BRICS of the Future

In April 2013， just two weeks after the BRICS summit in Durban came to an end， American international relations scholar Joseph Nye published an article titled “BRICS Without Mortar” in Project Syndicate， opining that the five BRICS countries have so many major differences that it would be difficult to form an international political organization speaking with one voice， so the BRICS concept shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Ruchir Sharma， head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management， isn’t optimistic about the BRICS countries either. Since 2012， he has repeatedly expressed that the rising economies of BRICS countries will not continuously thrive. He also notes that these emerging markets share very few similarities and calls the concept “thinking in acronyms.”In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Broken BRICS，” he wrote： “The global economy is returning to its normal state of churn， with many laggards and just a few winners rising in unexpected places.”

According to Zhu Jiejin， a researcher at Fudan Development Institute， the opinions of these two hugely influential scholars represent the majority opinion of Western analyses of BRICS countries. Some Western countries have voiced doubts about the prospects for cooperation between the BRICS nations. The two most pressing questions in the international community are whether the glister of the BRICS has somewhat faded， or is differentiated. Advocates of the former argue that Russia， Brazil and South Africa are suffering from economic hardship and waning development momentum； advocates of the latter believe that the many contradictions and tensions in bilateral relations between the BRICS countries make cooperation convenient in the short term， but far from sustainable. Now that the inaugural 2009 BRIC summit in Yekaterinburg， Russia has evolved into the upcoming 2016 summit in Goa， India， “BRICS” is a real， active institution， regardless of what Western scholars write about its members.

So what should be expected from BRICS countries？ What is the driving force of a group with so many internal differences？ What urge these countries to join hands， and what are their common interests？ China Pictorial put such questions to Professor Zhu Jiejin， head of the Department of Research on Developing Countries of the Fudan Development Institute. Zhu believes that BRICS countries represent the future of the world. The greatest significance of the organizational framework is to promote reform of global governance and general global recognition that developing countries have risen and that the reality of the world order has shifted towards multi-polarization.

China Pictorial （CP）： In 2001， British economist Jim O’Neill first grouped Brazil， India， Russia and China together and coined the “BRIC” acronym. Later， South Africa was added. These five countries are wildly contrasting in history， geography， culture， language and religion. Why could they act together？

Zhu： The Western world and BRICS countries have completely different answers when it comes to this question.

The Western world generally believes that although currently we face myriad complex global challenges such as terrorism， refugees and climate change， on the whole， the old world order is intact and still under the leadership of the United States and the European Union， and that BRICS countries emerged due to sheer luck and the grouping is simply a political power grab attempting to capitalize on currently rising economies. They consider the grouping fairly arbitrary and not worth taking seriously.

But BRICS countries themselves do not agree. Their great consensus is the promotion of a multi-polarized world. Although we still live in a unipolar world dominated by the United States since the end of the Cold War， developing countries are starting to reshape the world order. This year’s G20 summit in Hangzhou presented an example： China and Russia are proactively promoting initiatives of global governance， innovation， structural reform， infrastructure investment and wider participation in formulation of rules. This summit showed that emerging markets are no longer passively absorbing criticism in the global economy.

Why can’t Western scholars see the potential of the BRICS countries？ They are looking at the big picture from the wrong angle. BRICS are countries of the future， and cannot be evaluated simply based on the present economic situation. The key driver of cooperation can be summed up as “promoting external reform and pursuing internal development.” Externally， BRICS countries aim to promote reform of global governance. They hope that the developing countries will receive equal rights to participate in international affairs. As for the problems seemingly contrasting problems that the five BRICS countries face， considering they are at similar stages of development， exchange between members can only benefit every country. The complementary nature of the grouping only promotes mutual benefits in development， which is a powerful impetus for BRICS cooperation. The key issue is whether the five countries can overcome their differences， recognize mutual interests and work together on issues that will benefit all parties such as economic cooperation and the creation of a large， unified market.

At the 2011 BRICS summit in Sanya， leaders of the five countries committed to strengthening the BRICS partnership for the good of the common development of all five nations and furthering BRICS cooperation gradually and pragmatically while promoting principles of openness， solidarity and mutual assistance. They agreed that BRICS cooperation requires time and preparation and cannot be rushed. The New Development Bank is the greatest achievement of the BRICS mechanism in recent years. This international organization launched by BRICS countries shook the world and boosted the BRICS nations’ confidence in cooperation. But a BRICS bank is still not enough. The most urgent matter now is making the next breakthrough or achieving the next milestone.

CP： BRICS countries have transformed from a mere concept into an actual international political and economic framework. What are the milestones in the history of the BRICS？ Why did this transformation happen？

Zhu： The concept of “BRIC” is usually traced to British economist Jim O’Neill in 2001. But even earlier， leaders of Russia and China signed the Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order， stressing that “developing countries should take their rightful place in the future new international order and participate in international affairs on an equal and non-discriminatory basis，” a position later adopted by all five BRICS countries. In 2002， then Russian Prime Minister Kasyanov presciently declared that ChinaRussia-India cooperation would have a profound impact on the international political and economic order and launched a meeting involving Chinese， Russian and Indian foreign ministers. This meeting laid the foundation for the transformation of BRIC from an economic concept to an international political and economic organization.

Actual cooperation between BRIC countries started in 2006 during the General Assembly of the United Nations. Then Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov suggested borrowing the concept coined by the West and forming a meeting mechanism of BRIC countries’ foreign ministers. Their cooperation began with concerns of foreign ministers on the international political and international order.

In May 2008， the BRIC countries held a foreign ministers’meeting before the general assembly. The Brazilian foreign minister opined that the abilities of foreign ministers was not sufficient to promote global multi-polarity and proposed a meeting between finance ministers of BRIC countries. Since that proposal， a meeting between finance ministers of BRICS countries has been on the agenda of the G20 Summit. BRICS countries are clearly committed to reform of the existing international order and global recognition of the rise of emerging markets.

In 2009， after a proposal by then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev， the first BRIC summit was held in Yekaterinburg， Russia. The four ancient countries gathered for the first time and called for reform of the world financial and economic system. From those political origins， BRICS countries have gradually extended cooperation into a wide ranging and multi-layered institution. Today， the grouping facilitates more than 60 cooperative mechanisms.

CP： Since BRICS countries did not follow traditional modernization modes of the West， some scholars predict that BRICS development will rewrite global modernization theory. What is your opinion？

Zhu： To put it simply， the modernization mode approved by the Western world identity refers to the promotion of democracy and market economics. Yet the process of human modernization is far more complex. BRICS countries represent widely contrasting civilizations， and their development is completely removed from the 1989 Washington Consensus. During the opening ceremony of B20 Summit this year， President Xi Jinping mentioned in his speech that the great progress of China’s reform and opening up is a course of blazing a new trail. Unprecedented in the history of mankind， a country with 1.3 billion people has a significantly improved standard of living， which is why China must carve out its own development path. The alliance of the BRICS countries will shatter the myth that the Western market economy and democratic elections are the indicator of modernization.

CP： What do you think is the biggest obstacle hindering the development of BRICS countries？ Will they avoid the pessimistic “fading BRICS theory” and the “differentiated BRICS theory？”

Zhu： The biggest problem China now faces is that its econom- ic development is not sustainable or coordinated.

Although India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies， it faces severe reform challenges exacerbated by myriad problems common in developing countries after rapid economic growth， such as a serious wealth gap.

Since the dissolve of the Soviet Union， the overall Russian economic system has had flawed structure lacking diversity. Revitalization of the manufacturing industry and promoting the emergence of new development drivers should be their main focus.

Brazil has problems common in many Latin American countries such as the middle-income trap. Political instability also affects its development.

Although South Africa leads the economic development of Africa， it faces similar troubles with lack of economic diversity， a wide income gap and manufacturing bottlenecks.

In 2015， leaders of the BRICS countries adopted the BRICS economic partnership strategy during the Ufa summit to provide guidance on the expansion of trade， investment， manufacturing， finance， connectivity and other areas of cooperation between the BRICS countries. The key to overcoming pessimism is the promotion of cooperation based on their own advantages. As the BRICS countries face similar challenges in the process of urbanization， industrialization， agricultural modernization and other sectors， direct guidance from Europe and the United States does not make sense.

The New Development Bank is a good example of successful cooperation. It was designed as a management framework under which the five countries could work together and promote mutual understanding. It is also conducive to promoting favorable investment projects. The bank’s president， K. V. Kamath， worked in Mumbai for a long time. When he started working in Shanghai， his office faced the Huangpu River. Seeing the pollution of the river first-hand， he realized that India also needs to balance development and environmental protection. But he also acquired a deep understanding of Shanghai municipal management experience and the lessons it could provide for Mumbai. Pragmatic cooperation in this spirit should shape cooperation between all five countries.

CP： Indian Prime Minister Modi said that the summit in Goa will focus on issues including anti-terrorism. What is your view on security？ Will there be cooperative breakthroughs between BRICS countries in the fight against terrorism？

Zhu： India has always attached great importance to security. During this year’s G20 Summit， all participants stressed the need to establish a united front against terrorism， which requires monitoring and complying with international law on security established by the United Nations. But during the Goa summit in October， leaders will find substantial agreements concerning anti-terrorism cooperation hard to come by. Security cooperation requires actions such as freezing funds， stopping the flow of weapons， empowering law enforcement and strengthening intelligence cooperation. However， no one yet agrees on the best place to start cooperation.

Specifically to combat terrorist financing as early as the end of 1999， the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism （1999）. Forty Recommendations （written in 1990） and the IX Special Recommendations （amended with eight recommendations in 2001 and revised with nine in 2004） passed by the UN General Assembly represent the current standards and rules accepted by the international community. But how do we motivate everyone to take a step forward？ With contrasting financial systems and market characteristics， cooperation between BRICS countries requires domestic financial reform， which is a tough task to accomplish in the short term.