The BRICS philosophy of joint action, respect for international organizations and multilateral agreements alone guarantees its ability to become a priority axis of soft power. Not as part of a trade war, but as a counterweight. Is it very important to maintain this political position in order to strengthen its credibility with the rest of the international community? The BRICS appear to be the promising network that acts as an alternative to promote the traditional concept of international trade: open, inclusive within a legal framework and under the supervision of global organizations. They are working hard for this, to the point that at the end of 2017, the BRICS trade purse was $102,000 million. In addition, all these countries have been able to continue to engage in a comprehensive project (not necessarily a status quo) and to respect international agreements that make them reliable partners and strong leaders for the implementation of a joint action strategy, in particular South-South cooperation. There are many reasons to see the BRICS as a new axis of influence capable of restoring the “code” of international trade on the basis of common action, solidarity, openness, inclusion and, above all, responsible relations within global organizations. The BRIC countries were initially predicted by Jim O`Neill of Goldman Sachs in 2001 as the fastest growing market economies. Goldman Sachs` thesis does not argue that these countries are a political alliance like the European Union (EU) or a formal trade association. Instead, it claims that they have power as an economic bloc. The BRIC countries have not announced formal trade agreements, but leaders regularly attend summits together and often act in accordance with each other`s interests. It has been postulated that by 2050, these economies would be more prosperous than most of today`s major economic powers.

However, there are CONS that need to be studied in order to become more profitable in the medium term. For example, the BRICS` own origins as an anti-American platform in which left-wing ideologies lead the way. It is of paramount importance to get rid of biased interests and focus on defending a global trade project without ideologies and with supranational value based on open, inclusive and non-protectionist trade and cooperation. There is life after US sanctions and protectionist measures. Yes, the constant threat of isolationist policies, and at the same time the pressure of arbitrary economic sanctions, leaves the impression that we are trapped in a spiral without control or responsibility of global institutions. Once the U.S. makes the decision to reduce international trade and focus on isolationism, it doesn`t make sense to expect the rest of the world to follow these rules. In this sense, engagement with the WTO and the UNITED Nations is based on this new direction. In 1990, the BRIC countries accounted for 11% of world gross domestic product (GDP).

By 2014, that number had risen to nearly 30%. These figures include a peak in 2010 following a decline in value linked to the 2008 financial crisis. And this is also the reason why Africa is fundamentally becoming a “cultural magnet” for China`s investments, as well as for many potential customers in Asia; At best, given the growing appeal of developing countries, some anti-China sentiments have emerged in African countries such as Zambia, which six years ago led President Hu Jintao to disregard his earlier plan to visit the Copper Belt industrial base, where the Zambian region is rich in mining facilities and agriculture in the surrounding areas of the rural province. southern. Working conditions The ninth BRICS Summit will take place from 3 to 5 September 2017 in Xiamen, China. The BRICS are definitely the alternative to the United States, because the latest one takes a dangerously contradictory path of imposing sanctions and isolates itself from the processes of responsibility of international organizations, without vision or sense of a global context. This question is always asked and there are many opinions on this specific question, but there is an answer. The driving force of European imperialism in Africa is resources. Africa provided resources that European countries desperately needed. You see, in Africa, there was competition between European countries, technological development was increasing and power was winning. These reasons may seem complicated, but it`s actually just any reason If you have access to a magazine through a membership in a company or association, please navigate to your company`s magazine, select an article you want to view, and follow the instructions in this field. The country participated for the first time in the Third Summit of BRICS Heads of State and Government in Beijing, China, from April 14 to 15, 2011.

Learn more about South Africa`s participation. Caught between the political alienation of the “West” and its deep dependence on markets and finances, Russia needs a mediator who can represent and support it in talks with its adversaries. The BRICS are seen as such an intermediary and as a way to show a domestic audience that Russia is not really isolated. BRIC is the acronym for the developing countries Brazil, Russia, India and China – countries that are expected to be the main suppliers of industrial goods, services and raw materials by 2050. China and India are becoming the world`s leading suppliers of industrial goods and services, while Brazil and Russia are becoming equally dominant as suppliers of raw materials. Since 2010, South Africa has joined the group now known as BRICS. India hosted the eighth BRICS Summit in Goa from 15 to 16 October 2016. Learn more about South Africa`s participation. While a BRICS Union is undoubtedly positive, its role as a “third economic power” should not be overstated. For most members, the bloc is a way to discuss opinions and perhaps adopt a common position on all areas of common interest.

China sees the organization as a useful testing ground for its ambitious development ideas, while Russia alone sees the possibility of raising funds from a new channel. In 2003, Dominic Wilson and Roopa Purushothaman wrote a report titled “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050,” republished by Goldman Sachs, claiming that the BRIC cluster could grow larger than the G7 by 2050 if measured in USD. . . .