What is BRICS and what is its purpose / goals

** - I am not looking for an argument among members. What I am wanting is a civil debate of the pros and cons centering on BRICS and how it could assist / hurt / replace the status quo we have now. I ask members to post your sources / links with your comments so we all can be on the same page. Please try and remain on topic. I know this is a complex topic, so at the very least try to link it all together. **

To those who are constantly invoking BRICS and for those who are not familiar with it. Here is a brief overview of what it is, what the potential is and what the difficulties will be in making it successful.

NATIONS THAT MAKE UP "BRICS"
BRICS Homepage

* - Russia - Vladimir Putin, President
* - China - Xi Jinping, President
* - Brazil - Dilma Rousseff, President
* - India - Narendra Modi, Prime Minister
* - South Africa - Jacob Zuma, President (joined in 2010)

BRICS NATIONS ACCOUNT FOR - AS OF 2014 -
* - almost 3 billion people which is 40% of the world population,
* - a combined nominal GDP of US$16.039 trillion (20% world GDP) and an estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves.
* - As of 2014, the BRICS nations represented 18 percent of the world economy.


BRICS CURRENT GOALS
* - The concept of BRIC started in 2006 when the 4 nations got together (S. Africa joined in 2010). Their first official meeting was in 2008.
* - Their specified goal was to push for reform in the IMF (Which all BRICS members are a part of).
* - The time to reform the IMF created a situation with BRICS where they decided to form a separate counter to the IMF system for developing nations and monetary loans.

* - The creation of a "bank" to counter the IMF - Member nations pledged a total of $100 Billion to the "bank" in 2013, with a goal of opening the bank in 2014. Due to disagreements between member nations on burden sharing, fund management, differing economic systems, the bank is, optimistically, looking to be in operation by 2015.

THE USE OF BRICS IN THE UKRAINE CRISIS AND DIFFERING FREEDOMS OF MEDIA REPRESENTING A SHIFT IN BRICS GOALS - 2014
* - MARCH 2014 - BRICS foreign ministers (Russia's actually) raised the issue at a nuclear summit that the response of nations to the Ukraine issue, the language those nations used coupled with it being directed at Russia, and the apparent disregard for the UN charter, the use of sanctions / counter-sanctions and Australia's discussion about prohibiting Putin from attending the G-20 meeting in Australia.

* - APRIL 2014 - Russian Ambassador(at large) Vadim Lukov questioned the control of the IMF, "In the hands of western powers" and accused it of not being available in emergencies. The Ambassador then announced a push for a new reserve currency.

* - JULY 2014 - The Russian central bank specifically targets the US, specifically announcing plans to undermine the US dollar and to force it out of the global financial system.
* - BRICS organizes a BRICS "IMF" and "Development Bank" - The BIMF = $100 billion / The BDB = $50 billion
* - This BRICS meeting included military items, namely air defense.

In my opinion, Australia and Russia are both right and both wrong in their actions. It created an interesting development in both entities - The IMF / G-20 and BRICS and the path it created.


BRICS NATIONS AT A GLANCE


POTENTIAL MEMBERS
* - Indonesia
* - Turkey
* - Argentina
* - Egypt
* - Iran
* - Nigeria
* - Syria

WHAT BRICS IS NOT
* - A military entity
* - A military alliance
* - Economically stable
* - A unified foreign policy entity

PROBLEMS WITHIN BRICS
* - India-China disagreement over Tibet / Borders

* - BRICS discussed global monetary reform, not yuan -China exchange rates cause problems in Brazil

* - A problem with thinking in acronyms

No idea has done more to muddle thinking about the global economy than that of the BRICs. Other than being the largest economies in their respective regions, the big four emerging markets never had much in common. They generate growth in different and often competing ways-Brazil and Russia, for example, are major energy producers that benefit from high energy prices, whereas India, as a major energy consumer, suffers from them. Except in highly unusual circumstances, such as those of the last decade, they are unlikely to grow in unison. China apart, they have limited trade ties with one another, and they have few political or foreign policy interests in common.

A problem with thinking in acronyms is that once one catches on, it tends to lock analysts into a worldview that may soon be outdated. In recent years, Russia's economy and stock market have been among the weakest of the emerging markets, dominated by an oil-rich class of billionaires whose assets equal 20 percent of GDP, by far the largest share held by the superrich in any major economy.

(continued below)

(continued)

* - China Loses Control of Its Frankenstein Economy

Mystery Data

How can anyone trust that China is growing at a rate of 7.7 percent, as the government claims, when crucial variables in its data tabulation are a mystery? Bank of America Corp. economist Lu Ting in Hong Kong risked China’s ire by alleging its trade surplus was 1/10 the $61 billion it reported as of mid-May. The nobody-knows character of China’s credit system -- quantity, quality or excesses -- is even more worrisome.

* - The problem with BRICS - CHINA

The economic profile of the BRICS, especially that of China, has continued to grow with suggestions that BRICS collectively could become bigger than the US by 2018 and by 2050 could even surpass the combined economies of G7 States.

* - A major challenge for ongoing influence from the BRICS is China’s dominance over the other four members.
* - The Chinese economy is now not only the second largest in the world but also larger than the economies of all the BRICS together.
* - The overweening presence of China makes the other members nervous, leading them to hedge their bets by investing in alternative alliances and partnerships .

* - China’s manipulation of its currency has resulted in significant problems for the manufacturing sectors of India, Brazil and South Africa.
* - Chinese exports have decimated a number of industries in Brazil, South Africa and India.
* - China’s dominance of the intra-South trade remains overwhelming with other emerging powers struggling to get a share of the pie.
* - Beijing's refusal to let the yuan appreciate has resulted in significant problems for the manufacturing industries of India, Brazil and South Africa.
* - China continues to keep the Yuan undervalued.

BRICS ISSUES - GLOBAL TERRITORIAL DISPUTES - BRICS NATIONS

* - China - Territorial disputes in the S. China Sea
* - China/India -Kashmir and Jammu.
* - China/India -Aksai Chin
* - China/India -Demchok, Chumar, Kaurik, Shipki Pass, Jadh, and Lapthal
* - China/India -Shaksgam Valley
* - China/India -South Tibet
* - Russia/ROC/PRC -Heixiazi / Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island - Eastern / Western half 2004.
* - Russia/ROC/PRC -Kutuzov Island
* - Russia/ROC/PRC -Tuva

Too many differences remain among BRICS nations - Transparency, foreign policy, economies, government type, civil liberties, etc.

While, in my opinion, India, Brazil and S. Africa view BRICS from an economic standpoint, Russia and China have the added view of something to eventually counter the UN.

It is not difficult to see Russia or China trying to dictate terms to Brazil, India or S. Africa in areas not covered by BRICS. The goals of BRICS nations are not unified and often times conflict with other BRICS nations.

The use of BRICS by Russia recently supports that theory in that Russia see's BRICS as more than just economics. To be honest, and again in my opinion, I think Russia see's BRICS as a new Warsaw Pact. Russia and China are looking at BRICS and are seeing a way to control large segments of the global economy by drawing in India, Brazil and S. Africa (giving Russia and China possible economic domination on all continents except for Australia and Antarctica).

The question is how will Brazil, S. Africa and India react if Russian or Chinese actions create a military response (Ukraine or Chinas territorial claims in the Pacific).

Can Russia and China "share" leadership of BRICS to the extent of sacrificing their national interests some to help the other BRICS members? Can Russia and China overcome the major differences the 2 countries have in global affairs?

Russia and China constantly demonstrate that they will not be dictated to by other countries - fair enough.
Can the 2 find common ground so they don't dictate to each other? - Nope.

This is a basic overview using sources cited above and from the BRICS Wikipedia page at the bottom. The reader can decide for themselves if BRICS is a significant player on the current international scene.

My opinion is no - at least not yet.

Thoughts - Counter arguments - updated info - Please add / discuss

To provide a counter balance to a western dominated world. Competition breeds innovation and excellence. I have no fear of a bi-polar or multi-polar world and even welcome it.

a reply to: Xcathdra


BRICS was an idea coined by Jim O'Neill an Economist working for Goldman Sachs, it was not an idea created by the involved countries as wikipedia (and the OP who got his info from wikipedia) suggests. Only about 6 years after the idea came to light, did the 4 countries consider it as a possible economic union.

These countries however took the idea and decided to band together and unite their economic strengths. Their goals are most likely the creation of a multilateral world that can become independent of US fiscal policy and economic dominance.

Even with their recent advances of creating their own development bank, I don't believe they will amount to much, since their political interests divert too drastically. Furthermore, the economic might of these countries is diminishing and not increasing like it was when the idea of BRICs was developed in 2001.

Brazil is facing huge inflation problems and their economy is going to tank at some point in the near future.
China's economic growth is based on the "nuclear option", which is to destroy everything to achieve economic growth.
Russia is playing very dangerous political games that will seriously undermine their economy.
South Africa is not a global player and will not be able to make much of a difference - even if they have a few % growth in GDP a year.

I think their efforts will fall apart, and that while BRICS is a novel idea, and multipolarity might be a good thing for the world, they will not be able to work together to create a true multilateral world economy.

I think that the problem with BRICS is that it is trying be a common economic entity while ignoring vasty different foriegn policys. This is one reason Russia never really fit in the G8 which it was only let in to give Russia some much needed prestige in return for cooperation. Russias current actions in Ukraine have done nothing but, hurt BRICS.

Let us remember it took them 5 years to agree to open a bank and that is the only thing they have ever managed to agree upon so far. Mosly they meet and aurgue about how one BRICS nations economic or trade policy is hurting the others. I think this will be what BRICS will be for as long as it exists. A group of nations with little in common meeting once a year and complaining about each other. Like an even more disfunctional version of OPEC.

I think Russia thinks of BRICS as some sort of last ditch effort at global relevance. It hopes BRICS will become much much more than it ever will. That India, South Africa and Brazil will cast off thier preferance for the West. That China will commit to Russia instead of flirting with the US all the time.

BRICS best move would be to get rid of Russia. Russia brings little economic clout and a bunch of political problems. And at some point China and India are going to have to sit down and at the very least agree to not provoke each other. That could be a problem with India's new leadership that has strong ties with Japan and wants stonger with the US and is now having trilateral meetings and military exercises with them in a direct counter to China.

Just look at this group.

Russia - anti west, globaly isolated and unpopular even in the BRICS nations. It looks at the BRICS nation lack of condemnation over Ukraine as a great victory while ignoring the fact the have also refused to support Russia. Russia sells arms to Vietnam and India nations hostile to China. And the weapons it sells them are specifily geared to for a conflict with China.

China - walking the line, its sees Russia coming for in for a kiss and instead offers a handshake and then turns around and gives the US one as well. China seems to lead Russia on as useful tool but, not enough to make any sort of commitment to. China also works hard at strong ties with US which annoys Russia. For China BRICS is just one of many useful tools that requires no real commitment.

India - pro west, pushing for closer military ties with the US and Japan, views China as its primary enemy and is one of Russia largest arms markets but, like China refuses to commit to Russia.

South Africa - pro west, happy to take Chinese investment along with the Wests but, as a leader of the African Union and Africa in general has pushed all of Africa into a pro western union even forming official cooperation ties with NATO.

Brazil - pro west, Brazil prefers to take a public nuetral approach to the world to avoid the appearance of being a US puppet. Brazil however continues to host a US Marine Naval Support Detachment in São Paulo and is a regular port of call for US warships. And while some nations like Venezuala and Bolivia have left the Rio Pact Brazil has not thus being the only member of BRICS to be a military alliance and that is one that includes the United States.

At some point the members of BRICS are going to have to get something out of it to deal with all the headaches it causes them. It would be hard to get a group of countries with less in common together and expect them agree to much.

When considering what the BRICS is or is not one has to reflect on what or why the reason might be to it's reason's for coming into existence . Most economist can not understand how the present system is still going and all but a few see the writing on the wall as to it's collapse .They say it's not a matter of if it's going to but when it's going to .

There may be some newbies that have not heard John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man . If what he says is true then the present system is one that resembles something like the mafia . The attempt to create BRICS is not a over night knee jerk reaction but is something that the countries involved have considered and put the investment into it to see if they could come up with something that might work better then the present .

I cant say it will fail or succeed or fail but can say it has to be worth a try .

and the petro dollar sucks its like forcing the world to use something we dont wont, so i welcome brics and the free trade it brings

a reply to: Xcathdra

No idea has done more to muddle thinking about the global economy than that of the BRICs.

....straight outta Wall Street.

Other than being the largest economies in their respective regions, the big four emerging markets never had much in common.

Being the worlds strongest emerging non western economies, id say say they've got something pretty important in common...

They generate growth in different and often competing ways-Brazil and Russia, for example, are major energy producers that benefit from high energy prices, whereas India, as a major energy consumer, suffers from them.

India recently signed a massve hydro power agreement with its northern neighbour Nepal. On Narendra Modis facebook page, photos of him coming off the plane in Nepal, the first Indian prime minister to do so for 17 years, had over a million likes in less than 24 hours and praise from both Nepali and Indian citizens, calling him a "Majestic Indian Tiger".... Certainly not a
leader to be undersestimated... This cat is one shrewd player...The first to win an election using facebook, his first 2 months in office in Dheli have been nothing short of miraculous, at least in the sense of the Indians trust in their government. Changes in India Will take time, but there is confidence those changes will be impressive.

Except in highly unusual circumstances, such as those of the last decade, they are unlikely to grow in unison. China apart, they have limited trade ties with one another, and they have few political or foreign policy interests in common.
A problem with thinking in acronyms is that once one catches on, it tends to lock analysts into a world view that may soon be outdated.

They're now the largest economic union in history, to me that seems to be something pretty important that they have significantly in common, whether or not the NWO can swallow these facts is another question....

BRICS, now with the legend that is Narendra Modi leading India into a new golden age prosperity as a key player will increasingly for the west turn BRICS into a large serving of humble pie they will have to swallow or go hungry.
BRICS is an emerging economic superpower. But remember Rome wasn't built in a day.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Indias new leader is strongly pro West and pushing hard for a US/Japan/India compact to counter China. Also BRICS is not an economic union. In fact it is had not managed to produce a single economic or trade agreement in 5 years. The Bank which they have been dragging their feet on for years because of all the infighting was pushed out this year as a last ditch effort to show that BRICS was not a complete waste of time.

Russia has done nothing but cause BRICS problems and with Russia economy starting to fall they have almost nothing to offer BRICS.

China will not commit anymore to BRICS than they have to anything else. And can you blame them? India has moved naval forces to east to counter China and is courting the US and Japan. On top of that another BRICS country Russia is selling India weapons specificaly to counter China.

China also wants IBSA shut down. IBSA is India, Brazil and South Africas alternate to BRICS. And because those three nations are democratic and supporters of the West they have managed to pass all kinds of trade and economic deals unlike BRICS which sits around like dead duck. China wants IBSA gone because it has no control over it. However all 3 of those nations see Chinas economic policy as hurting them. Which is why IBSA be around for good.

So you have one nation, China, that is in another class and thus dominates BRICS or tries to anyway. You have another nation, Russia, that is a political pariah and has a falling economy. And then you have the other 3 states who have no love for Russia and no trust in China to such a point they have their own group which manages to get things done.

BRICS has been on a downward spiral and seems unlikely to ever accomplish anything.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Very well presented. "BRICS" started out as an acronym for what once would have been called the "Second World," developing economies that have not achieved the prosperity of the US, Europe and Japan, but are not mired in poverty and corruption like the "Third World." The elephant in the room for any potential future for BRICS as a socio-political entity is that China has outgrown its "Second World" status. It has outstripped the United States, Europe and Japan in industrial production and invests heavily abroad; financially, in terms of infrastructure and even "soft power." In other words, BRICS needs China more than China needs BRICS. Add to this the close relationship between Chinese production and American consumption, which analysts sometimes call "Chimerica," it is unlikely that China will ever uncouple the RMB from the USD.

originally posted by: DJW001
"BRICS" started out as an acronym for what once would have been called the "Second World," developing economies that have not achieved the prosperity of the US, Europe and Japan,

The old term "Second World" referred to the Soviets and other communist states. Of the BRICS, only Russia and China were Second World.

South Africa was First World due to alignment with the Western democracies, and India and Brazil were Third World.

The above exemplifies what some people have been saying... The Western World is a coverall term for the democratic and economically developed world. BRICS represent the undeveloped world with Russia an China somewhat hobbled by their history by remaining autocratic and totalitarian, both being models that will not aid in a transformation to developed.

Regards

a reply to: paraphi

Agreed.

Nicely put, Xcathdra - hopefully this will shed light on "BRICs" and stop certain sections of the ATS population thinking it is something it isn't. I doubt it, but one can hope.

originally posted by: stumason
Nicely put, Xcathdra - hopefully this will shed light on "BRICs" and stop certain sections of the ATS population thinking it is something it isn't. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Curiously enough, none of the members who need to read this thread have commented on it. Perhaps they are afraid of bumping it?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: stumason
Nicely put, Xcathdra - hopefully this will shed light on "BRICs" and stop certain sections of the ATS population thinking it is something it isn't. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Curiously enough, none of the members who need to read this thread have commented on it. Perhaps they are afraid of bumping it?

I have sent out U2U's to people on both sides of this fence. Thus far the response appears to be one sided. I will give the benefit of the doubt and just chalk up lack of participation to it being a weekend. I added this link to my signature line so its not like they don't now the thread exists.

I will give it a few more days before I join into the conversation / debate.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hmmm - benefit of the doubt is an admirable trait, but I know some from the other side have been active in the other threads over the weekend, so one only has to assume they've seen it and decided not to comment..

First thing is Modi is not pro West , he is not even remotely pro west . West including E.U and U.S had banned his Visa . HE was banned to come to Europe or America until he became the Prime Minster over an allegation which was not even proven in the court of law(Supreme Court did not even consider it worth to spend time on it) . When he was an outcast from the west the only country who welcomed him with a red carpet was China . No doubt there are problems with China and India on the borders but with him in power and Chinese investment(amounting to 300$ Dollars) to be invested in the country.The whole problems with India and China are being overly dramatized by the OP.

articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...

zeenews.india.com...

So on the contrary Chinese knew very well what was happening in India and acted far before the west had any clue what was going on. BTW, India has voted against US in UN far more than even Cuba.

www.livemint.com...

www.bloomberg.com...

International Community includes far more than western world , So Russia is in no way isolated . They just signed a 300$ Billion Gas deal with China , 40$billion$ gas deal with India, Brazil is moving in to replace for the food imports. and if there is an Automobile imports Ban on EU then Indian and Chinese Automobile companies will move in to replace E.U . When Russia invaded Crimea India clearly told the invasion was "legitimate" . BRICS entity was clearly formed to counter the western influence both politically and economically.

IF Russia and China wanted to Dominate the BRICS, why did they allow India to lead the BRICS bank for the first 5 years ? The relations as of right now are better between India and China than India and the west. Same would go for Brazil considering how NSA did a fine job of ruining the relationship.

rt.com...

www.rediff.com...

Russia and China is moving in to trade in local currencies to bypass Dollar.
Russia and India is moving in to trade in local currencies.
Russia is working with Brazil and South Africa to trade in local currencies to bypass Dollar.

The Diplomatic and economic relationship between BRICS countries is increasing exponentially some of it attributed to extremely stupid moves by the U.S

a reply to: maddy21

India did not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine or its annexation of Crimea. As a matter of fact no BRICS nations voted in support of Russia's actions, including China.

a reply to: maddy21

I can't dispute what you say about the Indian PM - I am sure you know more than I considering you are Indian - but to expect Indian and Chinese auto mobile companies to replace EU imports is a bit far fetched - the main imports are luxury cars, such as BMW, Audi, Range Rover, Bentley etc which are also massive imports to China and India. If you guys could match the quality of those vehicles, you wouldn't need to import them yourself.

Also, what India said about the Crimea wasn't that intervention was legitimate, but that Russia had legitimate interests. A world of difference from actually supporting the invasion and annexation. India is walking a very fine line and is trying not to take sides - again, a world of difference from actual backing Russia at all.

India has much to lose from pissing off the West and you can kiss future growth and stability goodbye if you get cut off too as the EU is India's largest trading partner and accounts for around 20% of total trade - add in the US and you have a large chunk of the Indian economy exposed.

a reply to: stumason

The issue with Maddy's position is the over reliance on another nation being able to step in to either import or export items from a lost market and doing so at a moments notice.

The assumption that nations will automatically change their import/export areas assumes the government can dictate terms to the companies. India, Brazil, S. Africa - All nations where a free market style system exists, where demand creates the needs for import or export.

A lesson Russia and China still do not comprehend and is evident in not only the respective countries business/government reliance, but in the central government thinking they can create a market in a foreign country based on the "this is what you are going to do" mentality.

This type of mentality is why I think BRINCS is pretty much doomed. Russia and China are not interested in developing nations and helping them grow. What they are doing is using BRICS in a manner that will allow them to gain control of global economics that prevents equal input from other nations. They can moan and groan all they want over the IMF and the UN, but the fact remains the reason they moan and grown is because they cannot use it to solely benefit themselves without causing a dustup.

The very fact that BRICS are still trying to figure out the setup tells me the nations involved have differing views.


As for India all politics are local. They have booted out Americans for their internal reasons, as is their right as a sovereign nation. The fact we recognized their PM and issued a VISA should be a sign that while he may not be liked by some in the US, the US is willing to accept the decision of the Indian people.

India and China will most likely never come to terms over their borders, Tibet or any other issue the 2 are involved in. Since china supports Pakistan over India, especially when it comes to Kashmir, I don't think India is going to wander down this brics road blindly. Also lets not forget China sent in military units into India last year, causing an uproar on both sides.

Economic stability is one thing... Having to surrender sovereignty to Russia and China to get it is, imo, to high a price.

Not to mention you are taking the largest democracy on the planet and pairing it up with the worlds largest communist government. I think history should be our guide in this one.