there. ♪ >> a new era for brics nations. the five nations plan to welcome six new ones and are planning new currency arrangements. can brics really shake up the world's economic architecture? this is insight story. -- inside story. welcome. at a summit in johannesburg, the

brics alliance has asked -- agreed to expand from five to 11 members. there may be my strength in numbers, but it is also part of the drive to reduce reliance on the u.s. dollar in a polarized world. what will expansion mean? brics is comprised of five major emerging economies -- china, brazil, russia, south africa, and india. but it is looking to more than double its membership. the new nations include argentina, saudi arabia, and ethiopia. it has got close ties with russia and china but also the united states. the others are iran, egypt, and the united arab emirates. there is also plenty more discussion.

the world development bank in shanghai plans to land using the currencies of brics members. more cooperation with african numbers has also been promised. >> tenant will better harness its resources for cooperation with africa and initiatives of businesses to support africa in growing into many fracturing sector and realizing industrialization and economic diversification. >> our relationship with china will be one of promoting win-win outcomes based also on a new project that we have initiated, which is the africa continental area, which is going to be the engine of our economic development. >> attending remotely was

bloodier peyton -- putin. speaking from moscow, he also promised support for africa. >> right now, we are concluding negotiations with various african nations. legitimate sanctions imposed against our exports will complicate insurance. russia will always remain a reliable food supplier and continue to support the countries most in need. nick: other leaders pushed for solutions to quality and politics. >> the expansion and modernization of brics is a message that all global institutions must adapt to the changing times. this can be an example for the reform of other 20th century about institutions. >> the energy transition cannot

represent -- replicate the expectation of the colonial past. we need solutions that diversify and add value to developing countries. the planet is becoming more unequal. growth and poverty shows that. nick: let's bring in our guest from berlin. he is founder and editor in chief of a business that media company focusing on emerging markets. and the senior researcher for global dialogue. and from beijing, our china affairs analyst. it welcome to all of you. brics is bigger and better than before. for the good? >> it is interesting.

i think what is going on is historic in so much as a fair view of the brics themselves is that we have been in emerging markets, struggling with policy, basic things. and -- ended with the collapse of the soviet union. and everyone has embraced markets. the idea is -- and these emerging markets are beginning to emerge. they are now starting to say that we want to have more of a say in the way the world is ints represented. and they are represented in things like the u.s. security council.

what they are doing it is coming together in order to represent their interests to what they see as a world run by the u.s. there are tensions but also many divisions within the brics. some want to cooperate. some like china and russia want to challenge the west and be more aggressive. within the group, there is a lot of dissent about how that should be done. nick: more on those divisions in a moment, but for south africa, what is wrong with the status quo, the imf, the world bank? arina: 20 think about why the brics came together, they say voices were not heard across platforms already available, but

for a country like south africa that feels how currencies move immensely, this has the potential to make a difference but the same time while the brics are able to come together and strive for equitable world order, it is important to remember the wildly brics -- wildly brics -- while the brics ones to strive for world order, they are acting in their national interests, muddling through uncertain global realities. for south africa, it is about how well it is able to domesticate this kind of brics agenda. what is it able to do in terms of taking these bilateral relationships and making the best out of it? and we see two elements in that -- expansion. the last time brics explained it 2010 with south africa being

included. and payment systems, looking at what can be done and how can we look at potentially toward meeting the dollar and creating more infrastructure for more currencies? nick: and we will come unto that. einar tangen, brics is not competing with anyone said p utin, but that is not the case. it isn't is about new economic world order? einar: not exactly. let's talk about the g7. they were supposed to be the leading nations, guiding the world order, economics, etc. then they were not useful during the economic crisis in 2008. so you have the emergence of the g20, basically doing exactly

where the g8 could not do. then flash forward. you have a group of powers who have been denied access to any kind of economic and political power that they feel they deserve. and there is a huge vacuum. the g7 have not been able to come forward. they were not very helpful when it came to covid. and they are not being helpful when it comes to the economic problems here. brics is a natural outcropping of countries that are united in the sense that they were all victimized by colonization. if you add them up, it is interesting. if you take the global south and also central asia, you have

about 160 countries. but what do they have? the majority of the worlds resources -- markets and production. the question becomes if they come together and start doing what you have happen without pack, -- with opec they could instead of asking for money to deal with climate change and demand fair prices. nick: ben, what do you make of that and the point that you have china and russia and rising tensions with the u.s. and the west? now brics is adding countries to its team that are openly antagonistic to the west, like iran. this is basically becoming an anti-western block. ben: oh, yes. that is the prices they have just started on. they are trying to work out a modus operandi. china and russia need india,

brazil, south africa also on board. brazil and india have made it clear that they do not want to have composition with the west, so much as they have good relations and investments. they find that within themselves how they are going to work this. they were just at the beginning of the process, first serious discussion but nevertheless, people who were lobbying, russia was pushing for iran to be included. brazil was pushing for argentina. they are going to have this disparate group. but, yes, it is inevitable that they are going to clash with the west to some extent. and some have said this group will not work because they do not have enough in common ideologically or system wise, but it is about what they control. between them, they control, with

the addition of saudi arabia, that is particularly significant. brics+ controls 42% of the world oil production. they were already cooperating in the commercial sense with opec. now they are cooperating on a political level. china also controls huge amounts of process and the vehicle revolution. so the potential for a nasty clashes there, but i think everyone is edging their way forward, figuring out how this is going to work. people like the states are going to have to make some sort of compromise. we are in an undefined era as the emerging world emerges and starts to demand things faster.

either the west will take that answer to camp or not and this could get ugly. nick: as far as brics+ is internally concerned, how will they avoid those clashes when you have got countries with very different economies and very different foreign-policy objectives, how can they be cohesive? arina: many have come to say that this movie to include these countries at the moment dilutes the power of brics politically because it is difficult to reach consensus. at the moment, it seems that most geographic activity is slow to encapsulate the full potential of south america and this could be a future strategy to look at another phase of expansion, but if you look at the clustering right now, this gives brics a strategic middle east north africa outlook, while

these countries come with significant challenges of their own. egypt and ethiopia are at an impasse. china is doing a lot in heavy lifting in terms of saudi arabia and iran to broker some kind of reconciliation, but this does not erase years of competing foreign policies between saudi arabia coming you the, and iran. even argentina, its iranian relations have been tense, but bringing in one or two without the other isolates the other, potentially pushing them to take destabilizing positions for the region. from one perspective, the brics be moving to have a stronger economic impetus, but what if where does this show a strategic decision to shift attention away from the indo pacific as an

anticipated theater of play? and you saw the proposition of indonesia, vietnam, thailand, where some have intimated that they needed more time to understand the implications of creating some kind of brics indo pacific anchor, but shifting attention back to the middle east from the indo pacific, does this contain the military-industrial complex in that region? it create new markets? nick: you mentioned climate change. this is a good example of the potential for differences even though we have different parties with brazil and china. brazil is proenvironment under the current president. china is still emitting on a huge scale. is that going to be a stumbling block? or might it make china more

conducive to playing ball? >> i do not understand what you say that china is behind the wall. there is always this thing that china is building coal plants. what they actually do is they close down 30 or 40 coal plants and will build one that is less polluting. they are doing this as a stopgap. they have plans. china tends to meet any kind of deadline that they set for themselves. i would not be worried about that. also, china is the leader in the electric car industry. they are going along on that same line. this idea than they are at loggerheads is wrong. nick: can brics+ ba.4's a good in the fight against climate change? ben: it can, but here's the

problem. brics cannot have everybody join. you dilute the decision-making power. but i think that as a middle power represented different regions, they can go back to the g7, who have not come forward with their promises. there was a promise of what hundred billion dollars a year. only 10% of that has been delivered. of that, most of the projects somehow developed -- a benefit developed countries. it is dubious as to whether they will produce any real environmental effects. with a different entity represented this regions, they can say, "you folks have to pony up." right now, there is nobody to hold the developed world accountable. you cannot go to the u.n. or

anywhere. right now, the brics is the best chance of getting some real environmental action. they have leverage. this is the only thing that is respected despite all the high sounding rhetoric about how we believe in the rule of law and international order. the fact is that the u.s., has been starting wars, breaking trees. it just goes on undermining international institutions like the wto. it can be a force for good but i do not see it is ideological. too many differences, but i see it is a grouping. they do have something in common. every one of these nations was victimized by colonialization at one point or another. nick: that brings me to my next point. let me take you back to the 1950's.

the original norman line movement was set up. the presidents of egypt, yugoslavia and india, it was successful but it turned back to the west in the 1980's. are there lessons to be learned from that? ben: things have changed dramatically in so much as an alliance in those days could be weekend empires were at the higher that height of their power. what has changed now is that the balance shifted towards emerging markets. however, that is 40% of the worlds population and 25% in terms of gdp. but if you look at the diversifying power, the world is no richer than the developed -- the emergent world is no richer than the developed. we are starting to be in charge. we all agree that there is

something ideological uniting these countries. the that is holding them together is the enemy at the gates mentality. i think the weight this is going to work is they are going to be pragmatic as emerging markets dealing with lots of problems. it is not a question of values or ideology or philosophy. it is simply we have got things to fix. they are pointing at the currency, the dollar's dominance in the world trading system. they are not happy with that. it gives the united states enormous power. russia has suddenly had confiscations and is being banned from the financial system. china is looking at that. india is looking at that. they are wearing. this is where this enemy at the gate and comes from.

russia is already in conflict with the states, as is iran but india, china, south africa, other emerging markets, they are like what we will have a run in with the states of on point. our currency is such to collapse our economies. russia is strong enough to survive this but smaller countries cannot. this is another reason why the global south is running to this brics organization. they need someone to stand up to the west and represent their interests. there is no rails to go. the best nowhere else to go. not the u.n., no international court. the brics is an alternative and it is attracting a lot of interest because of that. nick: tell us about the new development bank and the plans to land using the home country's

currency of brics members. einar: it is not theoretical anymore. just before the -- what this does is puts bonds out in the currency and takes enormous pressure of the country. they do not have to worry about what will happen to the dollar. if you are investing money from outside of south africa and buying brand bonds, you have to worry about it, but it transfers the risk to those who are more capable of doing it. investors can pitch their positions, but people trying to make money are generally in a lesser position. the fact that the rand bonds were oversubscribed many times and then hit above their target bodes well, but there will have

to be more than just one bond issuance. they are going to have to have markets with a catalyst. within the grouping, you have uad, which would be happy to garner some of their business. obviously, china can do part of it, there is a long way to go before the dollarization. that is far-off, at this whole issue about hedging, having more money, especially between countries where trading, why should they use dollars when they can trade directly to their currency to the value of the trade that they have? there is a lot de-risking going on. that financial term was never meant to be political. nick: this is more about finding an alternative to the system rather than the dollar? arina: it is called de-

dollarization. it is about creating trust in local currencies. the dollar has been used extensively over decades. there is liquidity that is attached. traders want to make sure they received -- that is why there is such trust placed in this and why it is expected to take longer to achieve, but it is not to say that payment systems are already in place and banks are already working with them. the brics started this mechanism in 2010. they created a lot of investing in regional financial services, technology. so you see a lot of low hanging fruits reaching for those low fritz. and a lot of relationships between banks, if i can drop

this back to how south africa was engaging, and the continental free-trade area specifically, which was part of the brics summit this year, this comes back to creating institutions where africans can benefit. in relating payments in local currencies and tilting this up, you have the pan african payment settlement system and on that, they want to create markets that consortium from these. nick: we are coming to the end of the program. ben, last word. anton gutierrez was in johannesburg, echoing the words of the imf and world bank. is that going to happen anytime soon? ben: i do not think so. it is going to be too difficult.

numbers of the security council are not happy with that but somebody like china and russia are lobbying. there is not a representative from africa. the others are going to resist that. they do not want to upset powell. that used for the west. the other institutions, china is busy rallying people in the general assembly. and building up a voting block. i think of the parties themselves, we can see other people being appointed. this whole thing with the rise of the brics, we are at the beginning of what will take decades to happen, but it is inevitable given the size of these markets, these need there are growing at and the importance of the global economy. it is not to be resistant it is just a question of how this process works -- smoothly report less so? nick: we will have the it there.

they came to our gas -- guests and thank you for watching good you can see the program again at our website aljazeera.com. you can also join the conversation on x, formerly known as twitter. for me, nick clark, and the whole team, it is goodbye for now.

lydia feng: chinese youth are living in a brave new world. they're richer, better educated, and more connected than ever before. but they're also under constant pressure to compete and to conform. male: [speaking in foreign language] zhao jia: [speaking in foreign language] male: [speaking in foreign language] lydia: we've collaborated with chinese filmmakers to bring you three intimate stories of young people