XI’s BICKS NO-SHOW: STRATEGIC SHIFT OR SILENT WARNING?
CHINESE SYMBOLISM ON CONFIDENCE IN FULL PLAY
In the realm of global politics, symbolism matters almost as much as substance. President Xi Jinping of China has decided not to attend this year’s BRICS summit which will be held in Rio de Janeiro. This is the first time President Xi will not be at the summit since BRICS’s inception. This has become a breaking news globally. While the official explanation cites “scheduling conflicts,” the deeper reality suggests something more complex, and perhaps more consequential, for the future of the world’s most prominent coalition of emerging economies.
At first glance, the decision may seem trivial. After all, Chinese Premier Li Qiang will represent Beijing at the summit, and China’s foreign ministry insists that Beijing remains fully committed to BRICS and supports Brazil’s presidency of the group. But in international affairs, particularly in institutions built on mutual symbolism and solidarity, the absence of a key figure can speak louder than any official statement. It can send a message—intentional or not—about shifting priorities, evolving strategies, and potential fractures within alliances.
This is not the first time President Xi has chosen to skip a major international summit. In 2023, he declined to deliver a speech at the BRICS gathering in South Africa, delegating the task to his commerce minister without any clear explanation. The pattern of disengagement—two high-profile absences in two years—raises legitimate questions. Is China quietly stepping back from the frontline of BRICS leadership? Or is it, in fact, signalling supreme confidence that its influence within the bloc is so firmly established that personal appearances are no longer necessary?
To understand what may be at play, it is helpful to recall the historical context of BRICS itself. Originally conceived as a loose grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—economies outside the traditional Western sphere. BRICS has often been more aspirational than operational. Unlike NATO or the European Union, BRICS lacks binding treaties or a common defence policy. Its strength lies in its symbolism: a counterweight to Western dominance and a platform for the Global South to amplify its voice in world affairs.
China’s role in this group is undeniably central. It is the largest economy among the members by far, the principal driver of intra-BRICS trade, and a key player in development financing through institutions such as the New Development Bank. As of 2024, BRICS nations account for nearly 40% of global GDP—a staggering rise from the mere 8% they represented at the dawn of the millennium. Much of this economic transformation has been underpinned by China’s relentless growth and its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which has spread Chinese influence across Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
Given this commanding position, it is tempting to see Xi’s absence as a mark of confidence, not retreat. Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt or Winston Churchill did not need to attend every Allied summit in person to exert influence during World War II, Xi may be demonstrating that Beijing’s dominance is now institutionalized within BRICS. Whether he physically attends or not, China remains the gravitational center of the bloc’s economic and strategic agenda.
Yet this interpretation overlooks a crucial point: global leadership is not only about leverage but also about presence. History teaches that absent leaders can erode alliances. The post-World War I disillusionment with the League of Nations, largely due to the U.S.’s refusal to fully commit, is a stark example of how absenteeism can undercut global institutions. Even in modern times, when U.S. presidents skip key summits—as Donald Trump did with ASEAN gatherings—it often sows confusion and weakens diplomatic cohesion.
Moreover, symbolism matters even more for a grouping like BRICS, which is still in the process of defining its identity and role in the evolving world order. In this context, the Chinese president’s absence could inadvertently reinforce concerns about whether the bloc has the unity and shared vision necessary to challenge the Western-led system in a sustained and credible way.
A more plausible explanation lies in China’s broader recalibration of its global strategy. In recent years, Beijing has increasingly sought to exert influence through infrastructure investment, trade expansion, and technology rather than through high-profile diplomatic theater. Its growing economic ties with Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia, as well as its deep involvement in the Middle East through strategic partnerships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, illustrate a preference for concrete, often bilateral, engagements over symbolic multilateralism.
Furthermore, by maintaining a degree of ambiguity about its intentions—sometimes engaging, sometimes retreating—China may be borrowing a page from the playbook of leaders like Trump, who famously kept allies and adversaries guessing. In a fragmented world moving away from unipolarity, such unpredictability can be an asset. It prevents rival powers from coordinating against you and allows you to shift your diplomatic posture as circumstances change.
Looking ahead, the real test is not whether China skips another summit or two. The test is whether it remains willing to invest in the hard work of alliance management: building trust, resolving disputes, and showing up when it matters. The fate of BRICS as a credible alternative to Western-led institutions depends on such engagement. Without it, the bloc risks becoming little more than a statistical curiosity—a group that represents 40% of the global economy but fails to shape global outcomes.
In the end, Xi Jinping’s absence may not signify the end of China’s commitment to BRICS. But it may well mark the start of a more selective, calculated approach to global leadership—one that, while perhaps strategically sound for Beijing, carries the risk of weakening the very institutions through which leadership is exercised. Whether BRICS can thrive in such an environment will be one of the defining questions of the next decade.
Also published on Medium.
