Round The World
New
Delhi, 2 June 2015
BRICS
Bank & US Response
NEW WORLD
BANK IN OFFING?
By Amrita
Banerjee
Research Scholar, JNU, New Delhi
The year 2014 was truly momentous
for the international political economy. On one side, it marked the 70th
anniversary of the Bretton Woods agreement, which reshaped the international
financial system by creating both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Bank. On the other side it marked
the creation of the ‘BRICS Bank’, a new multilateral development bank,
inaugurated by Brazil, Russia, India,
China, and South Africa in the 6th BRICS Summit
at Fortaleza, Brazil. This new development,
however, was mainly seen as a counterweight to the U.S.
and Europe dominated financial institutions
and was based mainly in politics surrounding the control of the IMF.
In spite of the Bretton Woods system
being in existence, the need of such a bank was felt by the BRICS countries
mainly because the working of the Bretton Woods Twins were full of analomies like
the skewed quota system, strings attached loan policies, the unequal voting
rights of the member countries and the head of the institution being invariably
selected from either America or Europe.
In short, this system seems to
represent the frozen power and economic realities of the post 1945 World and in
spite of the repeated request for reforms in these financial institutions by
the developing countries, the situation remained dead locked. Jim O’Neill, the
economist from Goldman Sachs who coined the term ‘BRIC’ even said that the
BRICS Bank is ‘a permanent sign that global governance is a mess’.
Headquartered in Shanghai, the New
Development Bank (NDB), has $50bn in initial capital and planned to finance
infrastructure and sustainable development projects (much like the World Bank),
and $100bn initial capital in the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to
provide assistance to members in financial difficulty (much like the IMF).The
coming of the bank within just five years of the establishment of BRICS forced
the world to take notice. The rapid progress in the BRICS made Washington jittery and
fearfully suspicious. But this response is not felt in all the American circles
uniformly.
Specifically, the U.S. response
to the BRICS Bank remains divided. Some dismiss the idea of a BRICS bank
especially its lending capability as they believe that with a total
capitalization of $100 billion, its lending would remain modest and nowhere
close to what the World Bank spends every year. They feel that BRICS, even
collectively, are still too small in global financial terms to act
independently of the U.S. dollar or compete with the established international
financial systems. Also the NDB’s future would be doomed in an event of a
sudden global breakdown because it would mean catastrophic financial
consequences for all of the BRICS nations who contribute towards the bank’s
reserve.
There is yet another group that has
called the establishment of NDB as the new Bretton Woods moment for the
emerging powers. However, they debate the intentions for such a move. They
speculate the strategic orientation of the emerging powers resting on two basic
questions: whether they seek to increase their influence within the
international order or they seek to revise or overturn it.
A deeper analysis reveals that the
BRICS’ desire to create a Bank is both an economic and a political need.
Economic because this bank would provide an increasing flow of finances to the
infrastructure projects, a mission-critical for China,
India and Brazil to grow and Russia to recover. The
developmental loan would not have any social and environmental conditions
attached to them unlike the World Bank loans. Political because it would
reinforce the voices of the emerging powers and further strengthen
multipolarity.
The U.S.
is especially concerned about China’s
role in the NDB considering the fact that it just wanted a multilateral vehicle
for lending activities in Asia, Africa and Latin America
under the friendlier face of the Global South’s new development bank. They feel
that Beijing is
carrying on with its Marshall Plan in every corner of the globe. This portfolio
itself suggests that China
wants dollar to crash. To foster its economic interests viz-a-viz Washington, Beijing also
launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to weaken Washington’s financial
hold in the world.
However, Washington is yet to take BRICS seriously
because it feels that the BRICS countries are united only in economic terms but
not in strategic spheres. For example--- China
has border issues with both Russia
and India.
Also, there are complicated status issues within the group: Brazil, South
Africa, and India
would hardly trade in their second-tier status in institutions dominated by the
West for other such institutions dominated by China.
Americans also believe that the
BRICS countries might be doing well in recent times because of their adoption
of western style markets but in the long run the growth in these countries
might not be consistent due to widespread corruption, environmental and social
limits infesting these countries. Also if the adequate reforms are brought
about in both the IMF and the World Bank, NDB would lose its steam.
Certain strategists also add that
merely the establishment of NDB isn’t a serious problem as it does not have
profound geopolitical repercussions like the BRICs have not yet proposed their
own trading bloc; they aren’t trying to stop the planned Trans Pacific
Partnership anchored by the U.S; they
still stand committed to the WTO principles, they aren’t planning a Euro-style
currency bloc, they don’t have treaties of mutual defence and support, and they
continue to embrace all the status quo institutions of international relations
such as the UN, WTO, G20, and the various development banks.
In this sense, they regard NDB as a
complement and not exactly a substitute for the existing financial institutions.
Since the BRICS collectively account for more than 25 per cent of the GDP and
40% of the world’s population, they can effectively champion the causes of the
less developed nations as well as provide much needed additional finance. Also,
this decentralization of the global financial power would ease the Bretton
Woods twins in its lending role to a great extent. In a given scenario, Washington can also join
NDB as a member country if it so wishes provided that the BRICS capital share
does not fall below 55%.
Thus the U.S. reactions to the formation of
the BRICS bank have been a mixed bag. BRICS Bank is a signal for a pressing
need to alter the present financial architecture of the world so that the United States
being the sole superpower can bring about reforms and make the financial system
more inclusive. What is true today is that the BRICS countries have been
responsible for most of the growth in the world economy since the 2007–2008 financial
crisis. In this regard, a collective effort by them to alter the frozen
realities should not be snubbed but rather welcomed and encouraged. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|