The inaugural summit of the BRIC group of countries - Brazil, Russia, India and
China - took place in Yekaterinburg in Russia, the site being of more historic
importance than the outcome of the actual summit suggested.
Copywriters were quick to notice that the summit took place in the same site
where the Russian communists murdered the last czar and his family, suggesting
a plot from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: four ambitious nobles conspire
to bump off the Roman ruler on the pretext that he had pretensions to monarchy.
In much the same way, the CNBC-generation warns us, these four countries plan
to murder the world's sole superpower, the United States, and usher in its
stead a multi-polar world.
What actually transpired though was more comedic than serious, topped as the
whole show was with a bland statement that hardly
touched on any of the real challenges to the world economy, let alone suggest
new measures. To be sure, this wasn't for want of intention, but rather the
complete absence of internal cohesion that practically ensured a sticky end
result to proceedings.
For example, the summit statement with respect to reforming the international
financial system pointed the following:
We are committed to advance the
reform of international financial institutions, so as to reflect changes in the
world economy. The emerging and developing economies must have greater voice
and representation in international financial institutions, and their heads and
senior leadership should be appointed through an open, transparent and
merit-based selection process. We also believe there is a strong need for a
stable, predictable and more diversified international monetary system.
Superficially, this statement addresses the concerns of the "Global South",
namely that the current financial system architecture appears outdated for the
needs of a changing world. Then again, does it? Reading the statement closely
reveals the basic gist to be one of an intended reallocation of seats rather
than a complete overhaul of the system itself.
Or put in different terms, the BRIC statement merely reads as a polite request
that one of their nationals be appointed as head of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, rather than the usual reservation of such jobs
for Europeans and Americans, as is the current status.
For how else does one explain "... must have greater voice and representation
in international financial institutions, and their heads and senior leadership
should be appointed through an open, transparent and merit-based selection
process" or indeed the fact that three of these countries (Brazil, Russia and
China) have quickly accumulated some US$70 billion equivalent of the IMF's
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in recent days?
"Please sir, I want some more," as Oliver Twist pleads in the Dickens novel of
the name. Rather than stopping at the demand for their citizens to be made
heads of the IMF and the World Bank, the motley crew also stated the following
with respect to the need for reform of the United Nations:
We express
our strong commitment to multilateral diplomacy with the United Nations playing
the central role in dealing with global challenges and threats. In this
respect, we reaffirm the need for a comprehensive reform of the UN. ... We
reiterate the importance we attach to the status of India and Brazil in
international affairs, and understand and support their aspirations to play a
greater role in the United Nations.
At this point, your humble
author had to stop reading, and go away clutching his stomach while laughing
uproariously. Since when did the followers of Mao Zedong and Vladimir Lenin
ever acknowledge the need for dialogue over brute power? That is only the case
when they have no power or at least have no confidence in such power.
Neither fish nor fowl
The primary reason for the summit descending into a farce is the unfortunate
presence of Russia. In some ways, Russia is unique - as a member of both the
"established economic power" group of the Group of Eight - supposedly the
world's leading industrialized nations - and the "rising power" group of the
BRIC, the country can be arguably positioned as a perfect bridge between the
recent past and imminent future.
All that talk is misplaced, as Russia is more akin to a country with neither a
glorious past nor a promising future. While resource-rich, the Russian state
lacks both the demographic impetus and systemic integrity to ensure any
sustained profits from these activities. Instead, under the influence of Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin, the Russian state appears headed towards another bout
of political turmoil; like a creature forever chasing its own tail in circles.
In other ways too Russia differs from its group members in BRIC. Unlike the
diligence of the Chinese, the resourcefulness of the Brazilians or the
innovation of the Indians, the country is seen as heavily trapped in its own
history. A country that cannot quite decide whether it will play well with its
neighbors or simply go out to bomb them, in other words. This confusing agenda
of the Russians has been encouraged by the feckless Europeans (see
Utterly pointless Europe, Asia Times Online, August 19, 2008), and a
confused state of affairs that persists in Washington.
Also, unlike those of the other three countries in the grouping, the Russian
economy contracted by almost 10% in the beginning of the year. The swift rise
in oil prices towards $70 per barrel will do wonders for growth in the second
half of the year, but even that could well be cold comfort given the mountains
of debt that need to be refinanced by Russian companies and banks in coming
months.
The collapse of various neighbors in Eastern Europe presents economic losses
for Russian oligarchs and banks, while the strategic situation for the country
remains in flux against a resurgent Georgia and the current "people power"
revolution in Iran that could see the Russian acolyte president being removed
in favor of the more American-friendly reformer.
Given all this, it is unlikely that the Kremlin will have much ammunition, and
even less interest, in doing anything for a nascent multilateral body where the
benefits, if any of acting together are likely to accrue to other members
before itself, and what percolates down will only do so over the very long
term.
Internal tensions
Added to the nonsensical position of Russia in this meeting, tensions between
India and China have also increased in recent days over the issue of trade
tariffs. Specifically, Indian companies have demanded that the new government
(the re-elected Congress party led government in Delhi) impose tough
anti-dumping sanctions on Chinese-made products. In an article in the Financial
Times dated June 14, 2009:
India's small and medium enterprises have
warned that they are suffering because of cheap imports from China. They are
urging New Delhi to accelerate anti-dumping investigations and impose tougher
safety and quality checks on Chinese products. The appeal for greater
government protection came amid rising tensions between New Delhi and Beijing
over trade, after a high-profile dispute over an Indian ban on Chinese made
toys.
India's Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry said on Sunday that a
survey of 110 small and medium-sized manufacturers found that about two-thirds
had suffered a serious erosion of their Indian market share over the past year
because of cheaper Chinese products.
In its statement, FICCI said the Chinese imports were between 10 and 70%
cheaper than comparable Indian products, a price differential that it said was
"huge and difficult to explain". Amit Mitra, the FICCI's secretary-general,
said Indian industries were being hurt by "typical Chinese predatory pricing"
intended to drive rivals out of business so that Chinese companies could
capture the market - and then raise prices to more normal levels.
The bite was felt by companies in a range of sectors, including processed food,
light engineering, building materials and heavy engineering, chemicals and
textiles, FICCI said. Indian manufacturers face serious competitive
disadvantages in comparison with China, including poor infrastructure and rigid
labor laws, that perversely discourage companies from growing and instead
promote inefficient fragmentation.
The answers to India's
plight are in the story above: poor infrastructure, the need for industrial and
labor reform and the relative inefficiency of investments into the country.
Still, what is at stake between the two countries often presents its own
dynamic of how far away is the point at which these economies can actually rely
on each other rather than those in Europe or the United States for growth. It
is not inconceivable that at some point Brazil and China could have a spat over
the price of steel (a point of tension in the not-too distant past as Brazilian
steel was sold cheaper than locally made products in China at the turn of the
century) or indeed that Russia and China have another period of tension over
energy exports to China from Russia's neighbors.
We can conclude that the first BRIC summit was a much-needed first step in a
journey that could well overhaul global economic architecture in decades to
come. However, as things stand now, internal dissent within that group, the
lack of common interests and any vision towards achieving longer-term
sustainable growth implies that future meetings could easily descend into the
farce in which the first one ended.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
