International RelationsJoin now to read essay International RelationsNowadays, the world is becoming more and more closely linked. Thanks to technological improvements and the information revolution, there are no more barriers between countries as describes Thomas L. Friedman in the article “It is a flat world, after all”. Trade has increased and population movements between countries are greater than ever before. However, billions of people still live in poverty and the gap between rich and poor at a global level is expanding. That is why there is an urgent need to consider the worrying situation developing countries meet. Many reasons for helping poor countries are evoked: humanitarian, political, diplomatic and economic. The quote develops another explanation. The reason for which many countries have to help poorer ones may be a question of global security. Due to the interconnectedness of the societies, difficult situations such as conflicts, famines in poor countries influence and jeopardize the security in rich countries like the United States and the European Union. Consequently, their problems become our problems. We cannot act any more as if we did not know. The threats are multiple such as terrorism, trafficking, environmental devastation and disease. As these threats are impending, governments of developed countries should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations for a safer world. As a result, I think that our security depends on the fight against poverty.
There is a perception of growing disparities between the rich and the poor countries. We can illustrate the global North/South gap by this data: the North contains only 20% of the world’s people but 60% of its goods and services (Goldstein, p.21). The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a way of measuring the size of the economy for one country, in other words the size of the total annual economic activity for one country. For instance the GDP per capita in 2006 for the North was $28,000 whereas it was only $5,500 for the South (Goldstein, p.21). The North includes the industrialized rich countries and the South the less-developed poor countries. The distribution of wealth is not fair whether it is in the world or in a region or a country. Globalization enables the increasing of wealth and prosperity but not in an equitable way. As we can read in the article “Can the extreme poverty be eliminated?” written by Jeffrey D. Sachs, today there are 1.1 billion people who live on $1 or less a day; this statistic represents nearly one in six humans. This indigent population encounters many problems such as poor nutrition, non-potable drinking water, shelter, basic sanitation, health care services and education. Every day more than 20 000 die of extreme poverty, lack of food or medicine and unsafe drinking water. These populations in Africa, Latin America and South Asia are outside of the global economy prosperity and outside of scientific and technological progress. International trade and foreign investments inflows are scarce in these regions of the world. They do not have the economic and educational infrastructures to compete with the developed countries because they lack financial means. These parts of the world are still isolated in spite of communication progress. For this reason, the poorest regions do not have access to scientific and technological advances, and they struggle with infectious diseases and AIDS, which have devastating consequences for the population. More than 600 million people are infected with tropical diseases (Goldstein, p. 273) and two-thirds of HIV infected people live in Africa and half of the rest in South Asia. The epidemic has also left 15 million orphans (Goldstein, p. 351).
These disparities in wealth in our world create a variety of international security problems with the potential for violence, including terrorist attacks on rich countries by groups in poor countries. I think that extreme poverty fuels revolution, terrorism and anti Western sentiments in the developing countries.
Is there a relationship between poverty and conflict? The theory of structural violence tries to explain this relationship. It is a form of violence which corresponds with the systematic ways in which a given social structure or social institution kills people slowly by oppressed them and by preventing them from meeting their basic needs, such as hunger, health care and education (Goldstein, p.97). Structural violence inevitably produces conflict and often direct violence including family violence, racial violence, hate crimes, terrorism, genocide and finally war. This existing violence in the society linked with poverty lead to riots in the streets and political instability as we recently saw in Kenya. Weak governments and no-law zones become a temptation for terrorist groups. Sometimes, these groups develop anti-Western feelings. They do not want to have any kind of relationship with western countries or in the worst case;
The notion of a weak state, no-law and conflict in the face of constant international aggression is frequently seen as an important model of national-level development in countries like India and Pakistan. As part of the BNP, Modi has been trying to expand and strengthen the BNP since 1995. In 2004, in response to a mass demonstration of their strong political power, Modi announced that his government would promote dialogue with countries where “a strong state will not exist without great inter-governmental cooperation”.
Modi has been trying to expand BNP in various stages over the past year or so. On December 15, he met with former Indian cabinet ministers and some leaders in the BRICS region, who called him to offer his endorsement in order to “show their great friendship” for “sharing a common path of human development in BRICS countries”. (On May 20, 2014, India hosted the first Indian ministerial meeting in BRICS)
As more and more governments participate in international development projects, the BNP states’ relationship with the BRICS development projects remains the most important one in the world. As with many countries, the countries involved are not necessarily friendly to each other, in terms of the development of the region. For instance, in June the United States offered Modi India its own BRICS status as a guarantor of stability of regional peace and security. In June the Philippines also said that it would not back the promotion of BRICS or to support other UN-sponsored developments.
Moreover, despite the many different proposals under the BNP banner (see section 2.1.3.1), the BNP has always done its own work to assist other countries in shaping their development programmes and develop their own national leadership. However, as mentioned earlier, the BNP’s role in shaping its political agenda has been limited. As a result, it’s extremely difficult to estimate its strength and influence. Even if we had been given some information, the BNP could not have brought any important insights to our minds.
We do not assume that all countries, especially those that take part in BRICS countries, are supportive of regional peace and stability either. For example, in 2008 the US had an economic assistance package for the government of Honduras, which is designed to help rebuild the country’s social infrastructure and is one of the few places where the US does not support it. At present, the United States has no major economic assistance package in the United States, and only 10 percent of the country is located within the US borders. If all the countries of our respective BRICS states joined in the talks, there would be huge support for developing the region, thus providing a massive economic stimulus for development. But this would hardly have been possible without the support of India, where India is the largest beneficiary of the US loans. Also, Indian aid in BRICS countries is very low, and not necessarily more so than the US loans to other BRICS countries.
In addition, it would be interesting to see if BNP states and the US government can influence regional regional development policies which are not in themselves developed by other developing countries. This is a difficult task due to the difficulties confronting BRICS countries, which they do not have the power to change, and the political consequences such a change might have on developing countries.
On the other hand, although we never see a credible political opposition to BRICS countries, India and the US may be able to use the political atmosphere (like in Africa, for example) to help developing countries.
In other words, we may be able to use our influence to influence all of the development strategies in BRICS states and in states with less influence on BRICS countries.
Summary and Conclusion: A strong and strong political opposition to BRICS nations has not