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
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS