The UN anti-Russia resolution has revealed that Brics is just an old boys’ club

It is no secret that the real aim of the statement that former president Jacob Zuma issued on the Russian-Ukrainian war was to make himself appear better than Cyril Ramaphosa.

However, to his credit, the statement helped to clarify the fact that under him, South Africa would have voted against the anti-Russia resolution at the UN General Assembly last week.

ALSO READ: South Africa: A Mickey Mouse member of Brics

Brics was evidently Zuma’s area of strength. Despite being the last to join the bloc, SA was more active in Brics then than it became under Ramaphosa. Zuma vigorously advocated the Brics cause and it was during his time that our relations with fellow Brics member states rapidly strengthened.

We saw them set up the Brics Bank, as it is known, trade with China multiplied and Russian President Vladimir Putin became more of a personal friend to Zuma. South Africa and Russia were close to striking a nuclear deal when Zuma’s time was up at the Union Buildings.

So, his “nuclear energy” dream was deferred. Whether it was a genuine deal or a personal project to benefit himself and his business friends the Gupta way is a topic for another day. But one thing is for sure.

Zuma’s statement was, as usual, meant to undermine the position taken by Ramaphosa on the Russian issue to abstain and encourage dialogue between the warring parties. With or without Zuma in the picture, the UN vote revealed that Brics is not the united force we always thought it was.

The countries went their different ways with at least one backing the Western position to lambaste Russia and demand it pulls out of Ukraine. Russia of course vetoed the resolution while SA, China and India abstained.

But in a shock move, Brazil voted against Russia, a fellow Brics member, a move which said Brics is developing nations trying out a boys’ club. Brics has proven during the current Russian-Ukrainian war that, unlike the European Union, it is not about guarding the strategic interests of its members but is merely a fraternal bloc operating along the lines of the “old boys club” perfected by the African Union.

The strength of members’ solidarity is questionable. This is in contrast to the European Union, which was quick to impose sanctions against Russia in support of a call by the United States to punish Moscow for what Washington saw as invasion.

ALSO READ: Russia-Ukraine war: Brics bank stops doing business with Russia

The EU action was a clear sign that the body was established based on solidarity among its member nations who are part of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Russia on its own is a strong country militarily and the US knows that. But Moscow’s supposed loose allies, China and North Korea, could not be trusted to reach for their guns should Russia be attacked by America. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, which included Ukraine, military solidarity has weakened for Russia.

Neither China nor North Korea have an alliance with Moscow binding them to join it in any war. But if the unlikely scenario developed where Russia fought and was defeated by the Nato allies, Beijing and Pyongyang would be vulnerable to Western attacks at a later stage, so it would be in their best interests to assist Russia in the event of war.