How much is BRICS challenging Western dominance? Is it time for global rebalance? Despite attempts to play it down through narratives, South African researcher Sanusha Naidu believes it's evident that the "Global North" is taking BRICS seriously.

Liu Xin: If you read these articles on The Economist, or on the mainstream international media, they're like, the BRICS is formed to challenge the dominance of the West.

But my question is, and a question for Ms. Naidu is, why shouldn't the dominance of the West be challenged? Why should the world be dominated by the West?

Sanusha Naidu: Yes, it's the big question that sits in the context of where we are and where the BRICS will probably be moving to in the next five, ten years.

I think why there's this whole kind of reaction to the BRICS and the provocation that the BRICS will not necessarily be as legitimate or as credible, because it represents a system of possible change.

So, I think it comes with a whole lot of questions about what does this mean for us, our own kind of identity in the global arena? What does it mean for our own footprint in the global arena?

And so, I think it comes back to the question around, our colleagues have been mentioning around, what is the world after 1945?

That world that we had created, or the international gatekeepers had created after 1945, it's still relevant, but how relevant is it? And is it still fit for purpose in terms of representation?

So, I think with anything that emerges as a challenge to a system or as a kind of implicit disruption to a system, will come with the kind of reaction you've seen.

I think the fact that you see that reaction tells you that the countries of the "Global North" are taking the BRICS seriously, although they're trying to downplay it with the kind of narrative, rhetoric and reaction.