The Bric (Brazil, Russia, India and China) group was formed in 2009 and became Brics when South Africa joined the next year. Many saw it as a force that would transform the world, profoundly changing the global balance of power. This was a particularly credible view in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008/9. But reality can be harsh and the future is never certain. Almost inevitably, following its formation, things began to go wrong for most of the member countries.

South Africa’s membership of the group was justified on the grounds that it was Africa’s largest economy. But Nigeria is now number one. Except in China, economic growth among the Brics has ranged from disappointing to pretty dismal. The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) latest estimate for Brazilian economic growth this year is a miserable 0.3%, rising to a mediocre (for an emerging economy) 1.4% next year. Russia is doing even worse, with the IMF forecast for 2014 now being 0.5%, falling into recession with a contraction of –1% in 2015. India is doing much better, with the IMF forecasting growth of 5.6% for this year and 6.4% for next year. China remains the star performer and the Fund’s prediction is 7.4% this year and 7.1% next year. The IMF’s predictions for South Africa are for 1.4% growth in 2014 and 2.7% in 2015. (In comparison, the Fund expects the US to grow at 2.1% this year and 3% next year and the respective figures for the UK are 3.2% and 2.7%.)

However, from 1993 to 2007, China’s annual growth rate averaged 10.5%. Over the same period India (which engages in less international trade than China) averaged 6.5% growth a year. In 2007, Chinese growth hit a staggering 14.2%, India reached 10.1%, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1%. These glory days are past.

Now, there can be no doubt that the world has changed, that the global balance has shifted, but the simple truth is that most of this is down to China alone and not to the Brics as a group. There can also be little doubt that, as a political group, Brics has made little impact on the world – much less impact than its individual members have had on their own.

It is true that agreement was reached earlier this year to set up a Brics development bank. But it seems that it will be largely focused on activities within the member countries and will not be easily accessible by other developing States. So it does not yet really qualify as an international leadership initiative by the bloc.

However, what has really exposed the emptiness of the Brics alignment is the Ebola crisis in West Africa. One would have thought that a major medical and humanitarian crisis in a very poor part of the world would have been an ideal opportunity for the bloc to show leadership. But, at time of writing, Brics, as a group, had done nothing. As for the member countries acting individually, their performance has (except for China) not been much better. And even China’s response has not been remotely what it could have been.

Brazil has donated $10-million and sent medical supplies for 2 500 people but has sent no people to help. Russia originally contributed just $1-million in food aid, but did deploy some medical specialists to the region. Moscow has since decided to donate $19-million to fund the fight against the disease and contribute medical equipment, medicines and further medical personnel. India has pledged $12.5-million, but has cancelled what would have been the biggest ever India/Africa summit, scheduled for early December in New Delhi, because of the outbreak of Ebola. South Africa has sent a field laboratory to Sierre Leone, from the National Institute for Communicable Diseases. How many people have been deployed? Four. (But that’s still a lot better than Brazil.) In addition, the South African government, companies and donors had, by October 10, collectively raised a little over $1-million in cash and kind to help fight the outbreak. On the other hand, on August 21, South Africa imposed a travel ban on non-South Africans coming from the three worst Ebola-affected countries, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. (A great display of pan-African solidarity.)

China originally committed $38-million to the cause, later adding another $16-million (for a total, at the time of writing, of $54-million), plus providing supplies of an experimental Chinese-developed anti-Ebola drug and deploying some 200 personnel to the affected region. China’s efforts exceed those of the other four Brics countries combined.

Yet China is the world’s number two economy. World number five economy France is concentrating its efforts on Guinea, once ruled by Paris, deploying medical personnel and, as of October 13, assigning €70-million ($88.8-million) to assist the country. Part of the French programme will be the construction of an undisclosed number of Ebola treatment centres in the country. The UK, the number six economy, is focusing on former colony Sierra Leone. As of October 21, the country had committed £125-million ($200-million) and deployed 300 military personnel, comprising medics, engineers, logisticians and planners; 450 more are to follow (including an auxiliary helicopter carrier with three helicopters embarked). Britain has established an Ebola training centre for local medical personnel, staffed by the Royal Army Medical Corps and which will train 120 health workers a week. British troops are also, in cooperation with their Sierra Leonean counterparts and local contractors, building six Ebola treatment centres.

The world’s number one economy, the US, is deploying 3 000 troops to Liberia to build 17 Ebola treatment centres plus a 25-bed critical care hospital (to be staffed by US civilian personnel) specifically to treat health workers who have contracted the disease. And, as of October 15, the US had committed more than $258-million to assist Liberia and Guinea.

It should also be noted that the leaders of the US, the UK and France have been consulting with each other and coordinating their national responses. There is no sign of the Brics leaders having made any attempt to do likewise. The lesson is clear: the Brics bloc is great for rhetoric, but if you have a real crisis, it’s Washington, London and Paris you have to call.