Serbia between the West and the East

Exploring BRICS as an Alternative to EU in a Changing World Order and Its Implications for Serbia and the Western Balkans

In recent days, the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, has been invited to attend the summit of the extended "BRICS" group, which will be held in October of this year in Kazan. This invitation should not surprise us, considering that Russia has assumed the role of the chairmanship of BRICS in 2024 and is responsible for organizing the upcoming summit. The invitation followed after discussions were initiated to accept Kosovo into the Council of Europe, which sparked strong reactions from Belgrade. President Vučić hinted that in the event of Kosovo being accepted into the Council of Europe, Serbia would consider potentially withdrawing from the same organization.

It is important to note that no state has become a full member of the European Union without first becoming a member of the Council of Europe. Serbia's potential withdrawal from the Council of Europe would imply the end of EU integration and potential exclusion from European Union funds. Since 2001, Serbia has received 3 billion euros in "donations" from EU funds, directed towards socio-economic and political reforms, making the EU the largest donor and trading partner of Serbia. However, the impression is that the slogan "EU has no alternative" is slowly losing ground. A long series of disappointments, unfulfilled promises, prolonged negotiation processes, and "unacceptable conditions" has placed Serbia in a position to consider potential membership in other organizations, such as the BRICS Plus group.

BRICS

The BRICS grouping emerged on the international political scene in 2009, founded by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining a year later. The group aims to improve the economic and political position of these five leading countries through cooperation. In the official BRICS document, the primary objectives listed include inclusive socio-economic growth focused on combating poverty and unemployment, promoting innovative growth through the development of advanced technologies and the exchange of new skills, as well as strengthening cooperation with countries outside of BRICS.

In a world where the unipolar dominance of the United States and its allies is nearing its end, BRICS emerges as a counterbalance to the G7 group. The BRICS grouping represents the efforts of new powers, primarily China and Russia, to contend with the dominant economic and global order, which has been under U.S. hegemony since the collapse of the Soviet Union to the present day. Although G7 states have a larger share of the global economy by many measures, according to Goldman Sachs projections, BRICS is expected to overtake that position in the near future, with an average growth rate projected to reach 159 percent by 2050, compared to 50 percent in G7 countries.

At the beginning of 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates joined the BRICS group, increasing BRICS's share in global oil production to 43 percent. With the current share of over 40 percent of the world's population, BRICS is inevitably a grouping that will continue to grow, especially considering that over 40 countries have expressed interest in joining the group.

One of the main informal goals of BRICS is the de-dollarization of the global economy, with initiatives such as the potential joint "BRICS currency," which, unlike the U.S. dollar as a fiat currency, would be based on the natural resources of all BRICS countries. This struggle for a new global reserve currency is particularly evident in the case of Argentina, which was on track to become a new member of the group but changed its policy under new President Javier Milei. To underscore the point, Argentina plans to adopt the U.S. dollar as its national currency.

In the field of the global economy, international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank play a significant role. One of the common criticisms directed at these organizations is that they are heavily influenced by the United States, both because their headquarters are in Washington and because of the evident dominant share of votes that the U.S. holds in the executive boards of these organizations, enabling the U.S. its veto power. Whatever the situation may be, such perception of these organizations among BRICS countries has led to the establishment of the New Development Bank in 2014, headquartered in Shanghai, which is intended to offer alternative sources of funding to developing countries.

For the countries in the Global South, generally, the IMF and World Bank were less attractive options due to their structural adjustment programs, through which these organizations condition countries to implement certain systemic changes to receive the desired loans. The BRICS Bank does not impose such conditions, which is why its popularity is growing, especially in African countries where a large number of infrastructure projects are financed through the New Development Bank.

However, apart from the economic sphere, BRICS as a group faces many internal political issues, resulting from the heterogeneous interests of its members, which limits the scope of their international activities. Since BRICS is not a formal alliance, it lacks binding character, which in case of disagreements among members can lead to the collapse of the group.

Potential border conflicts between China and India, India's balancing act between the political West and East, disagreements between Saudi Arabia and Iran, or even the ambivalence of Brazil's foreign policy, which is both a close ally of the U.S. and a member of BRICS, are just some examples that could marginalize this grouping completely. If this group manages to maintain internal balance and clearly define decision-making processes, it has the potential to gain greater geopolitical significance alongside its economic sphere.

EU Has an Alternative

Sentiment in Serbia shows an anti-Western character, as seen in the results of research by the NGO “Novi Treci Put”. According to a survey published in July last year, if citizens of Serbia had to choose between joining the EU or BRICS, 35 percent of respondents would choose the European Union, while 46.9 percent would support joining BRICS.

BRICS could entail many benefits, especially in the form of unconditional loans for infrastructure projects, as well as expanding cooperation with all its members. However, deeper integration with these countries, especially membership in BRICS, would also mean officially ending EU integration, as the European Union requires candidate countries to align their foreign policy with the Union. Losing such status would imply exclusion from EU funds, which are currently of great importance to the Western Balkan countries.

However, this should not imply a rushed integration of Serbia into the European Union, especially not in times of geopolitical uncertainty. Additionally, Serbia would have to recognize the independence of Kosovo and enter into the NATO alliance if it wishes to become an EU member. Both of these options are completely unacceptable to the Serbian national interests, so a potential membership in the EU, if the conditions don’t change, is highly unlikely. Moreover, the EU has been experiencing "enlargement fatigue" for some time, and it is unclear when the Union will be ready to accept new members at all.

The emergence of alternative options implies greater space for political maneuvering, allowing Western Balkan countries to reject conditions coming from Brussels and Washington, as well as from Moscow or Beijing, which are unacceptable for them and their citizens. In such a world, there exists a small chance of countries being neutral and non-aligned. In a period when the world is becoming multipolar, there is an increased chance of conflicts between major powers, which brings a certain risk for smaller and developing countries. In such moments, political maturity, patience, and a strong domestic economy prevail.

It is in the interest of both the European Union, as well as the Western Balkan countries, not just Serbia, to deepen cooperation and dialogue with the BRICS and Global South countries, especially in areas related to sustainable development and energy issues. When the world is fighting wars, small countries like Serbia should look for a way to foster peace and stability. In this light, Serbia can take on the historical role of Yugoslavia in building bridges between the East and the West.