The BRICS are the new defenders of free trade, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank

First published at CADTM.

BRICS+ is a diverse coalition consisting of 10 countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, joined in 2024 by Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran). Notably some of these nations are direct allies of the United States.

Faced with Donald Trump’s aggressive stance on customs tariffs, the BRICS+ member countries are engaging in negotiations that lack cohesion. There is no evident effort on their part to form a unified bloc. In response to Trump’s attacks, China and India are strengthening their ties and maintaining significant trade relations with Russia, but these nations are not cooperating as a bloc, either with the other two founding members of BRICS, Brazil and South Africa, or collectively as BRICS+.

While the 10 BRICS+ member countries account for half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil energy resources, 30% of global GDP and 50% of economic growth, they do not propose a different development model.

BRICS leaders are deeply rooted in the capitalist mode of production, which has provoked to the current ecological crisis. The BRICS countries support the preservation of the existing international financial architecture (with the IMF and the World Bank at its core) and international trade system (WTO, free trade agreements, etc).

What do the BRICS countries propose in terms of the international financial system?

Although the 10 BRICS+ member countries represent half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil energy resources, 30% of global domestic product and 50% of growth, they do not propose to implement a different development model.

The BRICS+ countries assert that the IMF should continue to be the cornerstone of the international financial system.

In the final declaration of the BRICS+ summit held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in early July 2025, the following is stated in point 11:

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) must remain adequately resourced and agile, at the centre of the global financial safety net (GFSN), to effectively support its members, particularly the most vulnerable countries.” 

They also express their support for the World Bank. In point 12 of their declaration, they indicate a desire to enhance the legitimacy of this institution. However, since their inception, both the World Bank and the IMF have implemented policies that contradict the interests of people and ecological balance.

The BRICS+ have stated their intention to bolster the financial capacities of the IMF and enhance the legitimacy of the World Bank.

The BRICS countries express a desire for improved representation of so-called developing countries within the IMF and the World Bank. That is all. Numerous authors, along with the CADTM have illustrated that both the World Bank, and the IMF perpetuate an anti-democratic under-representation of these developing nations. Moreover, their governance structures tend to favour the interests of the major economic powers and large private corporations.

In their final declaration, the BRICS countries fails to critique the neoliberal policies that the two Bretton Woods institutions actively promote. At no point do they question the debts that these institutions are demanding repayment from indebted countries.

This stance taken by BRICS in support of the IMF and the WB contradicts the interests of the people and the positions held social and/or anti-globalisation movements. 

What is the BRICS+ position on the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?

The BRICS countries have emerged as the principal advocates of the WTO, which has been effectively paralysed by President Trump’s actions during his first term in office. In 2017, the Trump administration declined to appoint new judges to the WTO’s Appellate Body which acts as the “supreme court” of international trade, resolving disputes between states following an initial panel’s ruling. As this body has remained blocked since 2017, the WTO has been rendered inoperable.

In point 13 of the Rio Declaration of July 2025, the BRICS+ countries affirm their support for WTO rules and assert that the WTO must be at the heart of the global trading system. The BRICS+ countries state:

“We emphasise that the WTO, on its 30th anniversary, remains the only multilateral institution with the necessary mandate, expertise, universal reach and capacity to lead on the multiple dimensions of international trade discussions, including the negotiation of new trade rules.”

It should be remembered that social movements, La Via Campesina and the anti-globalisation movement (the movement against neoliberal capitalist globalisation) have systematically criticised and condemned the WTO for its detrimental role, as its actions run counter to the interests of workers, farmers, local economies and nature (see box on the WTO at the end).

In the final declaration of the BRICS+ summit in Rio 2025, which spans approximately 40 pages and consists of 126 points, there is no reference to the suspension of patents on vaccine production. These patents, however, serve the specific interests of large private pharmaceutical companies, whose main motivation is the pursuit of maximum profits.

To understand the BRICS+ position, it is essential to recognise that China has secured an advantage over the United States and Europe regarding production and trade, both in terms of costs and productivity, and technological advantages in a number of important sectors. China has emerged as a staunch proponent of free trade, free trade agreements, WTO rules and free competition, while the United States, the EU, the UK and Canada have become increasingly protectionist.1

In the name of compliance with WTO rules, the BRICS+ countries denounce the protectionist measures and trade sanctions imposed by the United States and the European powers. Of course, Russia and Iran, which are directly affected by the sanctions, strongly advocate for free trade, oppose protectionism, and criticise them (refer to point 14 of the final declaration).

In addition, the governments of North America and Western Europe have abandoned the rhetoric and actions that once favoured globalisation — rhetoric they had previously championed as a path to prosperity from the 1990s to the mid-2010s, while engaging in a trade war with China. During this period, from 1997 to 2013, Russia was invited to attend meetings of the G7 (comprising the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, and Italy). Consequently, the G7 was referred to as the G8 during this timeframe. Meanwhile, the United States regarded China as an intriguing economic and trading partner (Refer to Benjamin Bürbaumer, Chine/États-Unis, le capitalisme contre la mondialisation, La Découverte, Paris, 2024, 302 pages).

Now, the BRICS have emerged as the main advocates of capitalist globalisation, which is itself in crisis. In point 8 of the final declaration of the Rio 2025 summit, they state:

“We acknowledge that multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to develop their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation.”

Point 43 of the declaration reads:

“We reiterate the importance of ensuring that trade and sustainable development policies are mutually supportive, and aligned with WTO rules.”

Conclusions

The expansion of the BRICS in 2024, now referred to as BRICS+, has generated expectations regarding their potential to provide an alternative to the global economic system largely dominated by traditional imperialist powers, particularly the United States. However, despite their significant demographic and economic influence — comprising nearly half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil fuel resources, 30% of global GDP, and 50% of economic growth — the BRICS+ nations do not appear to seek a departure from the existing international neoliberal framework.

On the financial front; the final declaration of the Rio summit (July 2025) reaffirms the central role of the IMF and the World Bank. The BRICS+ nations restrict themselves to advocating for better representation of developing countries without challenging the structural adjustment policies, imposed debts, or the neoliberal orientation of these institutions. Regarding trade, BRICS+ members support the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which has been effectively paralysed since the US blockade initiated by Donald Trump in 2017. They underscore its legitimacy and aim to position it at the core of the global trading system, yet fail to address its detrimental effects on local economies, social rights or the environment.

In practice, China, supported by other members, is multiplying free trade agreements and promoting capitalist globalisation based on free trade, even as the former powers of the North are now turning towards protectionism. Thus, far from representing a counter-model, the BRICS+ countries present themselves as the new defenders of a globalised capitalist system in crisis, to the detriment of social movements and alternatives based on social justice, economic sovereignty and environmental protection.
By supporting the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, they perpetuate globalised neoliberalism instead of presenting a viable alternative. This stance illustrates their intention to enhance their influence within these dominant institutions, all the while remaining aligned, with a destructive logic detrimental to both peoples and the planet.

Far from serving as a means of emancipation for the countries of the South, the BRICS+ seem to act as collaborators in managing a crisis-ridden capitalism that has steered the planet towards ecological disaster, an escalation in armed conflicts, and a significant deterioration of crimes against humanity crimes against humanity. In light of this, it falls upon social and anti-globalisation movements to persist in advocating for alternative proposals: protection of common goods, solidarity between peoples, economic sovereignty, ecological bifurcation — a decisive break with the current destructive model — and social justice.

The author would like to thank Omar Aziki, Sushovan Dhar, Jawad Moustakbal and Maxime Perriot for their proofreading and inputs. The author is solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this text and any errors it may contain.

Why is the WTO’s action negative? Why should we oppose it?

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) comprises 166 member countries and commenced operations in 1995. It seeks to eliminate all barriers that nations implement to safeguard their local producers.

However, contrary to the aims of WTO, customs barriers should be employed, for example, to protect small farms, small and medium-sized enterprises and/or public enterprises, which for various reasons are unable to compete with products exported by more technologically advanced economies. Customs protections can also safeguard local businesses from competition posed by imports from economies that benefit from lower wages due to labour exploitation. Furthermore, these protections can be used to shield so-called developing economies from an influx of goods from countries that heavily subsidise their domestic production, particularly that which is intended for export. It is well-documented that major economic powers, such as those in North America and Western Europe, often resort to substantial subsidies for their large companies, frequently circumventing WTO rules, despite having played a key role in establishing them.

The WTO, through the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the strongly promotes the privatisation of essential public services (water, health, education, transport, etc.). This approach tends to enhance the dominance of multinational corporations while marginalising smaller local entities. Additionally, the WTO plays a significant role in defending intellectual property rights through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), encompassing sensitive areas such as medicines, seeds and technology. For instance, during the Covid pandemic, the WTO, facing pressure from powerful nations and multinational pharmaceutical companies, declined to suspend these intellectual property rules, thereby hindering access to vaccines for poorer countries. In terms of plant varieties, the WTO has been instrumental in enforcing stringent intellectual property rights standards, which has led to the global privatization of agricultural life, adversely affecting the rights of small farmers and undermining seed sovereignty in various nations. Furthermore, the WTO collaborates with the IMF and the World Bank, forming a trio that promotes policies beneficial to multinationals and enforces a shift in the economies of developing countries towards greater integration into the global market, resulting in increased economic, financial, and food dependency.

From the perspective of people’s interests, countries (or groups of countries) should adopt policies that contravene WTO rules to bolster local production and cater to domestic market. This entails addressing the needs of their populations, particularly, by subsidising local producers. Contrary to WTO rules, countries ought to be able to protect their public services and public enterprises from foreign competition. Historically, all economies that have successfully achieved industrial diversification and food sovereignty have done so by protecting their domestic markets from competition.

It is important to note that Great Britain only adopted free trade in the second half of the 19th century, having reached a sufficient level of technological advancement to withstand competition. Prior to this, Great Britain was highly protectionist, systematically safeguarding its local industry (refer to the works of Paul Bairoch2 and many other authors). This trend was also evident in the United States, which only cautiously embraced free trade after the Second World War, once its industries had achieved significant technological advances. The same was true of South Korea in the 1960s and 1970s (see: Éric Toussaint, South Korean miracle is exposed). Japan followed a similar path from the 19th century until the latter half of the 20th century. China, too, strongly protected its market and supported its industries until it achieved a competitive advantage, which has now positioned it as a major proponent of free trade.

Trump’s protectionist and aggressive stance on customs duties stems from a significant loss of competitiveness within the US economy, rendering local industries unable to compete with products from China and other countries in both global and domestic markets. This situation is hampering the functionality of the WTO, especially given that, during his first term — followed by Biden — Trump did not appoint any US judges to fill the vacancies on the WTO tribunal, thereby obstructing its operations.

It is a mistake for the left to assume that reviving the WTO, in the name of multilateralism, would be beneficial. We should not endorse the BRICS+ countries’ pro-WTO position. This perspective, particularly supported by China, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates, aligns with a push to increase the number of free trade agreements that undermine local producers while favouring the interests of large transnational corporations, predominantly from the North, though some from the South are also involved. China is increasingly signing free trade agreements, and Brazil is keen to ratify the MERCOSUR-European Union free trade agreement. However, social movements in both Europe and MERCOSUR are opposing this initiative.

As opposed to free trade agreements, should advocate for agreements between groups of countries that collaborate to implement economic, social, and cultural policies aimed at promoting human rights while respecting the environment, prioritising social and environmental justice. These agreements ought to encompass trade within a broader framework grounded in the principles of solidarity and complementarity. Increasing trade should not be viewed as an end in itself; far from it. Instead, prioritising non-commercial exchanges is essential, including the sharing of knowledge, free transfer of technology and know-how, reparations, restitution of ill-gotten gains, etc.

Countries should be empowered to safeguard the environment and biodiversity by enacting stringent regulations to prevent the overexploitation of natural resources and the destruction of ecosystems.

It is important to note that in 2022, the World Trade Organization (WTO) declined to support a proposal endorsed by over a hundred countries in the Global South, which sought to lift patent restrictions on vaccines. The objective of this proposal was to facilitate large-scale production to protect populations affected by the pandemic.

• 1

  There are, of course, exceptions, particularly when the EU maintains its advantage in its relations with less advanced trading partners, for example with African countries, where it remains in favour of free trade agreements.

• 2

  Paul Bairoch: Economics and World History. Myths and Paradoxes, Nueva York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993, índice, 182 pp.