To: Sultan who wrote (201225 ) 9/5/2023 4:07:17 AM From: TobagoJack Respond to Welcome back Sultan, given that today is an off day as am in hospital, i had time to take in thoughts and ruminate over things such as the BRICS+ etc etcthewire.in BRICS is Dynamic, the G20 is Not If India chooses to be on the wrong side of history, it will end up as an observer and not as one of the drivers of ‘once in a lifetime’ change. … First, nations of the Global South want prosperity by new economy, which is a mix of physical and digital economies by use of Artificial Intelligence and big data. Their assessment is that China, which is seen as the driver of BRICS, can give them this. Second, the weaponisation of the US dollar against Russia has made many nations realise the need to boost trade in local currencies, especially through institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB), which is the BRICS bank. Third, the selective approach of the US and its allies towards war and occupation means global trust in the West’s so-called ‘rules-based order’ has diminished. … Coming back to BRICS, it is important to know its history, which is not what is popularly believed. According to the popular narrative, the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) was first suggested by Goldman Sach economist Jim O’Neil in 2001. Inspired by this, the foreign ministers of the four nations met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 2006. Digging deep, it would be fair to say that BRICS’s roots go back to the Russia-India-China strategic triangle first suggested by Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov in 2001. Primakov, a long-term foreign minister, was of the view that this strategic triangle would best serve Russia’s east vector interests. His suggestion was rejected by both India and China at the time as they assessed it as an anti-west tool to counter-balance the US. Russia once again presented the RIC format not as a strategic triangle, but as a trilateral dialogue mechanism on the sidelines of the UNGA in 2003, when it found favour with both India and China. Thus, it will be fair to say that the RIC trilateral dialogue mechanism helped the creation of BRICS. What this means is that India’s peace and prosperity is linked to Asia, where BRICS as the progeny of the RIC, should not be abandoned in favour of G-20. BRICS is dynamic and evolving, whereas the G-20, which grew out of the G-7, will lose its sheen without the participation of China and Russia. If India chooses to be on the wrong side of history, it will end up as an observer and not as one of the drivers of ‘once in a lifetime’ change.
