The BRICS and Coexistence

An Alternative Vision of World Order

Cedric de Coning, Thomas Mandrup, Liselotte Odgaard

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415791113
• eBook ISBN: 9781317659648
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Economy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The grouping consisting of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) was initially meant to be nothing more than clever investment jargon referring to the largest and most attractive emerging economies. However, these countries identified with the BRIC concept, and started to meet annually as a group in 2008. At their fourth summit in 2011, they added South Africa to become the BRICS. By then the BRICS had fully morphed from investment jargon to a name for a new economic and political grouping that had the potential to challenge the unipolar hegemony of the United States and its Western allies.

This work analyses the extent to which the concept of coexistence explains the individual foreign policies of the BRICS countries. The editors define coexistence as a strategy that promotes the establishment of a rule-based system for co-managing the global order. It recognizes that different states may legitimately pursue their own political and economic interests, but they have to do so within the bounds of a rule-based international system that ensures the peaceful coexistence of states.

The BRICS and Coexistence addresses the political dimension of the emergence and influence of the BRICS in the international system and will be of interest to students and scholars of Politics, Development and International Relations.

1 BRICS and coexistence

Cedric de Coning

• The evolving global environment: the context for the BRICS project

• Global threats and challenges: the political project of the BRICS

• Financial crisis and economic governance: the economic project of the BRICS

• Conclusion

In the introductory chapter it was said that what made Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa identify with the BRICS concept was the realization that they share a common vision for a new global order, and that by combining forces together in a small but strategic grouping that binds together key countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America, they had a better chance of realizing that vision. In the remaining chapters we look at this vision for a new global order from the perspective of each of the individual BRICS countries, but in this chapter we will take a look at how these countries have articulated their common vision collectively. We do so by analyzing the two BRIC and three BRICS summits that have taken place annually since 2009.

The editors claim that the BRICS share a common vision of a future global order where the rules prevent any one state, or an alliance of states, from dominating the international system, and they have chosen to refer to this approach to global governance as a strategy of coexistence. They have defined coexistence as international policy coordination for the purposes of conflict management, which then develops into a system of co-management or co-maintenance of global security issues. The editors have identified four principles that, taken together, help to outline further the coexistence strategy, namely: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; interference in the internal affairs of other states only within the framework of multilaterally agreed upon norms and rules; mutual non-aggression, the legal equality of states; and promotion of mutual benefits and national development paths.

In this chapter we look at what it is these five countries agree on when it comes to their shared vision for a new global order. Our aim is fi rst to track the emerging narrative of a common vision and to analyze whether this narrative can be said to reflect a strategy of coexistence. To do so we look at the five summits chronologically to analyze the development of the narrative over time. Second, our aim is to analyze the common vision described in the collective statements of the BRICS with a view to improving our understanding of the various elements of the collective vision, including the theory of change embedded in the vision, i.e. how the BRICS themselves perceive that their vision will be realized. This we will do by looking at the political and economic projects of the BRICS in greater detail. Lastly, we will analyze what progress has been made towards implementing the vision. Five years is a very short period of time in the overall development of global trends in international relations, and we recognize that it will take several decades of sustained effort for the BRICS grouping to have a meaningful influence on the international system. However, it may still be possible to track what, if any, practical steps have been taken—as reflected in the annual communiqués of the BRICS summits—over this period to start to implement this vision.

The annual BRICS summits have grown in import and great effort has been invested in preparing each summit. One can thus justifiably assume that the official communiqués released at each summit have been negotiated with great attention and care, and that they reflect what the BRICS countries want to share with the world about their agreed common vision for the future as well as their position on current affairs. A careful analysis of the communiqués should thus be able to generate an understanding of how this vision has developed over the fi rst five years of the establishment of the BRICS.

The evolving global environment: the context for the BRICS project

The first meeting of the BRIC grouping took place between the leaders of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China, in Ekaterinburg, Russia on 16 June 2009. At this first meeting the BRIC countries discussed the situation of the global economy and other pressing issues of global development, and also prospects for further strengthening collaboration within the BRIC group.

This first meeting took place in the context of an emerging global financial crisis, and in the communiqué released after the summit the BRIC leaders stressed the central role played by the G20 summits in dealing with the financial crisis. In so doing they emphasized that the fi nancial crisis had brought about a recognition that the global economy could no longer be managed by the G8¹ alone, but that a wider grouping of states, including the BRIC countries was now critical to co-managing the global economy, and especially the global financial system.

The second meeting of the BRIC leaders was held in Brasília on 15 April 2010. The communiqué released after this summit said that the leaders had met to discuss major issues on the international agenda as well as to take concrete steps to improve cooperation and coordination within the BRIC group. In the second communiqué the BRIC countries went to even greater lengths to explain their alternative vision for a new global order. The communiqué said that the BRIC countries shared the perception that the world was undergoing major and swift changes and these changes highlighted the need for corresponding transformations in global governance in all relevant areas. In the communiqué the BRIC countries underlined their support for a “multipolar, equitable and democratic world order, based on international law, equality, mutual respect, cooperation, coordinated action and collective decision-making of all States.” ²

The third summit took place in Sanya, Hainan, China on 14 April 2011, and at this meeting the Republic of South Africa joined the grouping and it was re-named the BRICS group. The communiqué released after the summit explained that the reason why these countries, with a total population of nearly 3 billion, had come together was because they shared an overarching objective to contribute significantly to the development of humanity and to establishing a more equitable and fair world. The communiqué said the BRICS countries shared the view that:

… the world is undergoing far-reaching, complex and profound changes, marked by the strengthening of multipolarity, economic globalization and increasing interdependence. While facing the evolving global environment and a multitude of global threats and challenges, the international community should join hands to strengthen cooperation for common development. Based on universally recognized norms of international law and in a spirit of mutual respect and collective decision making, global economic governance should be strengthened, democracy in international relations should be promoted, and the voice of emerging and developing countries in international affairs should be enhanced.³

The fourth summit of the BRICS countries took place in the capital of India, New Delhi, on 29 March 2012. The communiqué released after the summit stated that the BRICS grouping was a platform for dialogue and cooperation that represented 43 percent of the world’s population, and was committed to the promotion of peace, security and development in a multipolar, interdependent and increasingly complex, globalizing world. The communiqué also argued that what it called the transcontinental (Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America) dimension of the BRICS interaction further added to its value and significance. The fourth communiqué further articulated the BRICS vision:

… of a future marked by global peace, economic and social progress and enlightened scientific temper. We stand ready to work with others, developed and developing countries together, on the basis of universally recognized norms of international law and multilateral decision making, to deal with the challenges and the opportunities before the world today. Strengthened representation of emerging and developing countries in the institutions of global governance will enhance their effectiveness in achieving this objective.⁴

Whilst the fourth summit reaffirmed the core norms of the BRICS, it also seemed to introduce a functional argument, namely that the equality of states in the international system is not only a right, but that the more all countries are represented in the institutions that make up the global system, and thus participate in and take co-ownership of them, the more effective these institutions will become. This reflected a gradual shift in the focus of the BRICS, away from its origin as an aspirational group that had in common an alternative vision for the future, to a group that was more present in current international affairs, and that actively cooperated to pursue common interests in a broad range of international forums.

The fifth summit of BRICS leaders was held in Durban, South Africa, on 27 March 2013. South Africa is the smallest member country of the BRICS grouping in terms of the relative size of its economy and population, and some commentators have questioned why it has been included in the group.⁵ One way to make sense of South Africa’s role in the BRICS is to understand it in the context of South Africa representing Africa, and Africa’s current and potential future contribution to the global economy. The BRIC grouping needed to include an African representative, and South Africa had the largest and most sophisticated economy at the time. South Africa was also widely recognized politically as having a regional influence and international footprint, and as one of the most likely countries to represent Africa in a reformed UN Security Council.

From this perspective it makes sense that the overarching theme of the fifth BRICS summit was “BRICS and Africa: Partnership for Develop-ment, Integration and Industrialization.” The summit was also followed by a retreat with African leaders, under the theme, “Unlocking Africa’s Potential: BRICS and Africa Cooperation on Infrastructure.”

The summit in South Africa concluded the first cycle of BRICS summits as each member had then hosted one meeting of the new grouping. The communiqué released after the fifth summit reaffirmed the commitment of the BRICS to the promotion of international law, multilateralism and the central role of the UN. The communiqué stated that the discussion at the fifth summit reflected the growing intra-BRICS solidarity as well as its shared goal to contribute positively to global peace, stability, development and cooperation.

The communiqué also stated the BRICS’ aim to develop itself progressively into a full-fledged mechanism of current and long-term coordination on a wide range of key issues of the world economy and politics.

The communiqués released after the first five summits of the BRICS countries articulate an alternative vision for a new global order that is more democratic, just, fair, rule-based, and which requires the collective decision making and co-management of all states, both when it comes to the specifics of the international financial system and its institutions, but also more broadly as it pertains to international trade and the political system, including global institutions like the UN. With concepts like democracy, fairness and rule-governed behaviour, the BRICS countries are signaling that they perceive the current global order to be undemocratic, unjust, unfair and arbitrarily manipulated by a dominant superpower supported by an alliance of developed countries in the North. The BRICS hold that the existing global governance architecture is regulated by institutions that were developed to deal with a very different set of challenges and opportunities. As the global economy is being reshaped, the BRICS are committed to exploring new models and approaches to global governance which strive for more equitable development and inclusive global growth.

Global threats and challenges: the political project of the BRICS

The BRICS are widely understood to be a grouping that has a shared macroeconomic interest as so-called emerging markets in the global economic system. The communiqués released after each of the five BRICS summits do reflect the prominence the grouping gives to global fi nance and economics in that these are the first issues dealt with at each summit. However, it would be wrong to take this to mean that the BRICS do not have a political project. First, it should be recognized that the global economic and financial project of the BRICS has a political aim, namely to redress global inequality at the level of the international political economy. We will look into this aspect of the BRICS project in the next section. Second, the BRICS also have a direct political project aimed at transforming the way the international system is governed. In this section we will focus on what the first five summits have dealt with when it comes to this more direct or overt aspect of the political project of the BRICS.

In a statement that reflects the BRIC vision for a new global order, the communiqué released after the first summit states that the BRIC countries:

… underline our support for a more democratic and just multi-polar world order based on the rule of international law, equality, mutual respect, cooperation, coordinated action and collective decision-making of all states. We reiterate our support for political and diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve disputes in international relations. ⁶

The BRIC leaders go on to express their strong commitment to multilateral diplomacy and they recognize the central role played by the UN in dealing with global challenges and threats. At the same time, they also affirm the need for a comprehensive reform of the UN with a view to making it more efficient. Two of the BRIC countries, China and Russia, are permanent members of the Security Council, and the other two, Brazil and India have been strong advocates for the reform of the Security Council, and have at times expressed an interest in serving on such a revised Security Council. China and Russia, although in favor of Security Council reform, also have a vested interest in maintaining their current privileged position. This first communiqué reflects this tension within the BRIC countries when it avoids explicitly mentioning the Security Council, and limits its comments on UN reform to saying: “We reiterate the importance we attach to the status of India and Brazil in international affairs, and understand and support their aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations.” ⁷

The communiqué released after the second summit expresses the strong commitment of the BRIC countries to multilateral diplomacy, with the UN playing the central role in dealing with global challenges and threats. The BRIC countries again reaffirm their support for comprehensive reform of the UN, with a view to making it more effective, e fficient and representative. The communiqué again stops short of saying anything specific about Security Council reform other than to reiterate the importance that China and Russia attach to the status of Brazil and India in international affairs.

The references to multilateral diplomacy and the central role the BRIC countries assign to the UN for managing conflict reflect a deep unease with what these countries view as unilateral action by the West to resolve conflicts by either imposing its norms and values via a manipulation of the UN, or by bypassing the UN altogether. The first two communiqués indicate that the BRIC countries are especially critical of actions by the West that involve support for specific movements or political parties in non-Western countries. They interpret these acts as interference in the internal politics of the countries in question, and in breach of the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states, as enshrined in international law.

In the communiqué released after the third summit, the BRICS again express their strong commitment to multilateral diplomacy with the UN playing the central role in dealing with global challenges and threats. The third communiqué again reaffirms the need for a comprehensive reform of the UN, but on this occasion, for the first time, it mentions the Security Council. However, it does not mention anything speci fic on Security Council reform other than the now standard sentence where the existing permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, acknowledge the important role of Brazil, India and South Africa, and their aspirations to play a greater role in international affairs.

However, what was special in 2011 was that all five BRICS countries served together on the Security Council, as Brazil, India and South Africa were elected as non-permanent members. The communiqué acknowledges that this coincidence provides the BRICS countries with a valuable opportunity to work closely together on issues of international peace and security, to strengthen multilateral approaches and to facilitate future coordination on issues under UN Security Council consideration. In an attempt to articulate what these countries have in common when it comes to their positions on UN peace and security matters, the communiqué states:

We maintain that the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of each nation should be respected. We wish to continue our cooperation in the UN Security Council on Libya. We are of the view that all the parties should resolve their differ-ences through peaceful means and dialogue in which the UN and regional organizations should as appropriate play their role. We also express support for the African Union High-Level Panel Initiative on Libya.⁸

Despite the fact that all the BRICS countries were on the Security Council together, and shared a common approach to Libya, South Africa was the only BRICS country that voted in favor of UNSC resolution 1973, which authorized an intervention in Libya on 17 March 2011. Brazil, China, India and Russia abstained. However, the BRICS countries adopted a common position on Libya a few months later, when they agreed that the way the UN resolution was implemented amounted to an abuse of the mandate, and that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the countries which formed the coalition that intervened in Libya manipulated the UN protection mandate to use force to bring about regime change.

These events further strengthened their resolve and common position on interventions aimed at forcefully changing a government, and contributed to the fact that all the BRICS countries subsequently joined forces to resist a similar intervention in Syria. As reflected in the statement quoted above, the BRICS position is that the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of each nation should be respected and upheld, and that all the parties to a conflict or dispute should resolve their differences through peaceful means and dialogue. The BRICS countries reject the imposition of solutions with force from the outside. For them self-determination means that each society has the right to make its own decisions regarding how it is ruled. In the case of Libya and Syria, the BRICS position was that the international community should support and facilitate negotiations and dialogue among all the factions in these countries, but stop short of taking actions that amount to taking decisions on behalf of the societies. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang explained this position at the close of the G20 summit in Saint Petersburgh in 2013, when China commented on the Chinese position on Syria. The spokesperson explained that the countries in favour of a military solution should “be serious about the possible consequences of the use of military means without the mandate of the UN Security Council.”⁹

The concept of democracy at the international level, i.e. where states in the international system, like citizens at the national level, are equal before the law and have equal say in the co-management of the international system, has been a common theme in the first three summit communiqués. It stands in contrast to the traditional Western realist interpretation of the international system as being in a state of anarchy with no authorities beyond the state, thus requiring those states with the greatest power to manage the international system on behalf of the others, including protecting the weak and acting as a global policeman. By articulating this alternative vision of a democratic international order the BRICS are using the democratic norm to articulate its vision of an international system where states are treated as sovereign equals that co-manage the international system.

The first three summit communiqués included broad statements on the peace and security situation in the Middle East and North Africa, but the fourth communiqué contains comprehensive statements on, amongst other things, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. These statements reflect the growing trust among BRICS countries to cooperate on sensitive international political questions. It also reflects that the BRICS have, over the course of the first three years, developed the diplomatic processes necessary to generate sophisticated common positions, and subsequently to cooperate to support these common positions in various international forums. The communiqué recognizes the vital importance that the stability, peace and security of the Middle East and North Africa hold for the international system, and above all for the countries and their citizens, whose lives have been affected by the turbulence that has erupted in the region. The communiqué states that the BRICS agree that the period of transformation taking place in the Middle East and North Africa should not be used as a pretext to delay resolution of lasting conflicts, but rather should serve as an incentive to settle them, in particular the Arab–Israeli conflict.

The communiqué expresses deep concern at the situation in Syria and calls for an immediate end to all violence and violations of human rig...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. BRICS and coexistence
• 2. Brazil as a rising power: coexistence through universalism
• 3. Russia, BRICS, and peaceful coexistence: between idealism and instrumentalism
• 4. Indian foreign policy and coexistence: continuity and change in the post-Cold War era
• 5. China and coexistence: Beijing’s policies on energy, United Nations Security Council diplomacy and sovereignty disputes
• 6. South Africa’s “diplomacy of ubuntu”: an African approach to coexistence?
• 7. Conclusion: coexistence in between world order and national interest
• Index
• Routledge Global Institutions Series