Not just another brick in the wall

At its fourth summit, BRICS presented an alternative to the Western narrative of international affairs. It was more representative of the developing world's concerns, and was needed not only to counter the West, but also to give a voice to the rest who are usually excluded

As the fourth annual BRICS summit concluded in New Delhi last week, one of the most significant questions that emerged was: Will it shift the global power centre from the West to within itself? In response, however, much of the same observations made in the past years about this odd five-country grouping, that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, were repeated. Yes, the group presents an emerging global force; no, the members are too disparate to make an impact; yes, they will work together to further their economic interests; no, they will be held back by their competing, even conflicting, interests. The fact remains that even four years after BRIC came into existence — the ‘S’ for South Africa was added a year later in 2010 — the world still seems to be largely undecided about how the group will shape up.


As of now, the developed world is unsure if the group will eventually morph into an alternative power structure that could potentially challenge its own authority (that, many believe, is already on the wane) in the international arena. That explains the West’s lukewarm response to the New Delhi summit. The developing world, on the other hand, remains sceptical about the group’s effectiveness; many are convinced that BRICS will devolve into a SAARC-like regional organisation with limited influence rather than become the EU-like power bloc it imagines itself to become.


It is still too early to either hail BRICS as the ‘next big thing’ in international politics or write it off as, well, just another brick in the wall. Still, there is a general agreement that, for the most part, BRICS has been making the right kind of noises. The group’s focus on greater economic cooperation and improved trade relations within the bloc, for instance, is bang on target.


As emerging global powerhouses (even though South Africa is still only a regional player at best and Russia’s growth rate is no longer as promising as it was when Goldman Sachs included that country into the group) these countries together account for 40 per cent of the global GDP and have been credited for 50 per cent of the world’s economic growth in the past decade. As they strive to find their niche in the global arena, it is imperative that they strengthen their economic relations. Towards that end, BRICS’ decision to settle trade transactions within the group in local currencies is also a game changer. Already, stock exchanges in BRICS countries have begun cross-listing their equity benchmark index derivatives since March 30. Not only does this encourage trading within the group, it also significantly protects the countries from financial pressures originating in the West.


Furthermore, the plan to set up a BRICS development bank is a step in the right direction. If well executed, such an institution will have the potential to challenge the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank — two multilateral financial institutions that not only dominate global finance but also serve as monetary levers to further Western interests.


But, if BRICS hit the mark with intra-group economic cooperation, it failed to stand up the challenge when it came to demanding reforms within the global financial architecture. For instance, even though, the Delhi Declaration calls upon the IMF and the World Bank to choose their heads on the basis of merit, it steers clear of endorsing the ‘developing world candidate’ — Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala — for the post of president of the World Bank. This is most disappointing.


A reputed economist, Ms Okonjo-Iweala, has extensive experience in development economics and boasts of a stellar record for the years that she served the World Bank as its managing director. In any other situation, she would have gotten the job of president hands down. But, given the skewed structuring of the World Bank, it is the candidate endorsed by the US — Mr Jim Yong Kim, a Korean-American global health expert — who will probably take over from outgoing president Robert Zoellick. By shying away from putting its full weight behind Ms Okonjo-Iweala, BRICS has lost a golden opportunity to show to the world the kind of power it can collectively wield.


But then again, if BRICS has faltered in its response to the World Bank situation, it has gained brownie points for taking a unified stand on the Syrian crisis and the Iranian dispute. By insisting on a Syria-led democratic transition process in that country, BRICS has made clear that it does not favour a Western military intervention of the kind that was carried out in Libya. In the case of Iran, it has warned against escalating tensions and underlined Tehran’s right to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme. Overall, BRICS has successfully presented an alternative to the Western narrative of international affairs that no doubt is much more representative of the concerns of the developing world. This was much needed — not really to counter the West but to give voice to the rest.


In many ways then, the BRICS summit presented a two step forward-one step backward kind of situation, particularly with regard to the group’s equation with the West. This equation must also be balanced against the bilateral relations of each of the member nations with the West. Will India upset the US to stand by, let’s say, Brazil? We don’t know that yet.


But as we look for answers, it would perhaps be best to discard the unipolar lens through which we still tend to view world politics for that lens will soon be obsolete as the world inches towards a multi-polar global order. The 21st century is no longer the American century in the manner in which its predecessor was. At the same time, it will not even be the Chinese century or the Indian century or even the Asian century, as many predict it to be. It will however be a more global century where smaller power centres will emerge all over the world, and it is within this new multi-polar world order that BRICS will truly come into its own.


(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on April 06, 2012.)