Post on 10-Jun-2017
1
International Studies Association Annual Convention, 2012
San Diego, April 4th
(This is a draft, please do not cite without consent)
Useful Tool or Shallow Acronym ? Foreign Policy Coordination Amongst BRICS
countries
Wellington Amorim Carlos Frederico Coelho
wda3059@gmail.com carlos.coelho@lasallerj.org
.
2
1. Introduction and Structure
The purpose of this work is to analyse if the BRICS group share some foreign
policy coordination. Since first mentioned, in 2001,1 the group has evolved from a
economic concept to a political one, with regular summits, even enlarging itself with the
addition of South Africa. Many have been the works showing the economic and political
assimetries among its participants and in a certain degree a substantial lack of
cohesiviness2; thereby, even the group’s raison d’être could arguably be invalidated.
Nonetheless, as already mentioned, the BRICS concept has been reinforced over time, due
specially to the participant’s rapid economic adaptation and/or recovery after the world
financial crisis which erupted in 2008.
The work is divided in four parts, the first dealing with a brief historical
overview, the second showing the respective countries’ economic indicators. The third part
analyses the basic tenets of each foreign policy and how they can reinforce or fragilize the
group’s strength as an alliance. The fourth part shows how the five countries have
positioned themselves internationally through analysis conducted in their voting patterns of
the United Nations and a conclusion is drawn.
2. Brief historical overview
The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) concept was created in 2001.3
The original main objective of such an acronym was two-fold: encompassing big emerging
markets, in terms of investment opportunity, and stressing the need to enlarge the global
economic governance most important forum, the G-7. In fact, O’Neill stated that a
revamped G-5 (with USA, Canada, Japan, UK and an Euroland representative) should turn
into G-9, with the inclusion of Brazil, Russia, India and China.4 Nowhere in the original
1 O’NEILL (2001) 2 For example, ARMIJO (2007) and COOPER (2010) 3 O’NEILL (2001) 4 Idem, p. S-10
3
paper there is a suggestion of BRIC countries forming a sole bloc or, even more, a
politically-based one..
In 2003, a new work5 again emphasized the importance of BRIC countries in
the world growth prospects and once more only economic issues were analysed.
3 years passed, and in September 2006 the BRIC Foreign Ministers, who were
attending UN General Assembly opening, met together on the sidelines and the same
happened again in 2007.. The four countries were riding high in the trade boom the world
was experiencing since 2003, and an idea of an alternative forum to the G-7 seemed fit.
In 2008, a full-scale diplomatic meeting, again with the Foreign Ministers,
was set in Yekaterinburg (Russia). In fact, Russia had already hosted two meetings of the
RIC (Russia, India, China) group in Vladivostok (2005) and St. Petersburg (2006). The
inclusion of Brazil strenghtened the group and Vladimir Putin’s policy of “promoting
multilateral arrangements to challenge the United State’s concept of a unipolar world.”,
showing that the four contries aspired “to convert their economic might into political
clout”.6
A year later (June 16th), in the midst of a great world financial crisis, the first
BRIC summit was held, again in Yekaterinburg, with the presence of the four Heads of
State. The most important issues highlighted in the Summit Declaration were:7
a) Importance of G-20 as a global governance instrument
b) Reform of international financial institutions, giving a greater voice to
emerging countries
c) Strong need for a more diversified international monetary system
d) Stable international investment environment and trading system
e) Support for “comprehensive and balanced results” of the Doha round
f) Cooperation in the energy field
g) Importance of the status of India and Brazil in international affais, and
support of their “aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations"
h) Importance of global food security
5 WILSON & PURUSHOTHAMAN (2003) 6 RADYUIN (2008) 7 BRIC (2009)
4
In 2010 (April 16th), at Brasilia, a new Summit was held. Basic issues
discussed were the world economic situation, reform of financial institutions, Iranian
nuclear policy, development and enlargemente of BRIC as an international body, etc. The
Summit Declaration emphasized:8
a) The need for “transformations in global governance in all relevant areas”
(emphasis ours)
b) The importance of G-20 as “the premier forum for international economic
coordination and cooperation of all its member states.”
c) Importance of the status of India and Brazil in international affais, and
support of their “aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations"
d) Support to the increase in capital of the World Bank, under the principle of
fair-burdening share
e) Need of a reformed and more stable world financial architecture and
regulatory system
f) Need of changing the “legitimacy deficits” in IMF and World Bank
g) Economic cooperation within the BRIC members, with studies aimed to
analyse “feasibilities of monetary cooperation, including local currency trade settlement
arrangement”
h) Need for “a comprehensive and balanced outcome of the Doha Round of
multilateral trade talks “
i) Cooperation in energy, food security and climate issues
In August 2010 South Africa asked to join the group, and was formally
included in 12/24/2011. Since then, the group is called BRICS (S stands for South Africa).
One of the reasons for fast-tracking the inclusion was that South Africa was already a
member of IBSA (with India and Brazil), since 2003.
A year later (14/4), at Sanya (China), the third Summit most important issues
were the following, according to the Closing Declaration:9
a) The need “for a comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security
Council (...) China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status of India,
8 BRIC (2010) 9 BRICS (2011)
5
Brazil and South Africa in international affairs, and understand and support their aspiration
to play a greater role in the UN.”
b) The importance of G-20 as “the premier forum for international economic
coordination and cooperation of all its member states.”
c) Calling “for a quick achievement of the targets for the reform of the
International Monetary Fund”
d) Support “for the reform and improvement of the international monetary
system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and
certainty (...) (including) the the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary
system”
e) Need of a broad monitoring and coordination involving energy and food
commodities
f) Support for a “successful, comprehensive and balanced conclusion of the
Doha Development Round”
g) Cooperation between members in “science, technology and innovation,
including the peaceful use of space”
h) An Action Plan, “which will serve as the foundation for future
cooperation” among the BRICS members10
.
In 2012, the Summit will take place in New Dheli (India) and one of the most
important issues to be discussed would be the creation of a BRICS development bank.11
3. Looking for Similarities: What do Economical, Social and Political Indicators say?
Brazil, Russia, India and China were considered by Goldman Sachs as
emerging economies that were in the path to robust growing all the way through 2020, the
original concept of the term BRIC. Since, then, as explicited with the inclusion of South
Africa, the term has gained a political facet as well. Firstly grouped as alike countries from
outside (Goldman Sachs), the BRICS have evolved into a grouping from of their own.
10 Action Plan details can be found in PHAN (2011) 11 LEO (2012)
6
Henceforth, it is important to analyze how these countries differ (or not) in political and
economical indicators, as well as other selected indicators, so that determination can be
made on what brings them together and what sets them apart. We begin our analysis on the
political indicators.
Table: Political Indicators12
Country Democracy13 Autocracy14 Polity Score15 Durable16 Freedom
Status17 Political Rights18
Civil Liberties19
Brazil 8 0 8 25 Free 2 2 China 0 7 -7 61 Not Free 7 6 India 9 0 9 60 Free 2 3 Russia 5 1 4 10 Not Free 6 5 South Africa
9 0 9 16 Free 2 2
It is possible note two separate grouping in regards to the political indicators
presenteda bove. Whereas Brazil, India and South Africa have performed well and are
considered functioning electoral democracies (albeit South Africa and Brazil are reasonable
young democracies), Russia and China have not. Across the board, Russia and China
perform quite poorly in these indicators. As we know and will note in the following section,
it seems ironic that the need for reform in global institutions is one of the leading themes of
Brics’countries, since two of them have shown little regard for such procedures at home.
12 Polity IV Project; Freedom House – Freedom in the World Report, 2011. 13 The Democracy indicator is an additive eleven-point scale (0-10). The operational indicator of democracy is derived from codings of the competitiveness of political participation, the openness and competitiveness of executive recruitment, and constraints on the chief executive. 14 An eleven-point Autocracy scale is constructed additively. Our operational indicator of autocracy is derived from codings of the competitiveness of political participation, the regulation of participation, the openness and competitiveness of executive recruitment, and constraints on the chief executive”. 15 The POLITY score is computed by subtracting the AUTOC score from the DEMOC score; the resulting unified polity scale ranges from +10 (strongly democratic) to - 10 (strongly autocratic). 16 The number of years since the most recent regime change (defined by a threepoint change in the POLITY score over a period of three years or less) or the end of transition period defined by the lack of stable political institutions (denoted by a standardized authority score). 17 Each country is assigned a numerical rating from 1 to 7 for both political rights and civil liberties, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The ratings are determined by the total number of points (up to 100) each country receives on 10 political rights questions and 15 civil liberties questions; countries receive 0 to 4 points on each question, with 0 representing the smallest degree and 4 the greatest degree of freedom. The average of the political rights and civil liberties ratings, known as the freedom rating, determines the overall status: Free (1.0 to 2.5), Partly Free (3.0 to 5.0), or Not Free (5.5 to 7.0). 18 Please see note 17. 19 Please see note 17.
7
Table: Other Indicators20
Country Name Military expenditure (% of GDP)
Population, total (in millions)
Corruption Rank
(score)
CINC21 (Country Rankings)
Brazil 1.606 194 73 (3.8) 6
China 2.014 1,338 75 (3.6) 1
India 2.398 1,170 95 (3.1) 3
Russia 3.965 141 143 (2.4) 5
South Africa 1.239 49 64 (4.1) 31
China, India and Russia spend much more of their GDP in the military then
South Africa and Brazil. This is not a surprise nor a coincidence, given that the
aforementioned countries all possess nuclear weapons’capability. South Africa is, in many
ways, an outlier in any Brics indicator that takes scale into consideration. With a population
size that is almost three times smaller than the next (Russia), this is expected. Brazil, for its
part, has seen an historical decline of the prestige of its Armed Forces, a trend that started
with the end of military regime and that is currently been challenged by work and spending
of the Ministry of Defense in connecting to academia, for example.
Where the Brics’ countries cling together is in corruption. According to
Transparency International, every Brics’ country has a bad reputation in this regard,
varying from bad (South Africa), to worse (India, Brazil, China) to abysmal (Russia).
Another indicator where the countries find similar results is the Composite Index of
National Capabilities. Based on annual values for total population, urban population, iron
and steel production, energy consumption, military personnel, and military expenditure, the
index present a high correlation to the scale of the countries and economies presented. It is
important to note, then, that this indicator seems to strenghten the Brics’country argument
of larger participation in international affairs, for it gives creedence to the notion that their
power22 is considerable.
20 Sources: World Bank Development Indicators, 2010; Transparency International, 2011; Correlates of War, 2010 21 The Composite Index of National ranking is based on annual values for total population, urban population, iron and steel production, energy consumption, military personnel, and military expenditure. This measure is generally computed by summing all observations on each of the 6 capability components for a given year, converting each state's absolute component to a share of the international system, and then averaging across the 6 components. 22 In any way one might define it.
8
Table: Economic Indicators23
Country Name
Foreign direct investment, net
inflows (% of GDP)
Foreign direct investment, net outflows (% of GDP)
GDP per capita
(current US$)
GDP, PPP (current
international $, in billions)
Growth Average of GDP, last five years
Brazil 2.320 0.552 10,710 2,185 4,412
China 3.123 1.015 4,428 10,169 11,22
India 1.399 0.761 1,474 4,194 8,386
Russia 2.897 3.546 10,439 2,812 3,632
South Africa 0.430 0.105 7,275 528 3,182
As a creation of O’Neill in 2001, the term BRIC referred to growing
economies in the world, forecasting that the original four countries would surpass current
G6 countries by 2050, in economic size. As we have seen the previous section, ther term
has been expanded to include not only South Africa, but also to include other topics other
than economy, which means that the topic has grown vertically and horizontally.
It is still in regards to economy and most specifically, to economic growth,
that makes Brics’grouping reasonable. While noting that South Africa will always be an
outlier in terms of scale and absolute numbers, we can infer from the table above that these
emerging economies have done quite well, even in the face of international economic crisis,
largely because of their domestic markets. It is striking to note, for example, that even
though China and India have the lowest GDP per capita, they are also the two countries that
have recorded the largest growth of their economies in the last five years.
To this day, grouping Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa together
for common analysis is more intuitive when looking at economic growth.
4. BRICS Foreign Policies’ main goals
4.1 Brazil
Officially, Brazilian foreign policy principles are shown in Article 4 of its
Constitution:
23 Source: World Bank Development Indicators
9
National independence;
Human Rights prevalence
Peoples autodetermination
Non-intervention
Equality among States
Defense of Peace
Pacific solution for conflicts
Terrorism and racism are to be repelled
Cooperation among all people to the progress of humankind
Granting of political asylum;
As a regional power with increasing global presence, bordering 10 other
countries, Brazil has some other foreign policy goals, although not as explicit as the former:
Peace and increasing integration in South America; influence expansion from
South Atlantic Sea to Africa; nuclear disarmament (since it hasn’t pursued nuclear arms
development); economic and social development, a bigger role in the global governance
foruns, especially a permanent seat in UN Security Council.
4.2 Russia
President Putin, in 2000, stated the following principles of Russian foreign
policy: 24
“To ensure reliable security of the country, to preserve and strengthen its
sovereignty and territorial integrity, to achieve firm and prestigious positions in the world
community, most fully consistent with the interests of the Russian Federation as a great
power, as one of the most influential centers of the modem world, and which are necessary
for the growth of its political, economic, intellectual and spiritual potential;
To influence general world processes with the aim of forming a stable, just
ad democratic world order, built on generally recognized norms of international law,
24 THE FOREIGN POLICY CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.(2000)
10
including, first of all, the goals and principles in the U.N. Charter, on equitable and
partnership relations among states;
To create favorable external conditions for steady development of Russia, for
improving its economy, enhancing the standards of living of the population, successfully
carrying out democratic transformations, strengthening the basis of the constitutional
system and observing individual rights and freedoms;
To form a good-neighbor belt along the perimeter of Russia's borders, to
promote elimination of the existing and prevent the emergence of potential hotbeds of
tension and conflicts in regions adjacent to the Russian Federation;
To seek concord and coinciding interests with foreign countries and interstate
associations in the process of resolving the tasks that are determined by the national
priorities of Russia, and on this basis, to build a system of partnership and allied relations
that improve the conditions and parameters of international cooperation;
To uphold in every possible way the rights and interests of Russian citizens
and fellow countrymen abroad; and
To promote a positive perception of the Russian Federation in the world, to
popularize the Russian language and culture of the peoples of Russia in foreign states.”
More specifically, Russia is working to bolster Russian prestige (after the so-
called “lost decade 1991-2000”) and securing borders. Bordering countries, Europe,
Caucasus and China are the most important issues for Russian foreign policy, at present.25
4.3 India
The Indian Government states that “The foundations of India's foreign policy
were laid during the freedom movement when our leaders, even when fighting for
independence, were engaged with the great causes of the time. The principles of India's 25 For more details about Russian Foreign Policy, OLIKER (2009)
11
foreign policy, that emerged then, have stood the test of time: a belief in friendly relations
with all countries of the world, the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means, the sovereign
equality of all states, independence of thought and action as manifested in the principles of
Non-alignment, and equity in the conduct of international relations.”26
India’s foreign policy also has immediate goals such as: strenghtening itself a
regional power and as a naval power in the Indian Ocean, expanding its influence power to
Africa and Southeast Asia, economic and social development and a bigger role in the global
governance foruns, especially a permanent seat in UN Security Council..
4.4 China
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as to chinese foreign policy,
“The fundamental goals of this policy are to preserve China's independence, sovereignty
and territorial integrity, create a favorable international environment for China's reform and
opening up and modernization construction, maintain world peace and propel common
development.”27 Among other goals, China wants to recover all territories claimed lost
during the so-called “century of humiliation”, a bigger role in the global governance foruns,
establishing itself as a regional and military power, and economic ans social development.
But, in that process, China has acted cautiously in avoiding any direct threat to US
dominance, since it doesn’t consider itself already prepared for such a clash. Nevertheless,
in every pertinent occasion, the criticism to a world hegemon or hegemony-based
governance is permanent, in Chinese official declarations.
26 EMBASSY OF INDIA IN THE USA (2012). The five principles, first mentioned by Nehru, are also known as Panchsheel 27 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.(2012)
12
4.5 South Africa
President Zuma mentioned the principles of South Africa’s foreign policy.28 He
“further revealed that the country’s foreign policy is founded on “four pillars”. First,
priority is accorded to SADC and Africa. “We work with countries of the developing South
to address shared challenges of underdevelopment,” he said. Next, South Africa seeks to
promote global equity and social justice. Thirdly, South Africa recognises the significance
of the “developed North” in forging ahead. “We work with countries of the developed
North to develop a true and effective partnership for a better world,” Zuma said. The last
tenet of South Africa’s foreign policy stresses a desire to revise the balance of power on the
international stage. “We play our part to strengthen and transform the multilateral system,
to reflect the diversity of our nations, and ensure its centrality in global governance,” he
said.”
South Africa also wants to establish itself as the biggest regional power in Africa,
convalidating its bid to a permanent seat in UN Security Council.
4. The BRICS as an analytical tool? Evidences UN General Assembly Voting.
The use of United Nations General Assembly Voting for analysis in foreign policy
is far from anything new, having firstly been presented by Lijphart in 1963. Even though
there is disagreement as to the validity of such data as useful tools for analysis29, as
indicated by the recent work of Octavio Amorim Neto (2011, p. 58), the United Nations
General Assembly Voting records are important as to identify regional and multilateral
alignments30, which is exactly what we try to do in this paper. We do so by pairing each of
the Brics’ countries with each other and also with the United States, so as to test our
28 PATEL (2011) 29 Kennedy (2006, p.34) notes that the number of symbolic voting procedures at the United Nations is not small. We agree and believe that not be a problem. In the United Nations, as in any other foreign policy arena, symbolism matters. 30 Also of this opinion are Marin-Bosch (1998), Selcher (1978) and Voeten (2000).
13
hypothesis of soft-balancing in the political arena of international affairs. Below are the
graphs representative of the statistical analysis conducted. They show the convergence of
voting between countries after the end of the Cold War.
Table: UN General Assembly Voting – Brazil and Brics + USA
Table: UN General Assembly Voting – China and Brics + USA
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
brarus
brasaf
brachi
braind
brausa
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
chibra
chirus
chisaf
chiind
chiusa
14
Table: UN General Assembly Voting – Russia and Brics + USA
Table: UN General Assembly Voting – Russia and Brics + USA
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
rusbra
russaf
ruschi
rusind
rususa
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
indbra
indrus
indsaf
indchi
indusa
15
Table: UN General Assembly Voting – South Africa and Brics + USA
The visual impact of the Brics’ position vis-a-vis the convergence with the
United States is striking. From 1998 onwards, there has been a decoupling of the Brics’
countries and the United States that points to coordination in the international arena as a
way of soft-balancing United States foreign policy and external power.
In this regard, the use of the acronym Brics for analytical purposes makes
sense. However, we must caution against the overuse of the term. When looking at other
issues in international relations, it is clear that the Brics’ countries have very little in
common if not for the desire of redesign of international institutions (specially those
derived from Bretton Woods) and soft-balancing of United States’ power abroad. There is
certainly no coordination in the Doha Trade Round, as China and India adopted a veto
position for any agreement that would require opening their agricultural markets. Russia
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
brasaf
safrus
safchi
safind
safusa
16
just joined the WTO on December 2011 and was not even a member of the talks. In
security issues, Russia and China have veto power in the United Nations, whereas Brazil,
India and South Africa would like to be permanent members. Russia, China and India have
nuclear weapons’ capabilites, Brazil and India do not. The answer to the mirage/useful
analytical tool needs more questioning and more research before reaching a final
conclusion.
5. Conclusion
Could be BRICS labeled a soft revisionist group ? After all, the three Summit
Declarations point to the inadequacy of the present global governance instruments, besides
sounding a veiled criticism of the international monetary system and the role played by the
US dollar. More important, the Declarations clearly show more points emphasizing the
revisionist criticism in comparison to issues related to the members’ interaction or group’s
development. In fact, only after the 3rd Summit an Action Plan was announced and as yet
no significant advances in the integration or coordination process have been really shown.
As Chellaney points, “The BRICS concept represents, above all, its members’ desire to
make the global order more plural. But it is uncertain whether the group’s members will
ever evolve into a coherent grouping with defined goals and institutional mechanisms. In
the coming days, we might find out whether the BRICS will ever be more than a catchy
acronym with an annual boondoggle attached.”31
31 CHELLANEY (2012)
17
Another point is that three of the members are significant powers in the same
region and their direct influence spheres clearly overlap. For example, China and India still
have border limits problems to be resolved, as in the case of Arunachal Pradesh.32
But, in an G-0 Era33, it’s a subsystem which is dense, in international political
terms. Will it basically work only as an instrument of criticism or evolve into a more
cohese bloc ? In the short-term, good prospects appear in the area of technical and
economic cooperation among Brazil, India and South Africa. But, as a whole, any major
improvement in terms of coordination and integration is still to be seen.
In fact, BRICS, at least in its current framework, seem much more a
“Resonance Chamber” for revisionism. Although each members’ foreign policies is
explicitly compatible with the others’, spheres of influence do overlap and specific issues
are controversial (for example, blaming food prices spike for bringing problems to
countries is politically correct, although Brazil has been one of the main benefactors of
such increase in prices...)
After all, BRICS is a suitable forum for all members It’s very convenient for
China and Russsia, which amplify their frequent cries of unfairness in global governance,
imiplicitly aiming US and Europe. It’s very convenient for Brazil and India, which found a
detour to their strategy in order to gain a permanent seat in UN Security Council (G-4 has
not been mentioned by both countries for a long period...). And it’s convenient for South
Africa, which, although representing a massive continent as Africa, lags the territorial,
populational and economic power of the other four members.
32 THE HINDU (2012). In fact, the only country with which China hasn’t completely solved its terrestrial borders litigation is India. For more details, FRAVEL (2008). 33 BREMMER & ROUBINI (2011)
18
Up to now, BRICS is a tool for prestige and revisionism; in that sense, it’s
been very useful for each of the five members. It has not been as useful for international
relations’ academia as an analytical tool.
19
References
AMORIM NETO, O. (2011), De Dutra a Lula: a condução e os determinantes domésticos
da política externa brasileira. Editora Campus/Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro.
ARMIJO, Leslie Elliot.(2007), The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India anda China) as
analytical category: mirage or insight ? Asian Perspective, vol. 31, nº 4 Available at:
http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v31n4-a.pdf. Retrieved in 02/13/2012
BREMMER, Ian & ROUBINI, Nouriel.(2011), A G-0 World. Foreign Affairs. Mar/Apr
BRIC. (2009), First Summit Declaration. Available at:
http://www.bricsindia.in/firstSummit.html. Retrieved in 20/03/2012
BRIC. (2010), Second Summit Declaration. Available at:
http://www.bricsindia.in/secondSummit.html
BRICS. (2011), Third Summit Declaration. Available at:
http://www.bricsindia.in/thirdSummit.html. Retrieved in 20/03/2012.
CHELANEY, Brahma.(2012), The cracks in the BRICS. Available at:
http://chellaney.net/. Retrieved in 3/22/2012http://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/the-cracks-in-the-brics. Retrieved in 03/22/2012
COOPER, Andrew. (2010), Labels matter: Interpreting Rising Powers through Acronyms
(IBSA, BRICS and BRICSAM). In: ALEXANDROFF, Alan S. & COOPER, Andrew
F. (ed.). Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance.
Baltimore, Brookings.
DIXON,William J. 1981. The Emerging Image of U.N. Politics. World Politics 34:47–61.
20
EMBASSY OF INDIA IN THE USA.(2102), India’s foreign policy – 50 years of
achievement. Available at:
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Foreign_Policy/fp(intro).htm. Access in
02/20/2012.
FRAVEL, M. Taylor. (2008), Strong borders secure nation: cooperation and conflict in
China’s territorial disputes. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
LEO, Sergio.(2012), Brics querem crédito em moeda local. Valor Econômico. March 23,
p. A4
LIJPHART, A. 1963. The Analysis of Bloc Voting in the General Assembly: A Critique
and a Proposal. American Political Science Review, vol. 57, pp. 902-917.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA.(2012), Independent Foreign Policy of Peace. Available at:
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/. Retrieved in 03/03/2012
OLIKER, Olga et al. (2009), Russian foreign policy: sources and implications. Santa
Monica, Rand Corporation. Available at:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG768.pdf. Retrieved in
03/10/2012
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=LXb6bjqdzlMC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=andrew
+f.+cooper+labels+matter&source=bl&ots=JitDR5tTV4&sig=h_aeyQooRYIQPVsmFx
XgpR98oJ0&hl=pt-
BR&sa=X&ei=0PpsT6_RFMP10gG9v9zvBg&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ -
v=onepage&q=andrew%20f.%20cooper%20labels%20matter&f=false
O’NEILL, Jim.(2001), Building Better Global Economic BRICs. Available at:
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/brics/building-better.html. Access in 08/01/2012. Retrieved
in 11/28/2011
21
PATEL, Khadija.(2011), Zuma decodes South African foreign policy. Daily Maverick.
Available at: http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-10-14-zuma-decodes-south-
african-foreign-policy. Retrieved in 03/01/2012
PHAN, Gang. (2011), The BRICS group leaders release Sanya Declaration. International
Business Times. 04/15. Available at:
http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/134536/20110414/sanya-declaration-the-brics-group-
brazil-russia-india-china-and-south-africa.htm. Retrieve in 03/05/2012
RADYUIN, Vladimir. (2008), For a new order. Frontline. vol. 25, issue 12, june 7-20.
Available at: http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2512/stories/20080620251205200.htm.
Retrieved in 01/06/2012
SELCHER, W. 1978. Brazil’s multilateral relations: between first and third worlds.
Boulder: Westview Press.
THE FOREIGN POLICY CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.(2000),
Available at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/econcept.htm. Retrieved in
03/15/2012
THE HINDU.(2012), China cannot interfere in India’s domestic affairs. Available at:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2935778.ece. Retrieved in 03/07/2012.
WILSON, Dominic & PURUSHOTHAMAN, Roopa. Dreaming with BRICs: the path to
2050.(2003), Available at: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/brics/brics-reports-
pdfs/brics-dream.pdf. Retrieved in 11/28/2011