BRIC-a-brac

Dan, I agree with the general thrust of your argument that we should not overestimate the power and relevance of the BRIC. But I think we should also recognize that at this point in its existence, simply continuing to exist marks a major step forward for the BRIC. Yekaterinburg-2008, the first BRIC meeting, ended up not becoming a one-hit wonder. Despite predictions to the contrary (especially after the Russia-Georgia war), India and Brazil still see value in being associated with Russia and China in this format. Each time the BRIC meets--whether in a summit or at the UN--it is one more bean filling the sack. Each time the BRIC meets it moves the concept further away from a Goldman Sachs reports and gets the foreign ministries of the four countries used to preparing for these summits. There is also a particular view of international politics, as underdeveloped as it may be right now, which stresses state sovereignty. (The 2008 summit, for instance, produced a unanimous conclusion on not supporting independence for Kosovo.)

If in 2015 the BRIC summits are like the G-8, issuing meaningless and uneforceable declarations, that will be a separate question.

Not hyping the BRIC as representing a real challenge in 2009 to an American-led global order makes perfect sense. But it could easily evolve into a way for these four states to use their assets to renegotiate the terms of their positions within that order.

Despite all the disparate, the BRIC group reflects the growing self-confidence of its members. The largest emerging markets are recovering fast from the financial crisis and they want to make a statement that the commanding heights of the global economy are no longer the sole influence of the United States, The European Union and Japan. The global economic crisis pushed the four countries together, but BRIC is far from being a cohesive political entity. With sharp internal differences and, in certain ways, divergent political ambitions, the BRIC countries have a little in the way of a common policy agenda. However, the first BRIC summit was aimed neither to produce a blueprint for international reform nor to be a serious attempt to counterbalance the United States, as some may have expected. It was indeed, a political showcase to make sure developing countries’ interests continue to receive attention at the G8 and G20 meetings. The Summit represented their desire for increased economic reform and a stronger voice in international institutions such as the G-20, IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization.

The BRIC group is very much a symbolic cooperation among emerging powers aimed to gain political influence and make a statement that the world affairs has got multiple players. The first BRIC summit (and those that will follow) is a way for these states to touch base on immediate bilateral concern, but it does not signal a move toward greater multilateral reorientation. To expect anything more than that, is to not fully understand the meaning of BRIC. But this doesn’t undermine BRIC countries’ future growth potential.