G20 summit a "huge diplomatic victory" for India and PM Modi, says Jim O'Neill

Renowned British economist Jim O'Neill, known for coining the BRIC acronym, has commended India's hosting of the G20 summit, calling it a substantial diplomatic victory for India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Speaking to WIONs diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, O'Neill, who currently serves as a senior adviser at Chatham House reflected on the unique ability of New Delhi to foster strong relations with both Western powers and emerging economies. However, he also expressed disappointment over the expansion of BRICS and the recent Canada-India tug-of-war that threatens to undo the good work of the G20 Summit.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Sidhant Sibal: What do you think about the BRICS grouping?

Jim O'Neill: I thinkwe have to think about differently in terms of the economics, the geopolitics. Obviously,when I created the acronym, which is now just over 22 years ago, it was completely based on economic ideas. Although I did suggest because of it, each of the four big BRIC countries Brazil, Russia, India, and China should become part of what I then described as an expanded G7-at the same time as the Euro members, Germany, France and Italy consolidating to just one. So it would effectively be something like a G8 to G9.

But the main thing that I was focused on was the rising share of global GDP that each of the four BRIC countries would likely achieve in the coming decades. And of course, China, in particular, in a similar way, although not on the same scale. China and India have become much bigger, although Brazil and Russia have been especially since the start of the second decade of the acronym very disappointing, so much so that their weight in global GDP is actually back to where it was in 2001. And South Africa, whilst it's a very interesting country geopolitically, of course, very interesting with Africa, economically, it's not a particularly important country. It's not even the biggest country in the continent of Africa.

Sidhant Sibal: How do you see the expansion of the BRICS grouping?

Jim O'Neill: I am disappointed by it, for a number of reasons, but there are three basic ones. First of all,since they became a political grouping in 2009-10, the BRICS leaders have not really achieved anything.Partly because of their own differences, which perhaps we'll discuss more is particularly true of course, between India and China, butthey don't seem to have gotten beyond this very powerful symbolism as being a group that doesn't involve the US and is constantly bemoaning their lack of representation in global governance.

The second reason is there wasno objective guidanceas to why, for example, in Africa, Ethiopia and Egypt became members and a country that is much more important, strategically, economically, and demographically, Nigeria was not and why, in Latin America, not Mexico, but Argentina, andit seems like a very ramshackle group of cultures that were chosen rather than any real strategic obvious ways.

And then the third reason is simple one is thatif you expand any group of countries, as you see with G20, the more you add, the harder it becomes.So I'm not quite sure other than there's really big symbolism, quite what the expanded BRICS is supposed to be trying to achieve.

Sidhant Sibal: How do you see India and China's worsening ties impacting BRICS dynamics?

Jim O'Neill: I think it itself undermines anything the BRICS countries may try and achieve. And in fact, as I wrote somethinglast week, about the G-20 meeting that was successfully hosted by Modi.I think it was a major diplomatic mistake of President Xi to not personally attend the G20. It was only two weeks after the BRICS meeting, he appeared to as did the Chinese media making huge amounts of propaganda about how important it was that he didn't even have the courtesy of turning up to a G20 meeting hosted by a fellow BRICS country, and they obviously suggest that the relationship between China and India is not good.

So how can the BRICS group achieve anything when its two most important members don't really seem to agree on virtually anything of mutual importance?Other than this symbolism, they both independently like to claim that the leader of the Global South.

Watch |From G20 to Italy leaving BRI: Are nations abandoning China?

Sidhant Sibal: How do you see the outcomes of the G20 summit, the joint statement...diplomatically a win..

Jim O'Neill: Well, it was, but of course, the disputes with Canada are threatening to overshadow what appeared to be quite a very successful, diplomatic success for Modi. In the background of the G20, and because of Russia, but also because of the growing and worrying disputes between the US and China, many people myself included, were worried that the G20 would struggle to function. In fact, there were some fears that would not even be a communique at this G20.

But not only was there a very long communique, but also, of course, it was a very, very interesting decision to add the African Union to make it effectively a G21. And I think there was obviously some very clever diplomacy going on between senior G20 Sherpas in Washington and New Delhi, which made all of that possible. And in my opinion, I really welcome that because I do believe the G20 is the right forum to deal with truly, truly global issues of today because especially now with the African Union in there, you have over 85 per centof global GDP and vast amounts of the world's population represented whereas in the expanded BRICS, or the G7 you don't have either.

Sidhant Sibal: Personally for PM Modi how big the diplomatic victory was?

Jim O'Neill: Well, I think it was a huge diplomatic victory, and it tended to suggest that Modi treats the G20 more seriously than he treats the BRICS group. But it also suggests that India has this very, very clever ability to navigate good relationships with the West, as well as good relationships with the so-called emerging world, and manage to navigate the very difficult global geopolitical situation between the US and China. I must say if it would not have been for the dispute with Canada, which does threaten to overshadow all of this, it would have been a great successful moment.

Sidhant Sibal: How do you see India being the voice of the global south, and this at a time when China is also trying to achieve that?

Jim O'Neill: I mean, I think it's impossible for China to disappear as a voice on anything. China over the past 25 years, has been the single biggest contributor to global GDP growth, more than the United States. And there are not any particular markets in the world whether it be commodities or tourism, or anything that the Chinese don't have a major impact on. And that's true about global diplomacy and of course, China's own voice ever sings itself, the leader of the Global South. I think we will continue with this slightly strange, almost competitive situation where each of China and India regards themselves as the leader of the Global South, which frankly, will become more and more interesting.

As each of these countries becomes bigger and of course, because of each of their dynamics, it is probably the case thatover the next decade, India will grow by more than China. And India by the end of this decade will probably become at least as big if not bigger than Germany and get close to being the third-largest economy ahead of Japan. This means India's stance on many of these issues, including being the voice of the Global South, will become more and more credible.But China's not going away anywhere soon.

Sidhant Sibal: How do you see India diplomatically weighing as its economic size grows?

Jim O'Neill: I mean, I think if you look through long history, and I'm not a particular expert on these issues but casual observation suggests that countries that get bigger, become more and more important in global affairs, including diplomacy. So we already see it and in fact, probably thewhole reason why the United States was very eager to support Modi in having a successful G20 is the recognition of India's growing importance already. India in the past two years has become bigger than France and the UK has to be the fifth largest economy in the world. And as it gets to be the third largest, it is going to become more important, in all of these issues around the world.

Sidhant Sibal: You mention Canada, how do you see India-Canada ties faring..

Jim O'Neill: I'm very reluctant to comment on that because it's not something I am particularly an expert on or have inside knowledge or expertise. But obviously, itlooks like the Canadians feel very, very upset by itand I was just reading something this morning about how they've shared their intelligence with with Western allies. So we will have to see how this dispute develops. And it might well be a bit of a challenge as to how Mr Modi presents his own position on this issue because obviously, along with becoming a bigger voice also means you have to take greater accountability and responsibility for your position on what many many countries regard as the right principles as you go forward. So it's something that Mr Modi and his advisors are going to have to think about very carefully.

Sidhant Sibal: Which is the group, you will be willing to place your money on..

Jim O'Neill:Easy for me, the G20.Even though all of these different bodies have great difficulties being fruitful in this complex modern world. I think the G7 nor the BRICS are in the slightest bit capable of being globally influential. I think the G20, because effectively, it is an amalgamation of the BRICS as it was before it expanded on the G7 is a very, very sensible grouping, which is of sufficiently small numbers, compared to the UN, where it can really deal with big global issues, whether they be economic growth, economic fairness, global climate change, infectious disease prevention and so on.

And I thinkwe saw some of that in the New Delhi statements. It's very much a relief after a few years where the G20 became almost dysfunctional that it seems to be back on some kind of track. And in fact, if the G20 can carry on that position, then it might in itself, be able to help the UN become a little more, a bit more functional than it seems to be but the UN is a very, very complex organization in trying to get things done that it represents.

Sidhant Sibal: Any more acronyms you working on?

Jim O'Neill:I just liketo say that there wereonly two acronyms that were truly created. One was the BRIC and the other was the N11 or the next 11. What you read about other acronyms I suppose they created were effectively created on the back of just articles I wrote and somebody somewhere in the global media created that acronym and claimed it was me.So that was a phase of three or four years of slightly acronym madness, and I joked to a couple of people I know well, in the international diplomatic circles that after this BRICS expansion, perhaps the reason if there was a logic as to why they chose the countries is it was impossible to create an acronym in English out of them. But I won't be rushing to create anymore because I think the BRICS world lives on. And if they are going to expand in the future, it probably will come from members of the next 11 largest emerging nations like Indonesia. Maybe Mexico maybe Turkey...who knows

WATCH WION LIVE HERE: