These countries see themselves as BRICS, which includes South Africa. But the conference focused on BRICs — Brazil, Russia, India and China — as defined by the Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in 2001. His was the opening paper as well and it was optimistic about these economic powerhouses. Most papers as well as the discussion ignored Russia. Brazil was there only to the extent of the presentation made by its ambassador in London. The focus really was on India as a good guy and China as the bad guy and how to set one against the other.
The common refrain was that India is a functioning democracy and an increasingly liberal economy. These features allow the declining powers — the US and the EU — to be accommodative and supportive in containing China’s rising power. There is criticism of China’s exchange rate policies and the preference for accumulating reserves rather than letting domestic demand develop. It buys pieces of paper called US treasuries rather than make direct investment overseas. (That a number of Chinese attempts to buy physical assets were thwarted by declaring them not-for-sale strategic assets is another matter.) Indeed, China is seen as an autocracy that has no qualms over using corrupt business practices. Some of its joint ventures in Africa are even dubbed as bordering on the neocolonial. There are fears about an ethnic eruption and social and regional divisions resulting from the concentration of high growth and prosperity. Human rights records are considered appalling. Similar fault-lines faced by India did not merit attention. Corruption, the standard whipping horse for developing countries, was again not a serious source of concern in India’s case.
Rising power towards what end, though? Regional hegemony cannot produce a peaceful and stable world order. The rising power reflects the emergence of the middle classes. Can the world’s middle class create a globalised world on all their own? What happens to global justice and to the provision of global public goods? A US diplomat said that the global system requires responsible stakeholders. What is meant by ‘responsible’ is no secret. However, the same diplomat worried that the overlap between the Democrats and the Republicans has become so narrow that governing from the centre is becoming impossible. If the gap between the rich and the poor becomes ever more serious and if energy independence is achieved by 2030, then a US retreat within its shores cannot be ruled out entirely.
History is witness to the rise and fall of powers in various epochs. It is, however, seldom that the falling powers had their pick of the rising powers.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Nerus
Did anyone understand what the honourable gentleman wanted to say?
Yes, He wanted to say. 'Mein Naa Manoo' and he has done so quite well.
Did anyone understand what the honourable gentleman wanted to say?
The language of the article betrays an inner dislike for anything Indian. Despite all its failings and poverty in the countryside, the fact remains that India is a functioning democracy, where sitting ministers are sent to jail for approving corrupt bids or a serving Army Chief is sacked for reasons of insubordination. An innocuous 75 year old is also allowed to threaten a federal Government by fasting unto death. These features are watched by world capitals and it is no surprise that they like India more than China. In the last 10 years Indians have accuired major stakes in steel, mining, automobile, realty, construction, oil & natural gas, hospitality, etc. in major western countries, including USA and Australia. There has not been a single case where local managers or workers were replaced by Indians. It has always been a case of better leveraging of local resources to make the accusition a money spinner. On the hand, most Chinese accusitions have meant mass scale import of Chinese manpower, and in some road building projects, even use of Chinese prison workforce, who are not required to be paid. The western world has serious reservations about such abuse and it is no wonder that they now insist contrators pay their workforce as per local norms. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why major world capitals look toward India as a counter weight to the prevalent Chinese culture.
If a Pakistani is asked to name 10 Chinese who are household names, I am sure he/ she wona't be able to name even three. Go to any country and story will be almost same. On the contrary talk of India and a long list of names will emerge. India has given platform even to many Pakistanis. More people know Ali Zafar than Sayyad Noor simply because Ali Zafar works in Bollywood films. Finally more people know Veena Malik than Rehman Malik. Say whatever you like, but India rocks..
And you wanted to say??? No conclusion?? What was it?? An excerpt??
This article is a picture perfect case of sour grapes
Waste of time.
And end of story is?
So, what is new? Economic historians who reaearch such things state that India and china were the dominant economic powers for over 3000 years, starting from 2000 bc. India controlled almost 40 percent of the world economy, trade and wealth and china another 30+ percent. (Economic historians include the entire subcontinent including us as india). Till both countries slipped into oblivion due to conquering marauders of various hues over the past several centuries.
As the world turns and comes one full circle, no one should be surprised that India and china are rising to their original positions again. The main question is how we align with the two and rise with the rising tide.
Ahmed
Thank god for small mercies. The refrain is about 'why India over China' rather than, why 'India over Pakistan'.
India has long left pakistan way way behind and marched ahead with the world in all fields imaginable. We are still looking at the world with India prism, and will continue to do it for the next decade as our politicians, mullahs and all powerful's livelihood depend on this. The day our problems are solved with india, we will lose the only identity that binds these 180 million uneducated, unhealthy, dirt poor, begging population.
Chinese investments in automotive and other traditional manufacturing sectors have never been thwarted. No one in US/EU objected to sale of Volvo to a Chinese company. The only times that the label of strategic assets has been used is where Chinese govt-owned company sought to purchase major continental oil reserves and ports in the US.
China has not attempted to procure assets that can lead to industrial or employment investments in other countries. Its investments across Myanmar, Vietnam, Africa, SE Asia, etc are facing backlash primarily due to Chinese refusal to make investments in local value-addition and resistance to local employment with their policy of labor imports. An example is right here in Pakistan - from Saindak, our Chinese friends export copper ore but theres no copper refining in Balochistan. Also, most key positions are held by Chinese engineers.
The reason that the West is more comfortable with the rise of India, is that above Chinese policies are in marked contrast to Indian acquisitions such as Land Rover/Jaguar, Tetley, mines in Australia and telecom in Africa, where the focus has been to leverage local management.
Interesting article. It is true that it is a rare twist of history where declining super-powers choose to pick the next rising giant based on their taste. There could be multiple reasons. A noble one could be achieving global immortality by passing on cherished values to another nation. However, another one might be to have a graceful economic decline by teaming up with a specific giant specially in the world where domestic consumption is reaching limits and foreign markets provide hope. Lastly, and most importantly, it might be also to prevent formation of a new global political clout. 'Divide and Conquer' is a strategy that will continue to reverberate in the East decades or even centuries after the formal end of colonialism.
Was this an academic discussion or a propaganda session? Sounds like the latter. Demonizing China and praising India!
But this is true. China indeed is a autocratic country where anyone who does not toe the party line is seen as a miscreant. Falun gong tibetian monks and Uighur muslims in Xingjiang are all examples of that.
Doesn't seem like you could figure out what you wanted to say even by the end of the article - thorough waste of time. No one thinks that India is in the same league as China (definitely not India), but the US sees it as the only regional power that can mount a challenge some time in the future. The West (and to a certain extent India) fears China because of the lack of clarity regarding its intentions. No one has the same issue with India (except Pakistan) which is why we are painted as the good guy (relatively).