Mapping the rise of BRICS: Declarations, designs and a future unfolding

A systematic review of the BRICS declarations from 2009 to 2025 reveals not fragmentation but thematic coherence and steady institutional growth. The bloc has moved from reactive voice to constructive architect.

Yet critics persist. Some dismiss BRICS as little more than a talk shop—long on declarations, short on delivery. But that view no longer holds. A close reading of the declarations reveals growing technical coordination, policy continuity, and formalised structures. The very texts once cited as evidence of vagueness now offer proof of a maturing governance ecosystem.

Over seventeen years, several core themes have remained constant (Figure 1). Calls to reform global governance, particularly the UN Security Council and Bretton Woods institutions, have sharpened. So too have affirmations of sovereignty, non-interference, and multilateralism grounded in international law. BRICS has consistently opposed unilateral coercive measures, foreign intervention, and extraterritorial application of law, while emphasising peaceful dispute resolution and sovereign equality.

Peace and security cooperation has also matured. What began as rhetorical condemnation of terrorism is now underpinned by working groups, action plans, and technical coordination platforms. BRICS declarations increasingly address regional conflicts—Palestine, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine—not only in solidarity but as a normative voice for international law and humanitarian principles.

Support for Africa, Latin America, and least developed countries has moved from symbolism to structured frameworks. The introduction of BRICS Partner Country status, along with the refrain “African solutions to African problems,” signals transition from advocacy to architecture.

In the financial domain, BRICS’ critique of dollar dominance has moved from posture to practice. The New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement were early steps. Most recently, the bloc’s declaration proposed the incubation of a BRICS Multilateral Guarantees (BMG) mechanism within the NDB and technical advances on cross-border payment interoperability. While not yet named, these developments increasingly reflect the logic of Mutual Credit Clearance (MCC)—a decentralised, self-balancing trade system that avoids both hard currency dependency and inflationary credit creation, as EMIR Research proposed in “BRICS’ Currency Dilemma: A Necessary Quality Leap Beyond the Dollar” (2024).

Recent years also mark a decisive shift in BRICS’ identity—from platform to prototype. Since 2021, technology governance and AI have become central. The bloc has shifted from addressing digital access to asserting digital sovereignty, with new frameworks on AI governance, cyber norms, and sovereign digital infrastructure.

BRICS is also becoming institutionally dense. No longer just a summit platform, the bloc’s operational ecosystem now includes permanent working groups, interbank platforms, think tank networks, and civil society forums. Declarations increasingly reference cross-pillar coordination, 2030 strategies, and detailed technical annexes—hallmarks of real governance capacity.

Another shift is BRICS' growing role in humanitarian diplomacy and legal accountability. Since 2020, declarations have placed stronger emphasis on humanitarian law, unimpeded aid access, and explicit references to the International Court of Justice. The bloc is positioning itself as a normative counterweight in a system long monopolised by Western legal framing.

This institutional maturity is echoed in the block’s evolving language. Early BRICS (2009–2014) spoke in terms of voice, representation, and multipolarity. Recent declarations use a more assertive vocabulary: agile, equitable, accountable, inclusive governance. This shift signals BRICS’ ambition to offer a values-based alternative, not merely a structural counterweight.

Crucially, BRICS Summit 2025 marks a geopolitical breakthrough. With Indonesia admitted as a full member and eleven additional Partner Countries recognised, including Malaysia, BRICS is operationalising a decentralised, concentric model of expansion. This model preserves consensus while broadening reach.

Even its economic language has shifted. While critique of Western trade asymmetry persists, it now comes wrapped in technical nuance: exchange-rate risk mitigation for public-private partnerships, infrastructure information hubs, ESG-aligned investment platforms, and the integration of digital green finance. “BRICS exposure” is now entering investment strategy vocabularies—not as political signalling, but as a credible diversification play.

With Malaysia now chairing ASEAN, the deepening and diversification of BRICS+ offers a strategic opening—not to choose sides, but to help shape the global playing field. Long known for its diplomatic pragmatism, multilateral credibility, and evolving MADANI framework, Malaysia is uniquely placed to serve as both bridge and architect in this era of recalibration.

Already recognised as a BRICS Partner Country, Malaysia could pursue strategic alignment across three domains: monetary innovation, technology governance, and development cooperation.

While BRICS declarations have yet to explicitly adopt Mutual Credit Clearance (MCC), the logic behind it is taking form. In such a system, only countries that produce goods and services of recognised value to others can sustainably issue credit. Malaysia, with its globally demanded exports—from halal goods and palm oil to semiconductors and green components—meets this criterion. Its consistent trade surpluses, diversified production base, and stable monetary governance position it not just as a participant, but as a node of stability and trust in any future BRICS+ MCC-like arrangement.

This alignment of trust and production connects directly to the Multilateral Guarantees (BMG) mechanism now incubating within the NDB. Designed to de-risk infrastructure and sustainable development projects, the BMG reduces reliance on Western risk assessments and credit agencies. Malaysia’s institutional credibility and investment-grade governance make it well-placed to act not only as a beneficiary but as a regional anchor. In combination with MCC-like logic, BMG offers the other side of the equation: a collective trust mechanism to ensure productive intent translates into investable outcomes.

Malaysia’s strategic value extends further. In the digital and financial domains, it could host an ASEAN–BRICS+ forum on AI governance, data flow standards, and cybersecurity. In the development sphere, Malaysia can lead on Islamic finance, halal regulatory convergence, and biodiversity frameworks—embedding value-based norms in the emerging Global South architecture. With regional neighbours such as Indonesia now full BRICS members, the potential for regulatory coherence and innovation diplomacy is unprecedented.

The BRICS story is no longer about bloc formation—it is about framework evolution. The question is not whether the world is becoming multipolar. It is whether emerging actors like Malaysia will step forward—not merely to adapt to new structures, but to shape them.

In this spirit, Malaysia’s path lies not in alignment or opposition, but in co-creation—bringing ASEAN’s voice into the core of BRICS+, embedding mutual credit into trade logic, and aligning inclusive governance with pragmatic multilateralism. The moment is open, but the window is narrow. This is not just a chance to observe history. It is an invitation to help design its next chapter.

---