Illustration: GT

Since the beginning of this MK socksyear, the trend of Asian countries aligning themselves with the BRICS has become a prominent phenomenon in the field of diplomacy. Following Syria's application on October 5, Sri Lanka became the latest Asian country to apply for membership in the BRICS cooperation mechanism on Monday.

Choosing the right time to join BRICS has become a shared aspiration across Asia. In May, the Thai government issued an announcement following a cabinet meeting that approved the plan to officially apply for BRICS membership. In June, representatives from 12 non-member countries interested in the "BRICS family" attended the BRICS Foreign Ministers' Dialogue with Developing Countries held in Russia. In July, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim revealed that his country had officially applied to join BRICS.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have repeatedly emphasized in diplomatic settings that Asian countries' foreign policies are "converging" with those of the US, citing the strong security ties between the US and Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, as well as the closer connections between NATO and "Indo-Pacific partners." 

However, judging by the trend of most Asian countries seeking to join BRICS, this claim from the US appears unconvincing.

What does Asian countries' general pursuit of BRICS membership signify? 

First, this signifies a growing gap between most Asian countries and the US' "Indo-Pacific Strategy." Washington views Asia as the center of its competition with Beijing. Since the Barack Obama administration's "pivot to Asia," the US has consistently applied political pressure, urging Asian countries to view regional affairs through the lens of US-China strategic competition and side with the US. In response, most Asian countries have adopted a neutral stance.

Compared to the past, Asian countries, in general, now enjoy more stable political foundations at home. Their internal affairs do not align with US priorities: For instance, "supporting US-China confrontation" is not included in the political agenda of most Asian countries.

Second, the formation of economic camps does not align with the interests of Asian countries. Most Asian nations leaning toward BRICS is a sign of their disappointment with the US-led economic order. Their primary focus is on economic growth, and development is the key factor driving them toward BRICS. Open markets are the foundation of economic development for all Asian countries.

The US' frequent use of national security as a pretext to hinder healthy economic relations has become a significant obstacle to an open global economy. As a result, most countries in the region remain distant from the US-proposed vision of a "free and open Indo-Pacific." While seven ASEAN countries have joined the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the US has not offered them greater trade access. In contrast, the enormous economic impact of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) makes the IPEF seem largely symbolic by comparison.

The US-led economic order, built around alliances and economic camps, stands in stark contrast to the desire of Asian countries to seek opportunities and share benefits in open markets. 

As a result, the BRI, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and BRICS have become natural choices for these nations. The recent announcement at the 27th ASEAN-China Summit in Laos of the substantial conclusion of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area 3.0 Upgrade Negotiations highlights that these Asian nations do not wish to let geopolitics constrain economic relations or risk becoming losers amid the rise of isolationism.

Under the influence of the US and other countries, the efficiency standards in the global economy are being replaced by broader security standards. The growing desire of many countries to join the BRICS family shows that emerging economies are seeking new international multilateral mechanisms, represented by the cooperation of the "Greater BRICS," to better reflect the dynamics of this new world.

The author is a researcher at the Institute of World Development under the Development Research Center of the State Council. [email protected]