What’s in a name?

Is it just me or is the general, mainly Western-led, reaction to the Brics summit held in Durban this week a tad too sceptical and curmudgeonly?

Goldman Sachs Asset Management Chairman Jim O’Neill coined the Bric term in 2001 to describe the four emerging powers he estimated would equal the US in joint economic output by 2020. Brazil, Russia, India and China held their first summit four years ago and invited South Africa to join their ranks in December 2010.

Since then, the Brics have been making headlines — and provoking global arguments. Most Western policymakers shrug off the “Brics phenomenon” as exaggerated. No need to sweat, they say. These countries are just cocky new kids on the block who will soon fade into oblivion.

The scepticism is shared by other emerging nations who are not yet Brics members but aspire to join the club. And then for many other developing nations, the Brics represent a new world order where emerging nations dare to question the traditional, Western-dominated way of doing things.

O’Neill was on to something. While the results of the latest Brics meeting in Durban may not have been overwhelming, emerging nations are slowly but surely shaping the new global agenda.

True, the five countries did not manage to launch the much-heralded development bank. Also true that the economies of all five countries are slowing down, partly due to the tardy global recovery, and partly to their own domestic challenges.

There is also no denying that China, with the biggest Brics economy and the brightest future, is the universally acknowledged leader of the grouping. And yes, that makes the leaders of other countries feel a bit miffed and jealous.

Finally, it is correct that intra-Brics differences are as significant: Brazil, Russia and South Africa are big resources exporters. China and India are importers. There are border tensions between China and India, and competition for influence in Central Asia between China and Russia. China is a communist state. Russia is an ex-communist authoritarian state. The others are democracies.

But so what? Having followed the ups and downs of many of the world’s much-renowned groupings including the European Union, Asean, the Group of 8, the G20, Nato and others, I have become accustomed to the wide gap between the high hopes and stark reality of cross-border cooperation.

Treaties are signed, speeches made, press conferences organised. The rhetoric is about unity, solidarity, cooperation and collaboration. In practice, leaders and officials spend much of their time on turf battles, internal quarrels and squabbling over policy.

When they are not at loggerheads, officials in these and other organisations do manage to make progress on their goals. Sometimes, things move along nicely. More often, well-laid plans run up against obstacles. In the end, however, most of the organisations survive — and some even flourish and expand to bring in new members.

The European Union is especially good at lurching from crisis to crisis — but also growing and maturing while it does so. The latest euro emergency over the crisis in Cyprus has further highlighted the difference between the goals and the reality of the EU. Despite last year’s dire predictions of an unravelling of the eurozone, however, the EU and the currency bloc have managed to survive. Asean has also stayed on course despite the differences in levels of development and government structures of its member states.

So let’s take a cool-headed look at the Brics and especially at the results of the latest Brics gathering. Leaders agreed to create a development bank to counter-balance Western-dominated institutions, although no firm details were unveiled. Finance ministers from Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa say they will now enter into “formal negotiations” to set up the bank’s structures. It is unclear how much money each of the countries will put into the bank.

The five leaders also agreed to set up a $100 billion currency crisis fund to ward off balance of payments or currency crises. China’s new president, Xi Jinping, who attended the summit in Durban, admitted the Brics countries had a lot of work ahead of them. “The potential of Brics development is infinite,” he said, adding “the real potential of Brics cooperation is yet to be realised.” Together the Brics economies account for 25 per cent of global output and 40 per cent of the world’s population.

The Brics accuse the World Bank and International Monetary Fund of not doing enough to address underdevelopment, and say Western governments exert too much control over the way they are managed.

All five countries are demanding a stronger voice in the two multilateral institutions. They argue that Europe is over-represented while emerging economies do not have the decision-making powers they deserve. There is undoubtedly a whiff of anti-Western rhetoric. But the Brics are not alone in demanding changes in global governance.

In fact, as the number of emerging nations increases, the Brics grouping will probably have to expand to welcome Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and the Philippines, the so-called “Timps”. Other analysts prefer the label “MIST” to describe Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey.

Whatever the alphabet soup they come up with in the end, the Brics and their ilk have made life in the 21st century exciting. Yes, the future is uncertain. The old, traditional unipolar world is history and the multipolar world is also slowly fading into the mists of time.

The future world order will provide space to all kinds of nations, big and small, which influence global developments because of their strong economic performance and their, often patchy, ability to respond to the hopes of their citizens.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.