amorim & coelho - brics - final[1]

21
1 International Studies Association Annual Convention, 2012 San Diego, April 4th (This is a draft, please do not cite without consent) Useful Tool or Shallow Acronym ? Foreign Policy Coordination Amongst BRICS countries Wellington Amorim Carlos Frederico Coelho [email protected] [email protected] .

Upload: bia-vilela-moreira

Post on 10-Jun-2017

238 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

1

International Studies Association Annual Convention, 2012

San Diego, April 4th

(This is a draft, please do not cite without consent)

Useful Tool or Shallow Acronym ? Foreign Policy Coordination Amongst BRICS

countries

Wellington Amorim Carlos Frederico Coelho

[email protected] [email protected]

.

Page 2: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

2

1. Introduction and Structure

The purpose of this work is to analyse if the BRICS group share some foreign

policy coordination. Since first mentioned, in 2001,1 the group has evolved from a

economic concept to a political one, with regular summits, even enlarging itself with the

addition of South Africa. Many have been the works showing the economic and political

assimetries among its participants and in a certain degree a substantial lack of

cohesiviness2; thereby, even the group’s raison d’être could arguably be invalidated.

Nonetheless, as already mentioned, the BRICS concept has been reinforced over time, due

specially to the participant’s rapid economic adaptation and/or recovery after the world

financial crisis which erupted in 2008.

The work is divided in four parts, the first dealing with a brief historical

overview, the second showing the respective countries’ economic indicators. The third part

analyses the basic tenets of each foreign policy and how they can reinforce or fragilize the

group’s strength as an alliance. The fourth part shows how the five countries have

positioned themselves internationally through analysis conducted in their voting patterns of

the United Nations and a conclusion is drawn.

2. Brief historical overview

The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) concept was created in 2001.3

The original main objective of such an acronym was two-fold: encompassing big emerging

markets, in terms of investment opportunity, and stressing the need to enlarge the global

economic governance most important forum, the G-7. In fact, O’Neill stated that a

revamped G-5 (with USA, Canada, Japan, UK and an Euroland representative) should turn

into G-9, with the inclusion of Brazil, Russia, India and China.4 Nowhere in the original

1 O’NEILL (2001) 2 For example, ARMIJO (2007) and COOPER (2010) 3 O’NEILL (2001) 4 Idem, p. S-10

Page 3: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

3

paper there is a suggestion of BRIC countries forming a sole bloc or, even more, a

politically-based one..

In 2003, a new work5 again emphasized the importance of BRIC countries in

the world growth prospects and once more only economic issues were analysed.

3 years passed, and in September 2006 the BRIC Foreign Ministers, who were

attending UN General Assembly opening, met together on the sidelines and the same

happened again in 2007.. The four countries were riding high in the trade boom the world

was experiencing since 2003, and an idea of an alternative forum to the G-7 seemed fit.

In 2008, a full-scale diplomatic meeting, again with the Foreign Ministers,

was set in Yekaterinburg (Russia). In fact, Russia had already hosted two meetings of the

RIC (Russia, India, China) group in Vladivostok (2005) and St. Petersburg (2006). The

inclusion of Brazil strenghtened the group and Vladimir Putin’s policy of “promoting

multilateral arrangements to challenge the United State’s concept of a unipolar world.”,

showing that the four contries aspired “to convert their economic might into political

clout”.6

A year later (June 16th), in the midst of a great world financial crisis, the first

BRIC summit was held, again in Yekaterinburg, with the presence of the four Heads of

State. The most important issues highlighted in the Summit Declaration were:7

a) Importance of G-20 as a global governance instrument

b) Reform of international financial institutions, giving a greater voice to

emerging countries

c) Strong need for a more diversified international monetary system

d) Stable international investment environment and trading system

e) Support for “comprehensive and balanced results” of the Doha round

f) Cooperation in the energy field

g) Importance of the status of India and Brazil in international affais, and

support of their “aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations"

h) Importance of global food security

5 WILSON & PURUSHOTHAMAN (2003) 6 RADYUIN (2008) 7 BRIC (2009)

Page 4: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

4

In 2010 (April 16th), at Brasilia, a new Summit was held. Basic issues

discussed were the world economic situation, reform of financial institutions, Iranian

nuclear policy, development and enlargemente of BRIC as an international body, etc. The

Summit Declaration emphasized:8

a) The need for “transformations in global governance in all relevant areas”

(emphasis ours)

b) The importance of G-20 as “the premier forum for international economic

coordination and cooperation of all its member states.”

c) Importance of the status of India and Brazil in international affais, and

support of their “aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations"

d) Support to the increase in capital of the World Bank, under the principle of

fair-burdening share

e) Need of a reformed and more stable world financial architecture and

regulatory system

f) Need of changing the “legitimacy deficits” in IMF and World Bank

g) Economic cooperation within the BRIC members, with studies aimed to

analyse “feasibilities of monetary cooperation, including local currency trade settlement

arrangement”

h) Need for “a comprehensive and balanced outcome of the Doha Round of

multilateral trade talks “

i) Cooperation in energy, food security and climate issues

In August 2010 South Africa asked to join the group, and was formally

included in 12/24/2011. Since then, the group is called BRICS (S stands for South Africa).

One of the reasons for fast-tracking the inclusion was that South Africa was already a

member of IBSA (with India and Brazil), since 2003.

A year later (14/4), at Sanya (China), the third Summit most important issues

were the following, according to the Closing Declaration:9

a) The need “for a comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security

Council (...) China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status of India,

8 BRIC (2010) 9 BRICS (2011)

Page 5: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

5

Brazil and South Africa in international affairs, and understand and support their aspiration

to play a greater role in the UN.”

b) The importance of G-20 as “the premier forum for international economic

coordination and cooperation of all its member states.”

c) Calling “for a quick achievement of the targets for the reform of the

International Monetary Fund”

d) Support “for the reform and improvement of the international monetary

system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and

certainty (...) (including) the the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary

system”

e) Need of a broad monitoring and coordination involving energy and food

commodities

f) Support for a “successful, comprehensive and balanced conclusion of the

Doha Development Round”

g) Cooperation between members in “science, technology and innovation,

including the peaceful use of space”

h) An Action Plan, “which will serve as the foundation for future

cooperation” among the BRICS members10

.

In 2012, the Summit will take place in New Dheli (India) and one of the most

important issues to be discussed would be the creation of a BRICS development bank.11

3. Looking for Similarities: What do Economical, Social and Political Indicators say?

Brazil, Russia, India and China were considered by Goldman Sachs as

emerging economies that were in the path to robust growing all the way through 2020, the

original concept of the term BRIC. Since, then, as explicited with the inclusion of South

Africa, the term has gained a political facet as well. Firstly grouped as alike countries from

outside (Goldman Sachs), the BRICS have evolved into a grouping from of their own.

10 Action Plan details can be found in PHAN (2011) 11 LEO (2012)

Page 6: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

6

Henceforth, it is important to analyze how these countries differ (or not) in political and

economical indicators, as well as other selected indicators, so that determination can be

made on what brings them together and what sets them apart. We begin our analysis on the

political indicators.

Table: Political Indicators12

Country Democracy13 Autocracy14 Polity Score15 Durable16 Freedom

Status17 Political Rights18

Civil Liberties19

Brazil 8 0 8 25 Free 2 2 China 0 7 -7 61 Not Free 7 6 India 9 0 9 60 Free 2 3 Russia 5 1 4 10 Not Free 6 5 South Africa

9 0 9 16 Free 2 2

It is possible note two separate grouping in regards to the political indicators

presenteda bove. Whereas Brazil, India and South Africa have performed well and are

considered functioning electoral democracies (albeit South Africa and Brazil are reasonable

young democracies), Russia and China have not. Across the board, Russia and China

perform quite poorly in these indicators. As we know and will note in the following section,

it seems ironic that the need for reform in global institutions is one of the leading themes of

Brics’countries, since two of them have shown little regard for such procedures at home.

12 Polity IV Project; Freedom House – Freedom in the World Report, 2011. 13 The Democracy indicator is an additive eleven-point scale (0-10). The operational indicator of democracy is derived from codings of the competitiveness of political participation, the openness and competitiveness of executive recruitment, and constraints on the chief executive. 14 An eleven-point Autocracy scale is constructed additively. Our operational indicator of autocracy is derived from codings of the competitiveness of political participation, the regulation of participation, the openness and competitiveness of executive recruitment, and constraints on the chief executive”. 15 The POLITY score is computed by subtracting the AUTOC score from the DEMOC score; the resulting unified polity scale ranges from +10 (strongly democratic) to - 10 (strongly autocratic). 16 The number of years since the most recent regime change (defined by a threepoint change in the POLITY score over a period of three years or less) or the end of transition period defined by the lack of stable political institutions (denoted by a standardized authority score). 17 Each country is assigned a numerical rating from 1 to 7 for both political rights and civil liberties, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The ratings are determined by the total number of points (up to 100) each country receives on 10 political rights questions and 15 civil liberties questions; countries receive 0 to 4 points on each question, with 0 representing the smallest degree and 4 the greatest degree of freedom. The average of the political rights and civil liberties ratings, known as the freedom rating, determines the overall status: Free (1.0 to 2.5), Partly Free (3.0 to 5.0), or Not Free (5.5 to 7.0). 18 Please see note 17. 19 Please see note 17.

Page 7: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

7

Table: Other Indicators20

Country Name Military expenditure (% of GDP)

Population, total (in millions)

Corruption Rank

(score)

CINC21 (Country Rankings)

Brazil 1.606 194 73 (3.8) 6

China 2.014 1,338 75 (3.6) 1

India 2.398 1,170 95 (3.1) 3

Russia 3.965 141 143 (2.4) 5

South Africa 1.239 49 64 (4.1) 31

China, India and Russia spend much more of their GDP in the military then

South Africa and Brazil. This is not a surprise nor a coincidence, given that the

aforementioned countries all possess nuclear weapons’capability. South Africa is, in many

ways, an outlier in any Brics indicator that takes scale into consideration. With a population

size that is almost three times smaller than the next (Russia), this is expected. Brazil, for its

part, has seen an historical decline of the prestige of its Armed Forces, a trend that started

with the end of military regime and that is currently been challenged by work and spending

of the Ministry of Defense in connecting to academia, for example.

Where the Brics’ countries cling together is in corruption. According to

Transparency International, every Brics’ country has a bad reputation in this regard,

varying from bad (South Africa), to worse (India, Brazil, China) to abysmal (Russia).

Another indicator where the countries find similar results is the Composite Index of

National Capabilities. Based on annual values for total population, urban population, iron

and steel production, energy consumption, military personnel, and military expenditure, the

index present a high correlation to the scale of the countries and economies presented. It is

important to note, then, that this indicator seems to strenghten the Brics’country argument

of larger participation in international affairs, for it gives creedence to the notion that their

power22 is considerable.

20 Sources: World Bank Development Indicators, 2010; Transparency International, 2011; Correlates of War, 2010 21 The Composite Index of National ranking is based on annual values for total population, urban population, iron and steel production, energy consumption, military personnel, and military expenditure. This measure is generally computed by summing all observations on each of the 6 capability components for a given year, converting each state's absolute component to a share of the international system, and then averaging across the 6 components. 22 In any way one might define it.

Page 8: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

8

Table: Economic Indicators23

Country Name

Foreign direct investment, net

inflows (% of GDP)

Foreign direct investment, net outflows (% of GDP)

GDP per capita

(current US$)

GDP, PPP (current

international $, in billions)

Growth Average of GDP, last five years

Brazil 2.320 0.552 10,710 2,185 4,412

China 3.123 1.015 4,428 10,169 11,22

India 1.399 0.761 1,474 4,194 8,386

Russia 2.897 3.546 10,439 2,812 3,632

South Africa 0.430 0.105 7,275 528 3,182

As a creation of O’Neill in 2001, the term BRIC referred to growing

economies in the world, forecasting that the original four countries would surpass current

G6 countries by 2050, in economic size. As we have seen the previous section, ther term

has been expanded to include not only South Africa, but also to include other topics other

than economy, which means that the topic has grown vertically and horizontally.

It is still in regards to economy and most specifically, to economic growth,

that makes Brics’grouping reasonable. While noting that South Africa will always be an

outlier in terms of scale and absolute numbers, we can infer from the table above that these

emerging economies have done quite well, even in the face of international economic crisis,

largely because of their domestic markets. It is striking to note, for example, that even

though China and India have the lowest GDP per capita, they are also the two countries that

have recorded the largest growth of their economies in the last five years.

To this day, grouping Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa together

for common analysis is more intuitive when looking at economic growth.

4. BRICS Foreign Policies’ main goals

4.1 Brazil

Officially, Brazilian foreign policy principles are shown in Article 4 of its

Constitution:

23 Source: World Bank Development Indicators

Page 9: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

9

National independence;

Human Rights prevalence

Peoples autodetermination

Non-intervention

Equality among States

Defense of Peace

Pacific solution for conflicts

Terrorism and racism are to be repelled

Cooperation among all people to the progress of humankind

Granting of political asylum;

As a regional power with increasing global presence, bordering 10 other

countries, Brazil has some other foreign policy goals, although not as explicit as the former:

Peace and increasing integration in South America; influence expansion from

South Atlantic Sea to Africa; nuclear disarmament (since it hasn’t pursued nuclear arms

development); economic and social development, a bigger role in the global governance

foruns, especially a permanent seat in UN Security Council.

4.2 Russia

President Putin, in 2000, stated the following principles of Russian foreign

policy: 24

“To ensure reliable security of the country, to preserve and strengthen its

sovereignty and territorial integrity, to achieve firm and prestigious positions in the world

community, most fully consistent with the interests of the Russian Federation as a great

power, as one of the most influential centers of the modem world, and which are necessary

for the growth of its political, economic, intellectual and spiritual potential;

To influence general world processes with the aim of forming a stable, just

ad democratic world order, built on generally recognized norms of international law,

24 THE FOREIGN POLICY CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.(2000)

Page 10: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

10

including, first of all, the goals and principles in the U.N. Charter, on equitable and

partnership relations among states;

To create favorable external conditions for steady development of Russia, for

improving its economy, enhancing the standards of living of the population, successfully

carrying out democratic transformations, strengthening the basis of the constitutional

system and observing individual rights and freedoms;

To form a good-neighbor belt along the perimeter of Russia's borders, to

promote elimination of the existing and prevent the emergence of potential hotbeds of

tension and conflicts in regions adjacent to the Russian Federation;

To seek concord and coinciding interests with foreign countries and interstate

associations in the process of resolving the tasks that are determined by the national

priorities of Russia, and on this basis, to build a system of partnership and allied relations

that improve the conditions and parameters of international cooperation;

To uphold in every possible way the rights and interests of Russian citizens

and fellow countrymen abroad; and

To promote a positive perception of the Russian Federation in the world, to

popularize the Russian language and culture of the peoples of Russia in foreign states.”

More specifically, Russia is working to bolster Russian prestige (after the so-

called “lost decade 1991-2000”) and securing borders. Bordering countries, Europe,

Caucasus and China are the most important issues for Russian foreign policy, at present.25

4.3 India

The Indian Government states that “The foundations of India's foreign policy

were laid during the freedom movement when our leaders, even when fighting for

independence, were engaged with the great causes of the time. The principles of India's 25 For more details about Russian Foreign Policy, OLIKER (2009)

Page 11: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

11

foreign policy, that emerged then, have stood the test of time: a belief in friendly relations

with all countries of the world, the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means, the sovereign

equality of all states, independence of thought and action as manifested in the principles of

Non-alignment, and equity in the conduct of international relations.”26

India’s foreign policy also has immediate goals such as: strenghtening itself a

regional power and as a naval power in the Indian Ocean, expanding its influence power to

Africa and Southeast Asia, economic and social development and a bigger role in the global

governance foruns, especially a permanent seat in UN Security Council..

4.4 China

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as to chinese foreign policy,

“The fundamental goals of this policy are to preserve China's independence, sovereignty

and territorial integrity, create a favorable international environment for China's reform and

opening up and modernization construction, maintain world peace and propel common

development.”27 Among other goals, China wants to recover all territories claimed lost

during the so-called “century of humiliation”, a bigger role in the global governance foruns,

establishing itself as a regional and military power, and economic ans social development.

But, in that process, China has acted cautiously in avoiding any direct threat to US

dominance, since it doesn’t consider itself already prepared for such a clash. Nevertheless,

in every pertinent occasion, the criticism to a world hegemon or hegemony-based

governance is permanent, in Chinese official declarations.

26 EMBASSY OF INDIA IN THE USA (2012). The five principles, first mentioned by Nehru, are also known as Panchsheel 27 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.(2012)

Page 12: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

12

4.5 South Africa

President Zuma mentioned the principles of South Africa’s foreign policy.28 He

“further revealed that the country’s foreign policy is founded on “four pillars”. First,

priority is accorded to SADC and Africa. “We work with countries of the developing South

to address shared challenges of underdevelopment,” he said. Next, South Africa seeks to

promote global equity and social justice. Thirdly, South Africa recognises the significance

of the “developed North” in forging ahead. “We work with countries of the developed

North to develop a true and effective partnership for a better world,” Zuma said. The last

tenet of South Africa’s foreign policy stresses a desire to revise the balance of power on the

international stage. “We play our part to strengthen and transform the multilateral system,

to reflect the diversity of our nations, and ensure its centrality in global governance,” he

said.”

South Africa also wants to establish itself as the biggest regional power in Africa,

convalidating its bid to a permanent seat in UN Security Council.

4. The BRICS as an analytical tool? Evidences UN General Assembly Voting.

The use of United Nations General Assembly Voting for analysis in foreign policy

is far from anything new, having firstly been presented by Lijphart in 1963. Even though

there is disagreement as to the validity of such data as useful tools for analysis29, as

indicated by the recent work of Octavio Amorim Neto (2011, p. 58), the United Nations

General Assembly Voting records are important as to identify regional and multilateral

alignments30, which is exactly what we try to do in this paper. We do so by pairing each of

the Brics’ countries with each other and also with the United States, so as to test our

28 PATEL (2011) 29 Kennedy (2006, p.34) notes that the number of symbolic voting procedures at the United Nations is not small. We agree and believe that not be a problem. In the United Nations, as in any other foreign policy arena, symbolism matters. 30 Also of this opinion are Marin-Bosch (1998), Selcher (1978) and Voeten (2000).

Page 13: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

13

hypothesis of soft-balancing in the political arena of international affairs. Below are the

graphs representative of the statistical analysis conducted. They show the convergence of

voting between countries after the end of the Cold War.

Table: UN General Assembly Voting – Brazil and Brics + USA

Table: UN General Assembly Voting – China and Brics + USA

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

brarus

brasaf

brachi

braind

brausa

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

chibra

chirus

chisaf

chiind

chiusa

Page 14: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

14

Table: UN General Assembly Voting – Russia and Brics + USA

Table: UN General Assembly Voting – Russia and Brics + USA

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

rusbra

russaf

ruschi

rusind

rususa

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

indbra

indrus

indsaf

indchi

indusa

Page 15: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

15

Table: UN General Assembly Voting – South Africa and Brics + USA

The visual impact of the Brics’ position vis-a-vis the convergence with the

United States is striking. From 1998 onwards, there has been a decoupling of the Brics’

countries and the United States that points to coordination in the international arena as a

way of soft-balancing United States foreign policy and external power.

In this regard, the use of the acronym Brics for analytical purposes makes

sense. However, we must caution against the overuse of the term. When looking at other

issues in international relations, it is clear that the Brics’ countries have very little in

common if not for the desire of redesign of international institutions (specially those

derived from Bretton Woods) and soft-balancing of United States’ power abroad. There is

certainly no coordination in the Doha Trade Round, as China and India adopted a veto

position for any agreement that would require opening their agricultural markets. Russia

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

brasaf

safrus

safchi

safind

safusa

Page 16: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

16

just joined the WTO on December 2011 and was not even a member of the talks. In

security issues, Russia and China have veto power in the United Nations, whereas Brazil,

India and South Africa would like to be permanent members. Russia, China and India have

nuclear weapons’ capabilites, Brazil and India do not. The answer to the mirage/useful

analytical tool needs more questioning and more research before reaching a final

conclusion.

5. Conclusion

Could be BRICS labeled a soft revisionist group ? After all, the three Summit

Declarations point to the inadequacy of the present global governance instruments, besides

sounding a veiled criticism of the international monetary system and the role played by the

US dollar. More important, the Declarations clearly show more points emphasizing the

revisionist criticism in comparison to issues related to the members’ interaction or group’s

development. In fact, only after the 3rd Summit an Action Plan was announced and as yet

no significant advances in the integration or coordination process have been really shown.

As Chellaney points, “The BRICS concept represents, above all, its members’ desire to

make the global order more plural. But it is uncertain whether the group’s members will

ever evolve into a coherent grouping with defined goals and institutional mechanisms. In

the coming days, we might find out whether the BRICS will ever be more than a catchy

acronym with an annual boondoggle attached.”31

31 CHELLANEY (2012)

Page 17: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

17

Another point is that three of the members are significant powers in the same

region and their direct influence spheres clearly overlap. For example, China and India still

have border limits problems to be resolved, as in the case of Arunachal Pradesh.32

But, in an G-0 Era33, it’s a subsystem which is dense, in international political

terms. Will it basically work only as an instrument of criticism or evolve into a more

cohese bloc ? In the short-term, good prospects appear in the area of technical and

economic cooperation among Brazil, India and South Africa. But, as a whole, any major

improvement in terms of coordination and integration is still to be seen.

In fact, BRICS, at least in its current framework, seem much more a

“Resonance Chamber” for revisionism. Although each members’ foreign policies is

explicitly compatible with the others’, spheres of influence do overlap and specific issues

are controversial (for example, blaming food prices spike for bringing problems to

countries is politically correct, although Brazil has been one of the main benefactors of

such increase in prices...)

After all, BRICS is a suitable forum for all members It’s very convenient for

China and Russsia, which amplify their frequent cries of unfairness in global governance,

imiplicitly aiming US and Europe. It’s very convenient for Brazil and India, which found a

detour to their strategy in order to gain a permanent seat in UN Security Council (G-4 has

not been mentioned by both countries for a long period...). And it’s convenient for South

Africa, which, although representing a massive continent as Africa, lags the territorial,

populational and economic power of the other four members.

32 THE HINDU (2012). In fact, the only country with which China hasn’t completely solved its terrestrial borders litigation is India. For more details, FRAVEL (2008). 33 BREMMER & ROUBINI (2011)

Page 18: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

18

Up to now, BRICS is a tool for prestige and revisionism; in that sense, it’s

been very useful for each of the five members. It has not been as useful for international

relations’ academia as an analytical tool.

Page 19: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

19

References

AMORIM NETO, O. (2011), De Dutra a Lula: a condução e os determinantes domésticos

da política externa brasileira. Editora Campus/Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro.

ARMIJO, Leslie Elliot.(2007), The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India anda China) as

analytical category: mirage or insight ? Asian Perspective, vol. 31, nº 4 Available at:

http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v31n4-a.pdf. Retrieved in 02/13/2012

BREMMER, Ian & ROUBINI, Nouriel.(2011), A G-0 World. Foreign Affairs. Mar/Apr

BRIC. (2009), First Summit Declaration. Available at:

http://www.bricsindia.in/firstSummit.html. Retrieved in 20/03/2012

BRIC. (2010), Second Summit Declaration. Available at:

http://www.bricsindia.in/secondSummit.html

BRICS. (2011), Third Summit Declaration. Available at:

http://www.bricsindia.in/thirdSummit.html. Retrieved in 20/03/2012.

CHELANEY, Brahma.(2012), The cracks in the BRICS. Available at:

http://chellaney.net/. Retrieved in 3/22/2012http://www.project-

syndicate.org/commentary/the-cracks-in-the-brics. Retrieved in 03/22/2012

COOPER, Andrew. (2010), Labels matter: Interpreting Rising Powers through Acronyms

(IBSA, BRICS and BRICSAM). In: ALEXANDROFF, Alan S. & COOPER, Andrew

F. (ed.). Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance.

Baltimore, Brookings.

DIXON,William J. 1981. The Emerging Image of U.N. Politics. World Politics 34:47–61.

Page 20: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

20

EMBASSY OF INDIA IN THE USA.(2102), India’s foreign policy – 50 years of

achievement. Available at:

http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Foreign_Policy/fp(intro).htm. Access in

02/20/2012.

FRAVEL, M. Taylor. (2008), Strong borders secure nation: cooperation and conflict in

China’s territorial disputes. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

LEO, Sergio.(2012), Brics querem crédito em moeda local. Valor Econômico. March 23,

p. A4

LIJPHART, A. 1963. The Analysis of Bloc Voting in the General Assembly: A Critique

and a Proposal. American Political Science Review, vol. 57, pp. 902-917.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF

CHINA.(2012), Independent Foreign Policy of Peace. Available at:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/. Retrieved in 03/03/2012

OLIKER, Olga et al. (2009), Russian foreign policy: sources and implications. Santa

Monica, Rand Corporation. Available at:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG768.pdf. Retrieved in

03/10/2012

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=LXb6bjqdzlMC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=andrew

+f.+cooper+labels+matter&source=bl&ots=JitDR5tTV4&sig=h_aeyQooRYIQPVsmFx

XgpR98oJ0&hl=pt-

BR&sa=X&ei=0PpsT6_RFMP10gG9v9zvBg&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ -

v=onepage&q=andrew%20f.%20cooper%20labels%20matter&f=false

O’NEILL, Jim.(2001), Building Better Global Economic BRICs. Available at:

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/brics/building-better.html. Access in 08/01/2012. Retrieved

in 11/28/2011

Page 21: Amorim & Coelho - BRICS - Final[1]

21

PATEL, Khadija.(2011), Zuma decodes South African foreign policy. Daily Maverick.

Available at: http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-10-14-zuma-decodes-south-

african-foreign-policy. Retrieved in 03/01/2012

PHAN, Gang. (2011), The BRICS group leaders release Sanya Declaration. International

Business Times. 04/15. Available at:

http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/134536/20110414/sanya-declaration-the-brics-group-

brazil-russia-india-china-and-south-africa.htm. Retrieve in 03/05/2012

RADYUIN, Vladimir. (2008), For a new order. Frontline. vol. 25, issue 12, june 7-20.

Available at: http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2512/stories/20080620251205200.htm.

Retrieved in 01/06/2012

SELCHER, W. 1978. Brazil’s multilateral relations: between first and third worlds.

Boulder: Westview Press.

THE FOREIGN POLICY CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.(2000),

Available at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/econcept.htm. Retrieved in

03/15/2012

THE HINDU.(2012), China cannot interfere in India’s domestic affairs. Available at:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2935778.ece. Retrieved in 03/07/2012.

WILSON, Dominic & PURUSHOTHAMAN, Roopa. Dreaming with BRICs: the path to

2050.(2003), Available at: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/brics/brics-reports-

pdfs/brics-dream.pdf. Retrieved in 11/28/2011