不出所料，西方媒体在对近期金砖国家喀山峰会的粗略报导中，延续了长期以来的偏颇分析。这一次，舆论的矛头指向了俄罗斯和俄罗斯总统普京——目前西方的头号公敌。
“普京将自己描绘成发展中国家的捍卫者”；“在乌克兰战争阴影下普京为了旨在扩大俄罗斯全球影响力的金砖国家峰会主持闭幕”；“普京的另一面现实：热情下的正常假象”，这些是美国媒体上刊登的头条标题，目的是进一步妖魔化普京并影响读者将金砖国家视为无足轻重的地缘政治集团。
美国媒体对来自36个国家领导人参加的喀山峰会几乎不加掩饰的敌意，似乎在这次报导中居次，反倒是日本媒体在反金砖国家组织的声调上成为了西方的回声室。这一立场令人惊讶，因为金砖国家的成员是日本最大的贸易伙伴和出口市场之一，并且在日本的崛起和发展中扮演了关键角色。
根据《日本时报》报导，“金砖国家再次聚首抱怨、发泄不满”。保守的亲美日本财经媒体《日经亚洲》的标题较为中立，但仍然明显是负面的：“随著金砖国家的扩张，其成员国各有所求”和“俄罗斯希望金砖国家成为小麦出口国的OPEC（石油输出国组织）。但金砖国家成员会买单吗？”
东盟和亚洲亮点
金砖国家在喀山所取得的成就与西方和日本媒体上的报导，以及亚洲地区英语媒体所复制的报导不同。
首先，其是从最初的5个国家（巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非）发展起来的。2024年1月增加了4个成员国（埃及、埃塞俄比亚、伊朗及阿联酋），现在又有13个潜在新成员。作为正式成员资格的前奏而成为“伙伴国”的国家有：土耳其、印尼、阿尔及利亚、白俄罗斯、古巴、玻利维亚、马来西亚、乌兹别克、哈萨克、泰国、越南、尼日利亚和乌干达。
金砖国家的扩张使得金砖国家+集团成为更强大的地缘政治和经济强国。在喀山峰会之前，金砖国家9个成员国估计占世界人口的40%，并占世界国内生产总值（GDP）的1/3（以购买力平价衡量）。相较之下，七国集团国家的人口不到全球的10%，GDP也不到全球30%。
随著新增的13个成员以及总计约30兆美元（131兆令吉）的经济规模，拥有35亿人口的金砖+集团有潜力在团结和促进欠发达国家进步的努力上取得成功，而此前不结盟运动（NAM）和联合国的77国集团（G77）在这方面都未能取得突破。
根据卡内基国际和平基金会的报告：
金砖联盟可以利用这一影响力，不仅要求建立一个更公平的国际秩序，还可以实现这些抱负，例如建立平行的能源交易系统，加强成员国间的商业联系，创建替代性发展融资系统，减少外汇交易中的美元依赖，并在人工智能和外太空等领域深化技术合作。
其次，东盟四个成员国现已成为伙伴国，并可能在下次峰会上成为正式成员。东盟基金会执行董事皮提斯利兰甘（Piti Srirangam）表示，“成为金砖国家成员将带来贸易和投资机会，所以问题是：为什么不呢？集团的成员来自世界各地，但还没有一个来自东南亚的”。
东盟国家和其他有抱负的成员国所寻求的不仅仅是贸易和投资利益。他们与其他参与国一起签署了10月23日发表的《喀山宣言》。这份题为《加强多边主义以促进公正的全球发展和安全》的43页、134项的文件呼吁建立“更具代表性、公平的国际秩序，重振并改革多边体系，推动可持续发展和包容性增长”。
第三个亮点是印度和中国这两个创始成员国在峰会上达成的协议，双方同意解决边界和其他争端，稳定关系，并迈向和平、安全与合作的新时代。这项重大公告的发布时机对于“金砖+”发展尤其重要。
虽然这并非峰会的直接议题，但该协议将在全球及区域关注范畴——军事、政治和经济等领域产生连锁反应。
如果中印两国能够按照两国领导人的共识重新调整关系，这项协议可能会改变两国和金砖国家的游戏规则。
中印和解意义
在高峰会期间的面对面会晤中，习近平告诉莫迪：
“双方要加强沟通合作，妥善处理分歧和差异，促进彼此实现发展愿望，双方要承担起国际责任，为增强发展中国家的力量和团结作出表率，为推动多极化和国际关系民主化作出贡献。”
印度的立场可以从莫迪在X帐户上的一篇贴文中看出，他在贴文中写道，印中关系“对我们两国人民以及地区和全球和平与稳定都很重要。相互信任、相互尊重、相互敏感将引领双边关系”。印度外交秘书详细阐述了这项积极观点，
米斯里在声明中表示：“两国领导人对过去几周双方透过外交和军事管道持续对话达成的协议表示欢迎。莫迪总理强调了不允许边界问题上的分歧扰乱我们边境和平与安宁。”
如果这两个地缘政治巨头能够履行他们的新承诺，其影响将超越金砖国家，尤其西方列强嘲笑金砖国家为，一个终将会因内部争端和对抗而注定失败的组织。
中印也将为世界其他国家提供一个范例，说明如何挑战由美国和西方盟友所构建的当前规则基础秩序，这一秩序通过操纵不与西方结盟或不支持西方的国家的分歧和分裂来巩固西方霸权和主导地位。
林德宜《金砖国家喀山峰会：中印亮点》原文：BRICS Kazan Summit: China and India Highlight
As expected, western media in its sketchy coverage of the recent BRICS summit in Kazan has continued its long held partisan analysis. This time the spin was directed at Russia and President Vladimir Putin - for now the West’s public enemy number one.
“Putin presents himself as champion of the developing world”; “Putin ends BRICS summit that sought to expand Russia's global clout but was shadowed by Ukraine”; “Inside Putin’s Alternate Reality: Warm Embraces and a Veneer of Normalcy” were among the headline columns posted in American media in their campaign to further demonise Putin and to influence readers to viewing BRICS as an inconsequential geo political grouping.
American media's barely concealed hostility to the Kazan summit which brought together leaders from 36 countries appears to have played second fiddle on this occasion to what has been posted in Japanese media which has emerged as an anti-BRICS echo chamber of the west. This positioning is surprising since BRICS members are among Japan’s biggest trading partners and export markets, and have played a key role in the rise and development of Japan.
According to Japan Times, “BRICS once again meet to complain and vent frustrations”. Nikkei Asia, the conservative pro American Japanese business media organisation, had more neutral but still clearly negative headlines: “As BRICS expands, its recruits chase disparate goals” and “Russia wants BRICS to become OPEC for wheat. Will members buy it?”.
Summit Highlights For ASEAN and Asia
What BRICS achieved in Kazan can be seen in different ways from what has appeared in western and Japanese media and replicated by English language media in the Asian region.
Firstly, it has grown from the original 5 countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). 4 were added in January 2024 (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and United Arab Emirates) and it now has another potentially 13 new members. Countries that have become "partner states" as a prelude to full membership are: Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda.
This expansion of BRICS has made the BRICS+ group an even more formidable geo-political and economic powerhouse. Before the Kazan summit, the nine BRICS members were estimated to comprise 40% of the world’s population and to account for more than one-third of world GDP (measured at purchasing power parity). By contrast, the G7 nations have less than 10% of the world’s population and under 30% of GDP (PPP).
With the additional 13 new members and a combined economy estimated at US$30 trillion, the clout of the BRICS+ grouping of 3.5 billion people has the potential to succeed where efforts at unifying and enhancing the progress of the less developed nations through the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) and group of 77 (G77) in the United Nations (UN) had earlier failed.
According to a report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
The coalition [BRICS] can use this leverage not only to demand a more equitable international order but also to act on those ambitions, for instance by establishing a parallel energy trading system, deepening commercial links among members, creating an alternative system of development finance, reducing dollar dependence in foreign exchange transactions, and deepening technology cooperation in fields from AI to outer space.
Secondly, four member countries of ASEAN are now partner states and are likely to be full members in the next summit. According to Piti Srirangam, executive director of the ASEAN Foundation, “Being a member of BRICS would open up trade and investment opportunities, so the question is 'why not? The bloc has members from all over the world, but none from
Southeast Asia yet".
It is not just trade and investment benefits the ASEAN countries and other aspiring members are looking out for. They, together with other participating countries, endorsed the Kazan Declaration issued on 23 October. Titled Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security, the 43 page, 134 point document calls for a “more representative, fairer international order, a reinvigorated and reformed multilateral system, sustainable development and inclusive growth”.
A third highlight was the announcement at the summit of the agreement by its two founding members, India and China, to resolve their border and other disputes, stabilise relations and move to a new era of peace, security and cooperation. The timing of this momentous announcement is especially significant for BRICS+ development.
While not a direct issue of the summit itself, the agreement will have ripple effects across a wide range of global and regional areas of contestation and concern - military, political and economic.
If the two countries can reset their relationship according to what their leaders have agreed to, this agreement can be a game changer for the two countries and BRICS.
Significance of the India-China Rapprochement
In their face to face meeting on the sidelines of the summit, Xi told Modi:
“It is important for both sides to have more communication and cooperation, properly handle differences and disagreements, and facilitate each other’s pursuit of development aspirations, It is also important for both sides to shoulder our international responsibilities, set an example for boosting the strength and unity of developing countries, and contribute to promoting multi-polarisation and democracy in international relations”.
India’s position can be gauged in a post on Modi’s X account in which he wrote that India-China relations were “important for the people of our countries, and for regional and global peace and stability. Mutual trust, mutual respect and mutual sensitivity will guide bilateral relations”. This positive take has been elaborated on by Indian Foreign Secretary,
Vikran Misri in his statement: “The two leaders welcomed the agreement reached between the two sides through sustained dialogue over the last several weeks in diplomatic as well as military channels. PM Modi underscored the importance of not allowing differences on boundary-related matters to disturb peace and tranquillity on our borders”.
Should these two geo-political giants live up to their new commitment, the impact will extend beyond BRICS, derided by western powers as an organisation doomed to failure as a result of internal disputes and rivalries.
They will also provide for the rest of the world an example of how to contest the current rules based order crafted by the US and western allies to entrench western hegemony and dominance through manipulation of the dissension and divisions of nations not aligned with or supportive of the west.
