Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

IBSA vs BRICS: China and India courting Africa

Reading Time: 4 mins

In Brief

The India–Brazil–South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), founded by the Brasilia Declaration in 2003, serves as a coordinating mechanism between its member states.

The Declaration cited three major reasons as the basis for closer cooperation: shared democratic credentials, developing country status and desire to act on a global scale.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Meanwhile, the ‘BRICs’ countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) attained global significance in 2008 with the onset of the global financial crisis for their positive economic growth. After the grouping inducted South Africa in 2011, the newly-termed ‘BRICS’ took on a geopolitical character, as a multilateral forum incorporating these five emerging economies, and released its first formal declaration after the Sanya summit in 2011.

South Africa’s inclusion in the BRIC grouping poses distinct geopolitical and ideological challenges to India. With this latest induction, the China-centric nature of BRICS has served to overshadow India’s traditional role as an ideological leader of the global South; and the economic might of BRICS now has the potential to render IBSA irrelevant. This situation poses unique challenges to the strengthening of regional initiatives and their engagement with developing countries.

India’s bilateral trade figures with South Africa pale in comparison to those of China. And the nature of the Chinese economy, whose strength lies in manufacturing, makes competing in terms of trade an extremely difficult task. Further, much has been made of Sino–Indian rivalry in Africa’s primary sector, for example, as Chinese and Indian firms regularly compete to win contracts. But even here the degree of ‘competition’ is debatable, with collusion and collaboration also characterising this quest for resources and investment. Rather, competition is principally manifested geopolitically, as South Africa is seen to be strategically aligning itself more closely with China.

China drastically increased its engagement with South Africa after establishing diplomatic relations in 1998, evolving the relationship into a strategic partnership in 2010. China’s courting of South Africa should not simply be seen as a strategy to impede India’s diplomatic initiatives and strategic planning in the region. A strong partnership with South Africa would grant China an additional foothold, having already established strong ties with Angola and Zimbabwe.

China also instigated the extension of BRIC membership to South Africa and subsequently lobbied India to dissolve IBSA, arguing there would be unnecessary overlap with BRICS. Beijing equally proposed a BRICS–IBSA joint summit in Sanya, an offer which India declined, strategically opting to retain its own forum. The language used in the Sanya Declaration seems to justify this move, revealing a dominant Chinese influence within the grouping.

India views the Indian Ocean region as its legitimate sphere of influence — and the Chinese foothold in the African littorals as detrimental to its strategic interests. The presence of high-profile Chinese ventures on the continent further challenges India’s cultivation of strategic ties with Africa: a situation which could eventually impact on India’s energy security, given its dependency on African resources.

Consequently, India has attached increased strategic importance to IBSA for several key reasons. The IBSA Forum provides a platform forIndia to engage South America and Africa constructively and its focus on socio-economic development allows India to firmly establish its credentials as a leading partner for Africa’s development. But India cannot adequately address its concerns regarding the reform of global institutions through IBSA alone. South Africa’s induction into BRICS therefore gives India a comparative ideological advantage over China by potentially creating an IBSA bloc within BRICS.

For IBSA and BRICS to prosper and expand their influence, coexistence and cooperation seem to be the most viable option; narrow, focused and complementary target areas should be identified to facilitate this. BRICS is a stronger economic grouping and is more suited to addressing global political and economic issues, whereas IBSA already has mechanisms in place to tackle socio-economic and development issues. IBSA also holds greater soft power potential owing to the ideological unity of emerging democracies, and there is a more evenly-balanced power status among the group’s members.

Nabeel A Mancheri is a Postdoctoral Associate at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

Shantanu S was an intern at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

Comments are closed.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.