In a speech at the School of Public Policy (SPP) at Central European University on October 17, Assistant Professor Oliver Stuenkel from Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV) in São Paulo, Brazil analyzed the evolution of the BRICS from 2001, when the term was first coined by an investment banker, to today.
He began by providing some context for the development of this South-South alliance noting that, for example, foreign policy had traditionally mattered very little in Brazil. It was only in the late 1990s, with the coming of economic liberalization, that Brazil began to engage with its immediate neighbors, and also internationally. Until that point, it was very rare for Brazilian presidents to travel abroad.
Stuenkel remarked that the emergence of the BRICS had been quite sudden and dramatic. As late as the early 2000s, most political analysts agreed that the world was unipolar. Why then did the BRICS attract so much attention beyond the financial world? Stuenkel listed several factors including U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq; the timing of the financial crisis in the West that occurred when emerging markets were enjoying continued economic growth; and also the recognition by some leaders like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva that this was a moment when emerging governments could enhance their role in the global order.
Another reason why the BRICS became so important so quickly was the European and U.S. media fascination with the rise of China. Stuenkel noted that something similar had taken place in previous decades when it appeared that Japan and then Russia might challenge the United States on the world stage.
In many ways though, the BRICS are not a cohesive group. He noted, for example, that there are few economic ties among the BRICS countries – except for China, which has strong ties to all other members. He provided many other examples that demonstrated that BRICS countries interacted much less with, and knew much less about, each other than they did with, for example, the United States, England, and France. Stuenkel went on to point out that in addition to mutual ignorance, there was also a great deal of mistrust among the BRICS. To strengthen ties, there is extensive and growing cooperation among BRICS countries in many areas such as agriculture, health, the judiciary, and trade.
Can the BRICS point to any real achievements? Stuenkel said “yes” and gave the 2010 IMF reforms that granted emerging countries more rights as one example. He also commented that the initial motivation of the BRICS was not to “rock the boat, but to make it a bit more democratic,” and that in this way too they had achieved some success.
Turning his attention to recent events in Crimea, Stuenkel spoke about how many in the West had been surprised and disappointed that the BRICS had not criticized Russian actions in Crimea, and had effectively undermined Western attempts to isolate Russia. He said that this was due to concern in BRICS countries about the United States’ privileged position in the global order. “The BRICS are skeptical of the hierarchical element of the liberal order and the privilege of the U.S. in the world,” he said.
In conclusion, Stuenkel answered the question he posed at the beginning of his talk by saying that he did not think the BRICS countries were organizing against the West—“not now, not yet.”
Watch an interview with Stuenkel here:
Stuenkel's full lecture is available to view here: