Comments 16

没有泥浆的砖

Apr 3, 2013 Joseph S. Nye

美国剑桥—上个月，中国新国家主席习近平选择莫斯科为出国访问第一站。他和俄罗斯总统普京商定了一系列协议，接着来到南非德班出席第五届“金砖国家”峰会，与印度、巴西和南非领导人宣布将成立能够对世界银行和IMF主导地位形成挑战的新开发银行。五国领导人在讲话中提到了世界秩序的变迁，习近平表示“金砖国家发展潜力无穷。”

看起来金砖国家终于成熟了。三年前我对金砖国家持怀疑态度，现在亦然，尽管最新的峰会看上去颇为成功。

近12年前，高盛首席经济学家奥尼尔（Jim O’Neil）创造了“金砖”一词描述巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国四个“新兴市场”。从2000年到2008年，这四个国家占全球产出比重大幅上升，从16%升至22%（以购买力平价衡量），在随后的全球衰退中，它们的经济表现也好于平均水平。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 in all 6 Comments on this article

Chris Nomin Dec 6, 2013

There are quite substantial and obvious flaws in the article, sorry to admit. Brazil's GDP per capita is not as twice, but almost seven times that of India ( IMF 2012 ).
The author indicated 90% literacy rate of Brazil in the context of Russian's declining power resources, but it omits that Russian's literacy approaches 100%. A territorial argument lacks any logical appeal, and even a kindergarden can point the biggest terrain in the world.
Not quite sure what reasoned "while the large autocracies, Russia and China" argument, but, as a former long-time resident of Russia, I can regard it highly ungrounded, without any factual concerns.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Ponderer Apr 7, 2013

Well presented and a devastating analysis. It seems quite obvious that Professor Nye is correct.

But I wouldn't end it here, but try to draw some more universal conclusions. For the BRICS are an example par excellence that in an every country for itself national/socio-economic egoism, groups of countries turning to oppose other groups of countries or the world as a whole, were certainly turn on each other and -- well in the immortal words of that old song by Simon and Garfunkel, "You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away."

Its all or nothing, everybody or nobody. We get ourselves and integral education and start living per our global destiny, or we'll all hang together. Either way, the "other" individual, community, or country, will inevitably be our companion.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Apr 6, 2013

So maybe it's time to retire the acronym along with he who coined it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Apr 5, 2013

Prof. Nye,
I am afraid the BRICS would not agree to your opinion, but I am sure the BRIS would do.

You quoted from a Korean-Canadian citizen, Mr. Norimitsu Onishi, a perfect Japanese name, in your The Future of Power. The quoted part reminded me, for instance, of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and Professor Steve Tsang of Nottingham University.

President Roh said South Korea should play the role of a balancer between the US and China, such as the one once played by Great Britain in European politics.

Prof. Tsang said in "China without North Korea", Project-Syndicate, Feb. 14, 2013 that "China need not fear a South Korean-led unification of the peninsula. China already enjoys a smoother relationship with the South..." and "Japan and the US [would be] compelled to inject a huge amount of aid...This hardly runs counter to China's interests..."

He went on to say, "Moreover, a united Korea will have inherited the North Korea's nucleas weapons. This will pose challenges to US-Korea relations, which should work to China's advantage. The US will remain committed to de-nuclearizing the peninsula, while the Korean government will be tempted to retain the North's nuclear capabilities. This strain further reduces the risk of having US troops stationed on the Korean side of China's border."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Leo Arouet Apr 4, 2013

Es verdad. Los BRICS tienen muchas reuniones pero no acuerdan nada en absoluto o especial; por ejemplo, acuerdo de cooperación tecnológica y científica, nada; acuerdos sobre cooperación energética nada; sólo vemos por, último acuerdos comerciales entre China, Rusia, Sudáfrica y Brasil.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Apr 3, 2013

Besides completely agreeing with the final statement of the article, we can open that statement and apply it to the rest of the global world just as well.
The "mortar" is missing everywhere.
The most obvious example is Europe, where on paper the countries trying to unite, work out a common market, common economy and financial system are much closer to each other than any of the BRICS countries, and in Europe this uniting experiment has been running for decades with huge investment and preparation.
Still the building is violently shaking and is likely to fall apart unless some miracle happens, unless the missing mortar is found.
But truly this is a global problem.
On one hand there is hardly anybody who would not agree that humanity evolved into a fully interconnected and interdependent system, as some of the leading economists, politicians coined it, we are all sitting on the same boat.
On the other hand we all try to break away, isolate if possible, or at least try to exploit these interconnections for our own benefit, our own profit, advancement.
This clearly cannot happen, globalization was not our choice or our own making, simply on the course of our evolution we evolved into this network, existing as a single, living organism that has to function together, as any other entity within the vast natural system we exist in.
So in order to survive, and continue our ongoing evolution we desperately need to find that "mortar" that can make this network stick, and work, something that can create mutually responsible and complementing relationships instead of today's destructive competition, instead of our exploitative, self centered attitude.
So how can we define this mortar, capable of connecting seemingly totally opposite or different parts?
We could define it as a common purpose, common understanding, a common positive motivation.
And the only way of achieving such notion in a positive, positive way, that individuals and countries would change their ways and start practicing differently willingly, without any trickery or coercion is through a comprehensive, totally new education, through changing the society an its values.
Only a global, integral eduction program reaching each and every one is capable of adjusting human behavior to our new system of existence, providing a stable foundation for a new human society and sustainable future.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/tkJhMAV/zh;

没有泥浆的砖

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Bleak Fate of the Amazon

Saving South Korea’s Economy

Why Central Bank Digital Currencies Will Destroy Cryptocurrencies

Food Security Rests on Trade

The Limits of China’s Charm Offensive

Give Italy’s Government a Chance

Europe’s New Political Battle Lines

The Dred Scott of Climate Change?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register