Krishna with Flute
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,480
- Likes
- 2,978
- Axis Group
Bangladesh Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,596
- Likes
- 8,463
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Regional & global alliances: past & present
The recent BRICS summit in Kazan was an unqualified success for Russian President Putin. It was his moment to demonstrate to his enemies in the West that despite the sanctions imposed on him over the Ukraine issue, he remains a pivotal force in global politics. The presence of Xi Jinping, Narendra
Regional & global alliances: past & present
Syed Badrul Ahsan
Published :
Oct 30, 2024 21:54
Updated :
Oct 30, 2024 21:54
The recent BRICS summit in Kazan was an unqualified success for Russian President Putin. It was his moment to demonstrate to his enemies in the West that despite the sanctions imposed on him over the Ukraine issue, he remains a pivotal force in global politics. The presence of Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi and Cyril Ramaphosa at the summit were of course a message to the West that a new alliance of nations, however tentative at the moment, has shaped itself as a counterpoint to the West. To what extent BRICS will play a larger role in the years ahead is, however, a question one cannot quite respond to at this time.
That brings us to the matter of how regional or intercontinental organisations have fared in the past many decades. The plain conclusion is that in a number of instances the results have not been pretty. The formation of the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) by Turkey, Pakistan and Iran in the mid-1960s was in the beginning looked upon as a promising new venture in the region. By the end of the decade, however, the RCD lost its shine.
And, of course, political changes in the three countries had little scope to accommodate the organisation. Besides the RCD, there have been bodies like the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which contributed impressively to promoting cooperation among the newly emergent African states in the post-colonial 1960s. But then came a time when the OAU needed to reinvent itself. The reinvention came through a replacement of the body with the African Union (AU).
Questions abound about the effectiveness of the AU, which has quite been helpless in the matter of preventing or rolling back coups d'etat in a number of countries over the last few years. The AU was expected to do for Africa what the EU has been doing for Europe, but given the tribal heritage as well as divergent national interests of its member-states, it has been unable to make much of a headway.
Now take the instance of the Arab League, which has been in existence since 1945. In the mid-1960s and early 1970s, with the voices of Arab nationalism growing increasingly louder in a volatile Middle East, it was a powerful unifying force for the countries it brought together. In recent years, though, it has not quite been able to assert itself over such issues as Palestine and the rising power of Israel in the region. It is an emasculated organisation today.
Two regional bodies, the South East Asia Treaty Organaisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO), midwifed by the United States (US) in the 1950s with the specific goal of containing communism, eventually died deserved deaths with the change in the landscape of global diplomacy. These two organisations were instruments which prolonged the Cold War and indeed attempted to impede the march of historical change. The demise of SEATO and CENTO were a signal for a new world order to emerge. To what extent that new world order was able to emerge is a question which students of global diplomacy will be able to answer.
But suffice for now to point to the QUAD, a body which, again at the instance of Washington, means to keep an eye on an increasingly ambitious China in the Pacific. The Chinese, since the arrival of communism in Beijing in 1949, have not been known to go for compromise on what they consider to be their national interests. It is therefore to be expected that their goal of getting back Taiwan as an integral part of the People's Republic will not be shaken, QUAD or no QUAD.
Changes in global politics over the past five or so decades have been as dramatic as they have been consequential. The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s swiftly led to a natural dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, a body that was a counterweight to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) during the Cold War. Curiously enough, while the Warsaw Pact went the way of mortality, NATO has not only continued to exist but has also been a contributory factor to the making of such crises as the Ukraine war.
It was NATO's ambition of pushing itself closer to the Russian frontier through Ukraine that aroused President Putin's ire. Obviously NATO's role in the conflict has exacerbated the conflict in Ukraine and damaged the possibility of a peaceful world order through its clear provocation to the Russians. It is now a situation where Putin will not lose and will not permit Zelenskyy and NATO to win. Europe has been pushed to the edge.
Regional cooperation in South Asia was cheerfully looked forward to by the countries in the region when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) took formal shape in 1985 through the first summit of heads of state and government in Dhaka. Nearly four decades later, SAARC is in a state of the comatose, with none of the member states of the body seemingly inclined toward taking measures for its resuscitation. The tragedy is simple: while other regions around the world move on through interstate organisations, ASEAN for instance, South Asia continues to drift in an atmosphere of uncertainty deepened by hostility defining ties between the states which constitute the region.
And, yes, ASEAN has been an effective body since its formation in 1967. It has been instrumental in promoting the collective economic and political interests of its member-states. One cannot quite say the same about the Non-aligned Movement (NAM). As for the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), it needs to spell out a clear vision of the future, politically and economically, it envisages for the nations which are part of its structure.
One organisation which has survived the vicissitudes of time has been the Commonwealth, a body which comprises countries that had once been colonised by Britain but subsequently became sovereign nations. Of late, however, the Commonwealth has welcomed into its fold countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique, Gabon and Togo, which were never under British rule, as members.
The Commonwealth has remained relevant through constantly emphasising its values of democracy, human rights, media freedom, free and fair elections. The recent summit of Commonwealth leaders in Samoa once more underscored these values, a healthy indication of the fact that given determination and a sense of history, regional and global organisations can indeed survive purposefully and adapt to changing times.
Whether BRICS can make a difference in today's world is a question the answer to which is dependent on the leaders of its member countries. In a multi-polar world, it will be regional bodies, stressing economic growth and political cohesion, which will be the trend of the future. A new generation of global leaders will be expected to play the role of statesmen in the transformation.
Syed Badrul Ahsan
Published :
Oct 30, 2024 21:54
Updated :
Oct 30, 2024 21:54
The recent BRICS summit in Kazan was an unqualified success for Russian President Putin. It was his moment to demonstrate to his enemies in the West that despite the sanctions imposed on him over the Ukraine issue, he remains a pivotal force in global politics. The presence of Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi and Cyril Ramaphosa at the summit were of course a message to the West that a new alliance of nations, however tentative at the moment, has shaped itself as a counterpoint to the West. To what extent BRICS will play a larger role in the years ahead is, however, a question one cannot quite respond to at this time.
That brings us to the matter of how regional or intercontinental organisations have fared in the past many decades. The plain conclusion is that in a number of instances the results have not been pretty. The formation of the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) by Turkey, Pakistan and Iran in the mid-1960s was in the beginning looked upon as a promising new venture in the region. By the end of the decade, however, the RCD lost its shine.
And, of course, political changes in the three countries had little scope to accommodate the organisation. Besides the RCD, there have been bodies like the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which contributed impressively to promoting cooperation among the newly emergent African states in the post-colonial 1960s. But then came a time when the OAU needed to reinvent itself. The reinvention came through a replacement of the body with the African Union (AU).
Questions abound about the effectiveness of the AU, which has quite been helpless in the matter of preventing or rolling back coups d'etat in a number of countries over the last few years. The AU was expected to do for Africa what the EU has been doing for Europe, but given the tribal heritage as well as divergent national interests of its member-states, it has been unable to make much of a headway.
Now take the instance of the Arab League, which has been in existence since 1945. In the mid-1960s and early 1970s, with the voices of Arab nationalism growing increasingly louder in a volatile Middle East, it was a powerful unifying force for the countries it brought together. In recent years, though, it has not quite been able to assert itself over such issues as Palestine and the rising power of Israel in the region. It is an emasculated organisation today.
Two regional bodies, the South East Asia Treaty Organaisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO), midwifed by the United States (US) in the 1950s with the specific goal of containing communism, eventually died deserved deaths with the change in the landscape of global diplomacy. These two organisations were instruments which prolonged the Cold War and indeed attempted to impede the march of historical change. The demise of SEATO and CENTO were a signal for a new world order to emerge. To what extent that new world order was able to emerge is a question which students of global diplomacy will be able to answer.
But suffice for now to point to the QUAD, a body which, again at the instance of Washington, means to keep an eye on an increasingly ambitious China in the Pacific. The Chinese, since the arrival of communism in Beijing in 1949, have not been known to go for compromise on what they consider to be their national interests. It is therefore to be expected that their goal of getting back Taiwan as an integral part of the People's Republic will not be shaken, QUAD or no QUAD.
Changes in global politics over the past five or so decades have been as dramatic as they have been consequential. The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s swiftly led to a natural dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, a body that was a counterweight to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) during the Cold War. Curiously enough, while the Warsaw Pact went the way of mortality, NATO has not only continued to exist but has also been a contributory factor to the making of such crises as the Ukraine war.
It was NATO's ambition of pushing itself closer to the Russian frontier through Ukraine that aroused President Putin's ire. Obviously NATO's role in the conflict has exacerbated the conflict in Ukraine and damaged the possibility of a peaceful world order through its clear provocation to the Russians. It is now a situation where Putin will not lose and will not permit Zelenskyy and NATO to win. Europe has been pushed to the edge.
Regional cooperation in South Asia was cheerfully looked forward to by the countries in the region when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) took formal shape in 1985 through the first summit of heads of state and government in Dhaka. Nearly four decades later, SAARC is in a state of the comatose, with none of the member states of the body seemingly inclined toward taking measures for its resuscitation. The tragedy is simple: while other regions around the world move on through interstate organisations, ASEAN for instance, South Asia continues to drift in an atmosphere of uncertainty deepened by hostility defining ties between the states which constitute the region.
And, yes, ASEAN has been an effective body since its formation in 1967. It has been instrumental in promoting the collective economic and political interests of its member-states. One cannot quite say the same about the Non-aligned Movement (NAM). As for the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), it needs to spell out a clear vision of the future, politically and economically, it envisages for the nations which are part of its structure.
One organisation which has survived the vicissitudes of time has been the Commonwealth, a body which comprises countries that had once been colonised by Britain but subsequently became sovereign nations. Of late, however, the Commonwealth has welcomed into its fold countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique, Gabon and Togo, which were never under British rule, as members.
The Commonwealth has remained relevant through constantly emphasising its values of democracy, human rights, media freedom, free and fair elections. The recent summit of Commonwealth leaders in Samoa once more underscored these values, a healthy indication of the fact that given determination and a sense of history, regional and global organisations can indeed survive purposefully and adapt to changing times.
Whether BRICS can make a difference in today's world is a question the answer to which is dependent on the leaders of its member countries. In a multi-polar world, it will be regional bodies, stressing economic growth and political cohesion, which will be the trend of the future. A new generation of global leaders will be expected to play the role of statesmen in the transformation.
Saif
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,596
- Likes
- 8,463
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Exploring BRICS and global governance
We fought two world wars because of economic nationalism, the driving force behind the warring powers.
Exploring BRICS and global governance
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping attend a family photo ceremony prior to the BRICS Summit plenary session in Kazan, Russia on October 23, 2024. FILE PHOTO: REUTERS
We fought two world wars because of economic nationalism, the driving force behind the warring powers. The Bretton Woods Conference (1944) attempted to counter that by establishing an exchange rate and monetary system for trade and investment under the surveillance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also established the World Bank (former International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) to recover from the scourge of war and tender a platform for equitable global development. Later, the United Nations and World Trade Organization (former General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) joined the global arrangement for peace, economic growth, and trade.
These institutions have established a world order incorporating economic stability, relative peace, universal values, liberalisation, democratisation, and globalisation. Over the years, the order has benefited the West more than other nations in a systemic manner, increasing the income and wealth gap. Apparently, the West enjoys a monopoly in global governance. Its agenda is backed by a military alliance: NATO. It is likely to favour the status quo over change.
This leads us to BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which has been around for 15 years. It represents 45 percent of the world population and 37 percent of the global GDP, while the West represents 10 percent of the world population and 28 percent of the global GDP.
BRICS has laudably opposed the monopolisation of power and rightfully noted that the world needs plurality, better governance, equitable development, and multilateral security. Their assessment concurs with the observation of the majority of the world, but has the organisation been able to offer realistic change in global governance? Specifically, has the organisation made the world a safer place to live or a better place to trade? How is it contributing to global economic development? Let's explore.
Since the late 1990s, the rise of the emerging markets has been phenomenal. Their economic growth rate was double that of the Western economy. The BRICS countries contributed to half of the global growth. The Western response to the rise of the emerging markets depended on how these countries affected the hegemony, as a group and individually. The West accommodated the group with a new platform: G20 in 1999. Individually, the initial five members of BRICS got different responses from the West. Brazil and South Africa are regional players and do not seriously affect the hegemony. This is also true for the new members. Another regional player, India, was drawn into the global platform for hegemonic interests.
With 143 million people, almost one-eighth of the global landmass, huge resources, veto membership, and nuclear capabilities, Russia stands as a strong power. However, the country also has an inherent economic weakness. It is highly dependent on exports of oil and gas (about 50 percent of Russia's total budget), basic minerals, and raw materials. The country lacks economic diversification and is also short on skilled manpower. Initially, to accommodate the Russian ascension, the West included the country in G7 in 1997. Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia was taken out of G7. In 2022, it invaded Ukraine. Now, the country faces political and economic sanctions and a complete ostracisation by the West. It is bogged in a war with no end in sight. The West believes that, given the structural weakness of the Russian economy and the shortage of manpower, their strategy will work, and in the long run may result in a regime change or disintegration. Despite all of these, Russia is officially recalibrating its geopolitical position as a Eurasian power, pursuing its united Russian World doctrine (Russkiy Mir).
Meanwhile, economic growth, a huge population base, skilled and disciplined labour force, party command structure, advanced technology, modernised military, and grandeur image have prepared China as a formidable power. Despite the trade dependency, it is the "rising power" that can truly challenge the US, the "established" power (Thucydides Trap). The West responded to China with a containment policy. They seem to have been quite successful in undermining China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), challenging its military capability (helped by Pacific nations and India), reducing its economic growth/expansion, and neutralising its diplomatic influence. China is busy managing its own economy and has less opportunity to attend to global affairs.
With regard to India, Modi's vision is of a technologically advanced country with a strong military grounded on Indian nationalism. It began modernising its military for regional as well as global pursuits. The West embraced India. In case they need to take a hardline position on China, India can fill the void by providing labour-intensive product/industry support. We observe an old China-India civilisation rivalry/competition. Seventy years ago, this is what Pandit Nehru avoided and joined hands with then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai to advance the Non-Aligned Movement. So far, the Western strategy is working: India is a part of QUAD, supplying arms to Ukraine, and producing military products for Israel.
Let us now consider the role and performance of BRICS on global political, economic, and trade issues. On the political front, the wars in Ukraine and Palestine are still going on while war has started in Lebanon and Iran. Russia, host of the 2024 BRICS conference, which concluded in October, is directly engaged in Ukraine, and the US/West is strongly backing both Ukraine and Israel. The US support has given a competitive advantage to Israel in implementing its military goals, and China and Russia are not in a position to make any serious contribution to Middle East peace. The UN system has fallen behind in inclusivity, participation, and power-sharing. The veto system is an outdated postulation, incompatible with the current economic and political reality. Thus, BRICS shall have to do more to accommodate the Global South's voice.
Besides, the current financial system is governed by the IMF with a quota system that BRICS supports. IMF endorses an exchange rate system based on the US dollar. This has given global economic leadership to the US since the Bretton Woods. India does not support de-dollarisation. In Kazan, BRICS discussed the four components of the international monetary and financial system: payments, investments, reserves, and global financial safety. An alternative BRICS currency is not a reality at this time. The BRICS Pay, BRICS Clear, and BRICS Bridge are new initiatives. Some are partially functional. BRICS encourages the use of local currency in international transactions, but it is too early to evaluate these institutional arrangements. We will have to see how they evolve and mature.
Although BRICS has, over these years, evolved into an emerging markets club following G7 and G20, it is neither a trade bloc like the EU nor a military bloc like NATO. Evidently, the geopolitical, economic, and social agendas of the members are quite diverse and are not as unified as the EU or NATO. By ostracising Russia, containing China, embracing India, and keeping other members at bay, the West has limited the BRICS members' ability to take a unified stance.
No doubt, global governance needs reform. It can be addressed from within by the UN member countries where BRICS can play a significant role. It can also be an alternative platform to supplement plurality, security, and newer financial structures. So far, the organisation has distributed some funds to developing countries via the BRICS Development Bank. Its contribution to global peace is limited and its initiatives, in terms of trade and financial governance, are at an early stage. We will have to see how they survive the market test.
Under the current hegemonic condition, both China and Russia will continue to get hurt economically, politically, and socially. The situation may force them to enter a military alliance, which would definitely be a "game-changer" in the hegemonic relationship and global governance, but will face strong opposition from the West.
Dr Abu NM Waheeduzzaman is professor of marketing and international business at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping attend a family photo ceremony prior to the BRICS Summit plenary session in Kazan, Russia on October 23, 2024. FILE PHOTO: REUTERS
We fought two world wars because of economic nationalism, the driving force behind the warring powers. The Bretton Woods Conference (1944) attempted to counter that by establishing an exchange rate and monetary system for trade and investment under the surveillance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also established the World Bank (former International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) to recover from the scourge of war and tender a platform for equitable global development. Later, the United Nations and World Trade Organization (former General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) joined the global arrangement for peace, economic growth, and trade.
These institutions have established a world order incorporating economic stability, relative peace, universal values, liberalisation, democratisation, and globalisation. Over the years, the order has benefited the West more than other nations in a systemic manner, increasing the income and wealth gap. Apparently, the West enjoys a monopoly in global governance. Its agenda is backed by a military alliance: NATO. It is likely to favour the status quo over change.
This leads us to BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which has been around for 15 years. It represents 45 percent of the world population and 37 percent of the global GDP, while the West represents 10 percent of the world population and 28 percent of the global GDP.
BRICS has laudably opposed the monopolisation of power and rightfully noted that the world needs plurality, better governance, equitable development, and multilateral security. Their assessment concurs with the observation of the majority of the world, but has the organisation been able to offer realistic change in global governance? Specifically, has the organisation made the world a safer place to live or a better place to trade? How is it contributing to global economic development? Let's explore.
Since the late 1990s, the rise of the emerging markets has been phenomenal. Their economic growth rate was double that of the Western economy. The BRICS countries contributed to half of the global growth. The Western response to the rise of the emerging markets depended on how these countries affected the hegemony, as a group and individually. The West accommodated the group with a new platform: G20 in 1999. Individually, the initial five members of BRICS got different responses from the West. Brazil and South Africa are regional players and do not seriously affect the hegemony. This is also true for the new members. Another regional player, India, was drawn into the global platform for hegemonic interests.
With 143 million people, almost one-eighth of the global landmass, huge resources, veto membership, and nuclear capabilities, Russia stands as a strong power. However, the country also has an inherent economic weakness. It is highly dependent on exports of oil and gas (about 50 percent of Russia's total budget), basic minerals, and raw materials. The country lacks economic diversification and is also short on skilled manpower. Initially, to accommodate the Russian ascension, the West included the country in G7 in 1997. Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia was taken out of G7. In 2022, it invaded Ukraine. Now, the country faces political and economic sanctions and a complete ostracisation by the West. It is bogged in a war with no end in sight. The West believes that, given the structural weakness of the Russian economy and the shortage of manpower, their strategy will work, and in the long run may result in a regime change or disintegration. Despite all of these, Russia is officially recalibrating its geopolitical position as a Eurasian power, pursuing its united Russian World doctrine (Russkiy Mir).
Meanwhile, economic growth, a huge population base, skilled and disciplined labour force, party command structure, advanced technology, modernised military, and grandeur image have prepared China as a formidable power. Despite the trade dependency, it is the "rising power" that can truly challenge the US, the "established" power (Thucydides Trap). The West responded to China with a containment policy. They seem to have been quite successful in undermining China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), challenging its military capability (helped by Pacific nations and India), reducing its economic growth/expansion, and neutralising its diplomatic influence. China is busy managing its own economy and has less opportunity to attend to global affairs.
With regard to India, Modi's vision is of a technologically advanced country with a strong military grounded on Indian nationalism. It began modernising its military for regional as well as global pursuits. The West embraced India. In case they need to take a hardline position on China, India can fill the void by providing labour-intensive product/industry support. We observe an old China-India civilisation rivalry/competition. Seventy years ago, this is what Pandit Nehru avoided and joined hands with then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai to advance the Non-Aligned Movement. So far, the Western strategy is working: India is a part of QUAD, supplying arms to Ukraine, and producing military products for Israel.
Let us now consider the role and performance of BRICS on global political, economic, and trade issues. On the political front, the wars in Ukraine and Palestine are still going on while war has started in Lebanon and Iran. Russia, host of the 2024 BRICS conference, which concluded in October, is directly engaged in Ukraine, and the US/West is strongly backing both Ukraine and Israel. The US support has given a competitive advantage to Israel in implementing its military goals, and China and Russia are not in a position to make any serious contribution to Middle East peace. The UN system has fallen behind in inclusivity, participation, and power-sharing. The veto system is an outdated postulation, incompatible with the current economic and political reality. Thus, BRICS shall have to do more to accommodate the Global South's voice.
Besides, the current financial system is governed by the IMF with a quota system that BRICS supports. IMF endorses an exchange rate system based on the US dollar. This has given global economic leadership to the US since the Bretton Woods. India does not support de-dollarisation. In Kazan, BRICS discussed the four components of the international monetary and financial system: payments, investments, reserves, and global financial safety. An alternative BRICS currency is not a reality at this time. The BRICS Pay, BRICS Clear, and BRICS Bridge are new initiatives. Some are partially functional. BRICS encourages the use of local currency in international transactions, but it is too early to evaluate these institutional arrangements. We will have to see how they evolve and mature.
Although BRICS has, over these years, evolved into an emerging markets club following G7 and G20, it is neither a trade bloc like the EU nor a military bloc like NATO. Evidently, the geopolitical, economic, and social agendas of the members are quite diverse and are not as unified as the EU or NATO. By ostracising Russia, containing China, embracing India, and keeping other members at bay, the West has limited the BRICS members' ability to take a unified stance.
No doubt, global governance needs reform. It can be addressed from within by the UN member countries where BRICS can play a significant role. It can also be an alternative platform to supplement plurality, security, and newer financial structures. So far, the organisation has distributed some funds to developing countries via the BRICS Development Bank. Its contribution to global peace is limited and its initiatives, in terms of trade and financial governance, are at an early stage. We will have to see how they survive the market test.
Under the current hegemonic condition, both China and Russia will continue to get hurt economically, politically, and socially. The situation may force them to enter a military alliance, which would definitely be a "game-changer" in the hegemonic relationship and global governance, but will face strong opposition from the West.
Dr Abu NM Waheeduzzaman is professor of marketing and international business at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
Saif
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,596
- Likes
- 8,463
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
BRICS summit 2024: moving towards a new world order
Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the first ever summit of BRICS+ from October22 to 24 in Tatarstan, capital Kazan -- a beautiful city also considered as the third capital of Russia. The 16th BRICS summit hosted by Russia is believed to be one of the major economic, political and cultur
BRICS summit 2024: moving towards a new world order
Muhammad Mahmood
Published :
Nov 09, 2024 21:57
Updated :
Nov 09, 2024 21:57
Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the first ever summit of BRICS+ from October22 to 24 in Tatarstan, capital Kazan -- a beautiful city also considered as the third capital of Russia. The 16th BRICS summit hosted by Russia is believed to be one of the major economic, political and cultural events of the decade. The past year has seen BRICS grow both in size and influence.
Russia is the Chair of the group for 2024, and Putin played host to 36 nations including China, India, Iran, Egypt, Turkey and UAE. These countries account for 57 per cent of global population and a third of the global economy. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, also attended the conference.
BRICS undertook a major expansion recently, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Turkey had also applied to join the group, and its BRICS application is a watershed moment in geopolitics. It would become the first NATO member and long time candidate for European Union membership to join the grouping considered as a challenger to the US-led Western global dominance and a counterweight to Western-led organisations like the EU, the G7 and the G20. However, it is yet to develop formal structure, enforcement mechanisms, and uniform rules and standards.
One of the major objectives of Putin in hosting the summit was to demonstrate that is Moscow as anything but isolated. In fact, the gathering in Kazan was meant to send an unmistakable message that despite the US and its allies' best efforts to isolate it, Russia has many friends around the world.
Putin also warned the West that it was an "illusion" to think Moscow could be defeated on the battlefield and that any peace deal would have to recognise Russia's control of the large areas of Ukrainian territory.
China's President Xi Jinping greeted Putin as his dear friend, praising the profound friendship between the two countries. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa described Moscow as a "valued ally" and praised Russia for its support for the country in its struggle against apartheid. Even Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi while fomenting political unrest in neighbouring countries, now especially in Bangladesh, tried to cast himself as a peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine conflict wishing the conflict to be resolved peacefully.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, speaking at the summit, outlined the vision of BRICS advocating for a new economic and monetary system that challenges Western hegemony. He emphasised the need for practical solutions for international trade and currency exchange, urging reforms to strengthen the BRICS New Development Bank and promote independent economies. Maduro also called for a radical transformation of the United Nations, condemning its failure to address conflicts, like those in Gaza and Lebanon.
A BRICS + format is now taking place, with world leaders and heads of the Eurasian Economic Union, Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, among many others.
Five new members were formally welcomed into the group - Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). Putin also invited more than two dozen other countries that have applied for or are considering membership in the expanding group. It is now increasingly becoming clear that an expanding BRICS, now labelled as BRICS+ reflects a shared belief among many important countries that the US dominated and crafted rule based global order against their interest including the global economic governance system.
In fact, the current global economic and political architecture is a product of the foreign policy choices of the West. The gathering of BRICS+ and other countries at the summit also spotlighted a growing convergence of nations who hope to see a shift in the global balance of power that directly counters the United States-led West.
The US has a well-documented history of weaponising just about any institution, policy, or even a crisis and above all its own currency to advance its political agenda. It also exploited the EU's strategic weakness to render it subservient with no hope of strategic autonomy.
BRICS was established 2009 on the premise that international organisations were overly dominated by the West and had ceased to serve developing countries. The bloc sought to coordinate its members' economic and diplomatic policies that are immune to US pressures by circumventing the dollar. This also aimed at mitigating the US ability to use the threat of sanctions in imposing its political will. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed the similar view at the summit and said, "BRICS can be a way out of American totalitarianism and create a path of multilateralism. BRICS can be a solution to deal with the dominance of the dollar and deal with the economic sanctions of countries."
As the world's reserve currency, countries around the world have been forced to acquire the US dollar to trade with other countries. This has granted the US enormous power to shape the world order to its advantage. Because of the unique position of the US dollar, the US has for decades run vast trade and current account deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It financed its deficits just by printing dollars including to finance massive bail outs. This is now being directly challenged by BRICS+, proposing to facilitate trade in nations' own currencies. Putin said at the summit that nearly 95 per cent of trade between China and Russia is now conducted in the rubble and the yuan.
But the US dollar's domination of the global currency landscape is deeply entrenched, both for trade transactions and foreign exchange reserves. More than 80 per cent of global trade transactions are invoiced in US dollars, which also accounts for nearly 60 per cent of central bank reserves. 50 per cent of global debt is denominated in the dollar. However, the U.S. dollar's share of global reserves has seen a steady decline, from around 71 per cent in 1999 to 59 per cent in early 2024. This trend reflects a shift in reserves towards other currencies, including the euro, Chinese yuan, and smaller currencies like the Australian dollar and Swiss franc, which are being increasingly used for diversification purposes.
It would not be easy to shed their dependence on the US dollar. Neither China nor India has fully convertible currencies. This hype about the potential shift out of the US dollar hegemony is also unrealistic given the economic structure of the member countries. China now holds the World's largest foreign exchange reserves which stood at US$3.32 trillion as of September this year with significant portion held in the US dollar. Even Putin remarked at the summit that Moscow was not trying to undermine the US currency but was "forced to look for alternatives" in trade with its partners.
BRICS remains a disparate group ranging from China to a relatively very small economy, South Africa. India is now a member of a military alliance with the US, Japan and Australia (the Quad) to contain China and Modi is a regular attendee at the G-7 summits, so is Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa. Some in the US see the US-India relationship as the defining partnership of the century. From the Indian perspective, the US sanctions against China could even hold advantages for India.
Therefore, to ease out the dollar will be an uphill task. Also, Brazil and India do not share the same degree of enthusiasm for de-dollarisation as China and Russia do. The US President elect Donald Trump has already warned of serious economic consequences if BRICS and other countries sideline the US dollar and will impose BRICS countries with 100 percent tariff on goods that enter the US if they go for de-dollarisation. If the tariffs are imposed, it could change the global trade dynamics leading to a paradigm shift in global trade flows and BRICS nations could face serious challenges as 100 per cent tariff could be a serious financial burden.
The rise of BRICS and BRICS+ reflects a shared belief that the US and its European allies' rule based international order and particularly the system of global economic governance is stacked against their interests and has become outdated.
Also, the US-led unipolar neo-liberal international order gave rise to neo-liberal globalisation and many consider it as the West's new civilisational mission having recolonising characteristics. The Western liberal approach also underpins the work of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. It is argued that the existing power asymmetry is essentially the consequence of the colonial past of countries belonging to the Global South and as such the BRICS perspective poses a challenge to the West.
Therefore, the expansion of BRICS goes beyond the purely economic effects. This will enhance the capacity of all developing countries to more effectively deal with the West dominated multilateral organisations including the UN. Tomofey Bordachev of the Valdai Club, a Russian think-tank rightly argued, "As it has developed, the BRICS group has become the literal embodiment of a revisionist approach to the transformation of the international order".
Muhammad Mahmood
Published :
Nov 09, 2024 21:57
Updated :
Nov 09, 2024 21:57
Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the first ever summit of BRICS+ from October22 to 24 in Tatarstan, capital Kazan -- a beautiful city also considered as the third capital of Russia. The 16th BRICS summit hosted by Russia is believed to be one of the major economic, political and cultural events of the decade. The past year has seen BRICS grow both in size and influence.
Russia is the Chair of the group for 2024, and Putin played host to 36 nations including China, India, Iran, Egypt, Turkey and UAE. These countries account for 57 per cent of global population and a third of the global economy. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, also attended the conference.
BRICS undertook a major expansion recently, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Turkey had also applied to join the group, and its BRICS application is a watershed moment in geopolitics. It would become the first NATO member and long time candidate for European Union membership to join the grouping considered as a challenger to the US-led Western global dominance and a counterweight to Western-led organisations like the EU, the G7 and the G20. However, it is yet to develop formal structure, enforcement mechanisms, and uniform rules and standards.
One of the major objectives of Putin in hosting the summit was to demonstrate that is Moscow as anything but isolated. In fact, the gathering in Kazan was meant to send an unmistakable message that despite the US and its allies' best efforts to isolate it, Russia has many friends around the world.
Putin also warned the West that it was an "illusion" to think Moscow could be defeated on the battlefield and that any peace deal would have to recognise Russia's control of the large areas of Ukrainian territory.
China's President Xi Jinping greeted Putin as his dear friend, praising the profound friendship between the two countries. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa described Moscow as a "valued ally" and praised Russia for its support for the country in its struggle against apartheid. Even Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi while fomenting political unrest in neighbouring countries, now especially in Bangladesh, tried to cast himself as a peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine conflict wishing the conflict to be resolved peacefully.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, speaking at the summit, outlined the vision of BRICS advocating for a new economic and monetary system that challenges Western hegemony. He emphasised the need for practical solutions for international trade and currency exchange, urging reforms to strengthen the BRICS New Development Bank and promote independent economies. Maduro also called for a radical transformation of the United Nations, condemning its failure to address conflicts, like those in Gaza and Lebanon.
A BRICS + format is now taking place, with world leaders and heads of the Eurasian Economic Union, Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, among many others.
Five new members were formally welcomed into the group - Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). Putin also invited more than two dozen other countries that have applied for or are considering membership in the expanding group. It is now increasingly becoming clear that an expanding BRICS, now labelled as BRICS+ reflects a shared belief among many important countries that the US dominated and crafted rule based global order against their interest including the global economic governance system.
In fact, the current global economic and political architecture is a product of the foreign policy choices of the West. The gathering of BRICS+ and other countries at the summit also spotlighted a growing convergence of nations who hope to see a shift in the global balance of power that directly counters the United States-led West.
The US has a well-documented history of weaponising just about any institution, policy, or even a crisis and above all its own currency to advance its political agenda. It also exploited the EU's strategic weakness to render it subservient with no hope of strategic autonomy.
BRICS was established 2009 on the premise that international organisations were overly dominated by the West and had ceased to serve developing countries. The bloc sought to coordinate its members' economic and diplomatic policies that are immune to US pressures by circumventing the dollar. This also aimed at mitigating the US ability to use the threat of sanctions in imposing its political will. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed the similar view at the summit and said, "BRICS can be a way out of American totalitarianism and create a path of multilateralism. BRICS can be a solution to deal with the dominance of the dollar and deal with the economic sanctions of countries."
As the world's reserve currency, countries around the world have been forced to acquire the US dollar to trade with other countries. This has granted the US enormous power to shape the world order to its advantage. Because of the unique position of the US dollar, the US has for decades run vast trade and current account deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It financed its deficits just by printing dollars including to finance massive bail outs. This is now being directly challenged by BRICS+, proposing to facilitate trade in nations' own currencies. Putin said at the summit that nearly 95 per cent of trade between China and Russia is now conducted in the rubble and the yuan.
But the US dollar's domination of the global currency landscape is deeply entrenched, both for trade transactions and foreign exchange reserves. More than 80 per cent of global trade transactions are invoiced in US dollars, which also accounts for nearly 60 per cent of central bank reserves. 50 per cent of global debt is denominated in the dollar. However, the U.S. dollar's share of global reserves has seen a steady decline, from around 71 per cent in 1999 to 59 per cent in early 2024. This trend reflects a shift in reserves towards other currencies, including the euro, Chinese yuan, and smaller currencies like the Australian dollar and Swiss franc, which are being increasingly used for diversification purposes.
It would not be easy to shed their dependence on the US dollar. Neither China nor India has fully convertible currencies. This hype about the potential shift out of the US dollar hegemony is also unrealistic given the economic structure of the member countries. China now holds the World's largest foreign exchange reserves which stood at US$3.32 trillion as of September this year with significant portion held in the US dollar. Even Putin remarked at the summit that Moscow was not trying to undermine the US currency but was "forced to look for alternatives" in trade with its partners.
BRICS remains a disparate group ranging from China to a relatively very small economy, South Africa. India is now a member of a military alliance with the US, Japan and Australia (the Quad) to contain China and Modi is a regular attendee at the G-7 summits, so is Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa. Some in the US see the US-India relationship as the defining partnership of the century. From the Indian perspective, the US sanctions against China could even hold advantages for India.
Therefore, to ease out the dollar will be an uphill task. Also, Brazil and India do not share the same degree of enthusiasm for de-dollarisation as China and Russia do. The US President elect Donald Trump has already warned of serious economic consequences if BRICS and other countries sideline the US dollar and will impose BRICS countries with 100 percent tariff on goods that enter the US if they go for de-dollarisation. If the tariffs are imposed, it could change the global trade dynamics leading to a paradigm shift in global trade flows and BRICS nations could face serious challenges as 100 per cent tariff could be a serious financial burden.
The rise of BRICS and BRICS+ reflects a shared belief that the US and its European allies' rule based international order and particularly the system of global economic governance is stacked against their interests and has become outdated.
Also, the US-led unipolar neo-liberal international order gave rise to neo-liberal globalisation and many consider it as the West's new civilisational mission having recolonising characteristics. The Western liberal approach also underpins the work of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. It is argued that the existing power asymmetry is essentially the consequence of the colonial past of countries belonging to the Global South and as such the BRICS perspective poses a challenge to the West.
Therefore, the expansion of BRICS goes beyond the purely economic effects. This will enhance the capacity of all developing countries to more effectively deal with the West dominated multilateral organisations including the UN. Tomofey Bordachev of the Valdai Club, a Russian think-tank rightly argued, "As it has developed, the BRICS group has become the literal embodiment of a revisionist approach to the transformation of the international order".
Saif
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,596
- Likes
- 8,463
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
BRICS is non-west, but not anti-west
Victoria Panova, who is head of BRICS Expert Council-Russia, tells Mustafizur Rahman about the philosophy and journey of the grouping in an interview with New Age...
www.newagebd.net
BRICS is non-west, but not anti-west
by Mustafizur Rahman 23 December, 2024, 22:51
Victoria Panova. | Eurasia Review
Victoria Panova, who is head of BRICS Expert Council-Russia, tells Mustafizur Rahman about the philosophy and journey of the grouping in an interview with New Age
New Age: Russia initiated BRIC initially as an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India and China, formed in 2006. South Africa joined the group later, making it BRICS. How do you evaluate the journey as many more nations have by the time joined the organisation?
Victoria Panova: Let me start with the fact that BRICS is not an organisation in its formal sense. It now has official establishment documents, charter or secretariat. This is a new type of mechanism, the way a club functions, that allows informal, open and comprehensive exchange of ideas between the leaders, a flexible and fast achievement and implementation of commitments taken, the construction of all-out horizontal ties not only within the official track, but also with all different parts of society — civil society, business, academia or youth, etc.
I should say that it definitely grew into something much bigger than it was initially seen. While even today, some experts try to say that this is primarily an economic entity, it is clearly seen that the scope of issues offered for consideration and where BRICS does have a global influence is much wider. BRICS has become a comprehensive grouping, based on three main pillars — politics and global governance; economics and finance; and humanitarian ties and people-to-people contacts. It is nowadays recognised that the grouping has power and what is even more important is the authority to think and offer for consideration the new model of international relations, as the old developed, ‘geriatric’ powers and the system sponsored by them has clearly failed more and more over the past decades. Today, more than 40 countries have in different ways asked to join BRICS. It is rightly seen not just an alternative to the existing world order but also a group that does not dominate and dictate, but is able to lead by their own example and to offer a new model of mutually beneficial and forward-looking relations, without hidden agenda and based on trust and mutual respect, supporting principles of multi-lateralism and multiculturalism, with the equality of all civilisations, of all countries and their all peoples. And this alternative offered is not about revolution and not about countering the west. It is simply non-west, global east and south, world majority. But what is key is that it does not hint at any confrontation and rather looks into ways of evolution and progress to fit interests of all the stakeholders. And all this poses stark contrast with what the western countries are trying to impose — negative agenda; cancelling and trying to destroy those who are not fitting in with the narrow frames offered for others by western judges; thinking of their somehow divine right for ultimate truth, changing rules as they see fit best for themselves on the go and discarding international law; seeing blackmailing and pressure as the only way of how relations between the ‘flourishing garden’ and ‘wild jungles’ could be constructed. BRICS represents something absolutely opposite — positive agenda, directed at what can be done for common benefit; search for compromise and common ground and preserving culture of dialogues; ability and desire to elaborate new forms and institutes contributing to global development.
One can name numerous initiatives and projects already launched within BRICS that are making the international system more fair, more responsive to the needs of the countries of the world majority. The most well-known case is definitely the BRICS New Development Bank, offering new options to boost investment opportunities for critically important infrastructural projects in member countries, allocating financing free of politicisation and bias. But the New Development Bank is not the only one. BRICS countries have vast activities alongside the adopted STI architecture — gradually advancing to create BRICS Network University, showing progress alongside the plans of the BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy, deepening work on the premises of the energy research platform, contributing to the general cause of just energy transition in line with the interests and needs of developing countries, continuing to search for solutions to issues of global food security progressing with the agricultural platform and launching the BRICS Grain initiative this year and many many more ideas and projects implemented.
Do you as an expert think that the group of emerging economies has more influence on international politics than before, especially in the global financial system as expected?
LET us start first with what kind of changes we have been witnessing over the past three decades while the political power continued to be usurped by the collective west, economic power balance has shifted more and more vividly to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Today, China comes as number one powerhouse economically while the first, second and fourth places in this list is also taken by BRICS countries. BRICS altogether occupies more than 30 per cent of global landmass, twice as much as with the G7 countries, contains more than 45 per cent of the global population, four times that of the G7, and its GDP by PPP has already reached a historic 35.7 per cent this year. Although Goldman Sachs was forecasting a few years ago that by 2032, BRICS would surpass the G7 cumulative gross domestic product, today what we see is that this has already become a fact of life, even before the actual enlargement took place. The original five have already surpassed the cumulative gross domestic product of the G7 countries.
What else do we have here? About 45 per cent of global oil reserves are centred in BRICS countries and oil remains the blood of economic production. Industrial capacity is a vital aspect of a country’s development capacity, even during the current digital age. Various estimates also show that from 68–79 per cent of rare earth metals are also possessed by BRICS countries and it is common knowledge that they are indispensable elements of high-tech production. Talking about food security, it is also noticeable that BRICS countries are leaders both in production and consumption of grain, with both figures accounting for about 44 per cent. Once again, there could be a long list of all the figures along different sectors and types of resources where BRICS parameters are seen as undoubted leadership.
At the same time, political leadership are still mostly retained within the west. Institutes existing in the paradigm of what was once the Bretton Woods system continue to be dominated by the west. Needed reforms are blocked. The World Trade Organisation continues to be paralysed as it no longer supports only developments that are beneficial for advanced economies despite all their failures in preventing or managing international financial crises that the International Monetary Fund continues to stall on further quota reform while the leadership positions of both the International Monetary Fund and the world Bank remain under the control of ‘traditional’ European and American candidates.
Similarly, the UN Security Council has only two BRICS members in its ranks, with absolutely excessive presence from Europe, which has by far lost its influence globally but still seems to be living in the realms of the Euro-centric world.
While western powers are not eager to give up on their dominant position and would like to continue enjoying benefits of the past glory, emerging and developing economies with their significantly grown weight and consciousness are not eager to continue playing the subordinate role. Thus, we see further growing attractiveness of non-western entities — BRICS, SCO, ASEAN or others. We could also witness self-consciousness and independent position of the global south with the series of G20 presidencies of Indonesia, India and Brazil, with the current one transferred to South Africa. It is true to say that what saved this format from vanishing in such turbulent geopolitical times is the firm and consistent policies of the presiding countries.
Western nations dominate international financial bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Is there any change in the system, with China emerging as a major economy coming up with more development projects in African/Asian countries?
INDEED, major international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank continue to be dominated by the west and real reform to make them more responsive to the needs of the developing world is far from any foreseen reality. One of the reasons BRICS went ahead rather speedily with the establishment of the BRICS NDB is exactly this crustiness and the lack of desire on part of the west to share its powers in accordance with today’s changed realities. While there still lies a road ahead for NDB perfection, specifically regarding its financing capacities and using the US dollar as major investment currency — although immediate plans include the use of no less of 30 per cent of national currencies and issuance of such sovereign bonds — at the same time, NDB offers more opportunities for such an area as infrastructure investment.
Another such initiative recently proposed is the one of the BRICS investment platform. It is meant to maximise the potential of emerging economies. It would allow BRICS countries, and also its partners, to use the advantage of the new wave of global economic growth. The proposal has been pronounced amidst the need to intensify the intra-BRICS dialogue in fields such as technology, education, trade, logistics, the rational use of resources, finance and insurance. As a means of reliable and secure investments, this platform would boost multilateral cooperation in respective areas. Further details concerning the platform are yet to be discussed at the expert level.
The idea to create BRICS investment platform didn’t appear out of the blue. BRICS gradually ramps up its global financial influence. BRICS’ outward FDI stock mushroomed from $1.1 trillion in 2011 to $3.7 trillion in 2021, an increase of 235 per cent. BRICS has become one of the most important players on the international investment market and initiatives such as a common investment platform will help to solidify the BRICS position and further strengthen the group’s financial might.
Also as rightly noted, many rising powers are also arriving with more options for the world to ensure that more opportunities exist. One of such options could be China’s Belt and Road Initiative, another is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. More initiatives of the kind could be traced to a large-scale initiative from Russia on Greater Eurasian Space but also with the work led as part of efforts within the Eurasian Economic Union as well as the Eurasian Development Bank.
Those countries are very much interested in ensuring stable and prosperous neighbourhood, meaning that they are arrangements that could be beneficial for all those involved, not just offering a one-sided approach.
But what is more is that BRICS is not coming up with the zero sum game proposals. BRICS philosophy is about maximum available choice, with one criterion being solid in stone — no demands are given to choose between different actors. Being a partner in BRICS and its member is definitely not a barrier to have equally beneficial relations with anybody else ready for cooperation, be it the west or any other region, country or entity.
Is there any progress in the creation of a BRICS currency to reduce dominance of dollar across the globe?
I should say that there has not so far been any discussion of the kind to introduce a BRICS currency. What was discussed from the start was an alternative BRICS payment system. An important mechanism of coordination within BRICS was created in 2010 — the Mechanism of Interbank Cooperation — while four years later, BRICS countries arrived at signing a national currencies framework agreement, which was meant to stimulate the use of national money in BRICS economic exchange.
This year, a new analysis on BRICS cross-border payment initiative has also been prepared while at the Kazan summit, we could see the Russian initiatives on the creation of BRICS Clear and BRICS (Re)Insurance. All such instruments are to lower transaction costs and risks when we talk of mutual settlements in national currencies, but they are yet to be operationalised within the next year financial track. Definitely, one of prospective ways to go ahead with financial settlement system would be the use of digital currencies.
Bangladesh applied for BRICS membership in 2023. Do you have any idea of its present status? How could the country benefit if it becomes a member of the group?
As you know, more then 40 countries altogether applied to join BRICS in different forms and BRICS definitely very much adheres to principles of inclusivity and is seen as a core of the world majority. Each application is extremely important and, definitely, it is a great honour for BRICS to be the most attractive alternative in this turbulent world. But honour brings along responsibility. It is no less important that BRICS nowadays has responsibility in the face of that very world majority not to fail its mission of offering that new, fair, equally beneficial and sustainable world order. There are certain publicly proclaimed criteria that are necessary for the country to become a member or a partner. But, what is even more important to understand is that the membership of the grouping is not just about benefits. Definitely, deeper and more qualitative intra-BRICS cooperation offers benefits across the whole number of areas, but membership is not just what you get. It is also what you are ready to give, give for the common good. BRICS membership is a two-way street. It is not about donor-recipient relations and that is how equality and mutual respect are kept intact. The primary question to ask is what the country is willing to contribute to ensure a faster formation of a better world for all.
Does BRICS have the capacity to challenge wealthier counties of North America and Western Europe in the present context?
I believe that I have already given the answer to this question earlier in this interview. BRICS today has grown substantially and its countries now represent serious forces worldwide in economics and finance, in politics and security, in development, technology and innovation and in science and education. But that said, it is not envisioning itself as a countering force neither to North America nor to Europe. As we keep saying — we are non-west, but not anti-west. Rather we should say that BRICS and the countries going along with it could be following an independent path of their own development and their preferred model of international relations and cooperation based on trust, equity, equality, fairness and common interest. If the west is eager to go the same way, we are happy to go the same way. Otherwise, it is their own choice. But, we will follow ours. If you call the ability to follow your path is a capacity to challenge, you can describe it that way. But for me, BRICS is about positive leadership and constructive engagement. A win-win situation is always better than zero sum. No one comes as a real winner in the latter case.
Dr Victoria Panova is also vice-rector of the HSE University. Mustafizur Rahman is the chief of correspondents at New Age.
by Mustafizur Rahman 23 December, 2024, 22:51
Victoria Panova. | Eurasia Review
Victoria Panova, who is head of BRICS Expert Council-Russia, tells Mustafizur Rahman about the philosophy and journey of the grouping in an interview with New Age
New Age: Russia initiated BRIC initially as an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India and China, formed in 2006. South Africa joined the group later, making it BRICS. How do you evaluate the journey as many more nations have by the time joined the organisation?
Victoria Panova: Let me start with the fact that BRICS is not an organisation in its formal sense. It now has official establishment documents, charter or secretariat. This is a new type of mechanism, the way a club functions, that allows informal, open and comprehensive exchange of ideas between the leaders, a flexible and fast achievement and implementation of commitments taken, the construction of all-out horizontal ties not only within the official track, but also with all different parts of society — civil society, business, academia or youth, etc.
I should say that it definitely grew into something much bigger than it was initially seen. While even today, some experts try to say that this is primarily an economic entity, it is clearly seen that the scope of issues offered for consideration and where BRICS does have a global influence is much wider. BRICS has become a comprehensive grouping, based on three main pillars — politics and global governance; economics and finance; and humanitarian ties and people-to-people contacts. It is nowadays recognised that the grouping has power and what is even more important is the authority to think and offer for consideration the new model of international relations, as the old developed, ‘geriatric’ powers and the system sponsored by them has clearly failed more and more over the past decades. Today, more than 40 countries have in different ways asked to join BRICS. It is rightly seen not just an alternative to the existing world order but also a group that does not dominate and dictate, but is able to lead by their own example and to offer a new model of mutually beneficial and forward-looking relations, without hidden agenda and based on trust and mutual respect, supporting principles of multi-lateralism and multiculturalism, with the equality of all civilisations, of all countries and their all peoples. And this alternative offered is not about revolution and not about countering the west. It is simply non-west, global east and south, world majority. But what is key is that it does not hint at any confrontation and rather looks into ways of evolution and progress to fit interests of all the stakeholders. And all this poses stark contrast with what the western countries are trying to impose — negative agenda; cancelling and trying to destroy those who are not fitting in with the narrow frames offered for others by western judges; thinking of their somehow divine right for ultimate truth, changing rules as they see fit best for themselves on the go and discarding international law; seeing blackmailing and pressure as the only way of how relations between the ‘flourishing garden’ and ‘wild jungles’ could be constructed. BRICS represents something absolutely opposite — positive agenda, directed at what can be done for common benefit; search for compromise and common ground and preserving culture of dialogues; ability and desire to elaborate new forms and institutes contributing to global development.
One can name numerous initiatives and projects already launched within BRICS that are making the international system more fair, more responsive to the needs of the countries of the world majority. The most well-known case is definitely the BRICS New Development Bank, offering new options to boost investment opportunities for critically important infrastructural projects in member countries, allocating financing free of politicisation and bias. But the New Development Bank is not the only one. BRICS countries have vast activities alongside the adopted STI architecture — gradually advancing to create BRICS Network University, showing progress alongside the plans of the BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy, deepening work on the premises of the energy research platform, contributing to the general cause of just energy transition in line with the interests and needs of developing countries, continuing to search for solutions to issues of global food security progressing with the agricultural platform and launching the BRICS Grain initiative this year and many many more ideas and projects implemented.
Do you as an expert think that the group of emerging economies has more influence on international politics than before, especially in the global financial system as expected?
LET us start first with what kind of changes we have been witnessing over the past three decades while the political power continued to be usurped by the collective west, economic power balance has shifted more and more vividly to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Today, China comes as number one powerhouse economically while the first, second and fourth places in this list is also taken by BRICS countries. BRICS altogether occupies more than 30 per cent of global landmass, twice as much as with the G7 countries, contains more than 45 per cent of the global population, four times that of the G7, and its GDP by PPP has already reached a historic 35.7 per cent this year. Although Goldman Sachs was forecasting a few years ago that by 2032, BRICS would surpass the G7 cumulative gross domestic product, today what we see is that this has already become a fact of life, even before the actual enlargement took place. The original five have already surpassed the cumulative gross domestic product of the G7 countries.
What else do we have here? About 45 per cent of global oil reserves are centred in BRICS countries and oil remains the blood of economic production. Industrial capacity is a vital aspect of a country’s development capacity, even during the current digital age. Various estimates also show that from 68–79 per cent of rare earth metals are also possessed by BRICS countries and it is common knowledge that they are indispensable elements of high-tech production. Talking about food security, it is also noticeable that BRICS countries are leaders both in production and consumption of grain, with both figures accounting for about 44 per cent. Once again, there could be a long list of all the figures along different sectors and types of resources where BRICS parameters are seen as undoubted leadership.
At the same time, political leadership are still mostly retained within the west. Institutes existing in the paradigm of what was once the Bretton Woods system continue to be dominated by the west. Needed reforms are blocked. The World Trade Organisation continues to be paralysed as it no longer supports only developments that are beneficial for advanced economies despite all their failures in preventing or managing international financial crises that the International Monetary Fund continues to stall on further quota reform while the leadership positions of both the International Monetary Fund and the world Bank remain under the control of ‘traditional’ European and American candidates.
Similarly, the UN Security Council has only two BRICS members in its ranks, with absolutely excessive presence from Europe, which has by far lost its influence globally but still seems to be living in the realms of the Euro-centric world.
While western powers are not eager to give up on their dominant position and would like to continue enjoying benefits of the past glory, emerging and developing economies with their significantly grown weight and consciousness are not eager to continue playing the subordinate role. Thus, we see further growing attractiveness of non-western entities — BRICS, SCO, ASEAN or others. We could also witness self-consciousness and independent position of the global south with the series of G20 presidencies of Indonesia, India and Brazil, with the current one transferred to South Africa. It is true to say that what saved this format from vanishing in such turbulent geopolitical times is the firm and consistent policies of the presiding countries.
Western nations dominate international financial bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Is there any change in the system, with China emerging as a major economy coming up with more development projects in African/Asian countries?
INDEED, major international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank continue to be dominated by the west and real reform to make them more responsive to the needs of the developing world is far from any foreseen reality. One of the reasons BRICS went ahead rather speedily with the establishment of the BRICS NDB is exactly this crustiness and the lack of desire on part of the west to share its powers in accordance with today’s changed realities. While there still lies a road ahead for NDB perfection, specifically regarding its financing capacities and using the US dollar as major investment currency — although immediate plans include the use of no less of 30 per cent of national currencies and issuance of such sovereign bonds — at the same time, NDB offers more opportunities for such an area as infrastructure investment.
Another such initiative recently proposed is the one of the BRICS investment platform. It is meant to maximise the potential of emerging economies. It would allow BRICS countries, and also its partners, to use the advantage of the new wave of global economic growth. The proposal has been pronounced amidst the need to intensify the intra-BRICS dialogue in fields such as technology, education, trade, logistics, the rational use of resources, finance and insurance. As a means of reliable and secure investments, this platform would boost multilateral cooperation in respective areas. Further details concerning the platform are yet to be discussed at the expert level.
The idea to create BRICS investment platform didn’t appear out of the blue. BRICS gradually ramps up its global financial influence. BRICS’ outward FDI stock mushroomed from $1.1 trillion in 2011 to $3.7 trillion in 2021, an increase of 235 per cent. BRICS has become one of the most important players on the international investment market and initiatives such as a common investment platform will help to solidify the BRICS position and further strengthen the group’s financial might.
Also as rightly noted, many rising powers are also arriving with more options for the world to ensure that more opportunities exist. One of such options could be China’s Belt and Road Initiative, another is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. More initiatives of the kind could be traced to a large-scale initiative from Russia on Greater Eurasian Space but also with the work led as part of efforts within the Eurasian Economic Union as well as the Eurasian Development Bank.
Those countries are very much interested in ensuring stable and prosperous neighbourhood, meaning that they are arrangements that could be beneficial for all those involved, not just offering a one-sided approach.
But what is more is that BRICS is not coming up with the zero sum game proposals. BRICS philosophy is about maximum available choice, with one criterion being solid in stone — no demands are given to choose between different actors. Being a partner in BRICS and its member is definitely not a barrier to have equally beneficial relations with anybody else ready for cooperation, be it the west or any other region, country or entity.
Is there any progress in the creation of a BRICS currency to reduce dominance of dollar across the globe?
I should say that there has not so far been any discussion of the kind to introduce a BRICS currency. What was discussed from the start was an alternative BRICS payment system. An important mechanism of coordination within BRICS was created in 2010 — the Mechanism of Interbank Cooperation — while four years later, BRICS countries arrived at signing a national currencies framework agreement, which was meant to stimulate the use of national money in BRICS economic exchange.
This year, a new analysis on BRICS cross-border payment initiative has also been prepared while at the Kazan summit, we could see the Russian initiatives on the creation of BRICS Clear and BRICS (Re)Insurance. All such instruments are to lower transaction costs and risks when we talk of mutual settlements in national currencies, but they are yet to be operationalised within the next year financial track. Definitely, one of prospective ways to go ahead with financial settlement system would be the use of digital currencies.
Bangladesh applied for BRICS membership in 2023. Do you have any idea of its present status? How could the country benefit if it becomes a member of the group?
As you know, more then 40 countries altogether applied to join BRICS in different forms and BRICS definitely very much adheres to principles of inclusivity and is seen as a core of the world majority. Each application is extremely important and, definitely, it is a great honour for BRICS to be the most attractive alternative in this turbulent world. But honour brings along responsibility. It is no less important that BRICS nowadays has responsibility in the face of that very world majority not to fail its mission of offering that new, fair, equally beneficial and sustainable world order. There are certain publicly proclaimed criteria that are necessary for the country to become a member or a partner. But, what is even more important to understand is that the membership of the grouping is not just about benefits. Definitely, deeper and more qualitative intra-BRICS cooperation offers benefits across the whole number of areas, but membership is not just what you get. It is also what you are ready to give, give for the common good. BRICS membership is a two-way street. It is not about donor-recipient relations and that is how equality and mutual respect are kept intact. The primary question to ask is what the country is willing to contribute to ensure a faster formation of a better world for all.
Does BRICS have the capacity to challenge wealthier counties of North America and Western Europe in the present context?
I believe that I have already given the answer to this question earlier in this interview. BRICS today has grown substantially and its countries now represent serious forces worldwide in economics and finance, in politics and security, in development, technology and innovation and in science and education. But that said, it is not envisioning itself as a countering force neither to North America nor to Europe. As we keep saying — we are non-west, but not anti-west. Rather we should say that BRICS and the countries going along with it could be following an independent path of their own development and their preferred model of international relations and cooperation based on trust, equity, equality, fairness and common interest. If the west is eager to go the same way, we are happy to go the same way. Otherwise, it is their own choice. But, we will follow ours. If you call the ability to follow your path is a capacity to challenge, you can describe it that way. But for me, BRICS is about positive leadership and constructive engagement. A win-win situation is always better than zero sum. No one comes as a real winner in the latter case.
Dr Victoria Panova is also vice-rector of the HSE University. Mustafizur Rahman is the chief of correspondents at New Age.
BD definitely should pursue BRICS membership along with ASEAN.
BD needs to be present in as many forum as possible to increase our global exposure.
I have to be honest it is unlikely BRICS will introduce its own currency… the countries are very different and have do not really think in short term there is much benefit in it.
BD is part of BRICS Bank, we should explore cheap loans from it if feasible.
BD needs to be present in as many forum as possible to increase our global exposure.
I have to be honest it is unlikely BRICS will introduce its own currency… the countries are very different and have do not really think in short term there is much benefit in it.
BD is part of BRICS Bank, we should explore cheap loans from it if feasible.
Saif
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,596
- Likes
- 8,463
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
BRICS' potential for changing global economic order
With Indonesia joining the BRICS, a platform looking for strengthening South-South Cooperation and setting into motion a new world order, it now accounts for 40 per cent of the world population and 35 per cent of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Indonesia becomes the 10th member of the inte
BRICS' potential for changing global economic order
Nilratan Halder
Published :
Jan 09, 2025 22:36
Updated :
Jan 09, 2025 22:36
With Indonesia joining the BRICS, a platform looking for strengthening South-South Cooperation and setting into motion a new world order, it now accounts for 40 per cent of the world population and 35 per cent of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Indonesia becomes the 10th member of the intergovernmental organisation comprising six of the 10 most populous countries on the planet. India and China lead the table with more than 1.4 billion inhabitants each. If Thailand and Malaysia which have shown their interest in joining the bloc become full members, the population size of the BRICS will be 4.032 billion nearly half the world population. Their GDP will also inch towards the 40 per cent mark.
Now that the BRICS has grown in influence and financial status, it is a matter of time more emerging countries will clamour for membership. Given the monopoly of dollar in international trade and currency exchange, particularly the financial woes suffered by poor and developing nations like Bangladesh, there is every chance of such nations participating in the de-dollarising initiative and setting an alternative economic order. Costlier dollar in the post pandemic time followed by the disruptive period of international trade due to the Russia-Ukraine war has made them realise the bitter truth of relying on an apex single currency for exchange.
With the most populous countries also emerging as the leading financial powerhouses by 2050, the centre of gravity of the world economy is sure to shift. Therefore, an initiative to give a shape to the transition had to be taken in all seriousness. Thus comes the BRICS into being. China is still trailing US so far as their economic sizes are concerned but some of the variables are in favour of not only the Asian emerging giant but also India is poised to become the third largest economy behind the US and China by the middle of the century.
The potential of the BRICS in the process of expansion is great and if attained even 70-75 per cent of the promises, it could more than challenge the G7 bloc. The five founding members of the BRICS, according to the IMF data, had 33.76 per cent of the global GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) in October last. This share is against the 29.08 per cent GDP (PPP) of the G7 nations. The main contributor to the BRICS' higher GDP is China which has become the world's largest economy if measured by purchasing power parity. Its share in the global GDP is 19.1 per cent in PPP terms and around 18 per cent in nominal terms. The US, on the other hand, had 26 per cent of the global GDP in nominal terms but only 15.0 per cent in PPP terms in 2024.
Although India is the fifth largest economy in the world, in PPP terms it has long been ranked the third. More interestingly, apart from China and India, no other major economy has managed to expand their share for over a decade. For an example, in 2010, the USA's share in the global economy was 17.2 per cent but in 2024, it has declined to 15 per cent (PPP). India has raised its contribution from 6.0 per cent in 2014 to 8.2 per cent in 2024. Its contribution in PPP terms is two and a half times that of Germany, the third ranked economy in nominal terms. So the two most populous countries are still on what can be termed modest to robust growth trajectories.
That is likely to be the clinching factors for the BRICS when it comes to establishment of an alternative monetary and financial system if not a multi-dimensional economic order. Now what are the driving forces behind this economic performance by the world's two most populous countries? It is the manufacturing and productive capacities. BRICS members and its likely partners enjoy a lead in producing key commodities like cereals, fish and meat, oil seeds, crude oil, natural gas and minerals such as iron ore, copper and nickel. BRICS nations have a clear edge in producing the primary crops. Together Brazil, India and China produce two-thirds of the global sugarcane output. China and Brazil have 30 per cent share in the global maize production. Then China and India are the producers of half of the world's rice.
With Indonesia's entry into the bloc, the share of palm oil receives a boost. The country is the world's largest exporter of palm oil with 54 per cent share. If Malaysia and Thailand join the organisation, their production of this oil will be 90 per cent of the global total. In terms of production of another important crop potato, China and India have 40 per cent of the global share. In the production of fish, China and India have a lead. Similarly, in meat --- from beef to pork to chicken---production, Brazil, China and India have a share between 20-40 per cent of the global output. China and India are also leading producers of chicken eggs with China alone producing 34 per cent of the global total.
Thus the organisation has both raw materials and industrial capability along with agricultural support required for spurring economic growth. China has proved its technological muscle so has India in some of the select and advanced technology. With Russian advanced scientific and cutting-edge technological backup, the organisation can indeed establish a new global economic order.
Last but not least, Bangladesh, unfortunately, was not considered for membership although it was invited as an observer. It was surprising given the publicity of the Hasina government. Although six countries on the last day of the Johannesburg summit were invited to join the group, Bangladesh was not.
Nilratan Halder
Published :
Jan 09, 2025 22:36
Updated :
Jan 09, 2025 22:36
With Indonesia joining the BRICS, a platform looking for strengthening South-South Cooperation and setting into motion a new world order, it now accounts for 40 per cent of the world population and 35 per cent of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Indonesia becomes the 10th member of the intergovernmental organisation comprising six of the 10 most populous countries on the planet. India and China lead the table with more than 1.4 billion inhabitants each. If Thailand and Malaysia which have shown their interest in joining the bloc become full members, the population size of the BRICS will be 4.032 billion nearly half the world population. Their GDP will also inch towards the 40 per cent mark.
Now that the BRICS has grown in influence and financial status, it is a matter of time more emerging countries will clamour for membership. Given the monopoly of dollar in international trade and currency exchange, particularly the financial woes suffered by poor and developing nations like Bangladesh, there is every chance of such nations participating in the de-dollarising initiative and setting an alternative economic order. Costlier dollar in the post pandemic time followed by the disruptive period of international trade due to the Russia-Ukraine war has made them realise the bitter truth of relying on an apex single currency for exchange.
With the most populous countries also emerging as the leading financial powerhouses by 2050, the centre of gravity of the world economy is sure to shift. Therefore, an initiative to give a shape to the transition had to be taken in all seriousness. Thus comes the BRICS into being. China is still trailing US so far as their economic sizes are concerned but some of the variables are in favour of not only the Asian emerging giant but also India is poised to become the third largest economy behind the US and China by the middle of the century.
The potential of the BRICS in the process of expansion is great and if attained even 70-75 per cent of the promises, it could more than challenge the G7 bloc. The five founding members of the BRICS, according to the IMF data, had 33.76 per cent of the global GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) in October last. This share is against the 29.08 per cent GDP (PPP) of the G7 nations. The main contributor to the BRICS' higher GDP is China which has become the world's largest economy if measured by purchasing power parity. Its share in the global GDP is 19.1 per cent in PPP terms and around 18 per cent in nominal terms. The US, on the other hand, had 26 per cent of the global GDP in nominal terms but only 15.0 per cent in PPP terms in 2024.
Although India is the fifth largest economy in the world, in PPP terms it has long been ranked the third. More interestingly, apart from China and India, no other major economy has managed to expand their share for over a decade. For an example, in 2010, the USA's share in the global economy was 17.2 per cent but in 2024, it has declined to 15 per cent (PPP). India has raised its contribution from 6.0 per cent in 2014 to 8.2 per cent in 2024. Its contribution in PPP terms is two and a half times that of Germany, the third ranked economy in nominal terms. So the two most populous countries are still on what can be termed modest to robust growth trajectories.
That is likely to be the clinching factors for the BRICS when it comes to establishment of an alternative monetary and financial system if not a multi-dimensional economic order. Now what are the driving forces behind this economic performance by the world's two most populous countries? It is the manufacturing and productive capacities. BRICS members and its likely partners enjoy a lead in producing key commodities like cereals, fish and meat, oil seeds, crude oil, natural gas and minerals such as iron ore, copper and nickel. BRICS nations have a clear edge in producing the primary crops. Together Brazil, India and China produce two-thirds of the global sugarcane output. China and Brazil have 30 per cent share in the global maize production. Then China and India are the producers of half of the world's rice.
With Indonesia's entry into the bloc, the share of palm oil receives a boost. The country is the world's largest exporter of palm oil with 54 per cent share. If Malaysia and Thailand join the organisation, their production of this oil will be 90 per cent of the global total. In terms of production of another important crop potato, China and India have 40 per cent of the global share. In the production of fish, China and India have a lead. Similarly, in meat --- from beef to pork to chicken---production, Brazil, China and India have a share between 20-40 per cent of the global output. China and India are also leading producers of chicken eggs with China alone producing 34 per cent of the global total.
Thus the organisation has both raw materials and industrial capability along with agricultural support required for spurring economic growth. China has proved its technological muscle so has India in some of the select and advanced technology. With Russian advanced scientific and cutting-edge technological backup, the organisation can indeed establish a new global economic order.
Last but not least, Bangladesh, unfortunately, was not considered for membership although it was invited as an observer. It was surprising given the publicity of the Hasina government. Although six countries on the last day of the Johannesburg summit were invited to join the group, Bangladesh was not.
