Стр. 8 - V

Электронное приложение к журналу «Международная жизнь»
Author : A. Klimov
Deputy Chairman, International Relations Committee, Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of
the Russian Federation; Doctor of Science (Economics)
UNTIL RECENTLY, many of those who speak and write about
BRICS on a professional level were in a bit of a dilemma. Yes, over
the past five years, the meetings of the heads of four (BRIC) and
then five states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)
seemed to be more like a political "club. Summit discussions were of
an increasingly comprehensive nature, gradually expanding the
agenda, but such facts in and of themselves did not as yet mean the
formalization of a new association or alliance.
Moreover, informed experts say that the BRICS countries have to
go much further before such an association (even with the common
will) can be created.
Yes, the countries of the informal alliance in question indeed have
plenty of common interests and similarities.
Furthermore, their economies are essentially complementary and in the process of development. How-
ever, even the emergence of de jure joint BRICS institutions does not eliminate the differences and
objective difficulties for their transformation into a full-fledged international association of states.
Thus, the existing trade and economic ties between the BRICS countries do not point to deep and
comprehensive cooperation between them. Perhaps the only exception in this regard is their bilateral
economic ties with China. Nor do the BRICS countries have multilateral, mutually beneficial wide-rang-
ing projects. Finally, on a whole number of sensitive issues on the international arena, we are in fact ri-
vals, or do not have similar positions.
Therefore, already at the current stage, the BRICS project requires constant and thorough parliamentary
support. In addition, the further expansion and deepening of cooperation between the "Global Group
of 5" can easily lead to the adoption of additional national laws, as well as the harmonization of separate
legislation provisions in its member countries.
With regard to the BRICS member countries, the "Soviet factor" is not in evidence, but there are other
constraints. Some of them were mentioned earlier. This list could be expanded with such factor as sig-
nificant financial costs.
Finally, frankly speaking, it is difficult to imagine in the short term a full-fledged agenda for such an in-
ternational body operating on a permanent basis. Interaction between the BRICS partners has not as
yet achieved a level that would call for - even in the foreseeable future - ongoing support from a supra-
national parliamentary body. I do not think that the BRICS member countries are in principle prepared
to approve the establishment of a full-fledged international legislature above them (similar to the Eu-
ropean Parliament).
In any event, the visible successes in the development of relations between the BRICS countries (which
is a source of serious concern for our traditional opponents, and a source of encouragement for our
friends) should be consolidated and strengthened not only at the top level (which is certainly very im-
portant and necessary) and the level of ministries and government agencies, but also in other formats,
which, with their effective use, can create "added value" for the common cause.
BRICS: More Than Just Summits