Are the BRICS a Sum of Their Parts?

  • Mark E. Schaefer
  • John G. Poffenbarger
Chapter

Abstract

Schaefer and Poffenbarger describe the primary foreign policy and strategic culture foundations of the BRICS states individually. This is done to search for both commonalities and contradictions among the BRICS membership. The existence of the BRICS as an international organization (IO) runs in opposition to traditional international relations theory on the formation of IOs. This IO exists with diversity across government type, level of development, geography, and international power. The BRICS also exist with serious bilateral tensions between some of the membership. The authors analyze the foreign policy of each state to search for common strategic interests so that they can better project the functional development of the BRICS formation.

Keywords

Foreign Policy World Politics African National Congress Great Power Status United Nations Security Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1 Jack Child, Geopolitics and Conflict in South America: Quarrels Among Neighbors (New York: Praeger, 1985), 34–35.Google Scholar
  2. 2 Maria Helena Moreira Alves, State and Opposition in Military Brazil (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985), 13.Google Scholar
  3. 3 Sean W. Burges, Brazilian Foreign Policy After the Cold War (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5 Andrea Oelsner, International Relations in Latin America: Peace and Security in the Southern Cone (New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2005), 66–67.Google Scholar
  5. 8 Tullo Vigievani and Gabriel Cepaluni, Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009), 53–57.Google Scholar
  6. 10 Andres Rivarola, “Global Shifts: The UN System and The New Regionalism in Latin America”, Latin American Politics 49, 2 (1997): 89–112 and James N. Rosenau, Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Ricardo Sennes, Janina Onuki, and Amaio Jorge de Oliveira, “The Brazilian Foreign Policy and the Hemispheric Security”, Recista Fuerzas Armada y Sociedad 3–4 (July/December, 2004).Google Scholar
  7. 11 Laura Gomez Mers, “Explaining MERCOSUR’s Survival: Strategic Sources of Argentine-Brazilian Convergence”, Latin American Studies 37 (2005): 109–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 12 Gian Luca Gardini, “Who Invented MERCOSUR?” Diplomacy and Statecraft 18, 4 (2007): 805–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 13 Andres Malamud, “Presidential Diplomacy and the Institutional Underpinnings of MECOSUR: An Empirical Explanation”, Latin American Research Review 40, 1 (2005): 138–164. And http://www.MERCOSUR.org.uy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 16 Gian Luca Gardini, “Who Invented MERCOSUR?” Diplomacy and Statecraft 18, 4 (2007): 805–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 21 Andres Malamud, “Presidential Diplomacy and the Institutional Underpinnings of MECOSUR: An Empirical Explanation”, Latin American Research Review 40, 1 (2005): 138–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 22 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandieria, “Brazil as a Regional Power and its Relations with the United States”, Latin American Perspectives 33, 3 (2006): 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 24 Vinod K. Aggarwal and Ralph Espach, “Diverging Trade Strategies in Latin America: A Framework for Analysis.” in The Strategic Dynamics of Latin American Trade, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal, Ralph H. Espach, Joseph S. Tulchin (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  14. 30 Marco Antonio Vieria and Chris Alden, “India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA): South-South Cooperation and the Paradox of Regional Leadership”, Global Governance 17 (2011): 522.Google Scholar
  15. 31 Celso Amorim, “Brazilian Foreign Policy under President Lula (2003–2010): An Overview”, Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional 53 (2010): 217.Google Scholar
  16. 33 Tullo Vigievani and Gabriel Cepaluni, Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009), 97–98.Google Scholar
  17. 34 Maria Regina Soares de Lima and Monica Hirst, “Brazil as Intermediate State and Regional Power: Action, Choice, and Responsibilities”, International Affairs 82, 1 (2006): 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 35 Ted Hopf, “Moscow’s Foreign Policy, 1945–2000: Identities, Institutions, and Interests”, in The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume III: The Twentieth Century, ed. Ronald Grigor Suny (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 702.Google Scholar
  19. 37 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 1 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009), 21.Google Scholar
  20. 39 Nikolas K. Gvosdev and Christopher Marsh, Russian Foreign Policy: Interests, Vectors, and Sectors (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2014), 210–211.Google Scholar
  21. 40 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 1 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009), 22.Google Scholar
  22. 41 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 2 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2012), 15.Google Scholar
  23. 42 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 1 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009), 100–105.Google Scholar
  24. 43 Igor Ivanov, The New Russian Diplomacy (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), 45–47.Google Scholar
  25. 44 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 1 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009), 11.Google Scholar
  26. 50 Nikolas K. Gvosdev and Christopher Marsh, Russian Foreign Policy: Interests, Vectors, and Sectors (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2014), 5.Google Scholar
  27. 53 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 2 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2012), 15.Google Scholar
  28. 54 Igor Ivanov, The New Russian Diplomacy (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), 82–84.Google Scholar
  29. 55 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 1 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009), 14–15.Google Scholar
  30. 56 Elana Wilson Rowe and Stina Torjesen, “Key Features of Russian Multilateralism”, in The Multilateral Dimension of Russian Foreign Policy, ed. Elana Wilson Rowe and Stina Torjesen (New York: Routledge, 2009), 2–4.Google Scholar
  31. 57 Robert Legvold, “The Role of Multilateralism in Russian Foreign Policy”, in The Multilateral Dimension of Russian Foreign Policy, ed. Elana Wilson Rowe and Stina Torjesen (New York: Routledge, 2009), 21–31.Google Scholar
  32. 58 James P. Nichol, “Foreign Relations”, in Russia: A Country Study, ed. Glenn E. Curtis (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1998), 435.Google Scholar
  33. 60 Igor Ivanov, The New Russian Diplomacy (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), 122.Google Scholar
  34. 61 Jeffrey Mankoff, Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, vol. 1 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009), 26–27.Google Scholar
  35. 65 Nikolas K. Gvosdev and Christopher Marsh, Russian Foreign Policy: Interests, Vectors, and Sectors (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2014), 354–355.Google Scholar
  36. 68 Rahul Sagar, “State of Mind: What Kind of Power will India Become?” International Affairs 85, 4 (2009): 803–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 70 Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Still Under Nehru’s Shadow? The Absence of Foreign Policy Frameworks in India”, India Review 8, 3 (2009): 210–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 71 Rahul Sagar, “State of Mind: What Kind of Power will India Become?” International Affairs 85, 4 (2009): 810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 72 Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Still Under Nehru’s Shadow? The Absence of Foreign Policy Frameworks in India”, India Review 8, 3 (2009): 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 74 Rahul Sagar, “State of Mind: What Kind of Power will India Become?”, International Affairs 85, 4 (2009): 813–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 75 Rohan Mukherjee and David M. Malone, “Indian Foreign Policy and Contemporary Security Challenges”, International Affairs 87, 1 (2011): 103–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 76 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 77 Mohan C. Raja, Crossing the Rubicon (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2004), xvii–xxi.Google Scholar
  44. 79 Rohan Mukherjee and David M. Malone, “Indian Foreign Policy and Contemporary Security Challenges”, International Affairs 87, 1 (2011): 89–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 80 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 81 Strobe Talbott, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb (Washington DC: The Brookings Institute, 2006), 7.Google Scholar
  47. 82 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 83 Mohan C. Raja, Crossing the Rubicon (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2004), 35–36.Google Scholar
  49. 84 Strobe Talbott, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb (Washington DC: The Brookings Institute, 2006), 12–13.Google Scholar
  50. 88 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 89 Mohan C. Raja, Crossing the Rubicon (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2004), 26–27.Google Scholar
  52. 92 Harsh V. Pant, Contemporary Debates in Indian Foreign and Security Policy: India Negotiates Its Rise in the International System (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 95 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 171–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 97 Mohan C. Raja, Crossing the Rubicon (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2004), 84–86.Google Scholar
  55. 101 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 102 Harsh V. Pant, Contemporary Debates in Indian Foreign and Security Policy: India Negotiates Its Rise in the International System (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), 51–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 103 Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Still Under Nehru’s Shadow? The Absence of Foreign Policy Frameworks in India”, India Review 8, 3 (2009): 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 104 David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 105 Mohan C. Raja, Crossing the Rubicon (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2004), 52–54.Google Scholar
  60. 108 Ning Lu, The Dynamics of Foreign-Policy Decision Making in China (Bolder: Westview Press, 2000), 40.Google Scholar
  61. 111 John R. Faust and Judith F. Kornberg, China in World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995), 121.Google Scholar
  62. 114 William A. Callahan, China: The Pessoptimist Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 12.Google Scholar
  63. 116 Thomas W Robinson and David L. Shambaugh, eds. Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 592.Google Scholar
  64. 119 Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China’s Search for Security (New York: Columbia University Press), 3–7.Google Scholar
  65. 124 Riorden Rett and Gudalupe Paz, eds. China’s Expansion into the Western Hemisphere: Implications for Latin America and the United States (Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2008), 10.Google Scholar
  66. 125 Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China’s Search for Security (New York: Columbia University Press), 182.Google Scholar
  67. 128 Phillip C. Saunders, China’s Global Activism: Strategy, Drivers, and Tools (Washington DC: National Defense University, 2006), 6.Google Scholar
  68. 134 William P. Frank, “International Business Challenge: Does Adding South Africa Finally Make the BRIC Countries Relevant?” Academy of Studies in International Business 12, 1 (2012): 6–7.Google Scholar
  69. 135 Hongying Wang, “Multilateralism in Chinese Foreign Policy: The Limits of Socialization”, Asian Survey 40, 3 (2000): 482–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 136 Michael A. Glosny, “China and the BRICs: A Real (but Limited) Partnership in a Unipolar World”, Polity 42, 1 (2009): 109.Google Scholar
  71. 138 Chris Alden and Pere Garth, South Africa’s Post-Apartheid Foreign Policy: From Reconciliation to Revival? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 7.Google Scholar
  72. 142 Matthew Graham, “Foreign Policy in Transition: The ANC’s Search for a Foreign Policy Direction During South Africa’s Transition, 1990–1994”, Round Table 101, 5 (October 2012): 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 143 Laurie Nathan, “Consistency and Inconsistencies in South African Foreign Policy”, International Affairs 81, 2 (March 2005): 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 145 Tom Nevin, “South Africa Vaults into Elite BRIC Club”, African Business 372 (February 2011): 56–57.Google Scholar
  75. 146 Jacob Zuma, “South Africa in the BRICS”, Harvard International Review 35, 2 (Fall 2013): 17–21.Google Scholar
  76. 148 William P. Frank, “International Business Challenge: Does Adding South Africa Finally Make the BRIC Countries Relevant?” Journal of International Business Research 12, 1 (January 2013): 1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mark E. Schaefer and John G. Poffenbarger 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark E. Schaefer
    • 1
  • John G. Poffenbarger
    • 2
  1. 1.Marietta CollegeUSA
  2. 2.Wheeling Jesuit UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations