Gian Marco Sanna: The Verdi tuning – a demonstration

Thank you, and I welcome you. I would like to preface my actual speech with a short report about what Mr. LaRouche had to say yesterday, because yesterday we had extremely important breaking developments. President Obama went to the Congress and tried to really threaten the Democratic Party members of the Congress, telling them that they absolutely had to vote for the Fast Track Authority, as it’s now called: that this was not about the free trade pact (TPP), but it was about him.

Reports were that when this 40-minute session was over, members of Congress came out completely furious, and then voted with an overwhelming majority against this TPP proposition, which is really a major defeat, one more of the many defeats of Obama in the recent period. Mr. LaRouche commented, that this is a reflection not of a last-minute opposition, but this is a process of rebellion going on in the last period on both sides of the Atlantic. And it reflects much more an awareness by important factions, that we are in the danger of immediate nuclear war.

So, he said that that means for the next period, you have to expect even an increase in the inclination of the Obama Administration to push the confrontation, but that the real reason has to be addressed, and that is that Wall Street is on the chopping block, that the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt, and that the only hope is in the existence of a bloc of nations who are numerically much stronger. However, he said that what has to be also avoided, is the plunge of the world into chaos. And that therefore, we need a program which immediately addresses the situation, because you have the impending blowout of the Greek debt, which would have immediate consequences for Spain and Italy, and that even if Germany is in a relatively stronger position, we’re looking at the breakdown of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.

Therefore, the kinds of measures which have to be taken, are like what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the period from ’33 to ’39, and that is what we have to concentrate on. I think that is something which the deliberations of this conference must deal with.

Because this is not an academic conference. This is an actual effort to intervene in a moment, when it is very clear that the leading institutions of the G7, for example, which just met in their summit, have absolutely failed to address these existential dangers for civilization.

Now I will come back to these optimistic solutions, but let me tell you: Mankind has never been at such a dangerous moment.

Beautiful Options

In the beginning, I want to express my conviction that I think it is absolutely possible to save civilization, and realize the very beautiful options and alternatives which will be the subject of this discussion. If we do our job right—and obviously it will not only depend on us, but our subjective intervention, I think, will be the margin of difference as to whether mankind goes into annihilation, or into a new era of civilization—we could have, very soon, a completely different world.

And I think it’s important to start with the vision of where we want to go, because we could have a completely different relationship among nations, not focussed on geopolitical confrontation, not focusing on so-called narrow or national interests vs. the national interests of some other country, but where we would be united for the common aims of mankind, such that we could have a new world economic order, which would give justice to every nation on this planet, combined with a Classical Renaissance of culture, which, in my view, is equally urgent, if you look at the degeneracy of the Western culture at this point.

But that can only be realized if we succeed in realizing the task which we set out for ourselves quite some while ago, namely that we get the European nations, and the United States, in a cooperative mode with the BRICS nations, and the win-win policy of President Xi Jinping of China.

Figure 1

*It would eliminate, or help to eliminate, the drug trade, and it would especially give hope for the future, and therefore overcome the decadence of the mind.

However, this shift has to occur very, very suddenly. Because it’s very urgent.

G7 Insanity

If you look at the results of the recent G7 summit, well, you have a situation where unfortunately Chancellor Merkel, pushed by Obama, Cameron, and Canada, excluded President Putin for the second time, and that action of Mrs. Merkel created the forum for Obama’s very provocative attacks at the end of the Summit.

Now, given the fact that the G7 only represent about 10% of the world’s population, I find it quite an enormity that they decided to implement a so-called decarbonization of the world economy by the year 2100. Who authorizes 10% of the world population to define the program of the entire world for 90 years from now?

Mrs. Merkel, if history remembers her, will probably go into history for her very infamous exit from nuclear energy, and the sole reliance on renewable energies. Decarbonization would mean only having solar and wind—no fossil fuel energy resources—and since they are also against nuclear energy in Germany, well, it basically would mean implementing the program of Mr. Schellnhuber, who is the head of the VDGU in Germany, an advisory institution, but also a CBE, Commander of the British Empire. He has developed this program of the transformation of the global economy which would be decarbonization of the world economy, and if we realize that there is a direct correlation between the energy flux density in the production process, and the number of people who can be supported with that energy flux density, you have to come to the conclusion that the approximate number of people who could e maintained is about 1 billion people.

Then there was this very ominous meeting between President Obama and Sir David Attenborough. Sir David Attenborough is the key advisor for environmental and energy questions to the British Crown. He was flown in by Obama shortly before the G7 summit, and basically it was not made public what they discussed, but we know what Attenborough has said in the past: namely, that mankind is a plague. That we should purge it massively by at least half; so you can assume that what went into this summit on the side of Obama, was the British advice on how to reduce population.

Now, fortunately, there are three important German personalities who intervened shortly before the G7 Summit, saying that President Putin should be invited. They were, very importantly, the current Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier; and the former Chancellors Gerhard Schröder and Helmut Schmidt; and Helmut Schmidt, in particular, said not only that Russia should be invited to the G7 summit, but China and India as well. And Schmidt, who is 95 years old—it seems to be the quality of older people that they are often more courageous in speaking the truth, than younger people—had warned of World War III many, many times before.

So, you can be assured that these people—Steinmeier in that sense really being on a completely different track than Merkel— know the warnings which military experts in the recent period have expressed: Namely, that we are today in a situation that is more dangerous than at the height of the Cold War. And the height of the Cold War was the Cuban Missile crisis.

Now during the Cuban Missile crisis, you had, despite the extremely adversarial relations, communications between President Kennedy and Khrushchov, and they were able to defuse the crisis at the very last moment.

That is not the case between President Obama and President Putin. It has been noted by many military experts that the biggest danger, or one of the biggest dangers, is that there is no communication between the United States and Russia, in particular.

A Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse

How did we get to this crisis?

This has been the result of a long-term buildup, which really started with the decision of the neo-cons in 1997 to go for the policy of the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century. This was the idea that, especially when the Soviet Union disintegrated, between ’89 and ’91, no country could refuse to be part of an Empire run by the Anglo-Americans, based on the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States. And it was explicitly noted that the goal was to maintain a U.S. global pre-eminence precluding the rise of a power, or a group of nations, who could challenge the power of the United States. And it is that concept which still exists. It was only briefly interrupted halfway into the Clinton period. It was fully carried on by Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.—two administrations—and now by six and a half years of Obama.

So what this policy meant is that immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neo-cons went into policies of regime change, through a variety of measures—color revolution, paying NGOs with the aim of toppling the democratically elected government, with policies of sanctions—we see it in the case of Russia, where the exclusive aim of these sanctions is to cause so much uproar inside Russia, that you would have a Maidan phenomenon in Moscow, and get rid of Putin.

These policies included the NATO and EU expansion to the borders of Russia, whereas, according to Jack F. Matlock, who was the American Ambassador in Moscow during the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, promises were given that this would never happen. These promises were never kept. And it means troop and military equipment forward-positioning at the Russian borders.

And now, very recently, you have the extremely flimsy accusation that Russia has violated the INF treaty, and that this could be related to an alleged test-launch of a sea-based cruise missile from a launcher on land, which, if it ever happened, or something similar, would have been an extremely minor technical thing,—but, as I said, it’s not even proven. The Russian side has maintained very clearly that there is no proof, and Deputy Defense Minister Antonov basically has said the U.S. is ramping up these allegations against Russia, to justify their own military plans to return the U.S. short- and medium- range missiles to Europe and other regions.

When Obama came into office, he had promised that he would reduce nuclear weapons, and eventually get rid of them, but now, for him to put nuclear weapons back into Great Britain—which already has been accepted, in the person of Cameron—and other places, is really a push for nuclear war. Some people think it would be nuclear war in Europe, but by the logic of nuclear war, it would not be just for Europe. It would be a generalized global thermonuclear war, which nobody would survive.

General Leonid Ivashov, who is right now the head of the Academy of Geopolitics, said this is a Cuban missile crisis in reverse. And it is the acting-out of the Cheney-Wolfowitz doctrine of a unipolar world.

Now the Obama Administration has admitted that it is considering an option of leaving the INF Treaty, deploying so-called counterforce IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) to Europe, or even a countervailing strike capability involving the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on targets inside of Russia.

Also, the transformation of the military doctrine during the last period—Prompt Global Strike, and the U.S. Ballistic Missile System are de facto first strike doctrines. And if you remember what President Putin said when he announced the upgrade of the Russian military doctrine over the Christmas period,—he said there may come a point where Russia feels compelled to use nuclear weapons to avoid this danger. That should show you why we are really in mortal danger, and absolutely must act.

The NATO website presently lists 71 maneuvers and events between April and November, all close to the Russian border, in the Baltics, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. And Poroshenko just announced that he is ending all military cooperation with Russia, which blocks the supply of Russian troops in Transdniestria, Moldova, and this, on the surface, could be a repeat of the events of Georgia in 2008, but it could also be a pretext used for actions against Russia.

Russia is intensifying its strategic ties with China and India, and Russia and China are drilling their airborne amphibious troops in the Far East, in a maneuver called Joint Sea 2015.

In light of the fact that the pretext for all of this escalation against Russia is the Ukraine situation, supposedly the Crimea issue,—it should be absolutely noted that what triggered this event was, on the one side, the fascist coup in Kiev on February 18-22, 2014; and before that, the effort to incorporate Ukraine into the EU through the EU Association Agreement; and even before that, as Helmut Schmidt said, and I fully agree: the real Ukraine crisis started with the Maastricht Treaty, because this is where the idea of having an eastward expansion of the EU really started.

So what happened therefore at the G7 meeting, you could only call a suicidal delirium on the side of Germany, France, Italy, and other nations. The only chance is that the opposition of Steinmeier, Schmidt, and Schröder has to be escalated. Merkel, in my view, should be replaced, because she is violating her oath of office—to protect the German people against perils—and because of her scandalous behavior in the NSA-BND affair, which violates the rights of all German people, and not only the German people. Because, as you know, the BND-NSA collaboration spied against France, against Belgium, Austria, even Germany’s own industry,—and Merkel obviously doesn’t know that the German economy, without cooperation with Russia and the BRICS, does not function.

Now, Russia is part of Europe, and the sanctions designed to harm Russia are really extremely stupid. Because they not only hurt Russia, which obviously is suffering from them, but, for example, in the first quarter of this year, German machine tool exports to Russia collapsed by 28%, and German industry is extremely furious that the U.S. exports to Russia in the same period, increased by 17%.

Basically, there is not only stagnation in the economy of Europe, but there is right now nothing to protect all of Europe from disintegration, especially in light of the pending explosion of the Greek situation, which seems clearly to be coming to a head.

So Merkel should be either forced out, or she should be completely reined in, subdued, by forces in Germany from industry, the military, and a larger faction in the SPD, represented by these three individuals. But we should also be aware that the United States has long been running on this geopolitical idea, of preventing collaboration between Germany and Russia. I think that what needs to be done—and it is not just the task of Germany—but all of Europe has to make sure that the sanctions are ended right away. And it’s very easy. All we have to say is, we are starting to trade with Russia again, and that would be the very first step to get back to normality.

A Policy of Genocide

But the declaration of decarbonization and economic warfare against Russia are not the only terrible evils which were agreed upon at the G7 summit. They decided on a hard line against Greece, an austerity policy to the total advantage of the too-big-to-fail banks, and one should note that 97% of all the so-called rescue packages, really went back to the banks. And what is being imposed on Greece is the kind of debt dungeon, or debt corset, in the tradition of Versailles and Brüning. And Jean Ziegler, who’s a prominent Swiss activist and UN representative, basically said the modern slaveholders are sitting in the upper floors of the banks and multinationals. And he called the present system of globalization “cannibalistic,” and that is absolutely true.

Your average Eurocentrist will say: Oh, Mr. Ziegler is too radical. But if you think about it, is it not true? What is the difference between the ships of the slave traders and plantation owners of the Confederacy, where thousands of people drowned or died of hunger and thirst, and the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, where many thousands of people, almost every week, are risking their lives and that of their children, having a 50% chance of not making it, running away from wars in the Middle East, starvation, and epidemics in Africa, and terrorism?

The EU policy on refugees, for me, reflects the total moral bankruptcy of that institution. Because the EU is only serving the interests of the too-big-to-fail banks and the IMF, which are run by the interests which basically have turned the whole developing sector into a plantation. You think about the land grab, speculation on scarcity of water, blocking water management projects with the purpose of having high water prices, to speculate in bottled water, controlling the food chain. Jean Ziegler said that every child who dies of hunger, is murdered. And I agree. Because it would be so easy to solve it. It would take half a year, and you could eliminate that from happening.

A few days ago, on the plane, I watched the movie “Twelve Years a Slave,” which is a remarkable movie. I normally don’t encourage people to watch movies, but this one is very advisable. Because it captures the mentality of the slaveholders which is today alive and kicking in the U.S. pro-British tendency.

Behind this unipolar world outlook, is, in reality, the mentality of plantation owners and slaveholders in the modern form. Granted, the CEOs of too-big-to-fail banks and the EU bureaucrats probably don’t have the perverse lust which is portrayed in this movie, where you can really say that the sadism and absolutely disgusting mentality goes to the borders of what human beings should be able to do. But nevertheless, they are the masterminds, behind the desks; they are the perpetrators at the desks; they speculate with CO2 certificates, and they couldn’t care less about the consequences of their policies. As long as they have profit, what happens to the people as a result, leaves them completely indifferent.

This brings us back to Mr. Attenborough, who said that we human beings are the plague on the Earth, and that we have to fight the explosion in human numbers. He is associated with the so-called Optimum Population Trust (now called Population Matters), which basically says that the present number of people on the planet, has to be reduced before the end of the century to half—that would be 3.5 billion. One in every two people? You have to take it very personally.

Friedrich Schiller, in the very beautiful essay “The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon,” portrayed Sparta as the oligarchical model, in which he said that the oligarchical model permits the elimination of the so-called helots. They can be killed off if there are too many. Bertrand Russell, in his book The Impact of Science on Society, wrote:

Bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true, unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars… War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect… but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially of other people.

In his Prospects of Industrial Civilization, Russell wrote:

The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence… Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.

With that mindset, a splendid little war—as the British always used to call it—seems to be just the right thing, even a splendid little nuclear war. It may be disgusting, but necessary.

The Promise of the Silk Road

Now, fortunately, there is an alternative.

Since about two years ago, when President Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road and the maritime Silk Road, and especially since the Fortaleza Summit in July 2014, there has been a completely different economic system. The BRICS have made among themselves an enormous number of deals: areas of cooperation, involving infrastructure, science and technology, nuclear energy, space development, worth several trillions of euros, dollars, and so forth.

From the standpoint of European habits of the last couple of years, these countries have done so with an unbelievable speed, and other organizations have coalesced around the BRICS. All of Latin America, most of ASEAN, parts of Africa, and even Europe. With Chinese help, they are now building a second Panama Canal in Nicaragua. The Chinese are planning to build a trans-continental railway between Brazil and Peru. This plan was concluded at the recent visit of Prime Minister Li Keqiang in Latin America. And they are also building four tunnels between Chile and Argentina, all with direct Chinese investment.

But beyond that, the BRICS have created a completely parallel financial system: the New Development Bank, with initial capital of $100 billion; the Currency Reserve Arrangement, which is a pool to defend participating countries against speculation; the AIIB, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, where, contrary to the wishes of the Obama Administration, 58 nations rushed to be founding members, including France, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has a new bank; so does SAARC, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. There is a New Silk Road development fund, and a Maritime Silk Road Fund. And they all have the explicit aim of filling the vacuum that has been left by the IMF and the World Bank, who only spend $60 billion a year for infrastructure investment, and therefore, these banks have now engaged in an effort to invest in huge infrastructure development programs all over the developing sector.

Now the main impetus of this clearly came from the Chinese President Xi Jinping, but there is also an extremely strong strategic partnership between Russia and China. The New Silk Road, and “One Road, One Belt” policy has, in the recent period, completely integrated with the Eurasian Economic Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. There is an extremely close strategic cooperation between Russia and India, and at a recent visit of President Putin to India, President Modi said that India and Russia are united by the strongest strategic partnership in respect to security in the past, and it will be like that for the indefinite future.

Also, between India and China, the strategic partnership has been strengthened, and territorial and other conflicts have been put on ice. At the visit of Li Keqiang to Brazil, a couple of weeks ago, he was able to completely reverse a strategic attack on Brazil by Wall Street, and stop the destabilization efforts against Dilma Rousseff.

So, there is right now emerging, a completely different model of relations among nations, based on completely different principles. Not so completely different, because they used to be the property of the United Nations, before this imperial policy took over. Like non-interference, respect for the different social models, mutual economic benefit, a “win-win” policy.

Obviously this new model of economy has an enormous attractiveness, and it has led to an eruption of optimism. Projects which have been on the shelf in many countries, have been taken off and are now being realized.

The Chinese economic miracle has become contagious. China, since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, and especially in the last 30 years, has developed at breathtaking speed, and was able to do what the industrialized nations needed 150 to 200 years to do. China, contrary to the coverage in the Western media, has the best human rights record in the world, because they have transformed 800 million people from extreme poverty, into a very decent living standard. And what is a greater human rights violation than poverty?

Now, with the New Silk Road, China is also intending to upgrade the not-yet-developed parts in its interior region, and upgrade the living standard of the rural population. It has announced that it wants to double the GDP from 2010 to 2020. Now that is a remarkable goal, and it is believable if you look at what happened in the last 30 years.

The Realization of Our Vision

Figure 2

The Eurasian Land-Bridge was the idea of having a higher order of reason, where historic conflicts, tensions, ethnic tensions, and so forth—wounds of the battles of the past—would be overcome because there would be a mutual benefit for everybody to participate in this program. It was really, even if we didn’t call it that, a “win-win” policy.

Now, naturally, it did not get realized, because of the reason I just said—the Project for a New American Century, the efforts by Bush Sr., Margaret Thatcher, and Mitterrand, to force Germany at the time of the German unification, to give up the D-mark for the euro. And the Maastricht Treaty. But, up to ’89, it was the so-called best-kept secret of NATO that Germany was still an occupied country,—and the Maastricht Treaty would insure that Germany would remain an occupied country, by containment, by putting Germany into the straitjacket of the Stability Pact, the debt brake,—and it was clear to us that the euro could not function, because it was not designed to be an economic program. It was a geopolitical attack on Germany.

At that time, we conducted hundreds of conferences and seminars on five continents, and in ’96, at a conference in Beijing on the Eurasian Land-Bridge, that program was de facto put on the agenda by the Chinese government to be the strategic perspective for the year 2010. And naturally that got interrupted by the Asia crisis in ’97, and the Russian state bankruptcy in ’98.

Therefore, we were overjoyed, but not fundamentally surprised, when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road.

Now, for about two years, the mainstream media has completely ignored the fact that a parallel economic system is developing, or they slandered it by giving Putin a bad name, or Xi Jinping. But for the last four weeks, you have a flood of articles. As in Time magazine: “New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever;” “Great Infrastructure Projects in History—This is a great game over the control of Eurasia, It could lead to a New Cold War. The outcome is uncertain.”

Deutschlandfunk also has had coverage of the New Silk Road.

Most of these articles are all of a sudden saying, there is a completely new system, but you know, it is still really geopolitics. And they completely miss the point that this is explicitly a way to overcome geopolitics by inviting everybody in the whole world to participate.

They also say, China must have a secret agenda. They want to take over the world. They want to replace American imperialism with Chinese imperialism, and it is very clear that the journalists and politicians of the trans-Atlantic region, have an extremely hard time imagining that there could be governments which are devoted to the common good. Because you have not had such governments for such a long time, that it’s almost a distant memory. It reminds me of Hegel’s words, when he wrote that if a world-historical individual has a valet (a butler), that the valet, who sees the world-historical individual always in only his underwear, cannot imagine that he’s a world-historical individual. But he says, this is not because the world-historical individual is not a world-historical individual, but because the valet is a valet.

Now, the key to understanding the real motives of China is Confucius.

From Confucius to Schiller: The Beautiful Soul

Confucius has, along with Mencius, influenced Chinese philosophy, actually the Chinese state philosophy, for about 2,500 years. That philosophy has an image of man that man is good by nature. The key notions of the Chinese philosophy are ren, which is the idea corresponding to agapē—love, charity in the Christian tradition; and the idea of li, meaning principle, which is the idea that if each person and each thing develops in the best possible way, you have harmony in society. This corresponds to the idea of Nicolas of Cusa, that if each microcosm develops in the best way, you have concordance in the macrocosm; or the idea of the monad of Leibniz, that if each develops his fullest potential, you have harmony.

Now, the idea of harmony is very central to Confucian philosophy. It is not an aesthetic relationship, but a contrapuntal development of mutual forward development: If all microcosms develop in the optimal way, you have harmony in the macrocosm.

There’s also the idea that there is such a thing as the Mandate of Heaven: that there must be harmony between nature and man, and this comes originally from the idea of God’s will of the Western Zhou dynasty, from 1046-771 B.C., which said that there must be harmony between the heavens and man, and that they are closely related.

This concept, by the way, exists in all great religions and philosophies: You have the same idea of cosmology in India, coming from the Hindu tradition. You have it in the form of natural law in the European tradition. And it is really what we have to come to as humanity, if we are to overcome the present level of thinking.

Harmony without uniformity is what Confucius writes about in his Analects. Unity in diversity is the idea as expressed by Nicolas of Cusa. In the Book of Rites, which is the preface to the Great Learning of Confucius,—it’s attributed to him,—he says:

The ancients, wishing that all men under Heaven keep their inborn luminous virtue unobscured, first had to govern the nation well; wishing to govern the nation well, they first established harmony in their household; wishing to establish harmony within their households, they first cultivated themselves; wishing to cultivate themselves, they first set their minds in the right; wishing to set their minds in the right, they first developed sincerity of thought; wishing to have sincerity of thought, they first extended their knowledge to the utmost. The extension of knowledge to the utmost lies in fully apprehending the principle of things.

Now, harmony in society and among nations is based on an understanding of the principles of things. This is the same idea Friedrich Schiller has in the Aesthetical Letters, that only scientists and Classical artists understand the truth. Xi Jinping, in his book Governance of China, which is a collection of 71 of his speeches, 2013-14, reflects this Confucian spirit. He quotes an ancient Chinese saying:

Learning is the bow, while competence is the arrow. You should regard learning as the top priority, a responsibility, a moral support and a lifestyle. You should establish a conviction that dreams start from learning.

Xi said:

This is what Confucius meant when he said ‘if you can in one day renovate yourself, do so from day to day.’ Yes, let there be daily renovation. Life never favors those who follow the beaten track, and are satisfied with the status quo, and it never waits for the unambitious and those who sit idle and enjoy the fruits of others’ work.

This is what Lyndon LaRouche says to us every day: that we cannot do today what we did yesterday, and that each day we have to be creative and innovative. Xi Jinping quotes Victor Hugo, who said, “Things created are insignificant, when compared with things to be created.”

China has been able to progress step by step over centuries, thanks to the tenacity of generations, one after another, and to the nation’s spirit of constant self-improvement through hard work. “Innovation-based economy” is what China is aiming at and already realizing: not to have “Made in China,” but “Created in China.” Xi Jinping has demanded breakthroughs in basic scientific fields such as the structure of matter, the evolution of the universe, the origin of life, and the nature of consciousness.

Where does the new road lie? It lies in scientific and technological innovation, the acceleration of innovation-driven growth, and he also said that they are proud to have the most scientists and engineers in the world.

But I was most impressed when I found this quote by Xi Jinping:

Like the spring drizzle falling without a sound, we should disseminate the core socialist values in a gentle and lively way, by making use of all kinds of cultural forms. We should inform the people by means of fine literary works, and artistic images: What is the true, the good, and the beautiful? What is the false, the evil, and the ugly? And what should be praised and encouraged, and what should be opposed and repudiated?

I wish we would have politicians in Europe and in the United States who call for the “implementation of the true, the good, and the beautiful.” Because the idea, that there is a coherence between those—the true, the good, and the beautiful—was the idea of the ancient Greek Classics; that there is a knowable truth; that man is good; that when he is a truth-seeking individual, what he then discovers is beauty, as well as that the process of discovery is beautiful. The idea of “the true, the good, and the beautiful,” is the essence of the German Classical period, and Friedrich Schiller said, “Art is only art if it is beautiful, because only then does it elevate the human soul.”

Now, by that definition, most of what is being produced today, does not qualify as art, because it’s not beautiful. Because the idea of beauty is an idea derived from reason, not from sensuous experience. Schiller is emphatic on that: that you do not define beauty by your opinion, your likings, but that there is an idea of beauty associated with reason, although at the same time, it appeals to the senses; and that through aesthetical education, beauty becomes the synonym for the happy reconciliation between reason and sensuousness: That in beauty, things harmonize.

For Friedrich Schiller, the highest idea of man was the beautiful soul for whom freedom and necessity, passion and duty, are one. But also, the analogy between beauty and freedom is pretty obvious, because both are not determined from the outside, but from the inside. The greatest idea of self-determination reflects itself from certain characteristics of nature, and that we call “beauty.”

But beauty is also, according to Schiller, a necessary condition of mankind. The state is merely the means; the goal is humanity alone. The ideal of the state presumes, therefore, the ideal of mankind, and the idea of mankind is based on the laws of the beautiful. Schiller in 1789 writes to his friend Körner:

What is the life of man if you take away what art gives to him? An eternally discovered sight of destruction. Because if you take out of our life what serves beauty, the only thing remaining is need, and what is need, other than protection against the always-threatening demise?

Schiller, with that, most convincingly argues against the state whose only purpose is the maintenance of power, which is what the state is today! The politicians have no interest in beauty or the perfection of their people, but in keeping their job, in keeping their position. But only when the beautiful has become the purpose of the life of the people and nations, rather than the necessity of organizing everything for protection against permanently-threatening doom, do you have humanity. The condition of the West, especially in the United States after September 11 should really looked be at from the standpoint of the soon-to-be-published 28 pages, revealing who really financed the terrorist attack; and the DIA documents pertaining to what really happened in the Benghazi attack. But the war against terrorism has become a hydra, where life has become quite miserable by being reduced to only protecting people against the threat of terrorism.

Therefore, this new model of cooperation among nations is not a utopia, but a vision of the future. The closest thinker in the European philosophical tradition to Confucius, Nicolas of Cusa, created an epochal new philosophical approach, which really separated the Middle Ages from modern times: He said the principle bringing about order and wholeness, the idea of concordance, of a universal concordance in the universe, is that harmony is not an aesthetic thing, but that in a contrapuntal way, the different microcosms must develop each other to the fullest, to the benefit of the other—the “win-win” idea; also the principle of the Peace of Westphalia.

Why is it that some people can see and believe in this vision, and others cannot? It’s an epistemological problem. Cusa makes the distinction between ratio, what Lyndon LaRouche calls “practical people,” and the intellect and reason. On the level of the ratio, the understanding, you have the level of Aristotelian contradictions of what we perceive with the senses. The intellect, however, reason, transcends the ratio; the intellect is situated as an indestructible prescience; it is our eye for the search for truth. If we didn’t have that, we would not even start the search, or even if we found something, we wouldn’t know if that were what we sought. The intellect is an intuitive insight, which allows us to see the coherences and conceptions of causal relations, of connectivities. It is a new method of thinking, completely different from the discursive way of thinking. The Aristotelian practical man, according to Nicolas of Cusa, is like a horse tied to a feeding trough, who only eats what is put in the trough.

If you are on the level of the intellect, you have to free yourself from established opinions to be open for new thinking. And one has to break free from the trough. “You can’t do anything anyway,” that is what most Europeans say when you talk to them about that. But it’s not true! Why should Europe go along with a policy like the U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe, which only makes Europe the target of its own extinction? Why should we get drawn into another war based on lies? The lies of those around the Ukraine crisis?

Figure 3

We have to do what Prime Minister Modi of India said: we have to build 100 new “smart cities,” which we called for many years ago, “Cusanus Cities,” although it would take too long to discuss this now. We have to build up southern Europe, the Middle East, Africa; we have to overcome hunger; we have to create a world which is livable for every human being. We have to create a new paradigm based on the common aims of mankind.

We have to consciously initiate the next phase of the evolution of the human species, and agree on joint space exploration. All the BRICS countries are space-travelling nations, and Europe and the United States have to accelerate their efforts to cooperate on that. We have to take the view of the astronauts, cosmonauts, and taikonauts, who, when they look at the blue planet from outer space, always say, “there are no borders,” and they realize how small our planet is, in a very large Solar System, and even larger Galaxy, in the middle of billions of galaxies.

And if we want to exist in 100 years, in 1,000 years, in 100 million years from now, we should prove that those geophysicists who say that mankind only arrived one second before 12, and will disappear one second after 12, are wrong: That mankind, so far, is the only creative species we know.

Vladimir Vernadsky said that the nösphere will gain more and more dominance over the biosphere because the human creative process will become more important in the universe, and that is what we have to focus on. Because the future of mankind is one where the identity of each individual as a genius will become the rule. Each man becoming a genius in the future: But for that to arrive, beauty is a necessary condition of mankind.

Prof. Shi Ze

Senior Research Fellow and Director of International Strategic Studies on Energy at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), a think tank of the Foreign Ministry, Beijing

First, I would like to congratulate the organizers of this conference. I would also like to thank the Schiller Institute for inviting Chinese representatives. The development of the BRICS is attracting more and more attention, and that especially since the economic crisis hit. I think that can be seen in two ways.

First, the role of the BRICS on the economic, social and political levels is growing. On the other hand, the development relations between the BRICS countries and developed countries is decreasing. And we see that with Brazil, India, Russia and even China. That means that the relation between the BRICS and developed countries is getting weaker. That is an issue to reflect upon.

We now have a big chance, especially economically, and that is financial support. The conditions are increasingly favorable. Compared to a few years ago, we have a growing capacity for investment.

China, as a developing country, and as a member of the BRICS, can play a very important role in fostering the development of other countries. So can India and Russia. Their role in the development of the BRICS continues to grow.

The upcoming summit of the BRICS in Ufa, Russia, will be a crucial moment for their development. We are expecting new measures, in particular, on the economic front, and in investments, culture and cooperation among youth. Personally, I am very much looking forward to the next BRICS summit.

My speech today is concerned mainly with China, and with the “One Road, One Belt” plan. This is a new idea. It’s a new thought. That is the contents of my presentation.

I have presented it in three points. First, why we launched this project of “One Road, One Belt”. After launching this project on March 26 of this year, on the Island of Hainan, our leaders published a dossier titled Perspective and Action on One Road, One Belt.

This is not only a new thought, it is also a real, palpable program. And it corresponds to the current situation. It is beneficial for the countries that participate in the project and for the countries bordering them.

Internationally, the project has attracted a lot of attention. Certain media and personalities believe that is only important for the development of China both socially and economically. That is true, but they fail to notice that it is extremely important for the world as well, and in particular for the Eurasian continent.

First part

When introducing the magnificent concept of the “One Belt One Road”‘, Chinese leaders already drew the attention of the international community.

The majority of the international community reacted very positively. But certain observers saw in this concept of One Belt, One Road the strategic importance of China’s economic and social development, and its diplomacy.

It appeared that China was only proposing this idea of “One Belt, One Road” in the perspective of its own development, and not as an important occasion and potential to bring growth and development to all the regions of the zone, and even worldwide.

Whoever thinks that the project of “One Belt, One Road” is only meant for the development of China, is misinterpreting the deep meaning of its strategic objective.

Many foreign media interpreted this concept as a “Marshall plan’’ in a Chinese version and a challenge to the international order of the US”. This is an even more biased interpretation.

So why did China propose this ambitious concept of “One Belt, One Road”?

First of all, I would like to analyze, starting from the standpoint of a balanced development, why China’s promotion of the “One Belt, One Road” is able to promote joint development of the countries along the road?

Concerning how to define a balanced development of the countries along the route, three different levels can be distinguished:

First, in light of the level of development of inland China, the project contributes to a balanced development between western and eastern China, because there is now an imbalance in the development of the east and the west.

As for China’s topography, everyone knows that the west is high and the east is low, the west is a plateau and the east is a plain.

However, in terms of economic development, it’s just the opposite. The east is on top and the west on the bottom. That is to say that in the east, including in the coastal region, economic development is stronger, while in the west, it is weaker. Economic development in the mountains and in the countryside is relatively backward.

You might say that it is the opposite of the topography.

According to the data recently published by the National Statistics Office, the GDP of China is 6,800 US dollars per inhabitant. While the GDP per inhabitant of the Xinjiang autonomous region on the western border is 6,200 US dollars, the GDP in the Delta of the Pearl River has been greater than 10.000 US dollars for several years now and in certain zones, it is close to 20.000 dollars. That is an enormous difference.

The second level concerns the unbalanced development between China and the countries to the east and to the west of its periphery.

In 2014, the volume of our trade with Japan reached 310 billion US dollars ; with the ASEAN countries, the volume was 480 billions US dollars ; and with South Korea, it reached 290 billion.

If you add up all three, Japan, South Korea and the ASEAN countries, the total trade volume was 1 trillion US dollars. On the other hand, what is the situation of imports and exports with the West?

In 2014, the trade volume between China and the five Central Asian countries was about 40 billion US dollars; with India, about 70 billion US dollars, and trade with Russia was not greater than 100 billion dollars.

The Russian Federation and India are among the biggest countries in the world. Together with Central Asia, the total trade between China and these countries was not even greater than the amount of trade between China and South Korea, which amounted to 240 billion US dollars. That is why we launched the concept of “One Belt, One Road”, a strategic vision oriented toward the west of China and toward the great Eurasian region, so that the development of these regions to the west could become as dynamic as in the eastern regions.

We know that the west of China is rich in resources. The region concentrates a wealth of resources. And the neighbors of the western region of China just as the Central Asian countries, Russia and those of western Asia are rich in resources, for example, in oil, natural gas and non ferrous metals. These are the countries in the world with many reserves.

Currently, China’s sustainable development is faced with a bottleneck, which is the lack of resources. Oil imports last year were 310 millions tonnes. 310 millions tons is a very large figure. It represents 58% to 59% of the total consumption of our country, nearly 60%. So it is obvious that China is dependent on foreign countries for its energy.

Therefore, China needs to cooperate for energy and resources with the countries along the road, not only to improve and develop their economies but also for the sustainable development needs of China itself.

Cooperation in energy and resources is not only in the interest of the development of the countries along the road, but is also advantageous for the development of China. The purpose is to serve the interests of the two parties.

The third level is to contribute to the development of all of the Eurasian continent. This will allow creation of a new locomotive of world-wide economic growth.

The Eurasian continent is a vast territory. The eastern part is the Asia-Pacific economic center, which has a flourishing economy. Western Europe,adjacent to Eurasia, is a prosperous economic space.

In contrast, the vast central zone is developing slowly, far behind the two extremities of the continent. The image of this situation is that of a barbell. Big at two extremities, with a narrow strip for the part in between. But it is contains many seeds and offers an enormous potential.

In other words, the two extremities of Eurasia experience rapid development and the central regions have lagged behind for a long time now.

If development of “One Belt, One Road” makes headway, it can build an immense new economic zone, in terms of population, total economy and development potential. None of the current two economic zones can be compared to this zone, which can create a structure which favors the development of all of Eurasia, going through the east, the center and the west of the region.

Acceleration of the development of the Eurasian continent will be an important locomotive for growth of the world economy. It will play an important role in balancing development, to stimulate the world economy.

Second part

China proposed this idea in circumstances in which it faces a great challenge, which greatly stimulated its inspiration and its creativity. The starting point is the development of China and, at the same time, the promotion of development and progress in the world as a whole.

What does the “One Belt, One Road” project bring to the world? In my opinion, there are the following points:

First, it will continue to promote the process of globalization. Over the past decades, the impetus of globalization accelerated the rapid integration of politics, the economy and culture.

The rapid development of globalization changed the political structure of the world economy. The role of states and of emerging economies in particular must not be ignored in the world economy.

Nevertheless, the financial crisis which began in the United States raised doubts in many countries. They no longer see in globalization just a plus for their own development, but also a source of many problems.

Some countries have even begun reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of globalization. Ideas and actions have even been raised against globalization. Problems are perceptible with regard to trade issues, where the developed countries toughened the trade standards for the emerging economies. Some even waved the banner of protectionism during the multilateral trade negotiations of the WTO.

Likewise, a new phenomenon in the world economy is the decoupling and the tendency to differentiate between emerging countries and developed countries. Economic growth in developed countries no longer reaches the level it used to have in the past, when it pulled along the growth of the emerging economies.

In that context, Président XI Jinping proposed the “One Belt, One Road” project to promote globalization. He stressed that China, under the impact of globalization, was not seeking self-preservation, but wanted ties to be forged among countries with their history and their culture.

“One Belt, One Road”, by bringing together over 60 countries and substantially strengthening the bases of communication as well as economic and trade cooperation among them, will give a powerful thrust to globalization.

Secondly, it concerns the creation of new locomotives for world economic growth. Europe is an example in this respect.

For hundreds of years, Europe was at war. Twice, Europe caused world wars which had a devastating effect on it. After the idea of the European Union, visionary European statesmen proposed a plan for creation of the euro and the Eurozone.

The birth of the euro in 1999 was a major event in the political and economic world.

Launching the euro allowed for stabilizing prices, accelerating the flow of capital and promoting economic development in the Eurozone.

Since the euro was adopted in international trade, companies no longer have to handle ten currencies, but only one, which makes it possible to greatly reduce fluctuations in the cost of transactions and exchange rates. The euro contributed greatly to the development of international trade.

It brought many advantages to the Eurozone countries. And a stable, prosperous Europe is vital for maintaining peace in the world.

At one of the extremities of the “One Belt, One Road” is the Asia-Pacific economic circle, at the other is the developed European economic space and in between, are countries with rich seeds, all of which has a tremendous potential.

If development of “One Belt, One Road” progresses, it can build an immense new economic zone, in terms of population, total economy and development potential. None of the current two economic zones can be compared to this economic zone. It will be an important locomotive of worldwide economic growth.

“One Belt, One Road” will contribute rapid growth to the construction of the world economy, as development is the solution of the problem of poverty. It is only sustainable development which will be the most efficient means to solve, finally, the problem of poverty and improve the living standards of the population.

Thirdly, it will release the positive energy of different civilizations and develop tolerance. All along the route of “One Belt, One Road”, given the complexity of the religions of each ethnic group, we have to maintain open-mindedness and tolerance conducive to resolving the above-mentioned problems.

Chinese culture is characterized by great tolerance. The influence of culture is fundamental. The tolerance of Chinese culture has been crucial in the logic of China’s action in the international community.

Chinese culture as inspired by « Confucius » requires “cultivating oneself and then helping others”. That means we should first do good for ourselves and then we are capable of interacting with others. The influence of Chinese political philosophy and culture is the principal and fundamental key of China: reflection inward and tolerance outwards.

This philosophy is very different from others in the world, in particular from western philosophy. Cultures on the world scale are different, but there is no difference in determining good from evil. The diversity in cultures only underlines the richness of humanity. The building of “One Belt, One Road” means learning from each other, practicing mutual tolerance and not pursuing a path toward conflict. These are the products and the capabilities which China hopes to contribute to the world.

Fourthly: help strengthen peace and security in the world. The experience of Europe and other countries shows that close cooperation of economic policies brings lasting peace and security.

The interests of the countries along the “One Belt, One Road” are intricate and complex. The terrain of traditional and non traditional security threats is very serious and it is a fundamental consideration for implementation of the “One Belt, One Road” project.

Setting up a sustainable regional security mechanism is indispensable for building “One Belt, One Road”. But the most urgent is the development of close economic cooperation among the countries along the Belt.

Economic integration in itself is an important basis for maintaining security.

President XI Jinping proposed a new security concept during the meeting of the CICA (Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building in Asia), underlining the need for common security, collaborative security, collective security and sustainable security. This concept could become an important consensus in the launching of the “One Belt, One Road”.

“One Belt and One Road” cannot be built without a common, collaborative, collective and sustainable security mechanism; it cannot be built without taking consideration to the security concerns of the major powers, and it must provide security along the sea and land corridors of the Belt and Road to protect the production, contributing by this to the future security of the entire world .

Third Part

What are the innovations in the “One Belt, One Road” proposed by China?

First, it differs, in terms of diplomatic philosophy, from the policy introduced at the beginning of the reform and opening, namely the notion of “borrowing external resources” in the service of economic reconstruction, but it also show that the vision of China’s strategy is not narrow nationalism, as some media claim, but has become a form of cosmopolitan thinking.

It is a combination of the development and the capabilities achieved with the reform and opening up to the international system for the past 30 years, and transmitting this back into the outside world, shaping thus a cycle of interactive two-directional development.

This shows that China has really begun to construct a kind of system of “justice and benefit’’ contributing to the common development of all the countries of the world, including neighbor countries, to share the dividends of China’s development.

This practice will become a plus in the interest of these countries. Because it means that China, which is continuing to develop, wants to actively build an international perspective on the basis of the rules in forces. It is also in this way that China and outside countries will end up in a kind of polymerization reaction, via the “economic zone of the silk road”.

Secondly, during the construction of the “One Belt, One Road”, China has made the political commitment to continue pursuing openness, equality and sharing. China’s main concern is to form a kind of cultural cooperation with the countries located along the region in spite of the large differences in terms of politics, ideologies and economic models.

One could say it is a distillation of the “Shanghai spirit”, which encompasses “mutual confidence, mutual advantage, equality, consultation, respect of cultural diversity and the search for joint development”.

It is the reflection of the new geopolitical and geo-economical reality of Eurasia in the post Cold War period. Its objective is to build and concretize lasting peace in the region, to provide a dynamic mechanism for harmonious development and common prosperity.

That means that all parties are called upon to participate in the cooperation among the stakeholders and to maintain partnership relations, and that any overly egoistical behavior, even if it is not aggressive, will affect the enthusiasm of the partners in cooperation.

In this framework, China’s orientation with other countries through a process of mutual cooperation in interests and policy, could stimulate the possibilities of cooperation.

Thirdly, when the obligations and responsibility of China in regional affairs is underscored, that does not mean that China would like to try and dominate them, or even monopolize them, and transforming it into some kind of geopolitical projects.

Chinese President Xi Jinping also underscored, in his last trip to Central Asia last year, that the essential rule is that China “does not seek hegemony in regional affairs, nor does it seek to manage a sphere of influence”.

Although this initiative is focused on ideas for building cooperation among certain countries in the region, China also wishes to maintain coordination mechanisms with other regions and on the international level.

China’s initiative to enhance the development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian Economic Community, in particular the signing by Chinese and Russia leaders in May of this year of the Joint Declaration of the “Silk Road Economic Belt” and the “Eurasian Economic Union” is proof of the rapprochement underway.

The initiative of “The Silk Road Economic Belt” is certainly not an absolutely reciprocally beneficial exchange mechanism..

Rather it expresses China’s wish to provide the basis of its capabilities and other factors more public goods. It wants to share joint development opportunities with the countries located along the region, promoting mutual development and then to propose a community of interest along the Belt and to preserve and to promote the existence and continued development of that community of interest.

Leonid Kadyshev

Minister Councillor of the Russian Embassy in France.

I don’t want to reduce my speech exclusively to the relationship between the BRICS and “The New Silk Road” project. First of all, because this project has many dimensions, including, among others, great opportunities for cooperation with the Eurasian Union, of which Russia’s membership is also very important. Secondly, it is crucial that there be an understanding that the significance and the creative vocation of the BRICS, as a new kind of grouping, isn’t reduced to a mere number of selected projects—its scope is much larger.

BRICS in the World System

First of all, I would like to address the role of the BRICS in the international system as seen from Moscow. Today, the BRICS are asserting themselves as an influential participant in the world system of governance. At the same time, the BRICS is a young interstate association which, from a Russian point of view, reflects the great trends of our time. It additionally possesses a number of innovating qualities.

The emergence of this group was the natural outcome of the dynamic development of the processes of globalization, of the scattering of global world power and of the strengthening of new poles of growth and political influence, in parallel with the strengthening of the interdependency of the countries located on different continents.

The cooperation among the “Five” reflects the shared need for establishing a solid partnership between the different cultures and civilizations as the basis for the formation of an international polycentric system. The fact that the phenomenon of the BRICS corresponds to this objective vector of world development, makes this formation attractive, dynamic and future-oriented. It is vital that this group is not tied up in the straitjacket of hierarchy nor the rigid discipline typical of politico-military blocks or coalitions. The BRICS are a symbol of the multi-polar world in the making. It is obvious that, for this reason, the attitude of the West towards the BRICS,—I will make an understatement,—is cautious. The West, used to controlling numerous processes of the world economy, cannot accept the fact that there exist free alternatives.

Cooperation within the BRICS, in our opinion, constitutes an example of the way in which multilateral partnership must be built in the Twenty-First Century. Nobody exerts domination inside this group, there is no submission, and we work on the basis of a true equality and mutual respect. This cooperation is not directed against non-member countries,—on the contrary, we share a positive agenda which consists, above all, in creating additional sources of development and in bolstering the well-being of our populations, which is inextricably related to the objectives of the maintenance of viable international stability.

Therefore, all those who try to accuse the BRICS of being conflict-oriented, are wrong. This isn’t at all its true nature.

The defense of the principles of democracy and of justice in international relations, is a key aspect in all the activities of the BRICS. It is one of the main centers of policy formulation, offering balanced positions in the interest of solving the most pressing international problems. In this context, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the voices of solidarity with the BRICS, calling for an in-depth collaborative effort for peaceful conflict resolution as backed by the UN Charter, without double standards, and without any unilateral military intervention or the use of the “big stick” of sanctions. The defense of the indivisible character of security, and the refusal to admit that it is possible to bolster one’s own security to the detriment of that of others,—consolidate the potential of the BRICS to develop long-term solutions to regional crises. This role of the BRICS cannot but grow.

The common approach to guaranteeing that the creation of the new multi-polar system be based on reason, truth and the partnership of civilizations, allows the BRICS to serve as a sort of lighthouse in the turbulent sea of world politics. Another proof of the growing authority of the BRICS is the success of the summits in the “outreach” format, with the participation of the countries belonging to the host country’s region. The Russian city of Ufa is preparing to host the next gathering of this type, to which our Eurasian partners are invited.

The coming Russian Presidency

As underlined by Russian Head of State Mr. Vladimir Putin, the Russian presidency will place greater emphasis on the most efficient use of the capacities of the BRICS to strengthen security and stability in the world.

Each BRICS summit is a milestone, a step in the development of this young association. During the Fortaleza summit (15-16 July, 2014), documents were signed for the creation of a New Development Bank (NDB) as well as the founding charter of the BRICS. In Ufa, the Russian presidency is aiming for substantial progress in several areas. It hopes to bring the cooperation of the BRICS to a new strategic level. In the economic field, we are counting on the kick-off of the New Development Bank launched on the eve of the summit, and on the creation of the pool of currency reserves—which requires the completion of the ratification process by all the Member States. The Russian side is hopeful that that will happen, since the ratification process is going very well in all the participating countries.

On top of that, we expect the strategy of the BRICS’ economic partnership to be adopted at the summit. It will be a progress document for the pursuit of the development of our cooperation in the pivotal domain,— the economy. Immediately after the adoption of this strategy, we plan to start elaborating a roadmap for cooperation in the field of investments. This document has the purpose of fleshing out this cooperation with interesting and well-detailed joint projects. Another major aspect in the economic field: it is planned that new axes of cooperation will be opened: mining, energy, communications and a number of other areas. We count on cooperation to facilitate the conduct of business: this includes tax policy, simplification of formalities, etc. Significant will be the events prior to the Ufa summit. First of all, one should note that on June 8 of this year, the parliamentary forum of the BRICS met for the first time. The parliamentary dimension will enable the reinforcement of the basis of cooperation among members. Another important element of the Russian presidency, which will enrich the spectrum of the summit—is the Youth Summit, which will be held in Kazan in June. This is also a new phenomenon in the development of the BRICS. The summit will enable us to bring the BRICS closer to the young generation of our countries—we know that any organization has perspectives and a future if it is supported by young people. One should also note the cooperation in the field of culture—yet another new dimension. A cooperation agreement between the BRICS countries in the field of culture will be prepared for the summit.

BRICS and World Development

The question of the significance of the BRICS for the world economy must be given special attention. It is essential for our international partners to understand: the BRICS do not intend to go for a confrontation with anybody whatsoever—neither in politics nor in the domain of finance, nor of the economy. I want to underline once again the Russian vision of the BRICS—it is a proposal to the world of a fundamentally new model of cooperation. Of a model based on going beyond the old lines of division constituted by the confrontation of blocks or by the thinking that is behind it, according to the “East-West” or “North- South” axis.

The BRICS are open to cooperation with all States, independent of their geographic origin or political aspirations. At the same time, Russia is opposed to the creation of closed economic systems that keep the countries of the BRICS at a distance. For instance, the United States categorically refused to consider the question of the admission of China to the Pacific Partnership; the same attitude was displayed towards Russia. In those circumstances, Russia believes that the response of the BRICS should be to support the system of international trade founded on the rules of the WTO, by uniting our forces. The WTO is a kind of United Nations of world trade. If it starts breaking down, it will provoke a severe trade competition, and great antagonisms won’t be long to arise. Russia is against such a scenario, and therefore pronounces itself firmly for maintaining a unified system of rules, which is the foundation of the WTO.

In respect to economic cooperation within the BRICS, the Member States are realistic: we see what is happening in today’s world. Accordingly, there is a joint desire to facilitate the cooperation between our business communities to the maximum, in order to make use of the great opportunities opened by the complementary character of our economies. For example, the new bank of the BRICS, as well as the pool of currency reserves, will, among other things, help Russia as well as all the other countries of the BRICS, to counter the illicit and politicized pressure of the West. When the bank becomes operational, the work on the major infrastructure projects and investments in the format of the BRICS will follow a growth curve and bring tangible positive results.

The market of the BRICS accounts for three billion consumers—this is more than the potential market of the free trade zone of the Pacific and of the trans-Atlantic free trade zone. Otherwise, it is the most dynamic market in the world. The BRICS need to work to lift the obstacles to their joint trade, and do so on a balanced basis.

H.E. Ambassador H.H.S. Viswanathan

Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation. Coordinator of all activities connected with BRICS and IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa), New Delhi.

Evolution

It is well known that Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs, in a seminal paper in 2001 identified four countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China-BRIC) as the fastest growing large economies and hence the best investment destinations. But, over the last 14 years, the list of good investment destinations has come a long way. South Africa was included in 2011 thus bringing in a member of the great African continent. Today, BRICS represents 40% of the global area, 30% of the global population, 25% of the global GDP and 20% of global market capitalisation.

In the beginning, BRICS had three main agendas: Intra BRICS cooperation, reform of the global financial institutions, and addressing issues concerning global order and global governance. The achievements in all the three fronts have been impressive. There is a robust cooperation in areas of common interest like health, inclusive sustainable growth, gender issues, education, urbanisation, food and energy security, innovation and skills. Intra-BRICS trade has grown fifteen times in the period 2001-2011 and is expected to cross $250 billion this year. This is still a very small part of the true potential that exists. The five countries are exchanging information and learning from each other’s experiences and practices.

On the question of the reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs), namely the IMF and World Bank, a small beginning was made in the G-20 Seoul Summit in 2010. Further progress has been stalled by the US Congress.

The evolution of BRICS in the last fourteen years is best described as follows: it started as an aspirational group and in time became a consultation group. Slowly, it evolved into a negotiating group and is now trying to become an agenda-setting group.

BRICS is not only a Government-to-Government activity. New ideas of cooperation are generated in the supporting mechanisms like the BRICS Academic Forum, BRICS Think Tank Council, BRICS Business Council and BRICS civil society interactions.

The Glue that Binds BRICS

This is an oft-repeated question, particularly from those who are confused about the concept of BRICS. The confusion arises because of looking at this group in old paradigms. So far, the world has been used to groups based on geography (EU, ASEAN, SAARC, etc), ideology (OECD, COMECON), commodities (OPEC, Coffee club, iron ore exporters club etc), technologies (NSG, MTCR etc), ethnicity (Arab League), and religion (OIC). BRICS does not fall in any of these categories. Yet, there are some things common between the five countries; they all have played the game of globalisation according to the rules set by the developed countries and have made a success of it. They all have common problems of development and new ones due to globalisation, like unequal growth. They all believe in multilateralism and inclusiveness. They have common aspirations and a vision to have greater voice in global affairs, so that they can contribute positively to global peace, stability and development. Spread across five continents, the five countries are looking forward to building a geography-neutral global architecture. In the past 200 years, the biggest economies were the developed countries.

Also for 200 years, modernisation was the same as westernisation. With globalisation and the rise of emerging economies, this has changed. Yes, there are differences of view on some issues among the five BRICS countries. Which plurilateral group does not have such differences? You might recall that during the heydays of the OECD, there was intense competition between the US, Europe and Japan. Yet, they cooperated effectively on certain strategic issues. Why can’t BRICS do the same? This is precisely what they are attempting— to concentrate on the convergences and reduce the divergences.

BRICS and a New Global Order

What are the changes that BRICS would like to see in the global order? They certainly would not like to overthrow the entire system. Why would they destroy a system which has benefitted them to a great extent? But the fact remains that the global order needs reforms and changes. The post World War II order has become outdated with the emergence of new powers who feel that the existing order has certain biases and advantages in favour of the western developed countries hard-wired into the system. The world has changed and hence there is need to modify the order which should be and be seen to be fair and equitable. The reality is that the geo-economic clout of BRICS is not reflected in the geo-political arena.

As Ian Bremmer points out, “the world has entered a phase of geo-political creative destruction.” Both the post World War II and the post-Cold War orders have become irrelevant. Dmitri Trenin rightly says that “life expectancy of world orders varies, but like humans, they are mortal.” Many orders in history were changed as a result of wars and violent events. This time around, one hopes that it would be a peaceful process because globalisation has created so much inter-dependence that violent changes of orders are unthinkable.

BRICS would like to address some fundamental aspects of global order. These are recognised principles of values, norms, and rules. For these to be universally accepted, the only optimum route is through a healthy process of multilateralism. One hopes that through these processes, we can work towards a true multi-polar or polycentric world order.

Connected with the question of a new global order is the issue of burden-sharing by the emerging powers, which is often demanded by the status quo powers. Here, it is a question of the chicken and the egg. The argument of the status-quo powers is that the emerging powers should step forward and take on more burdens before demanding leadership-sharing. This, in fact, is the contradiction. The emerging powers have no intention in sharing burdens if it is to promote the existing order or the existing agenda. Why would they do that if it is going to perpetuate the current inequities in the system?

Legitimacy vs. Efficiency

Let me take the example of three global institutions which stand out as being totally anachronistic,—the IMF, the World Bank and the UNSC. The first two, generally referred to as the Bretton Woods Institutions, have outdated voting powers, decision-making procedures, and selection processes for the heads of the organisations. The combined vote share of BRICS in the IMF is eleven percent, even though they contribute to 25 percent of the global GDP in nominal terms and 32 percent in PPP terms. The collective share of BRICS in the World Bank is fourteen percent. Joseph Stiglitz brings out the deficiencies of the IMF and the World Bank in eloquent terms in his book “Globalisation and its Discontents.”

It is in this context that the bold initiatives of BRICS to create two new institutions, the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) attain significance. Here is an example of BRICS stepping forward for burden sharing. The NDB was a direct consequence of the decreasing availability of funds from the World Bank and other Multilateral Development Banks for infrastructure projects in the developing world. Similarly, the CRA is to address the short term liquidity and balance of payments difficulties of developing countries without the intrusive conditionalities of the IMF. Both these have been conceived as additional facilities to complement the World Bank and IMF, and not to supplant them.

Nonetheless, there is an important political message in the creation of NDB and CRA. They are financial institutions and will naturally work on economic principles to be successful; but, the fact remains that this is the first time in 200 years that a global institution has been created without the participation of the developed west. This, by itself, is significant. Many see this as a wakeup call for other out-dated global institutions. Some even argue that had the World Bank and IMF changed with changing circumstances, there may not have been the need for the NDB and CRA.

The other anachronistic global institution is the UNSC. Even if one grants the logic of UNSC soon after World War II, it is totally outdated in today’s reality. There is no question that it has to be made more inclusive with a greater role for the emerging powers.

This brings me to the question of legitimacy vs. efficiency. There is a specious argument given by some that for global bodies to be effective they have to be small. This argument goes against the principle of legitimacy which, along with efficiency, makes the two pillars. Efficiency without legitimacy will eventually lead to the unravelling of the organisation, and legitimacy without efficiency will make it ineffective. Ideally, as Langenhove says, “In all the global institutions there must be three balances, namely balance of power, balance of responsibilities and balance of representation.” Of all the global institutions existing today, G-20 seems to be the most legitimate in terms of participation. These 20 countries contribute 85 percent of the global GDP.

Options for BRICS?

In addressing global order and global institutions, BRICS has four options: 1) to conform, i.e., go along with those structures which are fairly equitable. 2) Reform, for example the efforts to bring changes in BWI’s, 3) Bypass, i.e., to ignore those norms which are loaded heavily against the developing world so long as this does not amount to violation of recognised international laws, and 4) Recreate; NDB and CRA are examples. Hopefully, there will be more in future.

Outsiders’ Perceptions

This is not relevant to intra-BRICS cooperation. But when it comes to the question of changing the global order and global governance, this becomes important because BRICS has to engage others in a constructive dialogue. Fortunately, many in the West see BRICS in a positive light. The sceptics, however, can be classified into three groups: the first group has curiosity; their question is “what is this new animal called BRICS?” the second group is suspicious; it is suspicious about the intentions of BRICS and how their initiatives will affect its interests. The third group expresses hostility; its argument is that since BRICS question some of the existing norms, it could be a dangerous grouping. It is the duty of BRICS countries to reach out to all the three groups and articulate their points of view.

For the sceptics, it would be useful to follow what Jacques Barzun once remarked, “To see ourselves as others see us in a rare and valuable gift, without a doubt. But in international relations what is still rarer and far more useful is to see others as they see themselves.”

West vs. the Rest

Whenever there is a discussion on the need for reforms on some aspects of global order, the discourse, unfortunately, is reduced to a “West vs. the Rest” argument. This does not have to be so. Enquiry should not be interpreted as confrontation. Many confuse lack of changes in an established order with stability. But orders collapse when active stakeholders feel excluded (Volker Perthes). If we are looking for an inclusive and fair order, everybody has to be part of it. In today’s world, the reality is that the West needs the rest. Therefore, it is high time that we get over the “Us vs. Them” syndrome.

Future of BRICS

As of now, it looks bright. But the main raison d’être of BRICS’s importance will be the economic performances of the five countries. Of late, they have slowed down by a few points. BRICS will have to register excellent growth rates for the world to keep an interest in the group.

BRICS would work in a practical, gradual and incremental manner. The five leaders are all agreed on this point. Hence, while it may not be prudent to write BRICS off, there is also no need to over-hype the group. Either of these can be avoided if one sees BRICS as it is—that is, as a work in progress and not as a finished product. The intra-BRICS cooperation is bound to intensify and also extend to new sectors. As they coordinate their positions on global issues, BRICS would be able to provide a valuable alternative narrative.