DOCSLIB.ORG

Cold War Politics of Superpowers in South Asia A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cold War Politics of Superpowers in South Asia A COLD WAR POLITICS OF SUPERPOWERS IN SOUTH ASIA A. Z. Hilali1 Abstract South Asia is a most complex, volatile and politically explosive region and it remains the most enigmatic and baffling in the world. It is also one of the most socially divided and fertile regions. The region of South Asia mainly consists of seven states: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is home to 1.4 billion people, more than 20 percent of the world population. Thus, about one-fifth of humanity lives between the western reaches of Afghanistan and Pakistan on one side and the eastern reaches of Bangladesh and India on the other. It is a region that lies between the sea routes of the Indian Ocean (Persian Gulf and the Asia-Pacific) and the land routes of Central Asia connecting Europe to the East. It is a large reservoir of natural and human resources, making it a prime destination for finance capital, a lucrative market for trade and a source of cheap raw material. It also sits at the confluence of the richest sources of oil, gas, rubber, manganese, copper, gold, tea, cotton, rice and jute and is the transit point for most of the resources and manufactures that cris-cross the world. Moreover, it is the most heavily militarized and bureaucratized zone in the world and it has a variety of complex and violent primordial ethnic groups. Historically, South Asia had been the finest passage of invaders from Central Asia, Persia, the Arab world and even Greece for thousands of years. Later, the region was colonized first by the Muslims and then by the European powers and ultimately it comes under the suzerainty of British Empire. Thus, British India was the base from which England projected its power towards China and Russia as part of the infamous “Great Game” in the 19th century. The region saw the rise of central state institutions more than two thousand years ago and there is a continuous history of the rise and fall of civilizations and accompanying social-political institutions and ideologies. In terms of geopolitics, the South Asian region has traditionally been looked at as a unified entity. The region is Indo-centric and all other seven countries of South Asia are located around India, without any mutual geographic contiguity. 68 SUPERPOWERS POLITICS IN SOUTH ASIA South Asia has been a region of great importance to the industrialized democracies -and specifically the United States. The region has always been an arena where great power competition has been played and managed. It is, of course, possible to argue that the primary significance of the states of South Asia lies in their role in the competition between the United States, the Soviet Union and China for global and regional influence. The region has been recognized as a geographical area of major strategic significance through, which the routes connecting Europe, Africa and Asia. The region of South Asia is important because of its connection with the vital sea-lines of communication in the Indian Ocean and is sandwiched between two politically volatile and economically critical regions i.e., the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.2 Thus, South Asia forms an integral part of Mackinder’s “World Island,” that is, the Euro-African-Asiatic land mass, the most important single geographical unit in the world.3 Moreover, the major actors of the region, India and Pakistan, were divided in terms of polarisation between the United States, the Soviet Union and China. In this context, India has functioned as an important ally of the Soviet Union and Pakistan has functioned as a broker for the West in relation to moderate Muslim countries in the Middle East and the Gulf areas and in relation to China. US Interest in South Asia Since 1945 The United States’ involvement in South Asia has fluctuated, depending upon its intensity and style of competition with other great powers at the global level. In reality, South Asia is an area about which Americans knew little, where they have few interests, and which is always low on the scale of the US priorities.4 The United States did not become an imperialist nation in South Asia, but it replaced Britain as the principal Western power of the 69 region and watched with interest as the British played the “Great Game” against Russia, trying to block czarist expansion through the northwest (Khyber Pass) into South Asia. The US strategic interests and perspective regarding South Asia, from the very beginning, were strongly influenced by the British who wanted the US to assume the role of a successor hegemon in the area but also sought to guide the US to lead the world and control the strategic zones. Olaf Caroe, the well-known British strategist, admitted that the British advised the US about the protection of Western interests in the Gulf and South Asia.5 In fact, the United States is not an Asian power and it has no common borders with the countries of South Asia and has no territorial interest in the region. South Asia is not even a major trading partner of the US and its investment in the area is negligible.6 The principal determinant of US policy towards South Asia has been the US perception of the region’s relevance to the pursuit of its global geopolitical and strategic goals. Moreover, the US policy in South Asia has been shaped not so much with reference to the interests of the states of the region but based on US interests vs. Soviet Union and China. Therefore, the major American interest was to prevent the absorption of the area into the communist orbit. The early thrust was against advancing communism in general; and later, the emphasis was confined to Soviet expansionism after the Sino-US rapprochement. The political involvement of the United States in South Asia is a relatively recent phenomenon. It started only after World War II, from which the United States emerged as a leading world power. Before that time, there had been only limited commercial and cultural links dating back to the nineteenth century. The American Tobacco Company (ATC) engaged in tobacco trade with the South Asian states, and a number of American archaeologists, anthropologists, students of ancient history, educators and missionaries were attracted by the region’s unique cultural, religious and historical aspects.7 These socio-cultural, religious and academic groups were the main contacts 70 between the United States and South Asia in the early modern period. The end of the British rule over the world, especially the withdrawal from South Asia to East of Suez brought the United States into the region to help its embattled ally, Great Britain, and the area ceased to be European sphere of influence.8 Their eclipse marked a corresponding rise in status for the United States and the Soviet Union and materialization of a bipolar global power configuration. The combination of the region’s natural resources including Gulf oil and its strategic geopolitical position put it squarely in the middle of the ideological political struggle between East and West. Moreover, the US policy toward South Asia was basically confused, inconsistent and reactive rather than calculated, long term, and innovative due, to internal American factors, including periodic changes in administrations. The factors of oil and Zionist nationalism which involve the US in the Middle East had no corollary in South Asia. In fact, the absence of material interest has helped to limit American involvement in the region and it has been determined largely by factors extraneous to the area. Moreover, the United States had been guided in its South Asian policy by its global interests and has therefore tended to view regional conflicts largely from a global perspective.9 Thus, it is also clear that most of the US actions and reactions were congruent with global considerations; the periodic modification of US regional policy to suit its global pursuits appeared to local states as a confused policy, lacking clarity and coherence in its declaratory and operational dimensions. Political Interests After the World War II the communist threat seemed more menacing and it was utmost need that the United States must lead the world. Europe, Asia and Africa all were economically and militarily weak and politically unstable. Britain was no more capable of world leadership and only the United States was powerful enough to challenge the emerging threats in the bipolar 71 international structure of the world. In the situation, the US abandoned its traditional policy of “isolationism” and assumed the leadership of the “free world,” embarked upon a global strategy of anti-communism.10 In fact, the US anti-communist strategy began in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine of containment in which he committed to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”11 Its architect, George F. Kennan, postulated that “the Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world….can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence.”12 After the introduction of containment policy, the US first turned its attention to Europe through the Marshall Plan (1947) and later American strategists abruptly set out to extend the policy of containment to Asia. Turkey has already been fortified by the Truman doctrine and the NATO pact in 1949. In 1952 the Truman administration signed bilateral defence treaties with several states such as Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Global Shifts in Power and Geopolitical Regionalization
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Scholvin, Sören Working Paper Emerging Non-OECD Countries: Global Shifts in Power and Geopolitical Regionalization GIGA Working Papers, No. 128 Provided in Cooperation with: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Suggested Citation: Scholvin, Sören (2010) : Emerging Non-OECD Countries: Global Shifts in Power and Geopolitical Regionalization, GIGA Working Papers, No. 128, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/47796 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Power Politics and the Structure of Foreign Relations Law
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2009 Great Power Politics and the Structure of Foreign Relations Law Daniel Abebe Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel Abebe, "Great Power Politics and the Structure of Foreign Relations Law," 10 Chicago Journal of International Law 125 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Great Power Politics and the Structure of Foreign Relations Law Daniel Abebe* I. INTRODUCTION Foreign relations law serves as an internal constraint on the unilateral exercise of foreign relations powers through the distribution of authority within the national government. Given the predominance of the executive branch in foreign affairs, courts routinely resolve questions regarding the breadth of the executive's authority by reference to the Constitution, legal precedent, historical practice, and functional considerations. Though courts generally focus on these domestic factors, they have been historically quite sensitive to the international political implications of their decisions. But we don't have a clear understanding of how or when courts consider international politics in resolving foreign relations law questions. We lack a framework to begin thinking about the relationship between international politics and the allocation of decisionmaking authority. This short Article frames foreign relations law as a function of international politics to explore the relationship between the strength of external international political constraints on a state and the levels of judicial deference to the executive in that state.
    [Show full text]
  • A Stranger in My Own Country East Pakistan 1969-1974
    A Stranger in Ny Own Contry East Pakistan, 1969-1971 repreoduced by Sani H. Panhwar A Stra nger inm yow n c ountry Ea stPa kista n, 1969-1971 Ma jor Genera l (Retd) Kha dim Hussa inRa ja Reproducedb y Sa niH. Pa nhw a r C O N TEN TS Introduction By Muhammad Reza Kazimi .. .. .. .. .. 1 Chapter 1 The Brewing Storm .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Chapter 2 Prelude to the 1970 Elections .. .. .. .. .. .. 13 Chapter 3 The Rising Sun of the Awami League .. .. .. .. .. 22 Chapter 4 The Devastating Cyclone of November 1970 .. .. .. .. 26 Chapter 5 A No-Win Situation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 Chapter 6 The Crisis Deepens .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 32 Chapter 7 Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan in Action .. .. .. .. .. .. 42 Chapter 8 Operation Searchlight .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 50 Chapter 9 Last Words . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 63 Appendix A .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 70 Appendix B .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 71 Appendix C .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 78 Introduction B y M uham m adReza Kazim i History, it is often said, 'is written by victors'. In the case of East Pakistan, it has been written by the losers. One general,1 one lieutenant general,2 four major generals,3 and two brigadiers4 have given their account of the events leading to the secession of East Pakistan. Some of their compatriots, who witnessed or participated in the event, are still reluctant to publish their impressions. The credibility of such accounts depends on whether they were written for self-justification or for introspection. The utility of such accounts depends on whether they are relevant. On both counts, these recollections of the late Major General Khadim Hussain Raja are of definite value. They are candid and revealing; they are also imbued with respect for the opposite point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disharmony of the Spheres the U.S
    The Disharmony of the Spheres The U.S. will endanger itself if it accedes to Russian and Chinese efforts to change the international system to their liking By Hal Brands and Charles Edel AKING THE STAGE at Westmin- A “sphere of influence” is traditionally under- ster College in March 1946, Win- stood as a geographical zone within which the most ston Churchill told his audience he powerful actor can impose its will. And nearly three “felt bound to portray the shadow decades after the close of the superpower struggle which…falls upon the world.” The that Churchill’s speech heralded, spheres of influence former British prime minister fa- are back. At both ends of the Eurasian landmass, the mously declared that “from Stettin authoritarian regimes in China and Russia are carv- in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain ing out areas of privileged influence—geographic hasT descended across the Continent.” He went on to ex- buffer zones in which they exercise diplomatic, eco- plain that “Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, nomic, and military primacy. China and Russia are Belgrade, Bucharest, and Sofia all…lie in what I must seeking to coerce and overawe their neighbors. They call the Soviet sphere.” Though the Westminster ad- are endeavoring to weaken the international rules dress is best remembered for the phrase “iron curtain,” and norms—and the influence of opposing powers— the way it called attention to an emerging Soviet sphere that stand athwart their ambitions in their respective of influence is far more relevant to today’s world.
    [Show full text]
  • No Longer a Middle Power: Australia's Strategy in the 21St Century
    Études de l’Ifri Focus stratégique 92 NO LONGER A MIDDLE POWER Australia’s Strategy in the 21st Century Andrew CARR September 2019 Defense Research Unit The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 979-10-373-0071-3 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2019 How to cite this publication: Andrew Carr, “No Longer a Middle Power: Australia’s Strategy in the 21st Century”, Focus stratégique, No. 92, Ifri, September 2019. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 – Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Focus stratégique Resolving today’s security problems requires an integrated approach. Analysis must be cross-cutting and consider the regional and global dimensions of problems, their technological and military aspects, as well as their media linkages and broader human consequences. It must also strive to understand the far reaching and complex dynamics of military transformation, international terrorism or post-conflict stabilization. Through the “Focus stratégique” series Ifri’s Security Studies Center aims to do so, offering new perspectives on the major international security issues in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can Realism Be Utilised in an Understanding of the United States/New Zealand Relationship Over Nuclear Policy?
    How can realism be utilised in an understanding of the United States/New Zealand relationship over nuclear policy? By Angela Fitzsimons A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters of International Relations (MIR) degree School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations Victoria University of Wellington 2013 Abstract This thesis examines the decision making process of the United States and New Zealand on the nuclear policy issue through the lens of realism and analyses the effect of realism on the ANZUS alliance. Broader questions associated with alliances, national interest, changing priorities and limits on the use of power are also treated. A single case study of the United States/ New Zealand security relationship as embodied in the ANZUS treaty will be used to evaluate the utility of realism in understanding the decision making process that led to the declaration by the United States that the treaty was in abeyance. Five significant findings emerged: firstly both New Zealand and the United States used realism in the decision making process based on national interest, Secondly; diverging national interests over the nuclear issue made the ANZUS treaty untenable. Thirdly, ethical and cultural aspects of the relationship between the two states limited the application of classical realism to understanding the bond. Fourthly, normative theory accommodates realist theory on the behaviour of states in the international environment. Finally, continued engagement between the United
    [Show full text]
  • Biographies of Main Political Leaders of Pakistan
    Biographies of main political leaders of Pakistan INCUMBENT POLITICAL LEADERS ASIF ALI ZARDARI President of Pakistan since 2008 Asif Ali Zardari is the eleventh and current President of Pa- kistan. He is the Co-Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), a role he took on following the demise of his wife, Benazir Bhutto. Zardari rose to prominence in 1987 after his marriage to Benazir Bhutto, holding cabinet positions in both the 1990s PPP governments, and quickly acquired a reputation for corrupt practices. He was arrested in 1996 after the dismissal of the second government of Bena- zir Bhutto, and remained incarcerated for eight years on various charges of corruption. Released in 2004 amid ru- mours of reconciliation between Pervez Musharraf and the PPP, Zardari went into self-imposed exile in Dubai. He re- turned in December 2007 following Bhutto’s assassination. In 2008, as Co-Chairman of PPP he led his party to victory in the general elections. He was elected as President on September 6, 2008, following the resignation of Pervez Musharraf. His early years in power were characterised by widespread unrest due to his perceived reluctance to reinstate the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who had been dismissed during the Musharraf imposed emergency of 2007). However, he has also overseen the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution which effectively www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk reduced presidential powers to that of a ceremonial figure- Asif Ali Zardari, President head. He remains, however, a highly controversial figure and continues to be dogged by allegations of corruption. Mohmmad government as Minister of Housing and Public Works.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rarity of Realpolitik the Rarity of Brian Rathbun Realpolitik What Bismarck’S Rationality Reveals About International Politics
    The Rarity of Realpolitik The Rarity of Brian Rathbun Realpolitik What Bismarck’s Rationality Reveals about International Politics Realpolitik, the pur- suit of vital state interests in a dangerous world that constrains state behavior, is at the heart of realist theory. All realists assume that states act in such a man- ner or, at the very least, are highly incentivized to do so by the structure of the international system, whether it be its anarchic character or the presence of other similarly self-interested states. Often overlooked, however, is that Real- politik has important psychological preconditions. Classical realists note that Realpolitik presupposes rational thinking, which, they argue, should not be taken for granted. Some leaders act more rationally than others because they think more rationally than others. Hans Morgenthau, perhaps the most fa- mous classical realist of all, goes as far as to suggest that rationality, and there- fore Realpolitik, is the exception rather than the rule.1 Realpolitik is rare, which is why classical realists devote as much attention to prescribing as they do to explaining foreign policy. Is Realpolitik actually rare empirically, and if so, what are the implications for scholars’ and practitioners’ understanding of foreign policy and the nature of international relations more generally? The necessity of a particular psy- chology for Realpolitik, one based on rational thinking, has never been ex- plicitly tested. Realists such as Morgenthau typically rely on sweeping and unveriªed assumptions, and the relative frequency of realist leaders is difªcult to establish empirically. In this article, I show that research in cognitive psychology provides a strong foundation for the classical realist claim that rationality is a demanding cogni- tive standard that few leaders meet.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Asia Caught Between Great Power Politics
    EuroSEAS 2021 Roundtable Southeast Asia caught between great power politics Due to its geographic location as well as its geopolitical and geo-economic importance, Southeast Asia plays a crucial role in the grand strategies of the United States, China, Japan and India. China launched its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, both the United States and Japan responded with their Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategies. India upgraded its Look East to an Act East Policy. All four great powers endorse the regional centrality of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Nevertheless, ASEAN recognized the strategic challenge that the increasing great power rivalry can undermine its ability to steer the institutional development of Southeast Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific. Therefore, ASEAN responded with its own Indo-Pacific strategy. Therein the Association stresses the need for an inclusive regionalism, deeper multilateral cooperation and upholding its regional centrality. The aim of this roundtable is to bring together international experts with different disciplinary backgrounds to discuss ASEAN’s ability to promote a peaceful and stable, rules- based order in the Indo-Pacific. Addressed will be the following questions: Does ASEAN’s inclusive regionalism remain an adequate means to balance the interests of the great powers in the realms of economics, connectivity and security? Or does ASEAN, due to the power asymmetries in the Indo-Pacific, merely react to the policies and the behavior of the great powers? Will China- and US-centered collaboration formats emerge, forcing the Southeast Asian nations to choose sides? How do ASEAN and its members respond to the power rivalry between the United States and China specifically in the South China Sea? Convener: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kiwi That Roared: Nuclear-Free New Zealand in a Nuclear-Armed World
    Wade Huntley THE KIWI THAT ROARED: NUCLEAR-FREE NEW ZEALAND IN A NUCLEAR-ARMED WORLD by Wade Huntley Dr. Wade Huntley is Program Director for Asia/Pacific Security at the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development in Berkeley, California, where he produces the Northeast Asian Peace and Security Network’s Daily Report (www.nautilus.org). He has an article in the March 1996 issue of International Studies Quarterly and is working on a book based on his doctoral dissertation, “The Citizen and the Sword: Security and Democracy in the Liberal State.” The University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation provided support for research on this article. n July 14, 1984, New policy was widely criticized as a evance to larger democracies, is that Zealand elected its fourth frivolous moral exercise indulging a mass public is ill-suited to make O Labour government and vocal anti-nuclear activists and play- wise and prudent decisions regard- thus brought into effect its policy de- ing on an impassioned and unin- ing state security. Recent research claring the country “nuclear free,” formed public, while needlessly on this subject indicates that popu- which included prohibiting port entry jeopardizing the country’s national lar opinion is not as volatile and in- by any ships either under nuclear interests and sacrificing its ANZUS coherent, nor its effects on security power or carrying nuclear weapons.1 alliance relationship with the United policy as pernicious, as once The government’s commitment to States.3 This judgment is rooted in thought. However, many of these this policy reached a moment of truth two converging claims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Light of Organization Theory Written by Hossein Aghaie Joobani
    The Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Light of Organization Theory Written by Hossein Aghaie Joobani This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Light of Organization Theory https://www.e-ir.info/2013/02/22/the-shanghai-cooperation-organization-in-light-of-organization-theory/ HOSSEIN AGHAIE JOOBANI, FEB 22 2013 Introduction Since the end of the First World War, international organizations (IOs) have sprung up at a rapid pace, and particularly after 1945, they gradually evolved into becoming integral components of global governance. IOs have gained prominence by engaging actively in the processes of interpretation, production, and promotion of norms, principles, and policies in the global political system. The ambit and jurisdiction of IOs vary depending on the basic structure and content of their founding charters, although the purview of their activities encompasses a wide variety of issue-areas. As different types of IOs expand, the question arises whether or not their avowed purposes and overall functions comport with widely-held rules and democratic values, and if there is any universal model or replicable institutional structure that can be possibly utilized as a definitive example of a successful international institution. For instance, the European Union (EU), which is perceived as a supranational entity with an extraordinarily wide range of competencies, has successfully managed to profile itself as a bureaucratic organization capable of expanding its power while avoiding, albeit not entirely successfully, the risk of weakening its legitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • BRIC Economies & Foreign Policy
    BRIC Economies & Foreign Policy An Analytical Study Karthik Narayanaswami GOVT E 1897: American Foreign Policy Harvard University [email protected] I. Introduction In 2003, Goldman Sachs issued an investment report that coined the now-famous acronym, BRICs to jointly refer to the economies and states of Brazil, Russia, India, and China [1]. While these economies only reflected a small portion of the global GNP at that time, economists have projected that in 40-50 years, these nations may very well catch up to the OECD countries in their economic prowess. At the outset, these four BRIC nations are seemingly disparate; however, they have a common thread in that they are all developing nations with a significant growth potential. In this paper, we will evaluate the BRIC economies for their impact on American Foreign Policy, and how this policy has both affected those nations and their attitudes towards the US. In particular, we will be focusing on the following areas of interest to understand and identify the emergence of these developing countries as international blocs, and their impact on the US foreign policy: • Origin of BRIC • Economic Comparison & US Trade Relations • Political Comparison & US Relations • Institutional Standing • Conclusion II. Origin of BRIC At the outset, the choice for four seemingly unrelated nations into an economic category seems disingenuous. However, as we examine the historic economic data, a more detailed picture starts to emerge. For instance, in 2001 and 2002, the combined nominal GDP growth of emerging economies exceeded that of the G7 nations [1][2]. This is in line with a 2011 economic paper on GDP projections by the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, where the combined GDP of China and India alone was predicted to overtake most high-income OECD nations [3].
    [Show full text]