actually pushing for that expansion agenda? Others within the BRICS, for example, are a bit sceptical about this because some analysts are saying there are no clear terms for this expansion. If new countries are coming, what are the terms they need to fulfill before they are admitted?
Definitely, there has to be a modus operandi. There has to be a guideline upon which membership the BRICS should actually structure itself. It can never happen that countries that are actually less influential are admitted into BRICS. There’s going to be a big liability. So, admission of such countries should actually be suspended but there are countries that are currently in the pipeline showing interest. Such countries should be admitted.
The problem we are having in admitting more countries is xenophobia, which is being conceived by India itself trying to look at the expansion in favour of China, but India shouldn’t be looking at that particular lane. It should be positive and make sure that BRICS becomes a kind of formidable, sustainable, and economic forum, which will actually serve the developing nations as well as the global south. If India does that, I think it’s going to be strengthening the BRICS to be more formidable and stronger which would actually sustain that the organisation.
There are people who feel that Nigeria too is not really keen in joining the BRICS. That it is not really pushing, that it’s somewhere in the middle. What do you think about this? Do you think Nigeria should push and join, or are there benefits it could derive from being outside?
Nigeria could be excluded by, let’s say, all the essential characteristics as well as the requirements because of massive corruption, relying on oil to be a kind of monopolistic economy, and then thirdly, insecurity, and many more. But I believe, being the largest economy, if Nigeria, because Nigeria has shown interest it should continue to push as there is no other African state that should be a member of BRICS better than Nigeria. So, if Nigeria should join, I think it’s going to strengthen BRICS. But I want BRICS to actually set an agenda, to set some certain norms and values, before countries are admitted.
