What’s behind some Southeast Asia countries’ push to join BRICS and will Trump’s win be a catalyst?

SINGAPORE: Amid geopolitical tensions in an increasingly fractured world, some Southeast Asian nations are more keen than others in the region to join the BRICS grouping of emerging economies.
But even among those – namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam – that have recently become partner countries of BRICS, not all are pressing for full membership.
This reflects a mix of individual national goals and regional interests, analysts told CNA. 
Beyond that, more Southeast Asian nations could signal their interest to join BRICS as a hedge against the uncertainties of US economic policies under the upcoming presidency of Mr Donald Trump. 
“This Trump 2.0 presidency could push Southeast Asian countries to explore closer ties with BRICS, motivated by concerns over US economic policies,” said Mr Jamil Ghani, a doctoral candidate at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore.  
CNA takes a closer look at how Southeast Asian countries view BRICS and why some may still want to keep the bloc at arm’s length. 
Last month, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam were recognised as partner countries to the BRICS bloc along with nine other nations at a summit in Kazan. 
BRICS was first established in 2006 and initially comprised Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa joining the grouping in 2010. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) became BRICS members this year. 
Together, the member economies represent over US$28.5 trillion or about 28 per cent of the global economy. 
Analysts told CNA that even among the Southeast Asian nations that have been recognised as BRICS partner countries, some appear to be more motivated in wanting to seek full membership of the bloc as compared to others.
Dr Ian Storey, a senior fellow at Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, noted that Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand have all announced that they will seek full membership of the organisation.
“That suggests they are comfortable with the direction in which BRICS is moving and see economic and geopolitical advantages in being full members. Vietnam, on the other hand, is being more cautious. For the time being it is content to remain a BRICS partner,” he said. 
“Hanoi is a bit wary that if BRICS takes on a more anti-Western slant this could impair its relations with the US and the European Union, its two biggest export markets.”
Agreeing, Ms Sharon Seah – a senior fellow and coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute – said that Vietnam’s strategic outlook on joining multilateral groupings such as BRICS is “different and may undergo a longer process of internal deliberation”. 
“One reason why Vietnam could be hesitant might be due to BRICS’ rapid expansion in the last year and the relative lack of transparency in admitting new members. Another could be the perception that Vietnam is taking sides by joining BRICS,” she said. 
“Vietnam pursues a multi-alignment policy of neutrality and joining different groupings could complicate its conduct of foreign policy.” 
Meanwhile, Mr Jamil said that Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand could potentially see BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB) as a “crucial alternative for infrastructure and development funding, which is important to their growth agendas”. 
“Joining BRICS also aligns with their broader strategy of balancing geopolitical relations, helping them maintain autonomy amid intensifying US-China competition,” he added. 
The NDB – formerly referred to as the BRICS Development Bank – was established in 2015 to mobilise resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging market economies and developing countries. 
Analysts also argue that Malaysia and Indonesia could potentially be driven more by political motivations and the foreign policy approach of their respective leaders to join the bloc. 
“In Indonesia’s case, it is more of Prabowo’s desire to be seen as the leader of the Global South … Prabowo sees that he needs to join BRICS or otherwise he will be left behind,” Associate Professor Yohanes Sulaiman from Indonesia’s Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani told CNA, referring to President Prabowo Subianto. 
Dr Ong Kian Ming, pro vice-chancellor for external engagement at Taylor’s University in Malaysia, also echoed the same sentiment when commenting on Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s enthusiasm to join BRICS. 
“This is in line with (Mr) Anwar’s foreign policy approach of ‘balancing’ between the big powers,” Dr Ong, a former Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry, told CNA. 
And similar to Indonesia’s Prabowo, Mr Anwar also has the “desire to be seen” as one of the leaders of the Global South and even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), said Dr Ong. 
Meanwhile,  Ms Elina Noor – a senior fellow in the Asia Programme at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – told CNA that the BRICS gives Malaysia a chance to “actively participate in creating different opportunities for the country beyond its traditional ties”. 
“For Malaysia, it is a response to the changing global environment where major powers are securitising entire economic value chains and a continuation of a foreign policy that has long sought to preserve autonomy.” 
In an interview with CNN on Nov 12 during his visit to the US, Mr Anwar reaffirmed that Malaysia’s decision to join BRICS is guided by its economic and trade interests, rather than political interests. 
“Malaysia is a trading nation, I mean we have benefitted immensely from collaborations with the US and Europe, now China and with BRICS we think we are opening up an avenue for increasing trade and investments,” he said in a video interview with veteran CNN anchor Richard Quest.
Meanwhile, Mr Prabowo told local media that he sees no issue in joining multiple international economic blocs, when asked by the media about Indonesia joining BRICS amid its application to be part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 
“We want to join various economic blocs because we want to find the best opportunities for our own economy, we need to think of our economic health for our own people,” Mr Prabowo told local media during his visit to Washington on Nov 14.
Against a backdrop of the incoming Trump presidency, Dr Alan Chong of RSIS told CNA that the “world is in for a very rocky period in global economic relations, and the BRICS can serve as a hedge against that”.
Mr Trump was elected the 47th president of the US on Nov 6, beating Vice-President Kamala Harris. He will be inaugurated in January next year. 
“(The BRICS bloc) could call on member states to adhere to some voluntary norms and that will help stabilise the world economy and keep the prosperity engine going right for a lot of states that are invested in the global economy with or without the US,” said Dr Chong, a senior fellow at RSIS. 
On why countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand have been vocal on wanting to seek full BRICS membership, Dr Chong said that this has been a “long-time coming, in part because the US is increasingly weaponising economic ties”.
“Of course under the current outgoing Biden administration, they were fairly gentle about it. But under Mr Trump, we saw it full blown (during his first administration from 2017 to 2021). And now that Mr Trump has been surprisingly re-elected, I think there’s all the more reason why they want to join BRICS,” he said.
Mr Jamil – the RSIS doctoral candidate who was previously a researcher at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia – said that the US’ absence from major trade agreements like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership has also impacted its role as a key economic partner in the region.
He also cited the example of a 2024 ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute survey that found a regional preference for China as a strategic partner due to its strong economic ties and Belt and Road Initiative investments.
Mr Jamil added that Mr Trump’s recent trade views may also not bode well for the region, pushing more countries to want a slice of the BRICS pie.
Mr Trump has proposed a blanket 10 per cent tariff on all imports and tariffs exceeding 60 per cent on Chinese goods to reduce the trade deficit and promote domestic production. 
“This protectionist stance could disrupt supply chains in Southeast Asia, particularly affecting countries like Vietnam and Thailand, which have substantial trade surpluses with the US,” said Mr Jamil.
He added that Mr Trump’s history of withdrawing from multilateral trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has raised concerns about the US’ commitment to regional economic cooperation. 
“This shift could prompt Southeast Asian nations to explore alternative, stable partnerships.” 
Agreeing, Dr Chong said that what the BRICS bloc could be useful for is the idea of keeping the countries’ respective large national markets open to the rest of the world.
“It’s a way of coming together in numbers to signal to Trump 2.0 that you can try to punish the whole world but ‘we have our friends’ … It’s a salutary effect that’s sufficient, I think, to keep the global economy going,” he said. 
Dr Chong added countries like Brazil, India, China as well as South Africa are big markets outside of the US and European Union. 
“They can really provide a cushion in the event that Trump ramps up American economic nationalism and spoils pre-existing trade links between the US and Asia.” 
Meanwhile, Mr Jamil cited the creation of the BRICS Grain Exchange in October 2024 as an appealing alternative for nations seeking diversified and stable markets.
This is especially so for major agricultural producers like Malaysia and Indonesia which produce over 80 per cent of the world’s palm oil and even Thailand and Vietnam, which are major rice-exporting countries in the region. 
President Vladimir Putin had said that “the exchange will contribute to the formation of fair and predictable price indicators for products and raw materials, considering its special role in ensuring food security”. 
The exchange was a proposal by Russia.
“Joining this exchange could provide stable and controlled market access for exports (from Malaysia and Indonesia),” Mr Jamil said, adding that palm oil prices for instance, are often influenced by Western-driven factors, including currency fluctuations tied to the US dollar. 
“Participation in this platform could offer more predictable markets for rice, provide resilience against price volatility and diversify export channels, creating new revenue opportunities,” Mr Jamil added, when referring to how the Grain Exchange – that is still in its developmental stages – could also benefit rice-producing countries like Thailand and Vietnam. 
In line with that, the analysts whom CNA spoke to said that they see several other Southeast Asian nations who can potentially throw their hats into the ring to be a part of the BRICS bloc – namely Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos.
“The next three Southeast Asian contenders for BRICS partnership are Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. All three countries have close ties with both Russia and China and seek financial assistance from the BRICS bank,” said Dr Ian Storey, referring to the NDB. 
Mr Jamil said that Myanmar has officially applied for BRICS membership, seeing the bloc as a platform to mitigate the impact of international sanctions and seek economic diversification beyond its dependence on China.
But he warned that the country – which has been besieged by a civil war since 2021 – may have difficulties gaining entry into the bloc.
“Myanmar’s internal political situation and strained international standing may present challenges to its admission,” said Mr Jamil.
Agreeing, Dr Chong posited that Myanmar is a “very weak candidate” to join BRICS. 
“If they join, it’s because they want some kind of de facto geo-economic or geopolitical alliance. I use the word ‘alliance’ very loosely because this is the closest thing to protecting itself against a Western … intervention in relation to the ongoing civil war in the country. 
“I would think that the calculation (in Myanmar’s capital) is that Russia and China will definitely provide loud support for the current regime in Myanmar should they join BRICS,” he said. 
On whether Laos and Cambodia could potentially join BRICS, Dr Chong believes that the two countries may eventually do so out of support for superpower China. 
“I suspect it is to support their patron or ally – China. I don’t think Cambodia or Laos can actually provide leadership for BRICS. They might start with observer status, because they are basically enjoying Chinese economic largesse. 
“China has built so many infrastructure projects for them. So, they do owe China some degree of support,” said Dr Chong. 
Among the remaining Southeast Asian countries – namely Singapore, Brunei and the Phillipines – the chances of them joining BRICS are low, say analysts.
This is because of these countries’ economic and foreign policies as well as their partnerships with Western powers. 
“Singapore values its role as a global financial hub and maintains a strict policy of neutrality in international relations,” Mr Jamil told CNA, adding that the country’s integration into Western markets and reliance on balanced foreign relations have made it “unlikely” to join a bloc that would make it seem that it is aligning itself more with China or Russia. 
“Joining BRICS would disrupt its strategic flexibility and potentially complicate existing relationships,” he said.
Of note, Singapore also had previously unilaterally imposed economic sanctions on Russia for the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. 
Meanwhile, the Philippines has strong economic and security ties with Washington, making it unlikely to risk jeopardising those relations by joining BRICS.
“Americans see the Philippines as an outstanding ally, on the same level with South Korea and Japan and the US is likely to share some of the high technology investments with the Philippines,” says RSIS’ Dr Chong.
The country’s “cautious stance towards Chinese-backed projects”, due to tensions with Beijing over the South China Sea, could further hinder it from aligning with China-led initiatives like the BRICS. 
According to Mr Jamil, several China-funded Belt and Road Initiative projects in the Philippines – including major railway developments like the Calamba-Bicol Railway, Mindanao Railway and Subic-Clark Railway – were cancelled not only due to delays in Chinese financing but also geopolitical tensions over the South China Sea. 
On Nov 10, Beijing demarcated baselines around the contested Scarborough Shoal in response to President Fernand Marcos Jr signing two laws on Nov 8 to designate sea lanes and air routes in the area to reinforce sovereignty, allowing the detention of foreigners suspected of trespassing into their claimed territorial zones. 
Separately, while Mr Jamil acknowledged that Brunei has benefited significantly from Chinese Belt and Road Initiative investments, the sultanate’s “traditional focus on stability and neutrality, not to mention close defence ties with the US and the United Kingdom” makes it unlikely to pursue BRICS membership. 
And while experts often cite BRICS’ potentially “anti-Western” stance as a barrier for potential members, an analyst argues that concerns over China’s dominance could be “overblown”.
Ms Elina from think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace believes that existing BRICS members with close ties to the West have strategic interests to not allow any one country to dominate the bloc.  
“BRICS is really about recalibrating the world order to better reflect the priorities and will of the global majority. Time will tell whether the group will stay true to that aim and actually make a difference,” she said. 
Ultimately, Dr Storey – the senior fellow from ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute – believes that membership of BRICS among Southeast Asian countries will provide them with “additional hedging options via-a-vis the great powers”.
“Although regional states may sometimes tilt towards either the US or China when it is in their interests to do so, overall they prefer to pursue a balanced foreign policy in which they don’t take sides,” he said.