BRICS may evokes the idea of “anti system”, however it arise in a critical moment in which developed countries leave in evidence their failure on facing new economic-financial challenges. Particularly after global financial crisis, BRICS comes as a solution, fulfilling a “market niche” that these countries have occupied with full rights and a promising success.
As it illustrates by the Chicago and western China “bean” created by artist Anish Kapoor, a similar model do not exactly means a “fake” that represents something wrong, but a new, alternative model that could bring other views and spread new ideas, although inserted in a different context.
What has started as a disorganized structure of countries, it becomes more solid and stronger after the recent inauguration of the Development Bank, to which Iran has also joined. Is it clear that this event marks the end of a process of negotiations & good intentions and starts a new path of “goal oriented” action-plan.
The current global financial structure has failed on reducing poverty and minimizes the impact of inequality, paradoxically going against their own principles and mission; it is this gap that generates the eruption of new models of development. The need for other alternatives must be seen as a complementary to current structures and not as a parallel and competitive “block” against the global financial system.
As we highlighted in our article: “World Bank & IMF: their road map must be changed”[1]: “Growing levels of inequality and financial instability follow by a general uncertainty to get a truly sustainable development shows the urgent need of a change of road map of this two paramount historic institutions”.
“The helplessness policies of these organisms have been exposure with the global final crisis and their negative impacts (that last till now) and also with the own creation of MDG´s and more recently SDG´s. MDG´s and SDG´s come as a response to the infectiveness of these systems, as if we analyze carefully all of this goals are inserted on their main mission”
This new model of development comes as a complementary alternative to traditional international financial organizations, that alongside with the recent creation of the AIIB, it helps on the process of reconstruction of the fallen pillars of current global financial system.
It has been said that these initiatives hold an anti American political ideology, which I do not agree, as its not been translated into current economic-financial behaviour of BRICS countries. For example, China has a record on applying capitalist rules to their economic relationships. Despite being a socialist country with an eventual “political agenda against America”, China holds a clear capitalist ideology on its economic-financial model. It’s so, that it doesn´t need to use this platform to strengthen their political position in the world; even if internal politic affairs are leading by socialist policies is exactly the contrary focus for foreign affairs. Having as a result a hybrid model that fits and counterbalance current misbalances from the main global financial axis. Is precisely this aspect that assures the legitimacy of this initiative as a development model create to fix misbalances of current models without competition, and without a political ideology agenda. BRICS Development Bank President Kundapur V.Kamath has been clear about this point: “There will be no competition at all. The market is big enough for all of us”. “It will require a lot of cooperation and collaboration with other partners. These partners could be Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other multilateral institutions”[2]
Is for the above reasons that BRICS represents a good & promising counterbalance model that will complement and shape current financial global structure, shaping it with “ new blood” of renewing financial behavior. Increasing levels of poverty and inequality force for changes and emerging countries are just another pillar to find the exit.
thesustainabilityreader 