At first blush, it might seem like good news that the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) group would expand to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Ethiopia, Egypt and Argentina. An 11-strong BRICS+ could be more representative of the world’s emerging economies, providing a useful counterweight against US hegemony.
Yet, in many ways, the announced enlargement represents a major lost opportunity. The world does not need more countries to fall under Chinese and Russian influence, or to align against the US, rather, it needs a genuinely independent third grouping to provide a counterweight against both the China-Russia axis and US power.
Because the enlargement includes only countries that already have friendly relations with China, BRICS+ is poised to be merely another tool of Chinese diplomacy. Rather than representing the interests of emerging economies, it would allow for greater Chinese involvement in them. Most likely, this would come at the expense of their workers and people, as Chinese foreign investors tend to tolerate — or even encourage — corruption, reduced transparency and wasteful megaprojects financed with loans that cannot be easily restructured.
Moreover, adding Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran and the UAE would turn the BRICS into even more of an “anti-democratic” club. Yet among the institutions that emerging economies most need to ensure their future economic and social success, democracy is high on the list. My own work with Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo and James Robinson finds that democratization, historically, has equipped countries to achieve faster economic growth within five to ten years, reflecting increased investments in education, health and other public services.
By contrast, Chinese engagement tends to hamper democratization and even foment authoritarianism. With many emerging economies facing a “democracy crisis,” and with a growing number of countries experiencing weakening democratic institutions, the new BRICS+ threatens to pour fuel onto the fire.
Now that the Sino-American rivalry is intensifying — and potentially reshaping the world order — emerging economies increasingly need their own independent voice. After all, their interests are unlikely to be well served by worsening US-China relations and a reduction in their bilateral trade and financial flows.
Equally, emerging economies need to be able to influence the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and other rapidly evolving digital technologies. Even if the current enthusiasm about generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) turns out to be mostly hype, rapid advances in AI and other communication technologies are still likely in the near term, and these would affect all countries, remaking the global division of labor.
These technologies could have major negative implications for workers, especially in the emerging world, where countries such as India are already exporting various white-collar services. Ultimately, both white-collar and blue-collar workers everywhere might end up competing not against expensive, highly educated labor in rich countries, but against AI-powered advanced software, machinery and robotics.
The same technologies are also likely to restructure politics in many countries, as AI-powered social media and misinformation (including deep fakes and other manipulative technologies) increasingly influence public opinion and electoral politics. Most developing and emerging economies do not have the supporting institutions needed to regulate and create guardrails against such disruptions.
Moreover, new technologies are giving governments unprecedentedly powerful tools for surveilling their populations and suppressing dissent. Authoritarian regimes are already sharing technologies and techniques with each other. Recent research shows that Chinese surveillance technologies are rapidly being exported to other non-democratic countries, with Huawei alone exporting such goods to 50 countries.
As matters stand, the future of technology is being shaped largely by Chinese authorities, US tech giants (with a limited degree of regulatory scrutiny) and — increasingly — EU rules. None of these poles reflects the interests of the emerging world, and neither would BRICS+, which would most likely do China’s bidding.
Fortunately, China’s own narrow selection of new members may have created an opening for a promising alternative to BRICS+ to emerge. Other major emerging economies — such as Indonesia, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Kenya — could form a truly independent bloc, with the hope of ultimately attracting Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa to join them. Though each of these countries has had its own problems with democratic processes lately, their experience with democracy, together with their economic size, gives them common ground.
Even more to the point, they could collectively declare independence from both China and the US, giving the wider emerging world a sorely needed voice in debates about the future of globalization and technology. Such choices are far too important to be left to today’s geopolitical rivals.
Daron Acemoglu, Institute Professor of Economics at MIT, is a co-author (with Simon Johnson) of Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s