The Brics, a Group Poised to Assert Itself Against The West

The BRICS, a group poised to assert itself against the West

The top of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to be held in the Chinese city of Sanya is different from the two previous summits (in Russia and Brazil) in its expanded format . South Africa has officially joined the informal organization.

However, the discussions around the world in this meeting are the same: what unites five countries far apart geographically, culturally and politically?

In the history of world politics, one can find various examples of emergence and development of international institutions, but the BRIC group is unprecedented. The ingenious acronym, invented in 2003 by Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs for a commercial purpose (to attract the attention of customers in emerging markets), began to live his own life.

After the global financial crisis has shown the difference in economic development of the BRIC countries, skeptics have announced the impending end of this informal group. Western commentators are particularly surprised by the presence of Russia in this group: What does a oil state with vague prospects of modernization among the “leaders of tomorrow”?

Indeed, Russia is an “intruder” in the group. And not because in terms of growth rate is far behind China and India. Over the past two decades, Brazil, India, China and South Africa are growing and progressive overcome (with various methods and success rate) their poverty and retardation. Now Russia has experienced an unprecedented crisis two decades ago, then began his ascent but has still not found a stable path of growth.

However, even after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was not dropped at third world countries. Or rather the problems faced by the country were of a different order than overcome by other members of the BRICs, although they exceed Russia in terms of indices of economic growth.

However, doubts about the legitimacy of Russia’s membership in the leading group on an equal footing with the other BRIC countries would be justified if it were just about the fiscal and economic outlook outlined by U.S. bankers. However, for member countries, the BRICs is primarily a political entity, reflecting the objective need for a global structure more diversified and less centered on the West.

Besides, that’s what recently spoke Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov: This is primarily a geopolitical alliance.

It should be noted that during the recent vote in the Security Council of the United Nations on Libya, the BRIC countries has shown surprising solidarity: Russia, China, India and Brazil abstained, giving the impression of having coordinated their position. However, South Africa supported the Western coalition.

Objective reasons generate a growing interest in the BRIC

First, the widespread feeling that the system of global institutions to correspond to actual processes by the twenty-first century and that the reform is still on paper. You can find many differences in the positions of the five countries.

But all for their own reasons that do not generally coincide are dissatisfied with their current situation. The multipolar world order requires formats different from those of the bipolar world during the Cold War. But in fact they have hardly changed since. It is no coincidence that in his statements BRIC calls into question the legitimacy of the existing system. However, do not count, for example, reform of the Security Council of the United Nations that reflects the disposition of forces of 1945: the current permanent members, with privileges, have no share with anyone . However, it also has two members of BRIC: Russia and China.

Secondly, the need to seek new approaches truly settling global problems is obvious. The five countries believe that the global discourse is almost monopolized by the West. Not only does it at the disposal of the economic and even political, but also prevents them from finding new solutions that could arise only by broadening the discussion.

Third, the five countries are aware of the limitations of their efforts to enhance their own influence and weight in the international arena, acting only in the context of existing structures. One could say that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are seeking ways to strengthen their positions in the training process of the future world order. The fact that they represent all major regions of the world even more justified aspirations.

All countries forming the BRICs are not only rapidly developing states, but the “poles” of the main multipolar order. And that is why the reduction of criteria that this group of states to economic indicators means that the method used for analysis is wrong.

The design of the BRIC fell timely for Russia, which since 1991 had still not acquired stable identity in terms of foreign policy.

It was difficult to find a more appropriate format, first, to correct the global vector of its foreign policy by strengthening the non-Western axis, and secondly, remember that Russia has interests in the world, which after the collapse the USSR became regional and thirdly, to highlight common with the leading countries in terms of pace and quality of economic growth. And all this in a non-confrontational, because all group members strongly reject any attempt to create an organization directed against other countries. However, the United States do not. The Americans believe that the BRICS is a structure that aims to weaken the United States.

The BRIC countries have made no such commitment, especially since they are associated with the United States by ties of economic interdependence (China, India, Brazil) and political (the Russia). However, whatever anyone says or thinks in the capitals of the BRIC countries, since it is a closed international system, analysts say the growing influence of the BRICs is possible that through reduced even relative influence of the West are right.