The CRIB countries...
About the only thing that the BRIC countries share, other than the fact that there is a group of countries more developed than them, is this collective nickname given to them by Goldman Sachs. I get the feeling that the term was coined simply because it has a nice ring to it, like many acronyms that consist of the first two letters of some words, no letters of some other words, last few of some other words and so on.
Seriously, what else do they have in common? China is easily miles ahead from each of the other three. In fact, with US' dependence on China for recovering from the meltdown/crisis, China might not be very far from being miles ahead of many 'developed' countries as well...
India is much less developed infrastructure-wise than China but is much more liberal than China. Services would be unthinkable without India and the vice versa is fast becoming true. But the democratic solutions always take longer than the other ways. I guess totalitarian unity has its advantages over liberal unanimity...
And Brazil still behaves largely like a colony - exporting natural resources in return for finished products, except, of course, on its own terms. And with that colossal oil find ("God is Brazilian")
setting those terms is that much easier. But it is also the most susceptible to the imminent climate change chaos...
And then there's Russia. By rights, it should never figure in this list of wannabes, but since it is the most high-profile has-been in history, it has probably been included here for sympathetic and compassionate reasons. or just to complete that highly contrived acronym...
It is no wonder that indignant folks have coined their own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC), my favorite of which is Countries in Emerging Markets Excluded from Current Nomenclature (CEMENT) - an illustration at how all one needs to do is coin a catchy one and people will lap it up.
With the BRICs of course, the real concern is that even the political class of the countries has caught on and have started holding summits and all. It is of course always advisable to gang up on other gangs, especially when those other gangs have more money than you. But what the group has achieved so far is what can be perceived as the monopoly over reminding the developed world that there are other influential ones around, that need to be indulged. But only doting veterans indulge the rookies, for the others they're just a bunch of whippersnappers that crib about every thing...
The question to be asked is - do we need those veterans at all? If the BRICs really have a tangible underpinning, or if you permit me, any mortar holding them together at all, then shouldn't the group be more influential than it is? After all, the other gangs might have got more money, but with Russia, China and India we've got enough guns to hit them where it hurts - and two out of five permanent seats on the UNSC to boot. Extending WTO talks and climate change discussions is just not enough to show for all the promise. Copenhagen beckons in three months - ring out the crib, ring in the substance
Seriously, what else do they have in common? China is easily miles ahead from each of the other three. In fact, with US' dependence on China for recovering from the meltdown/crisis, China might not be very far from being miles ahead of many 'developed' countries as well...
India is much less developed infrastructure-wise than China but is much more liberal than China. Services would be unthinkable without India and the vice versa is fast becoming true. But the democratic solutions always take longer than the other ways. I guess totalitarian unity has its advantages over liberal unanimity...
And Brazil still behaves largely like a colony - exporting natural resources in return for finished products, except, of course, on its own terms. And with that colossal oil find ("God is Brazilian")
setting those terms is that much easier. But it is also the most susceptible to the imminent climate change chaos...
And then there's Russia. By rights, it should never figure in this list of wannabes, but since it is the most high-profile has-been in history, it has probably been included here for sympathetic and compassionate reasons. or just to complete that highly contrived acronym...
It is no wonder that indignant folks have coined their own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC), my favorite of which is Countries in Emerging Markets Excluded from Current Nomenclature (CEMENT) - an illustration at how all one needs to do is coin a catchy one and people will lap it up.
With the BRICs of course, the real concern is that even the political class of the countries has caught on and have started holding summits and all. It is of course always advisable to gang up on other gangs, especially when those other gangs have more money than you. But what the group has achieved so far is what can be perceived as the monopoly over reminding the developed world that there are other influential ones around, that need to be indulged. But only doting veterans indulge the rookies, for the others they're just a bunch of whippersnappers that crib about every thing...
The question to be asked is - do we need those veterans at all? If the BRICs really have a tangible underpinning, or if you permit me, any mortar holding them together at all, then shouldn't the group be more influential than it is? After all, the other gangs might have got more money, but with Russia, China and India we've got enough guns to hit them where it hurts - and two out of five permanent seats on the UNSC to boot. Extending WTO talks and climate change discussions is just not enough to show for all the promise. Copenhagen beckons in three months - ring out the crib, ring in the substance
posted by Kaustubh R. Mone at 12:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home