Banking on the BRICS

The five-member BRICS countries account for roughly 18 per cent of the world's GDP [AFP]

The proposal of a development bank between the five BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa was the main topic of discussion at last week's 4^th Annual Brics Summit in New Delhi.  The South-South development bank would pool resources for things such as lending and infrastructure improvements as well as facilitate trade. The leaders also discussed the possibility of extending credit to member countries in local currency, side stepping the dollar as the main unit of trade between the BRICS. Talk of setting up a BRICS bank has generated a flood of news stories trying to predict the future implications. 

Here are a few examples of recent news headlines:

• BRICS summit to explore creation of bank
  Al Jazeera | http://aje.me/HdlUWX
• BRICS Can Lead Whole Global South in Quest for Financial Justice CRIENGLISH.com | http://bit.ly/HFBCtO
• Why a Brics-built bank to rival the IMF is doomed to fail 
  The Telegraph | http://tgr.ph/HblZK
• Emerging Markets Look to Drop BRICS on U.S. Dollar  
  International Business Times | http://bit.ly/HRmW8L
• The west must wake up to the growing power of the Brics The Guardian | http://bit.ly/HiAUQy                         
• World Bank Open to Partnering Brics Bank
  Wall Street Journal | http://on.wsj.com/HL2dYKv                               

You can see how these news sources are covering the same story in different ways. The order of the articles I read above also shows the progression of coverage:

1. Exploration of development bank. 
2. BRICS will free the Global South from financial dependency. 
3. The BRICS bank attempt to rival the World Bank and the IMF will fail.  
4. Uh oh, the U.S. dollar will be affected.
5. Hey, you - the West, watch out for the strengthening of the BRICS.
6. Solution to #5: Global North can "partner" with the BRICS bank. 

Why does this all matter? MONEY, POWER, CONTROL and last, but not least: the numbers. According to the Al Jazeera article:  The five members now account for roughly 18 per cent of the world's GDP, 15 per cent of global trade and hold 40 per cent of global currency reserves. They account for the 40 per cent of the world population.

Many argue the BRIC concept, conceived in 2001 by Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs is just that - a concept. Many articles touch on the fact that these countries do not have much in common besides being locating in the Global South and their desire to rid ties to Western institutions.  However, with the BRICS's combined global economic power and 40 percent of the world population, this "concept" is getting a little more disconcerting to the West. The news went from, "The BRIC bank is DOOMED to failure" to "The World Bank wants to partner with BRIC bank" within a week. Talking about changing tides.  Who is going to call the shots now?

Before global power relations really change, the BRICS need to get on the same page to ensure more international bargaining power. Another point of contention in the media is - Who is going to gain what from this development bank? Aren't some of the BRICS countries at a greater advantage to reap the benefits? China? An opinion column in The Bangkok Post highlights the emerging asymmetrical relations within the bloc:

"Lending and trading in renminbi is likely to boost China's international standing and clout. But its undervalued currency and hidden export subsidies have been systematically undermining manufacturing in other Brics nations, especially India and Brazil."  This excerpt points out the false notion that South-South transfer is always equitable. Undermining manufacturing in member countries?  

We will have to wait and see how the BRICS development bank progresses. Regardless, the rest of the world should realize global power is shifting. (The World Bank does and that's why it suddenly wanted to "partner" aka maintain some control.) In previous posts Jeannie has covered Iranian influences in Latin America and this latest BRICS Summit highlighted the continued relations: BRICS refuses to side with US in showdown with Iran – 

The Economic TImes http://bit.ly/HcQ287.  

The long and short of it is - the Global South is uniting. What does this mean for development and education? Where will the models of education/development come from if the Global North isn't calling all the shots?  

Puerto Rico and the Loss of Language Rights

Rick Santorum Calls Himself 'Senador Puertorriqueño' In Puerto Rico

The Huffington Post

March 15, 2012
Citation: http://huff.to/santorumPR

 

Rick Santorum is making a splash down in Puerto Rico ahead of the island's Sunday GOP primary.

On Wednesday he told Puerto Ricans that they should make English their primary language if they want statehood, and that evening he said that Pennsylvanians called him "Senador Puertorriqueño" while he was a U.S. senator. Politico has excerpts from a town hall in San Juan.

"I was referred to by many in my state as Senador Puertorriqueño," he said. "They used to make fun of me, ‘Why are you representing Puerto Rico?’ Well, someone has to because they don’t have a voice. I felt a responsibility to the island."

Rick Santorum, the Republican (GOP) candidate nominee in the upcoming U.S. presidential election is visiting Puerto Rico and yesterday publicly claimed that in order for the island to reach statehood it needs to adopt English as its "principal" language. He also states that the bilingual, English and Spanish, system currently in operation will continue to deter Puerto Rico from achieving its "goals". Furthermore he shared during an interview that he was referred to as Senador Puertorriqueño, or the Puerto Rican Senator, as an indication of his apparent alliance with the Latino community. Yesterday the former Senator also sat down with Luis Fortuno, Puerto Rico's governor, who has already endorsed Romney. In regards to a referendum that is up for election November 6th, Santorum recommended that Puerto Ricans vote in favor of statehood, and confirmed that he would not support a state that did not endorse English as the official language. Santorum's statements seem rarely threatening actually. 

We often exclude Puerto Rico from the dialogue surrounding Latin American countries because this Spanish-speaking island is controlled by the United States government -- no doubt a politically charged decision. I think we should not be alarmed by Santorum but concerned about his proposal, which of course is not a new idea but one which tends to sting for Spanish-speakers and Puerto Ricans. As a long-time resident of the state of Pennsylvania, and of voting age and registered for nearly 10 years, I have never heard of Santorum referred to by this name, Senador Puertorriqueño. In regards to enforcing English as the only acceptable language for the proposed state, it should be known that the United States does not have an official language. Decisions regarding the statehood of Puerto Rico should not be determined by English-language policy, or proposition.

This is because the issues are separate, and should remain separate in my opinion, and making the shift from bilingual to monolingualism is a transition heavily affected by development, education and globalization. Development in the sense that the nation has little room to thrive and grow economically in its current world standing. Puerto Rico has but one seat in congress which is not given a vote. It would be wise to propose nationhood for a place that has been continuously robbed and oppressed culturally and linguistically for the last 500 years! Languages hold power and help define who we are as people. With the loss of Spanish in Puerto Rico, what else is lost? With statehood what is gained? How will education be affected and how would such a grandiose shift occur rapidly enough for Puerto Rico to maintain itself? It seems that there is a yearning from the United States to consistently erase any difference between it's borders that could threaten the already-established organizational patterns established to maintain power. We should reconsider the scope of international influence. Through what lens are we, as educators and people interested in development, to view Puerto Rico? I think we might also view Santorum's efforts as a way to speak to other states, since he inevitably must have known he was destined to lose the Puerto Rican vote -- was he not speaking to a difference audience through this English-only message? I think that Puerto Rico will continue to stay dependent on the United States if they move for state hood, and especially if they heed the advice of Santorum in embracing an English-only stance. I doubt that either will happen in the near future.

Venezuelan and Iranian Involvement in Nicaragua: Benevolence or Strategy?

Ortega, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad share smiles and a handshake.

Nicaraguan's Worry About Ortega's Foreign Friends

By Dave Graham

Reuters

January 17, 2012

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/893sp2v

MANAGUA (Reuters) - Nicaragua's left-wing President Daniel Ortega has won over many critics at home with a successful drive to cut poverty and spur business-friendly policies in Central America's poorest country. But his choice of friends abroad makes many Nicaraguans worry that the former guerrilla and Cold War icon is dragging down the country's reputation and unnecessarily antagonizing the United States and other Western countries.

Article clipped, see link for details

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega recently won his second straight term thanks to his efforts to ameliorate poverty in Nicaragua, with the help of Venezuelan oil money. Both Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were present at Ortega’s inauguration. However, Nicaraguans fear that these relationships are negatively impacting the country and affecting global opinion about Nicaragua. Many Nicaraguans indicated that Ortega fails to think for himself; rather, he is merely Chavez’s puppet. Others voiced concerns over the motives for increased Venezuelan influence in Nicaragua. As of recently, Chavez has contributed money to provide water, electricity, and housing for this impoverished country. The question is, to what end? Regarding increased Iranian involvement in Nicaragua, many Nicaraguans fail to see what benefits Nicaragua will accrue in engaging in such close relations with Iran, a nation that has recently added fire to the global flames with its nuclear program, and one who has also yet to provide any monetary aid to Nicaragua.

First off, there are many ways to define global interconnectedness. The past few years, Iran has strategically cultivated friendships with several Latin America countries, namely Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The recent launch of an Iranian Spanish television channel (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16809053) and the visit of Iranian President Ahmadinejad to four Latin American countries in early 2012 definitely indicate strategic Iranian involvement in Latin America. While this involvement does not scream of the stereotypical neo-imperialistic efforts of the West in Africa, I cannot help but see the similarities. I mean, Iran’s involvement in Latin America is definitely for its own self-interest. Given Western frustrations with Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad may be using his Latin American ties to win favor and garner more support for his country who, in the midst of the potential conflict in the Straight of Hormuz, is not quite in global favor. Iran needs some friends right now, and Ahmadinejad is shopping in Latin America.

As the article indicated, the U.S. has issued its perception of the situation, namely that Iran is creating strategic friendships with allies in America’s backyard (big surprise there). But even more significant are the Nicaraguan voices protesting the relationship between Nicaragua and Iran. Obviously, any ‘development’ aid that Iran would provide to Nicaragua would just be a ruse to buy Nicaraguan support. It is strategic because Iran could subversively provide money, which impoverished Nicaragua definitely needs and wouldn’t turn down, and later cash in on that. After all, nothing comes without a price. In my opinion, Iran is using ally partnerships and the promise of future funds to take advantage of Nicaragua. Whatever Iran’s motives are in Latin America, they obviously do not have the best interest of Nicaraguans in mind, which reminds me in a bizarre way of neo-colonialism.

What I also found interesting was the connection between Venezuela and Nicaragua, and the point raised by Nicaraguans about what Chavez’s interests truly are in Nicaragua. It is hard to determine why Venezuela is so deeply imbedded in Nicaraguan affairs, but again, I liken it to a subversive strategic way to ensure that Nicaragua, a country riddled with poverty, is always indebted to Venezuela. In potentially another stretch, this relationship between Nicaragua and Venezuela reminds me of Dependency Theory in the way that Venezuela is perpetuating Nicaraguan dependency by providing Chavez’s petrodollars to help battle Nicaraguan poverty.