Tensions and diverging interests between China and Russia loomed large over the group’s latest meeting. Will BRICS ever find a unified voice?
When the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met for a day-long summit in the south China resort city of Sanya last week, they may all have privately marvelled at quite how quickly their small group has risen to become one of the world’s most influential international concepts.
Indeed, the summit—only the third in the group’s history and the first in which South Africa has participated—overshadowed the concurrent meeting of the G-20, which is now seen as the world’s official collective manager of the global economy. Yet despite the media hoopla that now surrounds BRICS, there are some serious issues facing the collective if it wants to build on its success.
On paper, BRICS certainly has considerable potential. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are influential actors at the regional level, with their combined populations amounting to nearly three billion people; they account for one-quarter of global gross national output and possess much of the world’s stockpiles of key national resources.
BRICS governments also share a commitment to state sovereignty, a multi-polar world in which no single country dominates, and respect for the authority of the United Nations. At the closing news conferences at Sanya, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared that, ‘We must act to boost the potential of the United Nations, and to ensure that all the decisions adopted by the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council are effective and respected.’
But by going on to note the position of Russia and China as veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, Medvedev also drew attention to one of the biggest challenges facing BRICS—the frequently diverging interests of its two most powerful members.
Of course, you wouldn’t know this judging by the rhetoric of Chinese and Russian writers, who have been keen to laud the BRICS’ rise. ‘The current global economic order, established over decades after World War II, had long been dominated by developed countries,’ one Chinese commentator wrote explaining BRICS’ importance. ‘The arrangement had worked for decades, but appeared increasingly incompetent in the past decade as the rise of major emerging economies dramatically changed the world economic landscape.’
Russian analyst Leonid Ivashov, meanwhile, argued that ‘the agreements sealed in Sanya represent a serious bid to reconfigure today's world.’ He added: the ‘process…helps Russia both maintain its status in international politics and preserve its statehood and territorial integrity.’
But despite such effusive praise on both sides, the reality is that the Sino-Russian relationship can hardly be described as harmonious. Despite years of negotiations, Russian and Chinese energy companies have proved unable to reach agreement on the appropriate price the Chinese should pay for natural gas imports from Russia. And, although their oil ties have seen greater progress, the Russians now believe the Chinese are underpaying them for these deliveries. In addition, Chinese and Russian officials have repeatedly announced grandiose oil and natural gas deals that, until recently, have failed to materialize.
Photo Credit: www.kremlin.ru
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
The_Observer
The partners bring different things to the table:
(1) China’s GDP is bigger than all the other BRICS partners combined
(2) Brazil, Russia and Rep. of S. Africa have natural resources
(3) China and India have large populations and hence large markets
(4) China is the world’s biggest manufacturer of consumer products
(5) Russia has a large armaments industry
(6) India has the largest service outsourcing industry
(7) Brazil, China, India and Russia have space programs
(8) Brazil and China are investing in green technologies
(9) China and India have the world’s largest mobile phone markets
(10) All the BRICS partners prefer negotiation around the table as opposed to pointing Predators at those who disagree with them.
John
Sorry Yang Zi, I should have written China’s not yours as I dont actually know that you are supporting thier claims or that you are Chinese.
You may in fact be a ethnic Chinese of another country, but that doesn’t mean you are the Chinese making a claim today.
Therefore I apologise for my mistake.
yang zou
A “brick” is a brick and a “block” is a block. There is no sense to call one for the other hoping it would eventually become one.
Au contrare to what yang zi said, the BRICS is not multipolar (as none of the member countries are considered “superpower”) but rather a group of the wanna-bes trying to make it look like they are relevant to the little guys.
chanto
the US leadership is losing credibility. It’s time to find an alternative.
Johnny
@Chanto There is no Leader of the world. World is governed, to a major extent, by United Nations and some regional blocs NATO, BRICS and EU apart from that there is no such thing as ‘Emperor of Mankind’. The world is moving more and more towards globalization and democratization so why are you still in imperialistic mindset?
Liang1a
“In addition, Chinese and Russian officials have repeatedly announced grandiose oil and natural gas deals that, until recently, have failed to materialize.”
China should be energy self-sufficient because it can and because China will be squandering its economic resources by paying for imported oil no matter from whom the oil and gas are imported. China and Russia can cooperate in other more mutually beneficial ways. China could easily be the most advanced technological country in the world if it could only educate its millions of genius level young people into world class scientists and engineers. Then it can export high tech consumer products for raw materials such as timber with Russia.
Thomas
Holy Moly!Too much illusion and delusion here! China, in fact is just a country with too much ambitious and arrogant and too less innovative (only copying and pirating!)!! China’s still had to rely on the US & EU for its growth, and currently, its economy is in imminent danger of crisis and collapse due to its distorted development without any chance for restructuring! There have been also ‘conflicts of interests’ and mistrust within BRICS, especially among india,China & Russia (currency, border disputes,energy price, etc. to name just a few!). Particularly, China is still a free-rider on the current international order without any significant contribution and/or obligation of a responsible world player!!
harry
same thing can be said to japan when its an emerging power after WW2, anti-China idiots always have “too much illusion and delusion” they have been dreaming about China collapsing in the late 1980s but when ever China prove those illusions tobe wrong it shows that there are 1.3 billion hard working Chinese.
John
“same thing can be said to japan when its an emerging power after WW2, anti-China idiots always have “too much illusion and delusion” they have been dreaming about China collapsing in the late 1980s but when ever China prove those illusions tobe wrong it shows that there are 1.3 billion hard working Chinese.”
You are right about Japan, though Japan never made claims that due to its population size, geographic size or military size it was inevitable that it would do so (probably as many of the anti japanese were still alive and would have knocked them back).
I haven’t met too many people who want to see China knocked back, they just want China to not rewrite the international order. This is because China is a racist, ethno-centrist state at the current moment and many of its citizens see the world having to bow down to China even if China as done nothing to deserve it.
We might as well bow down to the US because it emphasised the capitalism that China now preaches. Its just we want a truly multi polar world and most Chinese commentators on here see a uni-polar world. I aprecitate reading that some Chinese see a mulit-polar world.
Though it wrong to see us as anti-china as much as we are anti middle kingdom or super power, not anti a specific country.
Ikke
What’s so idiotic about being anti-China? I mean, who other than the Chinese is pro-China?
Frank
If you are behind, “copying and pirating” are the fastest way to catch up.
When you are equal or ahead, you innovate.
When China was the most innovative country on earth before, the rest of the world were copying and pirating from China.
Where else did you learn to turn the tree leaves (tea, silk, paper) and dirt (porcelain, magnetic compass, gun powers) into gold?
Chinese is the most fittest people on earth. They adapt well by learning (copying and pirating) from other people faster than other people. That is why Chinese nation is the longest lasting nation on this earth.
It is not the smartest and the strongest that survived. It is the most adaptive one.
Ikke
Oh kiddo, maybe you should actually read a book or something. But please, don’t waste your time here with arguments that don’t make any sense.
Johnny
@Ikke I agree! I too have asked @Frank to read before posting as his uneducated comments are indicative of his poor knowledge. He, Chan, Liang1a and YangZi have an twisted understanding of world where (in their wet dreams) china ruled whole world and thus has claim on everything! Guess they don’t teach history or geography in Red schools….
guest
Fairly accurate article. The most important thing that the BRIC countries have in common is that none of them are American client-states.
Although they all have separate agendas, it behooves them to cooperate because they need to for any chance to assert themselves against the US+EU lockgrip on most international institutions. For example the BRIC has been very effective in giving it’s members say in the G-7, IMF/World Bank and Climate change talks.
John Chan
“BRIC countries have in common is that none of them are American client-states.” must be a mistake; India is an USA client state. The India’s client state status can be proved by the amount of arms India has been buying from the USA; the amount of military and political cooperation between India and USA in encircling China; the Indian bloggers’ enthusiasm on close connection between India, Japan, Korea and the US; and the joy the Indian bloggers showed when the US upgrade India’s rank on the permission to import USA’s military technology. Theses pro-USA characteristics are only unique to India in the BRIC countries.
guest
Please stop trolling, child. If India was a real US client state, then she wouldn’t be part of BRIC.
India buys more Russian than US+EU arms together. India is committed to the PAKFA/FGFA and has ruled out the F-35. If it wasn’t for the fear of China’s rise, India wouldn’t be seen dead with America. Looking at China’s close relation with the US, it would more accurate to say that China is America’s client state not India.
Don’t compare the opinions of a few blathering NRIs with Indians who actually live in India and have to deal with the reality of a collapsing Pakistan and a stronger China. All India wants is peace.
Johnny
@Chan Another baseless country bashing by you. But what else to expect from someone like you who hates everyone not supporting dictatorship in China.
Bloggers of any country other than China are rare here. I didn’t see many comments by Indians,Viatnamese,Koreans or Japanese but when they do they post balanced remarks while on the other hand Chinese post racist and bashing comments. So stop calling pot black.
India’s arm exporter of choice is Russia. As an Chinese you should understand it too since ENTIRE chinese airforce is full of Russian jets. India moved on to USA for some deals recently but if trading with USA means being its client then there is no better example of USA’s client state than China who is entirely dependent on foriegn trade with USA and USA’s securities to survive.
Kimpo
Every thing that china makes is made with USA consumer in mind, every single product is designed to please USA consumer and companies compete to get USA’s attention and you are telling me that someone else is client state of USA.
Frank
You are right. India needs masters after all.
BRICS needs to drop the vowel.
India does not trade as much with BRCS countries as much as BRCS countries trade among themselves.
yang zi
the more i spend time on this site, the more i feel that a lot of authors, including this one, belongs to the generation of yesterday.
the differences the author sited, are natural differences between countries. there is no need to force the issues and form alliances. BRICS is a multipolar world at display, this is how independent countries conduct business in the future. it is not an alliance, it is not against others, there is no dominate country. just a community of countries discussing common issues.
i want to remind all the authors and readers, just remember the globalization theme, you will be right every time. don’t latch on the old USA is number one thing, this thing will pass before you know it.
JBrown
You’re very right Yangzi!But in reality, the US and EU are so important to the developing countries, especially China. China being down or up totally depends on the US and EU markets. Consumers in these two big markets represent $20 trillions in purchase vs. Chinese consumers at only about $2 trillions!! If there’s something wrong in these markets, then China would have a lot of serious problems with its export sector and its economy as well!! So this is not the time for boasting or bragging! China still has a long way to go for the world power status if it wouldn’t implode economically!!
yang zi
I hear you JBrown. I am not boasting, I am just pointing out some attitude issues. I for one totally agree that US and EU will be ahead of BRICS for many years to come. And the reason BRICS are catching up, is precisely because it is learning from the practices and experiences from the West.
Even if China’s economy surpasses that of US, it should still respect US and other countries. China definitely should be a good world citizen.
The current issue is, The things that are complained by others , like south china sea islands and diaoyu island, are rightfully China’s and China doesn’t think it is out of international norm to forcefully declare it.
This is hard for traditional powers to swallow, because they had power to dictate these things before, and they don’t want to give up that. So from my point of view, traditional powers are too aggressive here.
However, a mature China should be able to handle this. treat these traditional powers like adult treat kids, let time heal their anxiety, let them know they are wrong, this takes time, but eventually will happen.
the reason for the anxieties about China’s rise, is because these countries had done wrong to China. everybody took a piece of land from China. they are worried China want them back. Well, China won’t. because the future is borderless trade and competition, borders are less important. it is not worth it to start a war on a piece of land.
Johnny
@YangZi Unfortunately, China’s diplomacy in REAL world is diagrammatically opposite of the loving and understanding approach you talk about. You point that it shall act like an adult but so far its reaction and stance are more reminiscent to a insecure child. The harsh approach with other nation has gravely injured its image in last three years by debacle after debacle.
I would elaborate more if you atleast agree to these gound realities. However, if you disagree and are in an parallel world unaware of these then I wont waste my time elaborating.
John
Yang Zi (4/26/11) wrote: “The current issue is, The things that are complained by others , like south china sea islands and diaoyu island, are rightfully China’s and China doesn’t think it is out of international norm to forcefully declare it.”
Can you explain China’s claim to it? Is it due to Historical claims? Is it due to military might?
If Historical then that is not a claim as all people living today are decended from others and they may be the actual original owners of land claimed by China today.
If might, then why shouldn’t others use that to attack China today to prove they are currently stronger even if it means they must band together?
Chinas claims are problematic to say the least, as many seem to be on territory belonging to another and while you might say that your Great, Great, Grandfather owned the land, unless he can come to make a claim for it then it is a pointless argument.
You are really making the argument for might makes right, as it has been shown that not even Mao’s China made claims on the Senkaku islands and even the Chinese commentators on CCTV today use an argument of Chinese control since ancient times without giving a specific date or people that lived there.
So therefore there is uncertainity about whether China ever truly controlled it or not. My point is that, your argument is no stronger than anyone elses in the region and actually weaker than some.