After India, Brazil Is Abstaining From China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Here’s Why

Brazil has decided to abstain from joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure and trade project that has been central to China’s global economic influence strategy. Brazil now joins India as the second BRICS nation to opt out of the initiative, reshaping the dynamics within the BRICS bloc and potentially signaling a broader resistance to China’s expanding infrastructure reach.

Brazil’s New Approach: No Formal Alliance, More Collaboration

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his administration have clearly signaled that while Brazil values its relationship with China, it seeks alternative frameworks for collaboration. Celso Amorim, Brazil’s special presidential adviser for international affairs, confirmed the decision, stating that Brazil aims to “take the relationship with China to a new level without having to sign an accession contract.” By refusing to join the BRI formally, Brazil underscores its intent to pursue mutually beneficial projects on its own terms rather than binding itself to Beijing’s expansive agenda.

Amorim emphasized that Brazil does not want to adopt Chinese infrastructure and trade ventures as an “insurance policy.” Instead, the country intends to find common ground with China through selected infrastructure projects that align with Brazilian priorities while retaining control over its strategic economic interests.

Contradictions with China’s Vision

This decision is likely to come as a disappointment to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who planned to make Brazil’s participation in the BRI a focal point during his upcoming state visit to Brasilia on November 20. Beijing hoped to strengthen the BRICS bloc’s cohesion by integrating Brazil into its flagship initiative, which already includes Russia, South Africa, and numerous nations beyond BRICS.

Despite Brazil’s abstention, Amorim clarified that Brazil’s approach is not anti-China but rather a tailored stance aimed at preserving its autonomy. He indicated that China could still play a role in Brazilian projects deemed critical by Brasília, and Brazil’s collaboration with China may still yield strategic benefits without formal commitments.

A Broader Trend of BRI Opposition?

Brazil’s decision echoes India’s longstanding resistance to the BRI. India was the first major country to challenge China’s project, driven by concerns over sovereignty and transparency. India’s objections intensified with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a $60 billion venture that cuts through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir—a territory India claims. Indian officials have consistently argued that the BRI lacks adherence to principles of good governance, transparency, and financial sustainability.

This reluctance to join the BRI isn’t unique to India and Brazil. China’s infrastructure projects, especially in smaller economies, have sometimes resulted in financial strain for host countries. A prime example is Sri Lanka, which had to lease its Hambantota Port to China for 99 years as a debt settlement, sparking concerns about so-called “debt traps” and economic vulnerability.

External Pressures and the Role of the U.S.

Brazil’s decision appears to have been influenced not only by its assessment of the BRI’s benefits but also by external pressures. The United States, which has traditionally been wary of China’s growing influence in Latin America, recently called for Brazil to evaluate the risks associated with joining the BRI. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai encouraged Brazil to approach the BRI proposal with an “objective lens” and to consider risk management carefully.

China’s response to this external influence was swift. The Chinese embassy in Brazil called Tai’s comments “irresponsible” and “disrespectful,” asserting that Brazil has the right to make independent decisions on its foreign partnerships without intervention. The Global Times, a Chinese state-run newspaper, went further, criticizing the U.S. approach as reminiscent of the “Monroe Doctrine”—a stance historically linked to U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs.

Implications for BRICS and Beyond

Brazil’s stance adds a new layer to the BRICS bloc, which is increasingly navigating a complex landscape of diverse interests and perspectives. While the bloc’s other members, Russia, South Africa, and China, remain supportive of the BRI, Brazil and India’s independent approaches suggest a potential shift toward greater flexibility and autonomy within BRICS.

This latest development could encourage other nations, especially within Latin America, to consider more cautious approaches to joining large-scale initiatives like the BRI. As global economies reassess their partnerships and the impact of infrastructure megaprojects, Brazil’s decision could mark a turning point for countries seeking sustainable growth without forfeiting economic sovereignty.

ALSO READ: EAM Jaishankar Engages in Key Meetings at 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan