In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

119 CHAPTER 6 Russia in BRICS: Substantial or instrumental partnership? Fyodor Lukyanov1 INTRODUCTION T he history of world politics provides various examples of how international institutions emerged and developed. BRIC/BRICS, however, has no analogues. The witty acronym coined by a Goldman Sachs employee, Jim O’Neill, for commercial interests – namely, to draw clients’ attention to emerging markets – took on a life of its own. As Russian political analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov put it, BRIC has become a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy ’. ‘The BRICs emerged as a virtual reality – as a list of fast-developing economies, little related to each other. However, as the saying goes, all which is named exists. As time went by, the BRICs began to transform into a political reality’. 2 Vladimir Putin’s keynote article on foreign policy, published on the eve of the March 2012 presidential election, made special mention of BRICS: We will continue to prioritise our cooperation with our BRICS partners. That unique structure, created in 2006, is a striking symbol of the transition from a unipolar world to a more just world order. BRICS brings together five countries with a population of almost three billion people, the largest emerging economies , colossal labor and natural resources and huge domestic markets. With the addition of South Africa, BRICS acquired a truly global format, and it now accounts for more than 25 per cent of world GDP. We are still getting used to working together in this format. In particular, we have to coordinate better on foreign policy matters and work together more closely at the UN. But when BRICS is really up and running, its impact on the world economy and politics will be considerable.3 Since the acronym was coined (it was first mentioned in 2001 and became a part of the international lexicon in 2003 after the publication of the 120 Goldman Sachs report ‘Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050’), much has been said to the effect that this format is an artificial fiction, which by definition has no future. After the global financial crisis, which demonstrated gaps in economic development among the BRIC countries, this view has gained more supporters. In addition, the argument in support of BRIC that this association complements or even is an alternative to G8 has ceased to exist with the emergence of G20. Most of the criticism was directed at Russia. ‘What on Earth is Russia doing on the list of top emerging economies?’ economist Anders Åslund asked in an article with an expressive title, ‘Take the R out of BRIC’. The author says: ‘The country’s economic performance has plummeted to such a dismal level that one must ask whether it is entitled to have any say at all on the global economy, compared with the other, more functional members of its cohort’.4 Joseph S. Nye acknowledged that BRIC makes sense only ‘as an indicator of economic opportunity… though it would make more sense if Indonesia replaced Russia’.5 Apart from Indonesia, various countries were named as candidates for leadership in the future world, ranging from South Africa and South Korea to Mexico, Turkey and Iran. However, none of these acronyms , except BRIC, has become ingrained in political vocabulary. Nouriel Roubini believed that BRIC is an ‘economically senseless association and that it still exists only because of Russia’s anti-American ambitions’6 Vyacheslav Nikonov points out that ‘the rise of the BRICs worries Western capitals, no matter what they may say otherwise’.7 Indeed, the number of publications in the West seeking to prove that the very idea of BRICS is untenable increased markedly when interaction among the BRICS countries began to take shape. In 2006, the BRIC foreign ministers held their first meeting on the margins of a UN General Assembly meeting, and since then the BRIC/BRICS began to meet regularly at different levels, including two summits in Yekaterinburg (2009), Brasilia (2010), Sanya (2011) and New Delhi (2012). There is truth in many sceptical statements. The initial principle of ‘growing markets,’ according to which Goldman Sachs invented the term BRIC a decade ago, is no longer applicable. Russia is obviously lagging behind other members of the group. However, while finding numerous divergences between the five countries’ views, interests and plans, the critics overlook the main thing – the BRICS countries themselves are obviously interested in developing this format, because they see a potential in it that no other association or forum has. CHAPTER 6 [3.137.218.215] Project MUSE (2024-04...

Share