←back to thread

Malaysia to Join BRICS

(www.aljazeera.com)
79 points eatonphil | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.436s | source
Show context
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.40716508[source]
BRICS expanding cements its role as a Chinese geopolitical project, and underlines India’s loss of power within it [1]. (Russia used to balance the scales, but that’s no longer an option.)

It isn’t explicitly anti-American yet. But if it takes that tack, I’d expect Egypt, the UAE and India to drop out while leaving Malaysia in an uncomfortable place.

[1] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/china-...

replies(3): >>40716649 #>>40716651 #>>40716828 #
alephnerd ◴[] No.40716828[source]
I disagree with that interpretation.

BRICS expansion has essentially blunted it, as every expansion require unanimous support of [edir: the founding] all 5 members.

There's a reason Turkey (opposition from India due to it's military support for Pakistan) and Bangladesh (opposition from China due to Sheikh Hasina's dependence on India for sanction relief) weren't accepted.

Every state that has been accepted in the expansion is a state that has strong economic ties to both China and India, thus canceling out any potential bias.

- UAE's 1st and 2nd largest trade partners are China and India

- KSA's 1st and 2nd largest trade partners are China and India

- Ethiopia's 1st and 2nd largest partners are China and India.

- China is Egypt's largest import market, but India is one of Egypt's largest export market and is Egypt's credit guaranteer.

The addition of Malaysia follows this pattern as well.

BRICS has become as meaningless as APEC, because India ended up doing the same thing that China did to APEC in the 90s when Jiang Zemin unilaterally declared it cannot be a Community like the EC.

replies(1): >>40716918 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.40716918[source]
> every expansion require unanimous support of all 5 members

Isn’t it nine [1]?

> Every state that has been accepted in the expansion is a state that has strong economic ties to both China and India, thus canceling out any potential bias

This is true. But looking at military vulnerability, Malaysia is obviously subject to one more than the other. (China’s security relationship with Russia and Iran further undermining India.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

replies(1): >>40717167 #
2. alephnerd ◴[] No.40717167[source]
> Isn’t it nine

The founding members (in reality just China and India) are the ones with competing and diametrically opposed interests and veto each other.

> But looking at military vulnerability, Malaysia is obviously subject to one more than the other

Not severely. Indian sanctions on Malaysian imports and ban on exporting key foodstuff to Malaysia collapsed Mahathir Mohammed's government when he became overly chummy with Turkey, Pakistan, and Qatar (thus pissing off UAE and KSA as well), and has been contributing to severe inflation in Malaysia

> Iran further undermining India

India's relationship with Iran is compartmentalized to investments and it's presence in Iranian Balochistan.

Iran's only seaport located outside the Persian/Arab Gulf chokepoint is Chabahr Port, which is operated and funded by an Indian SoE. Most of the highways in Iranian Balochistan and Iranian Khorasan are Indian built and operated as well.

> China’s security relationship with Russia

It's not a unified bonhomie. A good example is the North Korea problem.

While China keeps NK on a short leash, they limit any military technology transfers to NK because CN values the relationship with SK and JP more (even despite the trade wars from the last decade).

Russia has been undermining China in NK by transferring military and nuclear technology and opening it's market to NK [0], infringing on China's near-abroad and also making it's relations with SK and JP extremely rocky (which is bad because China is trying to negotiate a FTA between CN-SK-JP, which is increasingly looking like a failure [1].

There are similar clashes in Central Asia [2], Vietnam [3], and the Sahel [4].

And Russia does use India as a negotiating tactic with China, as it was Russia that negotiated the current status quo between China and India after the Galwan Crisis almost became a regional war [5]

-----------

The reality is, China's push for a multi-polar world only makes it harder for China to leverage it's own best interests within regional powers as well.

The same way it is very difficult for the US to get China to bend, China has a difficult time with regional powers like much of ASEAN, KSA, UAE, India, SK, JP, etc.

[0] - https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/china-and-russia-disagree-on...

[1] - https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/explained/article/3266464/tal...

[2] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/31/central-asia-russia-chi...

[3] - https://worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9781800611641_00...

[4] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/19/wagner-china-russia-afr...

[5] - https://eastasiaforum.org/2020/10/23/how-russia-emerged-as-k...