BRICS: PATIENCE IS THE FUTURE
By Dr Dhananjay Tripathi*
Surely, today BRICS has acquired more prominence in the world politics with Delhi declaration opinionating on some complicated issues of world politics pertaining to Syria, Iran, and role of developing world in selecting the head of Bretton Woods Institutions. The relevance of BRICS for the analyst of international relations lies is in the fact that it has the potential to challenge the Western hegemony both economically and politically. While highlighting the potentiality of BRICS it is equally crucial to estimate the willingness of these countries to work jointly for a common agenda and goal. In a realist terms, state as an entity in international relations always act to maximise its interests and regional organisations and international groupings are the outcome of state’s quest for better deal in terms of interest maximisation. Based on the realist understanding several western analysts started writing obituary of BRICS with the fundamental argument that national interests of India and China are opposed to each other. There are also commentaries on asymmetrical nature of BRICS with five countries from five different regions and except from being developing economies they do not have cohesive social and cultural links.
David Mitrany, the father of functionalist approach was optimistic about the sustainability of international groupings with a condition that state should start some cooperation in functional and technical areas. According to Mitrany, by functional arrangements nation will learn the advantage of cooperation and subsequently political boundaries will fade away. Improving the Mitrany’s thesis American Political scientist, Ernst Hass included political determinants in functionalism, which later on termed as neo-functionalism. For Hass there are spill over effects of integration and as the domestic group will realise the benefits they will themselves promote integration. Neo-functionalists also draw attention towards the significance of international bureaucracy since as per their belief international bureaucrats become more loyal towards the organisation. In the meantime, different interest groups will be created which ultimately work for consolidation and continuation of the organisation.
Coming back to BRICS, it cannot be put under the heading of regional organisation but still neo-functionalist model can be applied to falsify the prophecies of realists. Strictly speaking there is lack of unanimity even on the issue of defining regions in international relations and according to prominent theorists Barry Buzan and Ole Waever region can also be defined in terms of security requirements. Thus, BRICS in case sharing common security threats and conception, can be taken as a region. Although, by getting into the the security angel we will ultimately fall prey of realist arguments but taking a clue from this we can very well concluded that even comprehensive economic interdependence can be the basis for defining a region. In this regard promotion of trade within BRICS is a key for the future success. While talking of trade promotion within BRICS, it should not be a vague concept and there has to be some concrete vision for it. If the BRICS countries are really planning for future, some joint ventures can be the best option. Here also it is imperative to note that joint ventures between India and China in their respective countries will be deterred and opposed by the security establishments. Thus, joint ventures can be started outside the territorial boundaries of BRICS. Oil and gas exploration/ mining (considering the expertise of BRICS in these sectors) can be an ideal area to begin with and may be afterwards space technology with centre at some non-BRICS country can bring fruitful results.
India, China and Russia have lot to offer to Afghanistan as these three countries have shared common interest in peace and stability of Afghanistan. Those who will assume that BRICS will start playing a prominent role in other regions of the world will only get disillusioned but Afghanistan can be a perfect case for cooperation.
Based on neo-functionalist argument, there is also a need of BRICS institution and in this regard India had already proposed a development bank. In past, several countries made similar proposals like of Asian Monetary Fund by Japan, which never materialized. The point is, may be development bank at this stage, being a very ambitious planning but few smaller institutions, corroborating the idea of development bank can be established. Lastly, it will be unjust on our part if we start expecting too much from BRICS. To be true, there is a fewer hope that in the coming time BRICS will flex its muscle to go for an all out war against the western nominations for the head of Bretton Wood Institutions. Likewise, in West Asia BRICS countries will practically adopt different approaches and we have to reconcile with this fact.
Briefly, there is no need to get disillusioned by BRICS in short-run provided all the countries should take conscious steps to come close in some or other functional areas of cooperation. Remember, no one had ever thought in 1951 that European Coal and Steel Community would one day acquire the shape of European Union. There are possibilities and let us hope for the best.
*Dr Dhananjay Tripathi is an Assistant Professor at the South Asian University, New Delhi. (Article uploaded on May 01, 2012).
Disclaimer : The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation that he belongs to or of the USI.