In this segment, Watch WION speaks to Mr. Jayadev Ranade, A China analyst over the India-China trade.

Exclusive: WION speaks to Mr. Jayadev Ranade, A China analyst over the India-China trade

Amid escalating trade war between Beijing and Washington, China's ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui has called for relaxation in trade hours and increase in number of business days along the Nathu La corridor, giving an impetus to Sino-Indian economic ties.

Chinese envoy suggests relaxation in biz hours to boost trade along Nathu La

The story of China starts with economies of scale offered by the country to the western industrial world so that they could outsource their manufacturing to China. With consequent exponential economic rise, came the conceit and hubris, particularly, in absence of political opposition, prompting the Chinese polity to nurture ambitions of acquiring a status of a world power.&nbsp;

While the Chinese are known for visualisation of their plans looking beyond hundreds of years, they apparently have set their eyes on world leadership role in the seemingly impractical short time span. The current Chinese leadership is obviously in hurry, prompting them to use the military to push their politico-economic agenda. As a result, they have disturbed the global geopolitical canvas, spreading negative political synergies all around.

A country like China, which is thriving on industrial production has a compulsion to seek and nurture the markets for her goods and services. In that, Chinese vulnerabilities lie in her geographical location on a distant flank with a limited communication network, energy inadequacy, and external political linkages to their manufacturing sector. Therefore, it essentially requires a secure and viable communication network for ease of logistics, cooperative approach to market competition, and mutual respect and accommodation to interests of other stakeholders. However, there is an apparent conceptual deficit as regards to all these parameters, when it comes to China.

China happens to be literally a landlocked entity with exception of the eastern flank, which opens to the high seas. Then there are a number of contentious political issues with her neighbours, primarily due to Chinese political manipulations and cultural hubris. As a result, China has to transit through circuitous and not so friendly Indo-Pacific region. Hence, they nurture deep-seated insecurities and apprehensions which have shaped Chinese political conduct. In that, they seem to have chosen to use selective coercive diplomacy and confrontationist attitude instead of cooperative accommodation to achieve their national objectives.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Such a political brinkmanship, however, have no place in current globalised corporate culture. Somewhere in their political psyche China continues to nurture a medieval mindset, which may turn out to be a probable cause of nemesis for their ambitions.

China has embarked upon BRI scheme to take care of their economic insecurities and increase their political influence world over. Chinese military overtures in the South China Sea and &ldquo;Strings of Pearls&rdquo; in the&nbsp;Indian Ocean are operative part of their expansionist strategy.&nbsp; China, in pursuit of their economic colonisation, intends investing in the improvement of logistics infrastructure as well as establish industrial and power corridors in impoverished countries of Chinese interests.&nbsp;

On the Western flank, the CPEC scheme seems to be running into rough weather due to Chinese insensitivity in trespassing Indian sovereignty and security situation in Af-Pak region which happens to be the most disturbed areas as on date. Geopolitical interests coupled with the physical presence of extra-regional powers in Afghanistan have further complicated the political situation which is unlikely to be resolved in near future. Within Pakistan also, there is a political dissent in face of Chinese hegemonic tendencies. Rebellious Baluchistan and Northern Areas add to the friction areas for smooth operation of the scheme.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On the Eastern flank, China has chosen to use military overtures in staking their claims over the South China Sea(SNS) based on unsubstantiated historical linkages. They have also refused to obey directives of international court on the law of seas at Hague. It has led to militarisation of the South China Sea with an occasional show of force and coercive military diplomacy. It surely has increased political opposition amongst the larger part of international community impinging on Chinese credibility as a responsible emerging power.&nbsp;

There have been scathing diplomatic statements targeting China from various world forums in favour of a free flow of trade in international waters. Naval exercises the Malabar and Quad consisting of US, India, Australia and Japan are part of military diplomacy to convey coercive political signals to China.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On Southern flank, though much away from their mainland, Chinese expansionist pattern is reflective in the desire to come up with a &ldquo;Strings of Pearls&rdquo; in the Indian Ocean region, the latest one being reported to be on&nbsp; Pakistani coastline. In that, China has been exploiting small countries with a lure of economic goodies in return for permitting the establishment of Chinese military bases to safeguard their maritime interests. It has increased the military ante in the IOR as the region happens to be the link between two most frequented oceans for international trade and commerce.&nbsp;&nbsp;

India, with her domination of the IOR, is a matter of concern for China. They see India as an impediment to their hegemonic intent of pushing their economic agenda.&nbsp; Hence, a deep set of insecurities have shaped Sino-Indian relations wherein China sees India as a rival who needs to be given a punch and not a handshake.

Consequently, China has been indulging in military overtures against their regional rivals so to make them submit to their political dictates. The Doklam standoff followed by an increase in military incursions along the Sino-Indian LAC is part of their high handedness and coercive diplomacy. They keep issuing similar coercive warnings to countries in regions of the South China Sea and South East Asia.&nbsp; China, obviously, wants to keep the water warm but not boiling through such a politico-military psychological warfare.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Overall the strategic audit is indicative of Chinese failure in &ldquo;team building&rdquo; due to their self-centered exclusivity, insensitive conduct and absence of political social grace expected of a responsible leader in making. Therefore, the&nbsp; Chinese vision does not seem to be in sync with appropriate strategic outlook. The rhythm of their ongoing political tango is not conducive towards achieving their aspirations. Hence, China needs an urgent mid-course correction.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

China seems to have chosen to use coercive diplomacy and confrontationist attitude instead of cooperative accommodation to achieve their national objectives.

The story of China starts with economies of scale offered by the country to the western industrial world so that they could outsource their manufacturing to China. With consequent exponential economic rise, came the conceit and hubris, particularly, in absence of political opposition, prompting the Chinese polity to nurture ambitions of acquiring a status of a world power. While the Chinese are known for visualisation of their plans looking beyond hundreds of years, they apparently have set their eyes on world leadership role in the seemingly impractical short time span. The current Chinese leadership is obviously in hurry, prompting them to use the military to push their politico-economic agenda. As a result, they have disturbed the global geopolitical canvas, spreading negative political synergies all around. A country like China, which is thriving on industrial production has a compulsion to seek and nurture the markets for her goods and services. In that, Chinese vulnerabilities lie in her geographical location on a distant flank with a limited communication network, energy inadequacy, and external political linkages to their manufacturing sector. Therefore, it essentially requires a secure and viable communication network for ease of logistics, cooperative approach to market competition, and mutual respect and accommodation to interests of other stakeholders. However, there is an apparent conceptual deficit as regards to all these parameters, when it comes to China. China happens to be literally a landlocked entity with exception of the eastern flank, which opens to the high seas. Then there are a number of contentious political issues with her neighbours, primarily due to Chinese political manipulations and cultural hubris. As a result, China has to transit through circuitous and not so friendly Indo-Pacific region. Hence, they nurture deep-seated insecurities and apprehensions which have shaped Chinese political conduct. In that, they seem to have chosen to use selective coercive diplomacy and confrontationist attitude instead of cooperative accommodation to achieve their national objectives. Such a political brinkmanship, however, have no place in current globalised corporate culture. Somewhere in their political psyche China continues to nurture a medieval mindset, which may turn out to be a probable cause of nemesis for their ambitions. China has embarked upon BRI scheme to take care of their economic insecurities and increase their political influence world over. Chinese military overtures in the South China Sea and “Strings of Pearls” in the Indian Ocean are operative part of their expansionist strategy. China, in pursuit of their economic colonisation, intends investing in the improvement of logistics infrastructure as well as establish industrial and power corridors in impoverished countries of Chinese interests. On the Western flank, the CPEC scheme seems to be running into rough weather due to Chinese insensitivity in trespassing Indian sovereignty and security situation in Af-Pak region which happens to be the most disturbed areas as on date. Geopolitical interests coupled with the physical presence of extra-regional powers in Afghanistan have further complicated the political situation which is unlikely to be resolved in near future. Within Pakistan also, there is a political dissent in face of Chinese hegemonic tendencies. Rebellious Baluchistan and Northern Areas add to the friction areas for smooth operation of the scheme. On the Eastern flank, China has chosen to use military overtures in staking their claims over the South China Sea(SNS) based on unsubstantiated historical linkages. They have also refused to obey directives of international court on the law of seas at Hague. It has led to militarisation of the South China Sea with an occasional show of force and coercive military diplomacy. It surely has increased political opposition amongst the larger part of international community impinging on Chinese credibility as a responsible emerging power. There have been scathing diplomatic statements targeting China from various world forums in favour of a free flow of trade in international waters. Naval exercises the Malabar and Quad consisting of US, India, Australia and Japan are part of military diplomacy to convey coercive political signals to China. On Southern flank, though much away from their mainland, Chinese expansionist pattern is reflective in the desire to come up with a “Strings of Pearls” in the Indian Ocean region, the latest one being reported to be on Pakistani coastline. In that, China has been exploiting small countries with a lure of economic goodies in return for permitting the establishment of Chinese military bases to safeguard their maritime interests. It has increased the military ante in the IOR as the region happens to be the link between two most frequented oceans for international trade and commerce. India, with her domination of the IOR, is a matter of concern for China. They see India as an impediment to their hegemonic intent of pushing their economic agenda. Hence, a deep set of insecurities have shaped Sino-Indian relations wherein China sees India as a rival who needs to be given a punch and not a handshake. Consequently, China has been indulging in military overtures against their regional rivals so to make them submit to their political dictates. The Doklam standoff followed by an increase in military incursions along the Sino-Indian LAC is part of their high handedness and coercive diplomacy. They keep issuing similar coercive warnings to countries in regions of the South China Sea and South East Asia. China, obviously, wants to keep the water warm but not boiling through such a politico-military psychological warfare. Overall the strategic audit is indicative of Chinese failure in “team building” due to their self-centered exclusivity, insensitive conduct and absence of political social grace expected of a responsible leader in making. Therefore, the Chinese vision does not seem to be in sync with appropriate strategic outlook. The rhythm of their ongoing political tango is not conducive towards achieving their aspirations. Hence, China needs an urgent mid-course correction. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: China's military adventures are not in sync with its political ambition

At the BRICS summit in Russia two years ago, Chinese Premier Xi Jinping <a href="https://brics2017.org/English/Headlines/201701/t20170125_1402.html">invoked</a> physics when asking fellow leaders &ldquo;to boost the centripetal (unifying) force of BRICS nations through cooperation in innovation and production capacity to boost competitiveness.&rdquo;

That was the theory, but the economic reality of the once-feted Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa alliance is contradictory.

Instead of, centripetal strengthening, the world is witnessing much more powerful centrifugal dividing forces, including overproduction, over-indebtedness and deglobalisation of capital. These elements have been spinning out of control even before the <a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/06/will-washingtons-new-pro-moscow-anti-beijing-gang-drive-a-wedge-through-the-brics-in-2017/">chaotic era</a> of US President Donald Trump began.

Over production is mostly found in the coal, steel, non-ferrous metals, cement and chemicals industries. It&rsquo;s largely driven by China where over-capacity is more than 30 per cent, according to a new International Monetary Fund <a href="http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/08/15/pr17326-china-imf-executive-board-concludes-2017-article-iv-consultation">report</a> that also raised worries about the country&rsquo;s vast debt.

Over borrowing by companies, states and households represents a global crisis in the making. The Institute of International Finance has just reported that <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-29/global-debt-hits-new-record-high-217-trillion-327-gdp">world debt</a> is now USD$217 trillion (327 per cent of world GDP), up from USD$149 billion (276 per cent) in 2007.

Deglobalisation is simply the reversal - mostly since 2008 - of prior rapid growth in cross-border trade, investment and finance. Should that be viewed as a bad thing? Rather than fear globalisation&rsquo;s unravelling, leading scholar-activists including <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/D/bo20861161.html">Samir Amin</a> in Africa, the late <a href="https://archive.monthlyreview.org/index.php/mr/article/view/MR-023-09-1972-02_2/0">Ruy Mauro Marini</a> in Latin America, <a href="http://fpif.org/the_virtues_of_deglobalization/">Walden Bello</a> in Asia and the 20th century&rsquo;s most important economist, <a href="https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm">John Maynard Keynes</a>, have all advocated national economic sovereignty. If pursued cleverly, deglobalisation could be the basis for restoring links between once vibrant sectors subsequently destroyed by imports.

&nbsp;

<figure class="align-right "><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/183648/width237/file-20170828-1572-16a5ulb.jpg" />
<figcaption>
BRICS 2017 China logo
</figcaption>
</figure>

Could BRICS leaders evolve in this direction? Their <a href="https://www.brics2017.org/English/">summit</a> next week will be distracted by geopolitical tensions. Although a welcome <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/there-wont-be-a-war-at-doklam-as-india-and-china-agree-to-disengage/articleshow/60255485.cms">deal</a> on Monday prevents the feared Sino-Indian border war, a much more durable geo-economic battle is unfolding in the <a href="https://borderless-hk.com/2017/08/16/an-introduction-to-the-china-pakistan-economic-corridor/">China-Pakistan Economic Corridor</a>, which in May left Prime Minister Narendra Modi <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-did-india-boycott-chinas-road-summit/article18516163.ece">boycotting</a> China&rsquo;s Belt and Road mega-conference three months ago.

Beijing&rsquo;s BRICS <a href="https://brics2017.org/English/China2017/Logo/">logo</a> designers, perhaps being unconsciously subversive, have illustrated how the once overlapping, interlocking BRICS are now being wedged apart as paper thin subjects of centrifugal forces. For Africa, fewer illusions in these economies would be welcome, given how <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2013.775783">exploitative</a> the BRICS and their firms have become against societies, democratic movements and environments.

A counter-summit challenge the BRICS

This argument is made by the <a href="http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2107923/hong-kong-activist-joshua-wong-cant-help-laugh-after">Hong Kong People&rsquo;s Forum</a>, initiated by the city&rsquo;s progressive labour, intellectual and faith leaders to question the BRICS. Their meeting this weekend follows in the counter summit traditions of the 2013 <a href="http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/default.asp?2,68,3,2853">BRICS-from-below</a> in Durban, the 2014 <a href="http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/default.asp?2,68,3,3253">Dialogue on Development</a> in Fortaleza, and the 2016 Goa <a href="https://peoplesbrics.org/2016/10/24/goa-declaration-of-the-peoples-forum-on-brics/">People&rsquo;s Forum on BRICS</a>.

According to the Hong Kong People&rsquo;s Forum:

Instead of offering an alternative, the BRICS actually offer a continuation of neo-liberalism. On top of BRICS, there is also China&rsquo;s new mega project, the Belt and Road initiative whose main purpose is to export China&rsquo;s surplus capital.

These surpluses are vast, as witnessed in China&rsquo;s foreign reserves which recently topped USD$4 trillion, though then fell 20 per cent due to bouts of capital flight and two stock market crashes in 2015-16.

Deglobalisation

Global trade, finance and investment were meant to be the motors for the advancement of BRICS. But according to the <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS?end=2016&amp;locations=CN-BR-ZA-IN-RU-1W&amp;start=1999&amp;view=chart">World Bank</a>, global trade peaked at 61 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008 but retreated to 58 per cent in 2015.

During the 1990s each BRICS country raised its trade to GDP ratio by at least 10 points. But trade has receded in importance in <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS?contextual=default&amp;locations=CN+WORLD-BR-RU-IN-CN-ZA">each of the BRICS</a>. Russia peaked first at a 69 per cent trade/GDP ratio in 1999 and then fell steadily to 45 per cent&nbsp;today. Brazil rose to 30 per cent in 2004 and fell to 25 per cent. China soared to 66 per cent in 2006 and has since plummeted to 36 per cent. South Africa&rsquo;s 2008 ratio was 73 per cent but is now back to 60 per cent and India peaked last, in 2012 with 56 per cent, and is now at 40 per cent.

On top of this, the ratio of world financial assets that are held overseas compared to GDP <a href="https://ahtribune.com/world/africa/1706-patrick-bond.html">fell</a> from 58 per cent in 2008 to 38 per cent in 2016, even as overall financial assets increased in line with soaring debt.

Finally, another deglobalisation symptom is the <a href="https://ahtribune.com/world/africa/1706-patrick-bond.html">halving</a> of relative global foreign direct investment: from 3.7 per cent of world GDP in 2008 to 1.7 per cent in 2016.

Leading financiers now talk of an imminent world <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-22/wall-street-banks-warn-winter-is-coming-as-business-cycle-peaks">recession</a>, given over priced stock markets and corporate debt. This is not just due to wild New York share speculation, as also occurred in the crashes of 1987, 2000 and 2008. Three BRICS stock markets are also <a href="http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/07/07/world-economic-outlook-update-july-2017?cid=em-COM-123-35653">bubbling</a>: South Africa&rsquo;s stock market is 90 per cent higher than in 2010, India&rsquo;s market is up 70 per cent and Russia has risen by 50 per cent.

Centrifugal realities crowd out centripetal fantasies

These dangerous centrifugal forces cannot be easily regulated or reversed. The only recent relief came from the Chinese state&rsquo;s massive urban construction investments (albeit leaving scores of <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-is-still-building-ghost-cities/">near-empty cities</a>) and the Indian <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/industries/in-india-services-sector-ges-2017-noexp.pdf">service sector boom</a>. But since 2015 the other three BRICS have suffered recessions as the crash in commodity prices hit home.

As the Hong Kong People&rsquo;s Forum statement explained:

China has now evolved into a global engine promoting a neoliberal agenda from free trade agreements to corporate led integration across borders.

The BRICS had promised to challenge an unfair global economic system. But in December 2015 their main multilateral reform strategies failed:

<ul>
	<li>
	the <a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/climate-terror-from-paris-could-endure-for-generations/">Paris Climate Accord</a> was nonbinding, unambitious and outlaws climate-debt lawsuits by victims of Western and BRICS emissions;
	</li>
	<li>
	the <a href="https://archive.monthlyreview.org/index.php/mr/article/view/MR-023-09-1972-02_2/0">World Trade Organisation</a> phased out any semblance of food sovereignty; and
	</li>
	<li>
	<a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-03-31-00-brics-joins-the-reigning-world-order">IMF voting shares</a> were shifted to favour BRICS at the expense of poorer countries.
	</li>
</ul>

Adds the Hong Kong People&rsquo;s Forum: &ldquo;The 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos was one site where Xi clearly took the lead in promoting world corporate power, as Trump leads the US-UK retreat into crony-capitalist protectionism.&rdquo;

South African President Jacob Zuma <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/politics/2017-06-30-jacob-zumas-speech-to-the-anc--now-with-little-yellow-post-its/">pronounced</a> last month at his party&rsquo;s policy Congress, &ldquo;The ANC is part of the global anti-imperialist movement. We are historically connected with the countries of the South and therefore South-South cooperation such as BRICS is primary for our movement.&rdquo;

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/83115/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />If centrifugal economic forces now pressuring the bloc to overwhelm Xi&rsquo;s desired centripetal capitalism, then we can expect yet more talk-left walk-right politics, as the BRICS <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2013.775783">sub-imperialists</a> desperately try to pretend they&rsquo;re anti-imperialists.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" nofollow="" rel="">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brics-is-being-battered-by-global-crises-why-this-might-not-be-a-bad-thing-83115">original article</a>.

Global trade and financial investment were meant to be the motors for the advancement of BRICS but deglobalisation and geo-political tension are seriously challenging BRICS' goals.

At the BRICS summit in Russia two years ago, Chinese Premier Xi Jinping invoked physics when asking fellow leaders “to boost the centripetal (unifying) force of BRICS nations through cooperation in innovation and production capacity to boost competitiveness.” That was the theory, but the economic reality of the once-feted Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa alliance is contradictory. Instead of, centripetal strengthening, the world is witnessing much more powerful centrifugal dividing forces, including overproduction, over-indebtedness and deglobalisation of capital. These elements have been spinning out of control even before the chaotic era of US President Donald Trump began. Over production is mostly found in the coal, steel, non-ferrous metals, cement and chemicals industries. It’s largely driven by China where over-capacity is more than 30 per cent, according to a new International Monetary Fund report that also raised worries about the country’s vast debt. Over borrowing by companies, states and households represents a global crisis in the making. The Institute of International Finance has just reported that world debt is now USD$217 trillion (327 per cent of world GDP), up from USD$149 billion (276 per cent) in 2007. Deglobalisation is simply the reversal - mostly since 2008 - of prior rapid growth in cross-border trade, investment and finance. Should that be viewed as a bad thing? Rather than fear globalisation’s unravelling, leading scholar-activists including Samir Amin in Africa, the late Ruy Mauro Marini in Latin America, Walden Bello in Asia and the 20th century’s most important economist, John Maynard Keynes, have all advocated national economic sovereignty. If pursued cleverly, deglobalisation could be the basis for restoring links between once vibrant sectors subsequently destroyed by imports. BRICS 2017 China logo Could BRICS leaders evolve in this direction? Their summit next week will be distracted by geopolitical tensions. Although a welcome deal on Monday prevents the feared Sino-Indian border war, a much more durable geo-economic battle is unfolding in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which in May left Prime Minister Narendra Modi boycotting China’s Belt and Road mega-conference three months ago. Beijing’s BRICS logo designers, perhaps being unconsciously subversive, have illustrated how the once overlapping, interlocking BRICS are now being wedged apart as paper thin subjects of centrifugal forces. For Africa, fewer illusions in these economies would be welcome, given how exploitative the BRICS and their firms have become against societies, democratic movements and environments. A counter-summit challenge the BRICS This argument is made by the Hong Kong People’s Forum, initiated by the city’s progressive labour, intellectual and faith leaders to question the BRICS. Their meeting this weekend follows in the counter summit traditions of the 2013 BRICS-from-below in Durban, the 2014 Dialogue on Development in Fortaleza, and the 2016 Goa People’s Forum on BRICS. According to the Hong Kong People’s Forum: Instead of offering an alternative, the BRICS actually offer a continuation of neo-liberalism. On top of BRICS, there is also China’s new mega project, the Belt and Road initiative whose main purpose is to export China’s surplus capital. These surpluses are vast, as witnessed in China’s foreign reserves which recently topped USD$4 trillion, though then fell 20 per cent due to bouts of capital flight and two stock market crashes in 2015-16. Deglobalisation Global trade, finance and investment were meant to be the motors for the advancement of BRICS. But according to the World Bank, global trade peaked at 61 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008 but retreated to 58 per cent in 2015. During the 1990s each BRICS country raised its trade to GDP ratio by at least 10 points. But trade has receded in importance in each of the BRICS. Russia peaked first at a 69 per cent trade/GDP ratio in 1999 and then fell steadily to 45 per cent today. Brazil rose to 30 per cent in 2004 and fell to 25 per cent. China soared to 66 per cent in 2006 and has since plummeted to 36 per cent. South Africa’s 2008 ratio was 73 per cent but is now back to 60 per cent and India peaked last, in 2012 with 56 per cent, and is now at 40 per cent. On top of this, the ratio of world financial assets that are held overseas compared to GDP fell from 58 per cent in 2008 to 38 per cent in 2016, even as overall financial assets increased in line with soaring debt. Finally, another deglobalisation symptom is the halving of relative global foreign direct investment: from 3.7 per cent of world GDP in 2008 to 1.7 per cent in 2016. Leading financiers now talk of an imminent world recession, given over priced stock markets and corporate debt. This is not just due to wild New York share speculation, as also occurred in the crashes of 1987, 2000 and 2008. Three BRICS stock markets are also bubbling: South Africa’s stock market is 90 per cent higher than in 2010, India’s market is up 70 per cent and Russia has risen by 50 per cent. Centrifugal realities crowd out centripetal fantasies These dangerous centrifugal forces cannot be easily regulated or reversed. The only recent relief came from the Chinese state’s massive urban construction investments (albeit leaving scores of near-empty cities) and the Indian service sector boom. But since 2015 the other three BRICS have suffered recessions as the crash in commodity prices hit home. As the Hong Kong People’s Forum statement explained: China has now evolved into a global engine promoting a neoliberal agenda from free trade agreements to corporate led integration across borders. The BRICS had promised to challenge an unfair global economic system. But in December 2015 their main multilateral reform strategies failed: the Paris Climate Accord was nonbinding, unambitious and outlaws climate-debt lawsuits by victims of Western and BRICS emissions; the World Trade Organisation phased out any semblance of food sovereignty; and IMF voting shares were shifted to favour BRICS at the expense of poorer countries. Adds the Hong Kong People’s Forum: “The 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos was one site where Xi clearly took the lead in promoting world corporate power, as Trump leads the US-UK retreat into crony-capitalist protectionism.” South African President Jacob Zuma pronounced last month at his party’s policy Congress, “The ANC is part of the global anti-imperialist movement. We are historically connected with the countries of the South and therefore South-South cooperation such as BRICS is primary for our movement.” If centrifugal economic forces now pressuring the bloc to overwhelm Xi’s desired centripetal capitalism, then we can expect yet more talk-left walk-right politics, as the BRICS sub-imperialists desperately try to pretend they’re anti-imperialists. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Battered by global crises, will BRICS be a success?

sino-indian

Sino Indian, News on Sino Indian, stories on Sino Indian, articles on Sino Indian, Sino Indian stories at Wion, Sino Indian news, Sino Indian latest news

sino indian

Exclusive: WION speaks to Mr. Jayadev Ranade, A China analyst over the India-China trade

Chinese envoy suggests relaxation in biz hours to boost trade along Nathu La

Opinion: China's military adventures are not in sync with its political ambition

Battered by global crises, will BRICS be a success?