O criador do acrônimo BRIC em 2001 (como mera carteira de investimentos para fundos institucionais), já deformado para BRICS em 2011, e agora totalmente desfigurado para BRICS+, com a inclusão de seis novos membros muito pouco representativos, acha que nem esse “grupo” (a serviço da China), nem o G7, a coalizão formada nos anos 1970 com as economias então dominantes, representam a base de um entendimento global. Ele está totalmente enganado: a declaração final do G20 de Nova Delhi — a partir de agora G21, com a inclusão da União Africana — não reflete nenhum consenso global, nem sobre os desafios comuns (meio ambiente e problemas sociais e desequilibrios entre regiões), nem sobre o mais importante desafio à paz e segurança internacionais: a guerra de agressão contra a Ucrânia pela Rússia de Putin (sequer mencionados na Declaração). Adicionalmente, a UA não é, nem nunca será o equivalente da UE, na economia mundiais. Jim O’Neill equivocou-se na sua análise: o mumdo está tão fragmentado atualmente como esteve na primeira Guerra Fria.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
The G20 Wins the Group Battle
The joint declaration that emerged from last week’s summit in New Delhi offered further confirmation that the G20 is the only body with the scope and legitimacy to offer truly global solutions to global problems. Alternative groupings such as the G7 and the new expanded BRICS look like sideshows in comparison.
London - NDON – Following the recent summit of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), where the group agreed to add six new members I argued
that neither it nor the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States – plus the European Union) has the credibility or the capacity to tackle global challenges. That leaves the G20 (comprising 19 of the world’s largest economies, plus the EU) as the only grouping with the legitimacy to offer truly global solutions to global problems.
The joint declaration that emerged from last week’s G20 summit in New Delhi provides further confirmation of this. Member states reached a consensus to address a wide range of issues. Despite obvious challenges – such as the considerable differences in how member states operate – they managed to reassert the G20’s relevance after a lengthy period in which its role had been called into question.
We should applaud those who played the biggest roles – presumably India and the US – in pushing through the final communiqué. The New Delhi declaration could be the first step in a stronger concerted effort to address global issues like climate change, the need for a revamped World Bank, infectious disease control, economic stability, the war in Ukraine, and other matters. Though this agenda was agreed in the absence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Russian and Chinese representatives who did attend would not have signed on to anything without having cleared it with their respective governments.
Many speculate that Xi skipped the summit in order to snub India – one of China’s longstanding rivals – and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Whatever the motive, his decision had the effect of undermining the significance of the recent BRICS meeting, which many saw as a victory for China.
As I argued last month, the lack of Indo-Chinese solidarity will be a major stumbling block for the new BRICS. Now, Xi’s absence from the G20 summit has deepened the divide between the two countries. If Xi wants to convince us otherwise, he will need to reach out to Modi. As matters stand, the success of the G20 meeting makes Modi the clear winner in this season of summitry. Perceptions matter, and right now he looks more like a visionary statesman than Xi does.
Moreover, the G20 achieved another subtle, but important, step by agreeing to expand its ranks to include the African Union – making it a G21. This breakthrough gives Modi a clear diplomatic victory, allowing him to burnish his image as a champion of the Global South. It also further underscores the seemingly random nature of the BRICS’ own expansion, which includes Egypt and Ethiopia, but not other, more important African countries, such as Nigeria. The big question now is whether a permanent seat at the table will make the African Union itself a more effective body.
