BRICS and the Non-Aligned Movement: The Fox in the Chicken Coop?
At the 2025 BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made a bold historical comparison that deserves closer scrutiny. Speaking to leaders from the expanded BRICS bloc, Lula declared that “BRICS is the heir to the Non-Aligned Movement,” arguing that “with multilateralism under attack, our autonomy is in check once again.” This comparison, while politically expedient, reveals fundamental contradictions about what BRICS has become and raises serious questions about the organization’s true nature.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), founded in 1961, represented a principled attempt by developing nations to chart an independent course during the Cold War. Countries like India, Egypt, Yugoslavia, and Indonesia sought to avoid being drawn into either the American or Soviet spheres of influence, maintaining strategic autonomy while focusing on decolonization, economic development, and peaceful coexistence.
The movement’s core principle was simple: refuse to be pawns in great power competition. NAM countries wanted to develop their own political and economic systems without being forced to choose sides in the ideological battle between capitalism and communism.
The BRICS that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in July 2025 bears little resemblance to the original non-aligned vision. What began in 2009 as a modest grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa has expanded dramatically. The group now includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates as full members, with nine additional partner countries represented at the summit.
But here’s the fundamental problem with Lula’s comparison: BRICS includes two of the world’s most powerful and assertive authoritarian states, namely, China and Russia, along with Iran, a theocratic regime actively challenging Western interests across the Middle East. This is not non-alignment; it’s the formation of an alternative power bloc with clear geopolitical objectives.
The inclusion of China and Russia in a supposedly “non-aligned” movement is like inviting the fox into the chicken coop. These are not small, vulnerable developing nations seeking to avoid great power competition for they are the great powers themselves, with global ambitions and the military and economic capabilities to pursue them.
China, with its Belt and Road Initiative, South China Sea assertiveness, and growing military presence worldwide, is hardly a neutral actor seeking to avoid alignment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its broader confrontation with NATO makes any claim to non-alignment absurd. Iran’s proxy conflicts across the Middle East and its nuclear program similarly position it as an active challenger to the existing international order.
The inclusion of Iran particularly undermines any claim to legitimate non-alignment. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attended the Rio summit after President Masoud Pezeshkian couldn’t attend following recent U.S. strikes on Iranian territory. Rather than maintaining neutrality, Lula explicitly “defended the integrity of Iran’s borders” in his opening remarks, effectively taking sides in Iran’s confrontation with the United States and Israel.
This goes far beyond the original NAM principle of avoiding entanglement in great power conflicts.
BRICS is actively positioning itself as a protector of regimes that are in direct confrontation with Western democracies.
Defenders of BRICS might argue that the organization is primarily focused on economic cooperation rather than political alignment. The BRICS nations represent significant economic power with over 40% of global economic output and more than half the world’s population. The bloc’s initiatives, such as the New Development Bank and efforts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar, have genuine economic rationale.
However, economics and geopolitics cannot be separated so cleanly.
When BRICS leaders criticize “unjustified unilateral protectionist measures” and “indiscriminate increase of reciprocal tariffs” which are clear references to U.S. trade policy under President Trum, they are making explicitly political statements.
The organization’s joint declarations condemning Western sanctions and supporting Iran’s position reveal its political nature.
Lula’s statement that “if international governance does not reflect the new multipolar reality of the 21st century, it is up to BRICS to help bring it up to date” reveals the true nature of the organization.⁷
This is not about non-alignment; it’s about creating an alternative pole of power to challenge Western-led international institutions.
The original Non-Aligned Movement sought to stay out of great power competition. BRICS seeks to become a great power competitor. There’s a fundamental difference between these two approaches.
The contradictions become even more apparent when considering the internal dynamics of BRICS.
The organization includes both authoritarian regimes (China, Russia, Iran) and democratic states (Brazil, India, South Africa). It encompasses both major oil producers (Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE) and major oil consumers (China, India).
Some members are close U.S. allies (UAE, Saudi Arabia), while others are in direct confrontation with Washington.
This is not a coherent non-aligned movement but rather a collection of countries united primarily by their desire to challenge Western dominance, regardless of their other differences.
The fact that Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi Jinping skipped the Rio summit, sending lower-level representatives, suggests even the major powers within BRICS have varying levels of commitment to the organization.
Rather than claiming the mantle of the Non-Aligned Movement, BRICS leaders would be more honest to acknowledge what their organization actually represents: an alternative power bloc seeking to challenge Western hegemony.
This doesn’t make BRICS necessarily illegitimate for major power competition is a normal feature of international relations but it does make claims to non-alignment more than misleading.
The original Non-Aligned Movement represented the legitimate aspirations of newly independent nations seeking to chart their own course.
BRICS represents something different: the ambitions of major powers and their allies seeking to reshape the international order in their favor.
President Lula’s comparison of BRICS to the Non-Aligned Movement is more than just rhetorical flourish. It’s an attempt to claim moral authority for what is essentially a geopolitical power play. By wrapping BRICS in the language of non-alignment and Global South solidarity, its leaders hope to legitimize their challenge to Western-led institutions.
But words matter in geopolitics, and misusing historical precedents can obscure rather than illuminate current realities.
The Non-Aligned Movement represented a principled attempt to avoid great power competition. BRICS represents an active participation in it. Recognizing this difference is crucial for understanding the true nature of contemporary international relations and the challenges facing the liberal international order.
The fox is indeed in the chicken coop, but calling it a chicken doesn’t make it so.
And given President Lula’s visit to Moscow celebrating Russia’s victory in World War II and then turning around for a trip directly to Beijing, one could ask how this is protecting Brazil’s own global interests in the United States and Europe which are extensive as well?
Brazil’s Balancing Act: Partnering with the Multi-Polar World While Being a Democratic Power