The growing interest of Southeast Asian nations in the expanding BRICS framework has garnered significant global attention. To understand this phenomenon, it is crucial to consider the broader backdrop of shifting institutional dynamics across the Indo-Pacific region. As these nations navigate a complex and evolving geopolitical and economic environment, their strategic engagements with BRICS and other platforms reflect a broader recalibration of priorities.
The Indo-Pacific has long been a theater of institutional change, shaped by the geopolitical realities of different eras. During the Cold War, U.S.-led bilateral alliances coexisted alongside indigenous multilateral frameworks such as the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and independent minilaterals like the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA). These structures sought to address both regional security needs and local interests, balancing external influence with self-determined cooperation.
In the post-Cold War period, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) became a central convenor, promoting dialogue and collaboration across the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, other institutions emerged to meet specific challenges, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum for economic integration and the Quad for addressing regional crises like the Indian Ocean tsunami. This layered institutional landscape has proven resilient and adaptable, enabling the region to respond dynamically to changing global trends.
The 2010s and 2020s introduced another period of institutional reconfiguration, driven by Asia’s continued economic rise, intensifying China-U.S. competition, and widespread dissatisfaction with the existing rules-based order. Within the U.S.-led framework, initiatives like the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) security pact and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) reflect evolving priorities. Meanwhile, regional efforts such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) showcase the increasing agency of Indo-Pacific nations in shaping their economic futures.
These shifts underscore a growing focus on self-reliance and strategic diversification, as nations seek to safeguard their interests amid uncertainties about U.S. regional commitments. As India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has observed, the Global South’s concerns are often rooted in frustrations with the current global governance structure rather than outright opposition to the West. This nuanced perspective is central to Southeast Asia’s evolving engagement strategies.
For Southeast Asian nations, interest in BRICS represents a calculated response to these shifting dynamics. The bloc’s growing inclusivity and its focus on addressing systemic imbalances in global governance resonate with the aspirations of many countries in the region. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has emphasized the potential of BRICS to create a more equitable framework, particularly as its expanded membership now represents over a quarter of global GDP and nearly half of the world’s population.
Yet, these nations are also cautious. They recognize the risks of being perceived as aligning too closely with Sino-Russian agendas, particularly in the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine. For example, Thailand’s simultaneous pursuit of membership in both the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and BRICS reflects its strategy of maintaining balance and leveraging diverse platforms to advance its diplomatic and economic goals. Similarly, Indonesia and Vietnam have focused on strengthening bilateral and regional partnerships, even as they explore opportunities within BRICS.
Recent developments highlight both the opportunities and limitations of BRICS engagement. At the Kazan Summit, five Southeast Asian nations – Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam – participated, with several engaging in high-level discussions with the New Development Bank (NDB). However, the NDB’s current investment portfolio, valued at around $33 billion, remains modest relative to the scale of the region’s development needs.
While countries like Thailand and Vietnam have emphasized critical issues such as supply chain resilience and infrastructure development, there is still uncertainty about whether BRICS can deliver meaningful solutions. Many of these priorities are already being addressed through bilateral and multilateral initiatives, raising questions about the bloc’s unique value proposition.
As BRICS expands and refines its agenda, it faces challenges in balancing the diverse interests of its members and carving out a distinctive role in a crowded institutional landscape. Recent summit initiatives, such as a rare earths platform, nuclear medicine group, and forums on special economic zones, represent steps toward addressing concrete challenges. However, the bloc’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on its ability to complement rather than compete with existing frameworks.
For Southeast Asia, BRICS is just one piece of a larger puzzle. The region’s engagement with the bloc reflects a pragmatic approach to navigating the fluid institutional environment of the Indo-Pacific. By taking part in multiple platforms, Southeast Asian nations are working to enhance their strategic autonomy while addressing pressing economic and developmental challenges.
The participation of Southeast Asian countries in BRICS underscores their broader efforts to adapt to a rapidly changing world order. As one Southeast Asian diplomat noted, reducing BRICS to a China-Russia narrative oversimplifies its dynamics. The bloc’s expansion and diversification are reshaping its identity, raising important questions about how its evolving membership will influence its trajectory.
Ultimately, Southeast Asian nations will play a pivotal role in shaping this conversation, leveraging their unique perspectives and priorities to influence BRICS’s direction. As the Indo-Pacific continues to transform, their engagement with BRICS and other platforms will remain central to their broader strategy of navigating institutional flux and advancing their national and regional interests.