Читайте также:
|
(Extracts from the essay “The BRICS Fallacy” by Harsh V. Pant[3]. The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2013)
http://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Summer_Pant.pdf
Focus on the BRICS began in 2001. Back then, the group only included Brazil, Russia, India, and China – the BRICs (South Africa was added in 2010). It all started with a November 2001 Goldman Sachs research paper titled “Building Better Global Economic BRICs”, written by Jim O’Neill. He predicted that “over the next 10 years, the weight of the BRICs and especially China in world GDP will grow”, and went on to suggest that “in line with these prospects, world policymaking forums should be reorganized” to give more power to BRICs. After first suggesting that the BRIC economies could collectively rival the G-7 (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Japan) in share of global growth by 2050, the assessment changed to conclude that the BRIC economies could rival the G-7 by 2032. The term “BRICs” soon became a brand, “a new ubiquitous financial term, shaping how a generation of investors, financiers and policymakers view the emerging markets.” The BRIC states soon realized the importance of this change in global perceptions about them, and used it to structure a new group to underline their growing heft in global politics and economics. This was accomplished despite differing domestic political and economic institutional arrangements of these states. […]
At the international systemic level, the BRICS have found a convergence of interests by working together on climate change and global trade negotiations as well as demanding global financial institutions to be restructured to reflect the economy’s shifting center of gravity. They share similar concerns about the international dominance of the United States, the threat of terrorism from religious fundamentalist and ethnic movements, and the need to prioritize economic development. They have repeatedly expressed concern about the US use of military power around the world, and were opposed to the war in Iraq. Such actions were merely a continuation of the desire to contest US hyperpower since the end of the Cold War.
The BRICS states favor a multipolar world order where US unipolarity remains constraint by the other poles in the system. They zealously[4] guard their national sovereignty, and have been wary of US attempts to interfere in what they see as the domestic affairs of other states. These countries took strong exception to the US air strikes on Iraq in 1998, the US-led air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, the US campaign against Saddam Hussein in 2003, and the 2011 Western intervention in Libya. They argue that these actions violate sovereignty and undermine the authority of the UN system. They also share an interest in resisting interventionist foreign policy doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emanating from the West, particularly from the United States, and display conservative attitudes on the prerogatives of sovereignty.
A variant of BRICS, called BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), came together at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit on climate change to block measures for environmental protection advocated by the West. For example, they have strongly resisted efforts by the United States and other developed nations to link trade to labor and environmental standards – a policy that would put them at a huge disadvantage vis-à-vis the developed world, thereby hampering their drive toward economic development. They have committed themselves to crafting joint positions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and global trade negotiations in the hope that this might increase their leverage over developed states. These states would like to see further liberalization of agricultural trade in developed countries and tightening the rules on anti-dumping measures. They have fought carbon emission caps proposed by the industrialized world. There is also a growing impatience among BRICS member states with the pace of reforms in international financial institutions. The 2012 Delhi declaration expressed concern over the slow pace of implementation of IMF’s plan on quota and governance reforms.
Despite these shared goals, convergence among these states has largely remained rhetorical so far. For example, Brazil, Russia, China, and India all abstained on the UN Security Council resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya as well as “all necessary measures” for protecting Libyan civilians from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. But there were significant differences in their individual approaches to the Western intervention. China and Russia’s abstention meant a de facto “yes” – their veto would have killed any UN action, so an abstention meant that they were willing to let the West proceed against Libya, albeit with limits. The abstentions by India and Brazil, however, combined with South Africa’s vote in favor of the resolution, underline the real challenges facing both the BRICS as a coherent group and the emerging global order. The democracies found it difficult to have a common voice as they struggled with tough choices in trying to strike a balance between their values and strategic interests in crafting a response.
It has been suggested that precisely because BRICS states hold different points of view on global issues, the existence of the BRICS group provides these states with a platform where they can learn from each other, helping in the transition toward a multipolar global order. That may well happen sometime in the future, but meanwhile, for all the rhetoric emanating from annual BRICS summits, emerging ground realities are increasingly becoming difficult to ignore. […]
The growing fascination with BRICS is partly an offshoot of the discussion on the emerging “post-American” world where many commentators argue multipolarity is likely to be the norm. Yet, while BRICS may have growing economies and the idea may have morphed into a nascent[5] political concept, it is not entirely clear if it translates into power at the global level. Their contribution to the global order remains tentative at best and problematic at worst. They have so far not been able to create institutions that would help them to consolidate and leverage their clout on the global stage. Even if the BRICS get their economic act together, which seems unlikely, the group will not be able to turn that strength into a unified political force. Furthermore, the dominance of China makes most of the goals articulated by the BRICS states wobbly. The point of this coalition was always to show that the balance of power is shifting to emerging countries and away from the West’s historical dominance, but a multipolar world isn’t the same as China just trying to tilt the balance of power toward itself.
The narrative surrounding the rise of BRICS is as exaggerated as that of the decline of the United States. The tectonic plates of global politics are certainly shifting, but their movements are yet not predictable. As a result, BRICS will remain an artificial construct – merely an acronym coined by an investment banking analyst – for quite some time to come.
Notes
1. Terence James "Jim" O'Neill (born 17 March 1957), retiring chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is a British economist best known for coining BRIC, the acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China—the four rapidly developing countries that have come to symbolise the shift in global economic power away from the developed G7 economies. As of January 2014, he is an Honorary Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester.
2. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is an emerging norm that sovereignty is not a right, but that states must protect their populations from mass atrocity crimes (namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing). The R2P has three "pillars":
· A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
· The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
· If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
While R2P is an emerging norm and not a law, it is firmly grounded in international law, especially the laws relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict. R2P provides a framework for using tools that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, andchapter VII powers) to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, states, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the R2P process. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council (UNSC). R2P and certain implementations of it (Libya, Syria) have come under criticism by some states and individuals.
COMPREHENSION ASSIGNMENTS
A. Comment on the following clauses/sentences.
1. The term “BRICs” soon became a brand …
2. The BRIC states soon realized the importance of this change in global perceptions about them …
3. The BRICS states favor a multipolar world order where US unipolarity remains constraint by the other poles in the system.
4. They zealously guard their national sovereignty …
5. They also share an interest in resisting interventionist foreign policy doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emanating from the West …
6. … they have strongly resisted efforts by the United States and other developed nations to link trade to labor and environmental standards …
7. They have fought carbon emission caps proposed by the industrialized world.
8. Despite these shared goals, convergence among these states has largely remained rhetorical so far.
9. The growing fascination with BRICS is partly an offshoot of the discussion on the emerging “post-American” world …
10. … the dominance of China makes most of the goals articulated by the BRICS states wobbly.
B. Answer the questions on the text.
1. On what global issues do the BRICS member states share similar concerns?
2. What is their joint position on national sovereignty? How does it affect their attitudes and actions?
3. What is the BRICS stance on environmental issues, international economic order and trade?
4. What differences do the member states have?
5. What is the role of China in this coalition?
6. Why, according to the essay, the BRICS countries have so far failed to become an influential player in the global arena?
Дата добавления: 2015-09-11; просмотров: 92 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |