Yesterday saw the first major BRIC summit, a meeting between the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the top four emerging nations in the world. Held in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg, it marks the first step towards a public demonstration of political co-operation between the countries, representing a potential move from a mere economic acronym to something more. The four leaders (pictured FRTL: Manmohan Singh, Dmitry Medvedev, Hu Jintao and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva) discussed issues such as greater representation at major institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, as well as calling for a more diversified global reserve currency, whilst being careful not to critise the dollar.
Despite being aware of the countries' economic development in recent times and the growing power they're having in the international community, I had no idea that they had formed an intercontinental economic bloc until today. The term BRIC was first coined in 2001 by Goldman Sachs who argued that by 2050, they could be among the four richest economies in the world, overpowering the current richest countries in the world. The report didn't suppose that they would ever form an economic bloc let alone a political coalition, but as time has shown, perhaps things are starting to move that way. Based on projected GDP growth and their expanding markets as suppliers of manufactured goods and raw materials (all of which you can read about here), BRIC could represent a new world order to challenge the likes of the US, the EU, and Japan.
Of course this is all based on estimations, hypotheses, assumptions, projections, etc. First of all, there's the political question of what each country wants: whilst Russia may show more intent on taking on the current giants (in particular the US), the other three may want to carry on the safe path of economic growth before comprising themselves. Then we have the differences in political structure, with Brazil and India being liberal democracies, Russia being a sovereign democracy and China being a one-party state. Other issues such as growing and reducing populations or relations with other neighbouring nations (e.g. India and Pakistan) show that the four countries are not all on the same wavelength as the BRIC summit might make it seem.
In any case, the Goldman Sachs reports are strictly economic and obviously can't take into account the political, social, and even natural changes that can occur in a year, let alone forty. What should be acknowledged is that these countries are moving forward, on the path of progression. One fact that would demonstrate this clearly is that for the first time in its history, Brazil offered the IMF £10 billion a week before summit; until now, they had only ever received loans from them.
Evidently, my interest lies principally in seeing what will happen to this country. Talking to peers, it seems that there's an innate pessism that the country won't change, that the government structure will remain corrupt and that economic inequality will remain enormous. I'm not sure whether it's out of disillusionment, apathy, or just plain ignorance, but seeing how Brazil is becoming an ever-present power in the world, it seems physically, scientifically, spiritually, everything-ly impossible that things stay the same and I can't understand how people still think this. The government will have to clean up its act and take greater care for its citizens, be it education, social welfare, safety if they're going to be taken seriously as a formidable global power. It won't happen overnight and in the short-term, I'm sure the constant reports of gang violence, political scandals, and poverty, it will seem as if things aren't changing at all. Call me a naive optimist, but to use a Tony's catchphrase from 1997, things can only get better. And I hope to be here to see it happen.
