Abstract
Based on literature review and interviews with journalists, we argue that the BRICS countries are constructing a collective vision, guided by logics of recognition and of transformation. The production of discourse reaches its high point during the BRICS leaders’ summits. To go beyond analysis of the discourse revealed in the media, this article examines projects, thereby aiming to qualify and label the justificatory discourses, in order to develop an understanding of intentions. The BRICS countries have become a reference point as the press increasingly makes comparisons between these countries. The notion of recognition, present in the political elites, also appears as a part of the public imagination and in the press. The leaders too seek transformation. The first official multilateral institution founded by the BRICS countries was the New Development Bank. Current efforts indicate the development of common scientific and technological research initiatives and official support for the establishment of an innovative BRICS Network University. Initiatives will appear as these countries try to consolidate their position.
Introduction
Today the notion BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – is contested as an economic concept, frequently suggested are substitutions and adaptations, for example, a Financial Times article on 28 January 2016 suggested that BRICS should be replaced by Ticks: Taiwan, India, China, South Korea. 1
However, since 2009, the BRIC and the later BRICS leaders have been meeting annually and seeking to build political foundations for their union. They involve – in a first moment – the search for common grounds between the countries and a subsequent projection of power. In other words, in a first moment, the five countries seek recognition, internally to the bloc through getting to know each other better and by becoming better known to outsiders. In a second moment, the bloc seeks transformation of elements of a world order that they believe can be improved: world financial institutions, access to cheaper pharmaceutical and medical treatments, environmental preservation and so on.
During the 20th century, with the United Nations Organization, the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Arab League, the Commonwealth, the World Trade Organization and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we saw countries building organizations that express a range of diverse collective visions. We can see organizations constructed on identities (e.g. religion and colonial past), those built for trade, to defend members against external threats and to promote members’ own interests (some of these organizations – as is the case with the NAM – incorporate utopias).
It is in this context that the BRICS build themselves, characterized by the will to construct a new type of collective vision, guided by a triple logic of recognition, transformation and construction.
In a first moment, in order to be recognized, BRICS presented themselves, subsequent to the crisis of 2008, as a group indispensable for guaranteeing a more just order with regard to the world economy and, in a second moment, for the future of mankind. This first objective led to attempts to transform the major world financial institutions. This objective was reached in a modest manner after a considerable time lag. In 2015, the ‘New Development Bank’ 2 (NDB) was created. Here, we see the establishment of a first institution that seeks to transform abstract ideas that contest the existing order into elements of a possible new order.
In a second moment, more complex, the countries’ leaders mobilize around wider and more ambitious objectives. They seek to construct visions related to certain major issues of the contemporary world and to look for alternative solutions, or (less frequently at this point in time) to project major institutional changes. In so doing, they are not necessarily seeking to create a rupture with the ‘world order’ – but to at least attempt to change some of its elements. These complex plays of forces, where actors often change their roles, are a sign that the world is in mutation and also illustrate the role of widespread recognition in this game.
With regard to these five countries, characterized not only by geographical differences but also by cultural and political heterogeneity, the question is, how is ‘union’ established? What are the strategically reciprocal and convergent interests of members? From the viewpoint of communication, how far can wishes to share values go when faced with practices that eventually come into contradiction with these values? One can see fragmentation when interests or values do not line up in the same direction: the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) group emerged at the Copenhagen climate change negotiations, where different interests led to Russia taking a different direction. IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) represents the three countries that share representative democratic politics as a common value and practice, something different is to be found with issues of internet governance where India’s role differs from that of the other countries. A key question is are the BRICS constituting a new political and communication space in the contemporary world, or, on the contrary, are they an alliance of states whose interests are too different to go beyond timely agreements that are linked to circumstances?
Recognition and politics
Effectively, the BRICS have understood the common interest of building an association of emerging powers (or in Russia’s case of a re-emerging power) important enough to have constituted an essential part of the world’s economic growth engine from the 1990s, a movement that coincided closely with the beginnings of globalization. It is this system of perceived common interests, which, together with others, led to the creation of the G20, which aimed to be a counterweight to the G7: the economy flows into politics in order to make itself understood at a ‘global’ level. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for the BRICS to show their weight internationally, but to constitute an alternative to the currently dominant powers, that is, to propose something new. The search for recognition upon which they seek to construct their influence must be seen in this context.
Transformation and communication
Among the new paths that they seek to explore, communication plays a central role: The sciences of communication are, in reality, the symbol of the beginning of this century: how to live together, or better how to live together in an open and finite world where the other is omnipresent, and so different, yet so unavoidable? The question of communication, that is to say of the ‘other’, with the obligation and the difficulties of us living together is right at the heart of the new challenges. (Wolton, 2007: 189)
To transform things together, it is first necessary to learn to live together.
The two authors have made more general statements about what the BRICS mean in geopolitical terms, and what common values bring them together. Unfortunately, this is not the occasion to examine these issues in greater detail. For Laïdi (2012), the BRICS shared an interest, which is transformational ‘to erode Western hegemonic claims’ (p. 52). The BRICS leaders themselves are more positive looking, the sixth BRICS leaders’ declaration mentioned four shared values: growth, inclusiveness, protection and preservation. De Coning (De Coning et al., 2014: 45) carried out a content analysis of the first five leaders’ summits and developed a different list: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, respect for multilaterally agreed upon principles of intervention, legal equality of states and mutual non-aggression and promotion of mutual benefits and national development paths. Through the defence of such principles, a representation of the world is developed in opposition to other representations, one that is anchored in the desire for recognition and linked to a project-in-development of transformation.
Since the first BRIC heads of state meeting in 2009, a wide range of intergovernmental, private and third sector working groups have been established; these seek to exchange information and to identify and explore possible common agendas. In this way, they seek to recognize each other and to be recognized by others, and, through this, eventually pave the way for transformations wherever they see that they can move forward; such initiatives, as we shall see, may start bilaterally or multilaterally.
Before the BRICS leaders began to meet, there was already a considerable number of bilateral relations between these countries, some of which had repercussions far beyond the countries involved. India and Brazil, for example, had demanded and obtained the liberation of generic pharmaceutical products in a struggle that pitted them against giant pharmaceutical companies from the developed countries and their governments. The BRICS partners will increasingly build some supranational agendas together and disagree on others. However, it is worth pointing out that at the United Nations, Brazil and South Africa vote together 96 per cent of the time. Such a sharing of positions is not new; in the 1980s, an ex-president of Brazil talked of a 95 per cent coincidence in the positions of China and Brazil at the United Nations. 3
We have asked ourselves what the BRICS countries are doing and how their process of establishing both mutual and external recognition, as well as setting up transformative practices, appears in the eyes of the press, and how it relates to the BRICS leaders’ declarations and agendas. Initiatives already exist: the NDB, the BRICS ‘High Representatives Responsible for Security’, varied ministerial meetings, a contact group for foreign trade (CGETI), the ‘Business Forum’ for identifying investment opportunities, the establishment of a network university and common approaches to climate change. 4
In this article, our attention will focus upon how the global projects of the BRICS, which have been outlined here, is portrayed in the international printed and electronic news media, and seen by a handful of BRICS journalists who work in São Paulo, Brazil.
We note that the BRICS appear to be in a hurry to produce concrete results, for example: setting up the NDB in just a few years and trying to set up the BRICS Network University in the space of 2 years. In other words, in the name of increasing integration, the countries have set up mechanisms for mutual recognition (whereby they aim to get to know each other better) and for co-operation, and which can – in areas where substantial dialogue is achieved – lead to transformation.
Methodology
Our investigation is centred around two research strategies, of which we shall examine some results in this article. Our corpus was composed of press articles collected using Factiva. We also interviewed four journalists from the BRICS countries who live and work in São Paulo, Brazil, in March and April 2016.
Before turning to examine the results of our investigations using Factiva, we shall say a few words about how the research was carried out. Factiva is a leading website providing more than 32,000 sources from newspapers, journals, magazines, newswires, blogs and so on worldwide in 28 languages. We conducted three searches of which we shall treat two in this article. The main search was conducted on 5 February 2016. The following filters were used:
Languages: English, French and Portuguese.
All regions in the world, all subjects, all enterprises, all authors and all sources.
First, we conducted research using the term ‘BRICS’ and ‘summit’ and ‘2015’ during the 7-month period between 1 June and 31 December 2015. In total, 1503 results were found, and the results are depicted in the (Figure 1).
Print screen of Factiva research using ‘BRICS’, ‘Summit’ and ‘2015’ as keywords.
By using the function ‘select’, we have excluded articles referencing stock exchange-related topics, corporations, mining activities and all press releases from companies. Because one author is French and the other Brazilian, we have selected all articles in these languages. There were not very many.
The ‘2015 BRICS Summit’, methodology and comments
The production of discourse reaches its high point during the BRICS leaders’ annual summits. But facts and projects are not readily visible. We shall look first at the sources of the published articles (Figure 2), subsequently at the economic sectors examined (Figure 3) and finally at the most popular subjects treated (Figure 4).
Print screen of the Factiva research on most mentioned sources.
Print screen of the Factiva research on most mentioned industries.
Print screen of the Factiva research on most mentioned subjects.
Of the 10 most quoted sources, a Russian agency comes in first place, and two other Russian sources appear in the top 10. An African source was located in second place, only two further sources based in other BRICS countries – Xinhua from China and the Press Trust of India – appeared in the top 10, in 9th and 10th positions respectively. Sources from western Europe, North America and New Zealand 5 appear in the middle. This listing suggests the following:
Overall, the Western press decided not to give a great deal of coverage to what went on at the BRICS leaders’ 2015 summit.
A fragmented and differential interest in the summit was to be found within the BRICS, with Russian, then South African sources, far ahead of China, India and Brazil (the last is not in the top 10 even though Portuguese language sources were assessed as a part of the search). However, the fact that documents written in Chinese, Russian and Indian languages were not researched makes it necessary to adopt caution with regard to this point.
The journalists interviewed in our research raised the need for more articulated press coverage by and from the BRICS countries.
How much of the Russian coverage was due to the Russian presidency of the BRICS during 2015 or was due to the already observed high degree of Russian protagonism in the BRICS club, or to internal media policy is a question that can be addressed through subsequent research.
To some extent, these results confirm the concerns expressed by the journalists interviewed about (a) the lack of coverage outside of the BRICS and (b) the incapacity of the BRICS press agencies and organs to guarantee wider coverage.
In Figure 3, we see that financial sector issues are by and far the main focus of articles that treat the economy, with special attention to banking and finance. That nuclear energy is a major topic comes somewhat as a surprise, but the energy question attains a great deal of prominence overall, suggesting that both traditional and renewable energy are a relevant common concern. The BRICS NU project has chosen energy and the economy as two of the six areas in which it will concentrate initial efforts. The advance of the pharmaceuticals sector in India and the alliance India forged with Brazil for a less unjust access to medicines may be behind the importance accorded to this sector.
Three major subjects seem to grab attention: military issues, including terrorism and military operations (99 mentions), have achieved greater importance than internal and general political issues (87 cases), and these two subjects appear to attract more attention than the economy in its various dimensions (42 mentions). The original notion of the BRIC countries was an economic one, but today the notion of BRICS is associated with a far wider range of themes, and especially those related to diplomacy and the military, which constitute interdependent dimensions of the international relations system. The coincidence of the Russian presidency of the BRICS and the Ukrainian question contributed to propelling military questions into the foreground.
When we examine BRICS leaders’ declarations and look at the subjects treated in meetings held at ministerial or other levels (see Note 4), we see that numerous themes of meetings correspond to the principal themes discussed above. We saw earlier that trade, agriculture and economic issues appear as dominant themes, and as major economic crises are currently gripping three of the BRICS countries, such issues may become increasingly important.
However, international relations stand out as a key area of concern, one that permits the integration of a wide range of concerns and their steering is left in the hands of diplomats. We mentioned military and security issues earlier, but health also stands as an internal issue that provokes press coverage. There seems to be quite a lot going on, and two recent memorandum of understandings (MOUs) in areas of particular interest to universities in science, technology and innovation 6 and in higher education 7 seem to confirm this effervescence.
The world press and the BRICS
The search of Factiva indexed articles revealed three distinct approaches and the journalists we interviewed validated our categorization:
BRICS as recognition;
BRICS as transformation;
BRICS as a failure.
Recognition
The BRICS have become a reference in many areas: this is the first observation that our research brought up. When these references occur within the BRICS, they often refer to a dynamic that is surprising for some – especially as grosso modo the citizens of the BRICS countries know very little about their partners.
The first reference we note is an internal one, whereby BRICS partners get to know each other by comparing themselves with each other. The second reference is that they project themselves towards the world in a way that they are seen as a relevant force. The third reference is that the BRICS countries now feel that they can learn from each other.
BRICS viewed by BRICS – Internal reference
In these articles, it has become notable that a new base for comparing countries has emerged, one that, before Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs invented the term in 2001, had not even been thought about! What we find is a patchwork of subjects where the press in one BRICS country compares its own country with the other BRICS countries. The Indian publication Business Today (2016) states, Even if we add the tax revenues of central and state governments, India has one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the world. At less than 18 per cent, it is also the lowest among BRICS countries. Brazil leads with 34 per cent, South Africa is next at 27 per cent, followed by China at 22 per cent and Russia at 19.5 per cent.
8
The writer places these figures in a critical perspective as he examines why India has such poor infrastructure compared with other BRICS countries: India provides a classic example of the dilemma faced by a country whose elites want direct and indirect benefits of public spending, such as improved infrastructure, more public amenities, better public health and sanitation, and educational facilities, but is simply not willing to pay more taxes for the services.
9
Here, the economic message is clear – if you are a large developing country with bad services and infrastructure, and you want to improve things, then you will have to pay more tax for it.
Within the BRICS, it is India that in 2016 had outstanding economic performance. According to India’s The Economic Times (2016), Let’s face it, you have an economy that’s growing at 7.5%-7.7% and when you look at that vis-à-vis the other BRICS, the other developed economies, that’s a pretty powerful story in terms of where this economy is headed at least in the next 12-28 months.
10
In other words, India is doing better than the other BRICS and this induces the business community to have high confidence, which in part is a result of the government’s short-term plans for reform.
Economic freedom is another angle from which to look at the BRICS, and as we have seen, India is there also moving up the ladder: With an improvement of 1.6 points in its overall score, India was ranked 123rd in 2016 Index of Economic Freedom released by conservative US think-tank Heritage Foundation … With the exception of India, progress among the other BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – has stalled, according to the index which analyses economic policy developments related to economic freedom in 186 economies. Russia plunged 10 places in the rankings to 153rd, with its score deteriorating by 1.5 points. The rankings of South Africa, Brazil, and China declined to 80th, 122nd, and 144th, respectively … [In India] global economic freedom has advanced for the fourth year in a row. (The Hindu, India)
11
Indian CEOs are more confident about their company’s growth than their global peers. At least 64 per cent of Indian respondents are very confident of their growth prospects in the next 12 months as compared to 35 per cent globally, according to a survey of CEOs from 83 countries by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). India overtook Brazil in the global CEOs ranking of growth markets, jumping to fifth place this year from the sixth in 2015, according to PwC’s 19th Annual Global CEO Survey (India report) … In 2016, the average perception of opportunities and threats is similar across all BRICS nations, while the opportunity-threat gap has narrowed for India and China. This perhaps reflects a creeping sense of realism in the context of the slowdown in China, continued uncertainty and volatility around the globe, as well as the inadequate pickup in demand closer home in India. (Also in The Hindu)
12
All four stories are based on the use of economic-related indicators in a comparative perspective, which create a degree of awareness, and two of the Indian stories cited are positive about the country’s position, especially in relation to the weakness of its partners, whereas for the other story, India is behind its BRICS partners.
However, a different range of indicators places India in a much more critical light in comparison with the other BRICS countries. Women and politics: consider the following, While the global average for women in Parliament stands at 22.4%, India is at the 103rd place out of 140 countries with a mere 12% representation … Women occupy just 66 seats in the 543 members Lok Sabha, which is a mere 12%. The scenario for women Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) across all state assemblies in India is even worse, with the national average being a pitiable 9%. This being the dismal scenario, we were curious to see how India held up against the rest of the world in women’s representation … India, here, stands 4th among these countries, with only Brazil with mere 9% women that fares worse than us. South Africa, which is among the top ten countries in the world in terms of the number of women MPs could perhaps offer some valuable lessons to the rest of the group.
13
The article then proceeds, as is fitting in any comparative analysis, to raise questions about why some countries fare are better than others, what are they doing right in respect to emancipation, consciousness raising and participation. In an interesting twist, the article suggests that India could learn from South Africa.
Through getting to know about each other, as comparative analyses permit, questions can be provoked that lead to suggestions and projects to learn from the other. Such a stimulus is found in relation to other dimensions, as is illustrated in the following examples.
Fiscal responsibility policy and difficulties of implementation: Once the BRICS get to know their partners better, they swap learning about each other’s governance models. In the following example, we see India looking to China to learn: Passed almost three years after it was first introduced in Parliament, the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act has faced a rocky road in terms of implementation. While any attempt to jettison or even revisit the fiscal deficit targets is bound to draw sharp criticism from the global credit rating agencies, [Indian Finance Minister] Jaitley has to look no further than the BRICS compatriot China which has just unveiled a budget deficit of 3 per cent of GDP, the highest level for that country since 1979. Jaitley will need to ensure that any resources freed up from a fiscal reorganisation are spent imaginatively for an economic stimulus, and primarily on the creation of long-term public assets. (Xinhua, 2016)
14
Indicators are constantly mobilized to compare countries, and today it seems like a new indicator is being developed at every turn. For example, recently, a BRICS QS Universities – while not developed in the BRICS – is now used to compare the quality of institutions within the BRICS. 15 We can imagine that some of the indicators treated in this section will prove to be ephemeral, whereas others may become longer lasting causes of concern especially in those countries that ‘lag behind’ others, including contributing to the transformation of public policy debates.
Transformation in the international relations system
External recognition of the economic importance of the BRICS
An article in Le Parisien traces a positive view of the BRICS: ‘priorities when compared with those of the politicians in Australia’: Parliament today resembles something worse than a class of infants with its mud slinging, name calling, spin-doctoring and complete absence of productive policy for the well-being of the nation and its people … The BRICS nations have pledged $US100 billion to the developing world to upgrade and develop trade routes, ports, food production, energy, health and other important infrastructure as a method of bringing under control the brutality of war and regime change. Would it not be better if this bipartisan approval in our leadership mirrored that of the BRICS nations for the benefit of our nation and its people?
16
Here, we see recognition of the BRICS as a positive force in the world. Such a view also extends to African countries as reflected in Achille Gnaoré’s interview published in the Kremlin’s official site, Sputnik France: ‘Fortunately the BRICS countries, and notably China and Russia with which Africa has excellent relations, have a different approach to the criminal one that the West has served us with over the centuries’. 17
Recognition is a fruit of the perception of multiple actors operating internally and externally in different domains. In order to make the material collected manageable, we filtered out a considerable amount of the economic news on the BRICS in our Factiva corpus, a great variety of different sectors of the economy show interest in the BRICS. Rather than enter into a detailed analysis of the articles in each of these sectors, we have made a short-list of subjects treated to give an idea of the variety of themes that are treated, some of which appear to reflect business as usual, and others that open up new horizons. Today the original reasons for Jim O’Neill’s invention of the term BRICS – based on demographic, economic power, resources and land area – guarantee that these economies will continue to be a focus of interest, even though today’s economic difficulties dampen the original predictions, many now seem to recognize these countries as a base for future prosperity. Examples of the markets identified include: smartphones, 18 television audiences, 19 oral care, 20 electricity sector, 21 protective relays 22 and petroleum. 23
From representation to transformation
Naím (2013), in his examination of changing power structures, said that smaller players are coming into evidence on the international stage. Naim talked of the BRICS countries as becoming major players, and that this was never more evident than at the Paris climate conference. 24
Especially in South Africa and India, we find criticism of the lack of BRICS ‘initiatives that lead to concrete transformations’. So far, our article has discussed internal and external sources of recognition of the role of the BRICS countries in distinct areas and in a variety of countries. Coming with this mutual recognition in the BRICS is a desire to learn from each other, external sources seek to identify opportunities. The NDB took a few years to be conceptualized and established. But Rome was not built in a day, so, to put things into perspective, we could ask how long has it taken to build the European Union? Some of what we identify as BRICS initiatives have been going on for quite some time – originally bilateral, they may eventually move to being multilateral, and subsequently can be built upon in a BRICS environment.
Transformation
A constant theme since the 2008 world financial crisis has been the resistance of the West to the reform of the financial system: The iron grip of the US and the EU over the IMF and the World Bank, and their unwillingness to make these institutions more representative by giving more say to developing countries, in sync with their growing economic clout, has frustrated the latter over the years. This has led to the creation of new financial institutions such as the New Development Bank by the BRICS … countries and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank spearheaded by China.
25
As International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director Christine Lagarde said, ‘it is appropriate to commend [the IMF] for ratifying these truly historic reforms. But the reforms have come so late and after so much wrangling that, similar to its crisis-lending policies, they leave a bitter taste in the mouth’. In the opinion of the writer, ‘It is also a shame that BRICS nations had to launch their own bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [AIIB], before the high priests of the Fund felt the need to modernise their quota structure’. 26
The NDB or BRICS Bank
Although the increased IMF quotas are a result of the BRICS countries manoeuvring after the world financial crisis of 2008, an official Chinese perspective was given by foreign minister Wang Yi: for the AIIB that China has proposed to establish and the BRICS Bank that China has helped to build, they are both improvements and supplements to the existing financial system. China has the confidence to find a path to great-power status different from the one followed by traditional powers. It is going to be different in that China will not play the bully. Rather, we will abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China will not engage in zero-sum games. Rather, we will pursue win-win co-operation with all the countries of the world.
27
The first concrete transformation has been the NDB, noticed in the BRICS and beyond. It has been subject to much press coverage, both from official press releases and documents. We see in the news that BRICS heads of state speak of it, the member countries’ diplomacies, non-member countries’ press, industries and even trade unions.
As a new institution that is still finding its feet, the NDB is subject to much speculation. ‘The New Development Bank, formed by the BRICS group of countries, should start financing various projects by April’, Diário Comércio Indústria e Serviços reported, citing Paulo Nogueira Batista, one of the bank’s vice presidents. ‘The bank is discussing funding for three wind farms in Brazil in partnership with Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social’.
28
Other possible initiatives include A hydropower plant in western Russia, part of the bank’s plans to focus on green energy. It aims to lend to South Africa in the rand to limit the country’s exposure to potentially volatile swings in the U.S. dollar. Bank officials say outlays this year could total as much as $2 billion in 2016 and over triple that amount next year. There certainly is an opportunity to raise funding in China.
29
There has also been talk of the BRICS countries’ bank and of a system that will compete with the swift (which guarantees US superiority in the transfer of all funds in dollars throughout the World). It is true that the process will take time, but it is already on track.
30
The BRICS NDB initiative articulates with other projects, such as China’s Silk Road infrastructure fund and the China–Russia exposition. Faced with India being a part of the NDB, and the IMF’s acceptance of increased shares from the BRICS countries, a knowledge-sharing centre is to be installed in India: In a first for Asia, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will set up a knowledge-sharing centre in India, to provide technical support and assistance here and to five other South Asian nations … Since the IMF team will be based out of the region, it will ensure better understanding of regional concerns, including trade, agriculture, climate change, facilitating a reform process and support to regional integration.
31
For some, even within the BRICS, the project is seen as run by China. ‘China has struck back at the TPP [Trans Pacific Partnership] and the IMF, with initiatives that would enable investment growth in infrastructure and economic development throughout Asia, using the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and BRICS institutions’.
32
Analysts say China’s aggressive economic expansion is part of a strategy to expand its sphere of influence to forge a power status equalling Washington’s. Kamel Mellahi, a professor of Strategic Management with Warwick Business School, said there was little doubt China had become a significant diplomatic player in a short period of time. Its diplomatic presence was now felt in all corners of the world.
33
The following quote puts this analysis in the context of the economic downturn in BRICS partner countries: When leaders from five of the world’s fastest-growing economies convened a summit four years ago, they agreed a development bank would amplify their ‘voice’ in international financial affairs. Now, many of those economies are slumping, and their new bank’s immediate plans hinge on Beijing.
34
Much attention has come to be focused on KV Kamath, 35 president of the NDB, who effectively reports to the finance ministers of the BRICS. Kamath said the economies remain dynamic and still need development financing: ‘They may be slowing but, put together, they are contributing more to growth than the rest of the system’. ‘I’m not trying to boast. I’m only trying to say there’s an appetite for growth in all these countries’. The NDB’s proposed bond not only illustrates Beijing’s outsize importance to the process, but also how its involvement introduces uncertainties’ and ‘We will learn to work within the constraints that the marketplace poses’. 36
The BRICS NDB initiative is also seen as a means of projecting the influence of the BRICS: [T] he South African National Treasury has announced … the BRICS bank was in the process of establishing its Africa branch in Johannesburg … This initiative gives impetus to our role as a financial centre for Africa, and will facilitate access to global finance by African investors and institutions … seen as an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
37
This pan-African view of the BRICS is seen in a transformation of the horizons for financial aid. 38
Universities
We note that the BRICS leaders seem to want urgent progress. An example of this can be found in setting up the BRICS Network University; the countries are trying to do this in the space of a couple of years, as was seen at the Yekaterinburg meeting on 6–8 April 2016. The setting up of this BRICS initiative was contrasted – at this meeting by a professor involved in both – with the University of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement, 39 which took a number of years. The BRICS also very recently signed a MOU and launched an ambitious agenda of joint scientific, technological and innovation research (with what appears to be very modest funding). The current economic decline observed in three of the BRICS countries, which has meant that increasing commerce and joint economic progress are now less prominent in binding the countries together, appears to be the subject of compensatory politically motivated efforts to bring the countries together through state policies in non-economic areas.
The press
Our interviewees saw a need for more concerted BRICS initiatives in and around the press – in order for there to be greater international recognition of the role of these countries. Questions related to the media, its role and its projection lie at the very heart of expressions about the BRICS – and the publicity it receives. Today the press provides increasing recognition that co-operation should be strengthened. ‘Xinhua hopes the BRICS media summit this year will further advance their exchanges and co-operation’, said Cai Mingzhao, president of the Xinhua News Agency.
The first BRICS media summit was held in Beijing in December 2015. ‘The summit, with the theme of “Innovation, Development, Cooperation and Trust,” was proposed by Xinhua and jointly organized by the Brazil Communication Company, Russia Today International Information Agency, the Hindu Group and South Africa’s Independent Media’. 40 The results could eventually lead to the transformation of the equilibria between world press agencies. However, the deep cultural and power differences around the role of the press in each of these societies lead one to imagine that the chances of the establishment of a press agency that is capable of exhibiting common purpose will mean that the stories told, like a number which we have seen relayed in the international press in the course of this article, will carry an official line, which, of course, is in opposition to the key values of the Western press.
Corruption
Among the many indicators used by BRICS countries in an effort to benchmark themselves against each other is corruption: The results of Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index, released this week, hold mixed news for SA [South Africa]. Our ranking has improved from 67 in the 2014 survey to 61 out of 168 countries surveyed last year. Our score, at 44, has remained the same, with 100 perceived as very clean and 0 as highly corrupt … Take our BRICS partners. With Brazil having declined from a 2014 ranking identical to SA to a 2015 score of 38 and a ranking of 76, and with India also ranked at 76, China at 83 and Russia at 119, we are, relatively speaking, the veritable good guys in this group.
41
For the research director of Transparency International, an anti-corruption non-governmental organization, the BRICS, ‘all promising countries from the perspective of the world economy[,] are involved and score below 50 on our index’. 42 The recognition that corruption is a phenomenon common to all of the member countries has resulted in the BRICS leaders arranging for their countries’ anti-corruption officials to meet. Here, recognition of a common problem may lead to a search for innovative solutions. The big question is could such a dialogue contribute to innovative approaches, which would be capable of saving many billions of dollars in public money, and as a result stimulate greater efficiency and economic activity?
BRICS as a failure (anti-recognition)
Today many, including the inventor of the BRIC concept, seek to undermine the notion of BRICS as it is currently defined. We have seen from the reports published that cover the leaders’ summits that the BRICS have taken on a political dimension, which was, of course, not imagined originally.
Ever since the term BRIC was invented in 2001, it has been a contested idea. As outsiders sought to modify the concept, the inventor lost ownership. When their country was experiencing low economic growth, Brazilian journalists started talking of the ‘RICs’, suggesting their own country’s exclusion. When Russia’s growth dipped and Brazil’s went in the opposite direction, some started talking of the ‘BICs’. 43 At one stage, it was suggested that India’s performance was bad enough for people to suggest ‘India should be replaced by Indonesia in BRICS’. 44 Early on, the inclusion of South Africa (BRICS) and/or Mexico (BRIMCS or BRIMC) was urged. Acronyms appear to be sexy, and a whole range of them have been suggested to contest BRICS: MINTS – Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey and South Korea – was fashionable for a time, and a variety of alternative terms have appeared: ‘MISTs, CIVETs, KOMETs, among them. The most visible manifestations of this has been the organization of summit meetings of the BRIC leaders and, later, BRICS leaders. South Africa’s entry into the select club of nations indicates something quite different to the original hypothesis; it appears to have become a more political notion.
The responsibility to define what BRICS is today no longer rests solely with bankers, journalists or politicians. Consulting companies define BRICS as an area of strategic interest, and in their wake, we have seen specialized investment funds, increasingly specialized journalists, and a capturing of the public imagination.
Our analysis of the international press, via Factiva, shows that today, mostly in the wake of economic decline in three of the five countries, the BRICS concept is contested anew. Economic decline in Russia, South Africa and Brazil has been seen as a sign of the weakness of the concept – born as an economic concept – itself. A recent article in Figaro states, ‘Thus, our markets become disoriented with the uncertainties of the three spotlights … the two world locomotives – USA and China – are running out of steam and the BRICS have all broken down’.
45
Or, consider the recent Financial Times story that was republished around that world and especially in the democratic BRICS countries, ‘The BRICS are dead. Long live the Ticks’.
46
We saw at the beginning of this article a suggestion that much smaller emerging powers such as South Korea and Taiwan could serve to replace the large economies that are in decline to form a new economic acronym representing technological powers, rather than ones based on commodities. The British newspaper headline ‘Downfall of Brazil’s Lula marks end of BRICS fantasy’ introduces a sombre article in which The dream of a BRICS ascendancy has ended in sadness and squalor after the iconic figure of the era was seized by police at his home, to the rapturous applause of Brazil’s stock exchange … Brazil is the first of the BRICS quintet to break down on so many fronts at once, but Russia and South Africa are both in deep crisis, and China is running through $100bn of foreign reserves a month. Only India has the wind in its sails. The BRICS concept has become meaningless.
47
On 2 February 2016, Una Galani, a Reuters Breakingviews columnist, announced that the BRICs were defunct. For some, ‘allocating capital this way was always a “Bloody Ridiculous Investment Concept”’. 48
Our research also uncovered articles, especially from South Africa, that point to the concept’s limits; at the same time, an Indian journalist interviewed in Brazil told of the fragility of the concept in his homeland. However, a balance is provided by a recent Russian article, published in the official press that asked why the Western press was against the BRICS, and emphasized a political agenda: BRICS is not just about economics, though. The association has been firm in its policy of fostering international peace, stability and security. Priority attention was paid to the tasks of joint resistance to global challenges and threats, Ryabkov said. BRICS can be considered from two points of view – its investment component and as a political and economic association created for a higher level of integration.
Aleksandr Abramov of the Higher School of Economics told TASS. ‘From the investment standpoint opinions may vary. The Financial Times has expressed its own opinion of just one of the aspects, nothing more than that’. ‘Saying that BRICS is in its last days would be very wrong. After all the countries are working on far-reaching economic and political plans’. ‘Attempts by these countries with large and developing markets to conduct their own agreed and coordinated policies is not to the liking of the industrialized countries’, he said. ‘Hence the media campaigns against BRICS. They all reflect financial wars and global competition. As a matter of fact, one can see a string of strategic steps aimed at preventing closer unity among these countries’. 49
Conclusion
Our interviews with journalists reveal a common perception that China and Russia are effectively driving the BRICS initiatives. Many bilateral relations between the partners and Brazil have not been dependent on the BRICS framework, and it is imagined that these will be affected neither by changes in government, nor by economic downturns. However, there is a sense that the countries know very little about each other, and this also applies to government, political, intellectual and business elites. However, the journalists see the notion of the BRICS as having served as a catalyst (they do not use the word ‘ideology’) for bringing these five countries closer together. Whereas only a few years ago, the general media view was seen as supportive of BRICS initiatives in some, but not all, countries, current economic difficulties faced by three of the countries have led to some doubts about the value of the alliance; in other words, it appears to have lost some credibility.
While the presence of these journalists in São Paulo, Brazil’s biggest city, is symbolic of the emerging importance of Brazil for their home countries, only China has set up a full-fledged press centre in Brazil. The most influential international television news channels in Brazil are the BBC and CNN, but the journalists see them as not being objective. While Russia and China are present on the world scene through two press agencies – TASS and CCTV respectively – and Brazil’s Globo television and China’s CCTV are seen as strong in their own countries, the press from the BRICS countries is seen as not making its voice heard globally. The journalists all mentioned a need for the countries to move towards developing a collective approach – perhaps setting up a BRICS press agency – in order to pool resources and make their voice heard (see also Nordenstreng and Thussu, 2015).
The BRICS countries have increasingly become a reference point. Comparisons between certain countries that were never made before are now conducted. References previously seen as irrelevant are now made – this is a part of the process of recognition. Key indexes used by the World Bank, Transparency International and QS university ratings: business friendliness, corruption and university quality are compared between the five countries. As a result of the mutual recognition provided by such indicators, BRICS leaders order certain multilateral talks to be held: discussions among competition authorities, among anti-corruption authorities or – as it moves towards transforming science and university education – the BRICS Network Universities project.
Bilateral initiatives move from talk to action. It appears to be much easier to make the transition from talk to action with bilateral initiatives than it is with multilateral ones. Yet Note 4 shows that the BRICS have engaged in an intensive agenda of scheduling multilateral meetings as one of the paths used in working towards transformation. Countries get to know and to trust each other slowly. When Jim O’Neill first formulated the BRICS concept, he was interested in north–south relations, he paid little attention to the building up of commerce, communications links and diplomatic initiatives between the BRICS countries. Such ties have accelerated – and BRICS leaders now meet regularly three times a year – face-to-face communication drives further initiatives.
The notion of recognition, present in the elites, appears as a part of the public imagination and in the press. How far it has trickled down into the society, as in the mechanisms of transmission from Bollywood to Globo telenovelas (Martel, 2010), remains to be established.
The first institution to be founded was the NDB. However, the BRICS have made their impact on climate change negotiations, favouring the sale of generic medicines to the developing world, increasing their voice in institutions of global financial governance. Tomorrow, current efforts indicate the development of common scientific and technological research initiatives and the establishment of the innovative BRICS Network University.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
