1

BRICS Co-operation:Assessment and Next Steps.

Brasilia, August 1st, 2017.

Remarks by Ambassador Sergio Abreu e Lima Florncio .

BRICS started as a market oriented conception. Gradually it

gained a geopolitical and social dimension.
A historical parallel comes up easily. It is the parallel
between BRICS and George Kennans so called monster
countries. Both groups composition are quite similar.
One decade of BRICS reveal a multidimensional role . Its
economic profile is explicit in the G 20, the IMF and the
New Development Bank. Its geopolitical aspect focus on
strategic and security issues, both dealt at the United
Nations. It also has a cooperation dimension which now
embodies a number of areas such as health, education, trade,
investment, technology and others.
Our seminar has two aspects: assment of BRICS and ITS
Nex Steps. My friends at Itamaraty are more qualified than
I am to provide an assessment of BRICS role during its
first decade. I hope to contribute with a view of its Next
Steps.
Deep international crises usually give birth to major
changes. It happened after WWI and the League of Nations.
 2

WWII generated the Bretton Woods institutions and the

United Nations.
Starting in the 90s, major events started drawing the profile
of a new international order : end of the cold war; relative
decline of the US; and emergence of China as a new world
power in the 21st century.
It was in the midst of such world turning points that BRICS
was born.
In its first decade, a portrait of BRICS may reveal three
essential features. 1st growing international relevance in
the geopolitical arena and a few similarities among its
members, such as wide territorial dimension and heavy
economic weight. 2nd clear diversity among its members,
in terms of economic assimetry and international trade
performance. 3rd growing disparities in these two areas,
i.e. GDP and trade performance, which come out quite
clearly when one compares China with other BRICS
members.
What is the result of those three features ? What
convergences and divergences among BRICS members
result from these three features?
Obvious convergence come out clearly in the sphere of
international governance in the context of G 20 and more
specifically in the field of IMF reform.
 3

Obvious divergence appear in the issue of United Nations

Security Council reform. Three members favour major
reforms in UNSC permanent membership Brazil, India
and South Africa. But others dont. There is disagreement.
Obvious areas to further cooperation . First,
technical/technological cooperation projects. Second,
foreing direct investment. Prospects in these two fields are
becoming more and more promising.
Three last remarks related to a relevant issue for us: what is
the role of Brazilian foreign policy (BFP) in the context of
BRICS?
First remark. We stress focus on our convergences with
other BRICS member countries. This means provide priority
to issues such as: global financial governance at G 20, IMF
and New Development Bank; and provide incentives to
further foreign direct investment(FDI). BRICS have a
natural vocation to be active and effective in these fields.
Second remark. BRICS should avoid to become a platform
to promote common positions in more delicate areas such as
terrorism, global security, hot spot reas and human rights.
Excessive pursuit of commonalities in these areans are
doomed to rather promote divisions than feed union.
Third remark. We all need to reinvent BRICS to keep it
resilient and robust. Why to reinvent it ? Because BRICS
was created in a radically different context: 1st - before the
 4

emergence of China as a major global power and signs of

US decline; 2nd a scenario of slow global economic
growth contrasts with the 21st century initial decade, a fact
that feeds greater need for investments from surplus
countries, especilly China, in other BRICS nations such as
Brazil and South Africa.

THANK YOU