This is just a litmus, but it surprised me when I heard about it. It certainly has not been publicized and I can see why. Has anyone ever heard of BRIC? It stands for Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and it is an alliance- of what nature I am not sure yet- between these countries and has the air of being made either in opposition to or in contrast with American influence in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) countries is a formal association of the world's emerging economies. This alliance of countries also comprises of many formal international organizations such as the BRICS forum, and informal international forums such as the Yekaterinburg summit of 2009, where the then BRIC countries discussed the emergence of one another as major global actors, made calls for a new global reserve currency, and advocated for reform of global financial institutions.
Here's a video on it, and just to say, I really appreciated the interviewer in this one. He doesn't just give a massive blow job to BRIC because it seems to be a somewhat anti-American, fair-play alternative to he current international financial and economic sectors, but he really does what is missing from many news stations. He truly grills this man on the allegations that BRIC, like China, if it becomes successful will likely replace the current hegemony of the US with its own interest rather than be the fair-play and peace-loving advocates they say they are. It really was a sight to see, and I'm sorry I can't see more of it. [video=youtube;OjR1GGP_Vns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjR1GGP_Vns[/video]
I have done extensive scholarly research on the rise of China and its implications for a new world order. Based upon my conclusion, China will be a major global actor for some time, but will not reach great power status until it possesses the full spectrum of the state apparatus needed for the establishment of a hegemony. This includes hard power and soft power, unchallengeable economic leverage, two level political stability, social conformity to state interests, ample military capabilities, including blue-water naval capabilities, and a robust/resilient diplomatic engagement policy.
Every country has internal problems before they come to power. Britain was heavily in debt and being torn apart by civil war (religious conflicts...armed religious conflicts) when it began to dominate the world. America was also under some heavy problems- debt and political/military impotency among the more significant... these things usually serve as the impetus for such nations to take charge. Either way, I don't know if China will actually become an overpowering competitor or not, but what I do see is a growing trend of states adopting these bold anti-American gestures on the economic front. The very fact that they did this, I believe, is because they smell blood in the water. They are doing what other nations are afraid or incapable of doing, and if they meet with any success, others will definitely follow. It really is like seeing a small guy stand up to a bully. Maybe he won't win that particular battle, but the sight may inspire others who are watching. In fact, I think that is what is happening right now.
Whether or not China becomes a great power largely is a huge question among those that study its rise. There really is no definitive answer, but a plethora of different theories.
The US came into its hegemony by default, all the other contenders were destroyed. China is still extremely dependent on trade with the US, far more than the US is dependent on trade with China. I think that much of the recent posturing by China is actually a sign that the Chinese people are beginning to recognizes this and so the state makes some small nationalistic noises to satisfy those who resent it, which reinforces its legitimacy with that portion of the population. It is really more like a small gang whose members are tired of being bullied by the gang on the next block so the leaders make threats to associates of the other gang to prove to the lesser members that they are not afraid of the other gang, avoiding direct confrontation while seemingly instigating one thus gaining kudos without having to engage in actual fighting. Belligerence can be maintained for years without escalation and even though things could occasionally get out of hand it would be easy enough to back off without losing face because the principle of stern resolve has been established in the people's minds. I think the leadership in China are trying to establish this mindset so they can gain control of nationalism instead of finding themselves driven by it.
Believe me, I noticed, lol. Back then, America's economy and infrastructure were the most sound and the most dependable which led to the majority vote (among a few of the worlds leading states, such as they were) to make the American dollar the foundation of a institutionalized global economy. I think that was the real victory. It's not really so simple. The way they tell it, you believe that they are dependent on us, but in actuality, at best, we are mutually dependent. A LOT of things gets made or run through Chinese filters. If they did not make it, there would be a considerable increase in prices of nearly everything, to say the least. Also,, while they do hold a significant amount of our debt, it is not a binding factor for them, but us. Whatever rhetoric you may hear from TV, as long as they hold that debt, we are legally bound to repay it. We can say F-off, but that will destroy credit in the American dollar. They can also dump the dollar altogether, which will also destroy credit in the American dollar, and all nations will drop the dollar. Right now, China controls the value of the American dollar. With the Middle East deal, the US moved it's own chess piece. If they have control of our debt, we have control of the oil and once again compromise is the topic at the table. China, India, and Brazil, long used as the Industrial factories of the world- among others like Afria, Southeast Asia, and the rest of South and Central America, have long been looking to top the status qou of nations. They produce, we consume and benefit...no one is rooting for the US. That is why, in the end, we will fall. We have all the power, but no support. It is really more like a small gang whose members are tired of being bullied by the gang on the next block so the leaders make threats to associates of the other gang to prove to the lesser members that they are not afraid of the other gang, avoiding direct confrontation while seemingly instigating one thus gaining kudos without having to engage in actual fighting. Belligerence can be maintained for years without escalation and even though things could occasionally get out of hand it would be easy enough to back off without losing face because the principle of stern resolve has been established in the people's minds. I think the leadership in China are trying to establish this mindset so they can gain control of nationalism instead of finding themselves driven by it.[/QUOTE]
Yup. Used to be called BRIC, but they decided they wanted an African nation in there too. It was between Nigeria and South Africa, but SA being the economic powerhouse of Africa got the nod. Was a big debate ere if we deserved to be in, as our economy are much smaller than the other 4 nations, and we are als oa much smaller nation with a relatively small population compared to them (only 48 million people). But so far it has had some benefits for us. AH
BRICs are getting hit hard in this economy, I think the worst off is Brazil. Mexico may just grow to overtake them. BTW, has anyone else noticed? The U.S., Mexico, and Brazil were each colonies of England, Spain and Portugal respectively. Each now have far larger populations and economies than the country that "spawned" them. Mexico and Brazil of course still need to catch up in terms of GDP per capita, but I think at least one of them will get there, if only because neither has to deal with the EU.
