mercoledì 31 ottobre 2018

Some Examples of Diplomatic Speeches

Presidenza della Repubblica
Presidente della Repubblica Sergio Mattarella
or in English
and then
and then, for example
former Presidents
For example: Giorgio Napolitano
and then
and then, for example
or in English
and then
and then, for example
current Presidenza della Repubblica
you can also search for key word in Italian or English like 'speech' on
for example:
Obama's speeches:
For example:
For example:
Speeches by Ambassadors
Speeches by Ministers

For more, see the site of the Farnesina in English and then click on Press Room:

Diplomatic speeches, full text examples


Statement delivered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, Hon. Paolo Gentiloni, at the UN Summit on Refugees and Migrants (September 19, 2016)


Mr. Secretary General,
Dear Colleagues,
I am really proud to be here today, bearing witness to the great humanity of the Italian people in receiving those who land every day on our shores.
For years, Italy has been left alone to face the migration crisis in the Mediterranean; and we have done it, thanks to the commitment and the generosity of the women and men of Lampedusa, of the Italian Coast Guard, and of the thousands of volunteers who devoted their time to help migrants and refugees after their perilous journey across the Mediterranean. To all those people, here in front of you, I would like to extend my gratitude.
Italy has long been calling for the involvement of the whole international community in managing the migratory phenomenon. I am therefore particularly pleased to see that, thanks to the sensitivity and vision of the Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, and of the High Representative for Refugees, Mr Grandi, the principle of shared responsibility is now welcomed by all the members of the United Nations.
After all, what we are trying to do is not simply to resolve an emergency or a crisis, but we are looking for durable solutions for a situation that will affect generations to come.
On the one hand, we are all aware of the international obligations regarding the protection of refugees. Such protection is due to those who are fleeing war and persecution. In my opinion, such protection should be extended to new categories of refugees, like people fleeing disasters caused by climate change.
On the other hand, even those seeking a better life, those fleeing poverty and the lack of a future have the right to an answer from us, they have the right to hope. They should be able to hope that a better life is attainable in their own country, in their own home.
In this spirit, Italy has promoted – also through our proposal of a “Migration Compact”, to our EU partners – a plan to develop a true partnership with African countries of origin. I have said this on other occasions and I really believe it: the future of Europe is in Africa. We have to invest in Africa to tackle the root causes of migration, primarily economic and demographic inequalities. But most of all, we should invest in Africa because it means we are investing in our own future.
However, we all know that this kind of commitment will produce results only in the long term. Meanwhile, we have to give a humanitarian, answer: we have to save lives. On this, I am asking for solidarity, I am asking for the full commitment of the whole international community.
Italy has been at the forefront of the migration crisis in the Mediterranean for years, with its Search and Rescue Operations. More than 75,000 (seventy-five thousand) people were saved in 2015, and more than 60,000 so far this year, by Italian units only. These are impressive numbers, but even more impressive and even more moving are the tales of pain and suffering behind those numbers.
To this emergency, we have to answer now. This is why, thanks once again to the support of civil society, Italy has promoted a resettlement program (the humanitarian corridor project) aimed at saving at least the most vulnerable among migrants: I am thinking particularly of women and unaccompanied children. We should be able to keep them from having to embark on a dangerous journey across the desert or the sea, in the hands of smugglers.
We hope that the Humanitarian Corridor project could be taken up, as a best practice, by other countries. Let’s give protection to refugees, but also let’s give hope to those who have lost it, to the weakest among migrants, like children, and like women who travel alone.
Let’s give them hope, and by doing it we will also give hope and a vision to our own society: by protecting the most vulnerable we are protecting our own values; by saving children’s lives we are saving our own future.
Let’s invest in our future, let’s invest in children, let’s empower women, let’s give them all a voice; this is the only way to build a fair and equal society. Let’s refuse the idea that today, for some young women, for some small children the only prospect is to rely on smugglers.
We need to give an immediate answer to those in need of protection and a practical solution for the most vulnerable migrants: this is Italy’s commitment here today. This is my appeal to all of you: protection not only for refugees, but also for vulnerable migrants. We will raise this issue with our partners during Italy’s Presidency of the G7 next year. Do not allow that a child fleeing from Aleppo find his death on a Mediterranean shore.

STATEMENT BY THE DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ITALY TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AMBASSADOR INIGO LAMBERTINI, AT THE OPEN DEBATE ON “THE ROLE OF YOUTH IN COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM AND PROMOTING PEACE” (April 23, 2015)


Mr. President,


I thank the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for organizing today’s open debate and in particular His Royal Highness the Crown Prince for chairing the meeting and for his inspiring words. Italy aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and wishes to add the following remarks in a national capacity.


Mr. President,


Today’s open debate enables us to think more strategically about the role of youth in countering violent extremism. According to the latest statistics, the current youth population (people between the ages of 10 and 24) is the largest ever. 1.8 billion people. 600 thousand of them are girls. Most of those 1.8 billion live in developing countries. They are the world’s best hope for addressing in the long term our most pressing challenges, particularly how to counter violent extremism and promote peace.


As the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation has stated repeatedly, the fight against violent extremism has to be waged at different levels: in terms of narrative, values, and financing. Which brings me to the second underlying theme of today’s debate. The importance of prevention. In the past decade extremist ideologies have increased their appeal to youth, through communication campaigns that target this specific demographic. It is both a moral obligation and a strategic investment for us to turn the tide. By countering the appeal of violent and extremist groups among young people, we will deny these groups access to their most valuable resource, pulling the rug out from under their feet.


So we should not be asking ourselves what role youth can have in countering violent extremism and promoting peace. We should be asking how young people themselves can be the heart of the solution. To this end, we have identified areas that we should be targeting.


First of all, Mr. President, education. The abduction of students and the targeting of schools and universities by violent and extremist groups are a clear sign of their weakness. Culture and education are their worst enemy. But at the same time, they are our best allies to promote tolerance, inclusiveness and open-mindedness. In the wake of the horrific attack on the Garissa Campus in Kenya, Minister Gentiloni paid an official visit to Nairobi to renew our full support for Kenya in that hour of tragedy, to pay respect to the victims, and to signal that the fight against terrorism and the protection of the right to education are a shared value. As a tangible proof of our friendship, we have offered scholarships to students of the Garissa campus to signal that assuring access to quality education, regardless of the  circumstances, is our best counterattack on violent extremism.


Second, human rights and justice. To promote peaceful, inclusive and just societies, we must defend and support the shared values under attack. Human rights must be restored to the center of the agenda. In this respect, we must not underestimate the preventive power of justice by upholding rule of law and accountability.


Third, socio-economic development. Unfulfilled expectations. Unemployment. Underemployment. Inequality. All these factors have the potential to drive idle and dissatisfied young people down the pathway to radical, violent ideologies. In defining the post-2015 agenda, we must be mindful of the positive impact that a universal, innovative, easily-communicated agenda will have on youth living in developing countries.


Fourth private/public partnerships, including media. The proactive involvement of civil society is essential to our success. Governments and the international community have to provide an enabling environment and lead with projects. But a joint effort is needed to “fill in” the framework. Social media has a special role to play in countering the narrative proposed by violent extremist groups. This makes it vital to address this issue in the Framework of Analysis, which Italy supports. Social media can have both a negative and a positive effect. It can aggravate the risk of atrocity crimes, by spreading hate speech and inciting people to commit such crimes. But it can also curb messages of intolerance, hatred, and violence. The new Framework provides analytical tools for detecting early warning signs through the examination of the socio-economic conditions affecting young people.


Lastly, empowerment. Sometimes the problem is not the message but the messenger. Empowerment of youth and youth-oriented organizations is essential to promoting positive role models, responding to violence, and delegitimizing extremist messages. And a priority should be placed on empowering those 600 million young women.



Mr. President,


It is in this light that Italy proudly supports the “Change the World Model United Nations.” Every year our Mission organizes a public event that brings together young people from all over the world to discuss the three main pillars of the UN: international peace and security; human rights; and development. One month ago, more than 1500 young people from over 90 countries met at the General Assembly to discuss how to make the world a safer, better place. By promoting this event, we are planting a seed for the future. It is up to us to assure that this seed has the proper international environment in which to grow and develop. Thank you.

Speech of the Italian Minister of Environment, Stefania Prestigiacomo, at the High Level Plenary Session on Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) in the General Assembly (September 24, 2010) [Photogallery]


President of the General Assembly,
Your Excellencies
Dear Colleagues
Five years ago in Mauritius the international community made a number of commitments for meeting the sustainable development goals and priorities of the Barbados Programme of Action, recognizing that the sustainable development must be a national responsibility of SIDS and the international community must provide financial and technical support for the success of the Strategy
The present review shows that these commitments have been, to some extent, fulfilled, compatibly with constrains deriving from global crisis such as the economic, energy and food crisis, which have had and continue to have serious implications for geographically isolated SIDS.
Very positive results have indeed been achieved in all regions. Most SIDS have substantially increased the political commitments to sustainable development as well as public awareness on their importance. They have made considerable efforts to integrate sustainable development principles into national development and sectorial strategies.
Most SIDS have adopted policies for climate change mitigation and adaptation, which in some cases include the achievement of the carbon neutrality objective, and envisage a robust promotion of renewable energy. SIDS have also shown strong leadership in the area of protection of biodiversity, and achieved significant results in establishing protected marine, coastal and terrestrial areas.
In addition, the present review has shown that progress, although uneven within SIDS, has also been made in the areas of gender, health, and education, as well as towards the achievement of environmental sustainability. We commend in particular the progress made in most regions for creating an enabling regional institutional framework, aimed at maximizing the national efforts in key areas, such as the containment of the climate change threat and the prevention and management of risks inherent natural disasters.
In terms of financing, the review has shown that, while on the one side most SIDS have indeed used their own resources in the implementation of the Mauritius Strategy, on the other, the international community has played an important role in support of these efforts by providing financing and technical assistance in key strategic areas.
Much however, remains to be done. The review has clearly demonstrated that in spite of the great efforts made, the results achieved are limited with respect to expectations. The global crisis of the last five years have greatly contributed to the erosion of progress made. Climate change adaptation and sea level rise remain one of the greatest challenges to SIDS, a threat to their very existence.   
Italy has long been aware of the indisputable injustice inherent the fact that the Island States contribute the least to the global Climate Change, yet are affected the most by its negative consequences.
For this reason we have concentrated our commitment towards the SIDS sustainable development in the area of climate change and related sectors. Italy has in fact supported a number of key initiatives, such as the establishment of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC). The Centre has become a leading enabling regional institution and has laid the ground for a regional strategic approach to climate change. Rising sea levels, together with the associated coastal erosion and salt water intrusion, an escalation in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes, and disruptions in rainfall and fresh-water supply, threaten the very existence of the CARICOM countries. Our hope is of course that the lessons learnt from the establishment of the Centre and from the concrete actions taken by this institution will be treasured by other regions seeking to maximize the impact of scarce national resources and to streamline the search for a solution to common threats.
In addition, while the international community is still debating on the shape of the global agreement that will ensure equitable participation of all in addressing Climate Change mitigation, Italy has started actions supporting a programme in the Pacific region that stands out as a pragmatic attempt to address the adaptation urgency and search for practical solutions to the great challenge of this century. 
The Cooperation Programme on climate change and renewable energy between Italy, Austria, the Municipality of Milan and the Pacific SIDS has become, after only three years of implementation, a successful model for international cooperation.
The programme is ongoing, thus the lessons generated so far are preliminary. Nevertheless, some important conclusions can already be drawn. We believe that the success of the programme is basically due to the strict application of the ownership principle, according to which the development strategy remains in the hands of national governments. Within the general goal of adaptation to Climate Change and development of renewable energy, each participating SIDS has established the priorities needed to build resilience vis-a-vis its own perception of national and local vulnerability. These priorities derive from the sustainable development policies and strategies established by the Pacific SIDS and are fully taken on board by the cooperation programme which has been able to focus, since its inception, on the achievement of measurable, concrete results.
Italy will continue to be committed to the sustainable development of SIDS. We will spare no effort to ensure that the positive lessons that can be drawn from the success stories of the Italian programme can be repeated and strengthened by other bilateral and multilateral organizations, seeking to maximize the impact of international aid programmes.
Thank you Mr. President.


Some Language and Structure for Dilpomatic Speeches and Presentations in English


How to make a welcome speech in English
How to make a presentation speech in English
and Expo Milano 2015
and Destinazione Italia
Other
http://www.esteri.it/mae/en/sala_stampa/archivionotizie/interventi/2017/02/intervento-dell-on-ministro-al.html
More Language and Structure for Speeches and Presentations

martedì 30 ottobre 2018

What role do the BRICS countries play in international relations?

Good summaries and information to start with:

The BRICS is an international political association of leading emerging economies, arising out of the inclusion of South Africa in the BRIC group in 2010. As of 2018, its five members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. With the (partial) exception of Russia, the BRICS are all developing or newly industrialized countries (often called ‘emerging markets’ or ‘emerging economies’, although at this point China, for example, has clearly emerged!) with very high growth rates between the end of the 1990s and 2010. They have large and till recently fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional and global affairs. As of 2018, the five BRICS countries represent 25 % of the world’s land area, 41.7% of its population ( 3.23 billion, but mainly China and India),
45 % of its workforce, and in 2017, according to IMF estimates, had a combined nominal GDP of $18.31 trillion (compared with US nominal GDP of $19.36 trillion), just over 24% of nominal world GDP (about 30% in GDP PPP terms, $41 trillion) a figure which is expected to continue to rise, although estimates seem to vary a lot. Their share of nominal global GDP trebled in 15 years. In 2015 they also accounted for around 55% of the output of emerging and developing economies, and had an estimated $4.4 trillion in combined foreign reserves (mainly China). The BRICS accounted, on average, for 56% of the growth of global GNP (at 2005 $PPP) during 2008-17. However intra-BRICS trade flows are considered low at only 4.9% of the total foreign trade of these countries.
https://developingeconomics.org/2017/09/27/the-brics-and-a-changing-world/
IMF estimates of GDP, nominal and PPP per member for 2017 were: China $11.9 trillion nominal and $23.1 trillion PPP, Brazil $2.1 trillion and $3.2 trillion, Russia $1.47 and $4.0 trillion, India at $2.4 trillion and $9.4 trillion, South Africa $0.3 trillion and $0.76 trillion. Compared with the United States $19.4 trillion nominal and $19.4 trillion PPP, European Union $17.1 trillion nominal and 20.8 PPP.
However, according to the IMF per capita GDP nominal and PPP for 2017 was reported as: China $8,583 nominal and $16,624 PPP, Brazil $10,019 and $15,000, Russia $27,248 and $27,890, India $1,852 and $7,174
, South Africa $6,089 and $13,403 (compared with US $59,495 nominal and $59,495 PPP).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/brics-summit-factbox-idINDEE92P09120130326
http://www.treasury.gov.za/brics/sbe.aspx
http://www.mni-indicators.com/files/focus_on_brics_economic_growth.pdf
Their economies are said to be complementary rather than similar, since China and India are industrial and service producers, while Russia and Brazil are major energy and raw materials suppliers. Russia is also a major grain exporter. However, economic complementarity is limited by the low level of intra-BRICS trade mentioned above. Clearly their percentage of global GDP is likely to continue to grow in the long term, although other developing countries may achieve even faster growth rates. The BRICS group may expand its membership in response to this.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-09-06/news/33650208_1_bric-countries-brics-share-punita-kumar-sinha
http://www.cfr.org/brazil/brics-summit-delhi-declaration/p27805
As we have seen, given their enormous populations the BRICS have relatively low average per capita income (particularly India) with large numbers of people still living in poverty.
According to OECD figures, with easy credit, rising commodity prices and favorable demographics (i.e. cheap labor) the BRIC(S) economies grew at a rapid pace from 2001 to 2010. In 2010, while central banks in developed markets were printing cash and lowering interest rates to breathe some life into their sluggish economies, Gross Domestic Product in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, expanded by 7.5%, 4.5%, 10.5% and 10.4% respectively.
However, the BRICS were eventually hit by the economic crisis of 2008 as it reduced demand in developed economies. GDP growth rates for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 according to the IMF were Brazil -3.8%, -3.4%, 0.7%, 1.4% Russia -2.8%, -0.2%, 1.8%, 1.7% India 8.0%, 7.1%, 6.7%, 7.3% China 6.9%, 6.7%, 6.8%, 6.6% and South Africa by 1.3%, 0.3%, 0.7%, 0.8%. So China’s growth has cooled significantly from the double digits rates of previous years. India is still doing well. South Africa is growing at a very modest rate. However, Russia and Brazil have been in serious difficulty till very recently and went through recession, due to falling oil and commodity prices and inflation (15.8% in Russia in August 2015, but down to 4.5% in September 2018, and 9.5% in Brazil in August 2015, down to 4.5% in September 2018). Interest rates in Russia stood at 7.5% in September 2018 and at 6.5% in Brazil in the same period. Russia is also facing sanctions from the US and EU and other countries as a result of the Ukraine crisis. A recent rise in oil prices has been good for Russia (bad for China) but this should stabilize in 2019. Commodity prices for food and raw materials should remain fairly stable across 2018-19 unless new tariffs lead to a trade war. So because of these political factors the outlook for commodity prices, exports, imports and GDP growth is highly uncertain.
All this, except for India, is in contrast with previous performance over the last 20-25 years:
Average GDP growth in the past:
Russia 3.6% (1996-2015), India 6.01% (1951-2015), China 10.92.% (1989-2015), South Africa 3.03% (1994-2015), Brazil 3.01% (1991 to 2015).
However, according to many sources, prospects for the BRICS’ future long-term growth, appear good and, compared with many of the most developed economies, two of the BRICS, China and India, are still doing very well. (We will need to see if significant long-term gaps in growth rates open up between the BRICS members.) Moreover, if their economies slowed down simply as a result of the world recession and if the global economy continues to recover, their growth rates may return to previous levels. On the other hand, some experts argue that they may face real challenges relating to structural problems within their domestic economies and political systems. See:
http://time.com/4923837/brics-summit-xiamen-mixed-fortunes/
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGBRIC.pdf
and the longer articles from Foreign Affairs cited at the end of this post.
We should also note that some other developing economies may out-perform the BRICS in terms of rapid GDP growth over the next decade. There is the ‘N 11’ group, the ‘Next Eleven’, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam according to Goldman Sachs. However, they too now face seruous economic problems.
There are also the TIMPS, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines, a group which in 2010 was beating the BRICS by almost every economic measure. There are also the MINTs, an acronym coined for a group of four countriesMexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey Will such countries be invited to join the BRICS group at some point or are they in competition with the group’s members? Will they really be able to sustain GDP growth? The BRICS Plus initiative seems to suggest that the BRICS group could soon expand
At all events, the BRICS group is here to stay and clearly represents a growing movement towards a more multipolar world economic order and since the BRICS summit in New Delhi in 2012 various goals have been outlined.
The reform of global economic governance – They want to move forward with the revision of the quota mechanism for governance of the World Bank and IMF in order to reflect the growing economic weight of developing countries and emerging markets.
Trade and Development – They would welcome a new global reserve currency as an reliable alternative to the dollar. This might be a cryptocurrency:
For the moment they also want to boost intra-BRICS trade using their own currencies (instead of dollars) in order to compensate for any drop in demand due to a global future recession or falling US/EU demand (and protect their national currencies from financial crises), and to link up their stock markets.
In 2012, they examined the idea of setting up a new development bank, whose aims would include funding development and major infrastructure projects initially in BRICS countries, but later in developing and least developed countries too; lending, in the long term, during global financial crises such as the Eurozone crisis; and issuing convertible debt, which could be bought by the central banks of all the member states and hence act as a means of risk-sharing.
Foreign policy – In 2012 at theNew Delhi summit, then President of China Hu Jintao described the BRICS countries as defenders and promoters of developing countries and a force for world peace. At the summit the BRICS criticized the West’s pressure on Iran and its attempts to convince other countries to restrict their trade with Iran, and said that dialogue was the best way to resolve the nuclear question. The group took a similar position on Syria, against military intervention, and in general emphasized the dangers of a war in the Middle East and the fact that it would immediately lead to a rise in oil prices. The deal with Iran was welcomed by the BRICS but Russia itself moved to intervene in Syria.
AT the BRICS summit in Durban in March 2013, further progress was made with the approval of the plans to create development bank. Russia, Brazil and India agreed to contribute $18 billion to the BRICS currency reserve pool, China $41 billion and South Africa $5 billion.)
At the July 2014 sixth BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil the group signed a document to create the $100 billion funded New Development Bank (NDB) and a reserve currency pool worth an additional $100 billion to help make currency transaction more diversified, stable and predictable and to act as “a kind of mini-IMF”. The NDB opened in July 2015. The NDB’s headquarters are in Shanghai, the institution's first president is from India, the bank's first regional office is in Johannesburg, the inaugural chairman of the board of governors is from Russia and the first chairman of the board of directors is from Brazil. The presidency, with a term of five years, will rotate among the members of the BRICS.
However, the BRICS’ NDB may be overshadowed by the other new Chinese-based multilateral lender, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which is headquartered in Beijing. China is its biggest shareholder with about 30%, according to the legal framework signed by 50 founding member countries. It opened for business on 16 January 2016 . Major European and Asian economies, including Germany, Italy, Britain, France, Russia, Australia, and South Korea have joined the AIIB, but the US and Japan, two of the world’s largest economies, have declined to do so. Some Chinese leaders have also talked of the need to prepare for a 'de-Americanised' world economy. However, Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei played down the competitive aspect (2015). And prospects for cooperation between the banks seem good
The new banks can offer an alternative to the World Bank, the International Fund and the Asian Development Bank and can be seen not as competition to the existing system but as complementary and a way for China to reinvest productively some its vast $4 trillion foreign-exchange reserves. In 2017 the NDB moved ahead with 4 projects in China, Russia and India with loans totalling more than $1.4bn. The scope of the NDB’s activities includes renewable energy, information technology, energy conservation, flood control, water quality and developing the rural drinking water supply. Going forward, another $30bn in loans, including a total of 15 projects by the end of 2017 and up to 50 in 2021, has already been announced.
https://www.ft.com/content/cc7c7ee6-918b-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0

The 2015 BRICS summit was held in the Ufa in Russia.The summit coincided with the entry into force of constituting agreements of the New Development Bank and the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement

The 2016 BRICS summit was held from 15 to 16 October 2016 in Goa, India. It condemned terrorism, recognised the difficulties for the group created by the global recession and underlined the importance of cooperation with and work within traditinal global institutions like the WTO.
There was some controversy over the issue of terrorism.
The 2017 BRICS summit in Xiamen, China helped to reduce tensions between China and India over the Doklam border issue.
The summit approved a three-year action plan (2017-2020) for cooperation innovation and agreed to promote the development of BRICS Local Currency Bond Markets and jointly establish a BRICS Local Currency Bond Fund, as a means of contribution to the capital sustainability of financing in BRICS. The BRICS grouping continued to push for cautious reform of global order but in its final declation made it clear that it did not wish to weaken the institutions of the international order and reaffirmed the BRICS' commitment to the UN and the G20, globalization, sustainable development and the fight against climate change.

The 2018 BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa released this declaration
and Chinese President Xi Jinping said:
It is important that we continue to pursue innovation-driven development and build the BRICS Partnership on New Industrial Revolution (PartNIR) to strengthen coordination on macroeconomic policies, find more complementarities in our development strategies, and reinforce the competitiveness of the BRICS countries, emerging market economies and developing countries.”
He also discussed the BRICS Plus initiative.

So do the BRICS represent a fundamental change in the world order either today, or in the near future or in the long term?
No one doubts that the influence of these countries will continue to grow. After all, as emerging economies, their growth rates were much higher than those the developed economies averaged over most of the last 20 years and although some of them face economic difficulties now their prospects for the long-term future remain good. So the real question is whether Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa form a coherent group with a coherent set of interests which are clearly opposed to those of the traditional ‘West’ or not. In other words are all of these countries really outside the ‘West’ if we do not restrict the meaning of the term ‘West’ to a synonym for NATO or fully developed economies? Are they a challenge to the West’s leadership, or will all or some of these countries simply become an integral part of it?
Much of what the BRICS aim to do with regard to trade and development, as outlined above, should simply be welcomed by the West and the UN. Many Western NGOs and UN agencies have been working towards these development goals for decades, but with limited resources. A new reserve currency alongside the dollar would make the international financial system more stable, and the creation of the New Development Bank should provide a way for countries like China to reinvest their surpluses in various local and global projects and provide a further global lender of last resort. How realistic all this is in the short term is, however, less clear given the structural weakness of the Russian and Brazilian economies and the fears about China's debt.
Population trends within the BRICS also differ significantly. The population of China continues to grow, but slowly (0.5% per year 2016) and is predicted to reach 1.45 billion in 2030 and then to go into decline with an already aging population.
India’s population is youthful and expanding at 1.1% (2017) annually and will probably overtake China as the world’s most heavily populated state by 2024.
Brazil’s population growth rate was also high in previous years but fell to 0.80% in 2013 and has remained there (2017). Meanwhile the population in South Africa grew by I.2% in 2017. After the break-up of the Soviet Union Russia’s population fell significantly for more than a decade but has now started to slowly recover, 0.1% in 2017.# These trends impact GDP growth rates and social welfare costs in the future, making forecasts difficult to make and suggesting growing divergence among the members of the group.
Commentators also point out that there are already real differences and potential divisions and weaknesses among the group’s members which will inevitably affect the coherence and effectiveness of the group in responding to any particular issue, and the ultimate objectives of each of its members. Here are a few of them:

Russia and China are permanent members of the UNSC with veto power. They initially did not seem in a hurry to support India, Brazil and South Africa with more than words in any bid to obtain permanent seats on the Council and do not support attempts to reform the SC by eliminating or reducing the scope of the veto power.
The Durban Declaration included this sentence:
In this regard, China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status of Brazil, India and South Africa in international affairs and support their aspiration to play a greater role in the UN.”
This seemed to stop short of unconditional support for seats on the UNSC for Brazil and India, but in August 2015 Russia finally expressed clear support for permanent seats for Brazil and India:
The BRICS Xiamen summit declaration in 2017 stated that "China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status and role of Brazil, India and South Africa in international affairs and support their aspiration to play a greater role in the UN."
Rusia and China do not support the extension of the veto to India and Brazil.
Would this now be acceptable to the G4?

However, Russia now clearly supports India's bid for a permanent seat in UN Security Council.

China is more ambivalent since India's bid is linked to Japan's in the G4.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indias-unsc-alliance-with-japan-biggest-mistake-chinese-media/articleshow/49042814.cms
However, it seems likely that Russia and China will continue to use their position and their vetoes primarily to forward their own interests, as they perceive them, rather than the interests of the BRICS or the interests of the majority of developing nations in the General Assembly. For example, from the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 China and Russia were ready to block any resolution on Syria by the SC, like that proposed by the Arab League in Feb. 2012 and approved by the UNGA by 137 votes to 12 with 17 abstentions, which could open the door to outside intervention or simply called for the current regime to step down. In contrast, when Russia decided to launch its own air strikes into Syria in September 2015, at the invitation of President Assad, it is not clear if it first informed and coordinated its action with its BRICS partners and sought approval from them. Russia has used its veto to block criticism of the Assad regime or of its own intervention. Currently China also supports some form of intervention and says it is cooperating with both Russia and the US.
Brazil’s former President Rousseff criticized Russia over its intervention in Syria in Oct 2015.
India accepts Russia’s intervention but argues that any long-term solution must be political.
China is, of course, a one-party state with regional ambitions, perceived as a threat by several of its democratic and non-democratic neighbors who have turned to the US for support. Russia is, although formally a democracy, an authoritarian state and one with substantial military power. By contrast, Brazil, India and South Africa are all functioning (or dysfunctional!) democracies, with a variety of problems relating to the very poor, but sharing many ‘Western’ values. India has border disputes with China and is also involved in the dispute over the status of Tibet (a ‘domestic’ Chinese issue for the Chinese, as is Taiwan). So while the BRICS appear to represent a calming force in international relations, in favor of conflict resolution through dialogue and against military intervention and regime change, something that the West, or at a least large section of Western public opinion, probably welcomes after the long and costly campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not clear that this respect for every nation’s sovereignty will be universally accepted and approved of by public opinion around the world, by all the members of the UNGA and by public opinion within the democratic BRICS themselves. Humanitarian intervention remains a subject of heated debate within, as well as between countries, experts and ordinary people. Some argue that a situation like Syria requires international action. Others argue that the humanitarian costs of intervention may easily outweigh the gains. Given Russia's intervention in Syria it would be an oversimplification to see this as a division between an aggressive NATO and a peaceful BRICS. Opinion in the West was always divided over the non-UN mandated operation in Iraq, but also over the UN-mandated interventions in Afghanistan and Libya. At present it is the BRICS who seem out of step with opinion in the Arab world and the General Assembly on Syria, while the West seems out of step with opinion in the GA on the Palestinian problem. Now that Russia has intervened in Syria it will be interesting to see the reaction of its BRICS partners and the level of cooperation between Russia and France (after the Nov. 2015 terrorist attack on Paris), the EU, the US and other Western countries.
Each of the BRICS also faces serious domestic challenges (mainly relating to inequalities of wealth and widespread poverty) and there are also rivalries between them and varying economic and political performances
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/what-is-the-state-of-the-brics-economies/
and these, together with growing regional commitments may take precedence over aspirations to play a more global role in international relations. For example, Brazil in 2015 saw widespread protests by the poorest sections of society, with people saying that they had not benefited from GDP growth, that money had been wasted on the Olympics and World Cup and calling for the government to do something about economic inequalities and widespread bribery and political corruption. This scandal led to the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016, the arrest of former President Lula and contributed to the election of Jair Bolsonaro as President in October 2018, a candidate whose right-wing rhetoric has proved divisive.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/28/jair-bolsonaro-wins-brazil-presidential-election
Meanwhile South African President Jacob Zuma, faced with a debt crisis, and corruption and cronyism scandals was forced to resign in February 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/feb/14/jacob-zuma-south-africas-scandal-struck-president-resigns-video
Meanwhile, some commentators argue that the change in the world order is really a result simply of the rise of China (or at most China and India) rather than the BRICS as a whole.
Finally, one should note that the BRICS are not really like the old Communist bloc, which defined itself by its opposition to the West and to capitalism. (Perhaps politically it has been more similar to the old Non-Aligned Movement of the Cold War period, of which India was a member – at least until Russia’s increasingly proactive foreign policy). Economically, there is no clear division between the ‘West’ and the BRICS. In both groups we find a range of approaches to managing the economy, those that adopt a more free market approach, those that belief in government supervision and those that believe in a welfare state – and varying proportions of all three. Politically, as with the rest of the world, the BRICS countries have their national interests and will no doubt seek to protect them, but there is no basic ideological division between the West and the BRICS. (China is hardly recognizable today as a ‘Communist’ state in terms of economic policy). China and Russia are authoritarian states but they are part of an international community based fairly solidly on Western liberal democratic values that they do not wish to challenge publicly (although they may violate them) and which shows no real signs of losing its appeal to the majority of people around the world. Brazil, South Africa and India are active supporters of this community’s values. In fact, one might hope that both Russia and China will conform to those values in the long term, evolving slowly towards a more democratic and rights-based society. Thus a more multipolar world with a more diffuse leadership does not necessarily mean a weaker West, but perhaps simply a more inclusive and wider definition of that idea. Alternatively, we may see the BRICS acting together on crucial economic issues, and also negatively to block, discourage or restrain what they perhaps see as Western adventurism as regards military interventions (for humanitarian purposes) in other countries, but much less able to agree a positive, proactive line in foreign policy due to their different political systems. Their cooperation could prove valuable in areas where US involvement has been reduced or ended by President Trump, for example in supporting the Paris Climate Change agreement and in efforts to save the Iran deal.

See: 'Russia and India also underlined the importance of the full and effective implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme in order to support international peace and security, to strengthen non-proliferation regime and to develop normal economic cooperation with Iran.'
from

in 2018, the population of Russia is 146,270,033.
The population hit a historic peak at 148,689,000 in 1991, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union, but then began a decade-long decline, falling at a rate of about 0.5% per year due to declining birth rates, rising death rates and emigration. The decline slowed considerably in the late 2000s, and in 2009 Russia recorded population growth for the first time in 15 years, adding 23,300 people. Key reasons for the slow current population growth are improving health care, changing fertility patterns among younger women, falling emigration and steady flows of immigrants from the ex-USSR countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Population_statistics
With the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in a move condemned by many countries as illegal Russia occupied additional territory with 1,965,200 inhabitants. New citizenship rules allowing citizens of former Soviet countries to gain Russian citizenship have gained strong interest among Uzbeks. So the population could return to levels seen just before the breakup of the Soviet Union as well as resolve problems of statelessness.

The future
Other sources and older material as background:
for the group without South Africa
then
Three old longer articles from Foreign Affairs as background: