Information Bulletin of the BRICS Trade Union Forum
Issue 19.2018
2018.05.07 — 2018.05.13
International relations
Foreign policy in the context of BRICS
Acting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's opening remarks during talks with Ajit Kumar Doval, National Security Advisor to Prime Minister of India, Moscow, May 10, 2018 (Вступительное слово и.о. Министра иностранных дел России С.В.Лаврова в ходе переговоров с советником Премьер-министра Индии по национальной безопасности А.К.Довалом, Москва, 10 мая 2018 года) / India, May, 2018
Keywords: mofa, sergey_lavrov, quotation

Mr Doval, friends,

We are glad to have this opportunity to hold a meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry during your stay in Moscow as part of regular contacts between our countries' security councils.

We have a very full agenda in our bilateral relations. Economic ties are growing, and a mechanism is being developed to further liberalise trade both bilaterally and as part of India's cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union.

Our foreign policy coordination is making steady progress as part of regular bilateral contacts between the relevant agencies, as well as in the context of our partnership promotion in multilateral formats. I am speaking of the Russia-India-China (RIC) format, BRICS, and now the SCO, of which India became a full-fledged member last year. All this allows us to closely interact and coordinate our approaches in the UN and various military and political security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region.

I am happy to have the opportunity to talk today about our further work in these formats to solve tasks related to fighting terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking, and to promote cooperation in practical areas.


The opportunity with Ramaphosa (Возможности с Рамафосой) / India, May, 2018
Keywords: expert_opinion
Author: Rajiv Bhatia

The governments of India and South Africa are eager to reinvigorate their relationship after it suffered damage in the latter half of Jacob Zuma's presidency. The current president has spoken of a 'new dawn' for his country, driven by economic advancement. In that, India can play a big role

The people-to-people bonds between India and South Africa go back to the 1860s when the first Indians reached South African shores, but the state-to-state connection is more recent. This year marks the 25th year since the countries established diplomatic relations as the brutal apartheid regime was ending. The year also represents milestones in the lives of the two nations' most iconic leaders. For India, the Pietermaritzburg incident in South Africa on 7 June 1893 – 125 years ago – launched a young lawyer, M.K. Gandhi, on the road to Satyagraha; his nonviolent resistance profoundly affected both nations. This year is important to South Africa too; its first president, Nelson Mandela, was born a century ago, on 18 July 1918.

India and South Africa are natural partners – two countries, unbroken in spirit after enduring oppression, struggle and hardship. Speaking of Mahatma Gandhi, Mandela said: "India's soul truly does lie in South Africa."

Why the celebrations?

The governments of India and South Africa are holding celebrations to mark these three landmark events. The India-South Africa Business Summit, held in Johannesburg on April 29-30, was a vital part of the proceedings. Other events will unfold in the coming months.

Both countries are eager to impart fresh momentum to their bilateral relations, which languished in the later phase of Jacob Zuma's presidency (2009-2018) when it was marred by a series of corruption scandals and controversies christened "State Capture." The term refers to the excessively close relationship between the presidency and an Indian business family that attracted widespread criticism in South Africa,[1]and contributed to tarnishing Indian business' otherwise positive image. The current celebrations are expected to remind the people about the unique bonds the two nations share and to keep governments focused on the future of this crucial relationship.[2]

Cyril Ramaphosa, who took over in February as South Africa's president, is masterminding a rejuvenation of South Africa's polity and economy. He has committed himself to providing a corruption-free and transparent administration and ensuring accelerated economic development based on inclusiveness. He is serving the remaining part of Zuma's tenure, but he – and his African National Congress (ANC) – face a tough election next year. The Zuma faction, though reduced to a minority, remains strong, so the new president has to tread with caution. His call for South Africa to open a new chapter in its history has received nationwide support.[3] He has spoken of "a new dawn."[4] He plans to accord high priority to economic advancement – and, in particular, to attract $100 billion in direct foreign investment during the next five years.

The Indian angle

China is South Africa's largest trading and economic partner today, but India continues to be a player that counts.[5] More than 150 Indian companies operate in South Africa. In a recent study, Price Waterhouse and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) estimated that investment by Indian industry in South Africa exceeds R50 billion (more than $4 billion) and provides employment to over 18,000 South Africans.[6]

The six sectors in which the Indian presence matters are pharmaceuticals, automobile, financial services, information technology, the mining industry and the green economy. Cipla and Ranbaxy have played a crucial role in the healthcare sector, helping South Africa provide affordable anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) to the most needy. The Tatas and Mahindras are household names in the region. Many of India's top IT companies are helping South Africa's medium- and large-scale companies grow. Vedanta, with its $1 billion investment in South Africa's mining sector, has emerged as a valued partner: Pravin Gordhan, South Africa's minister of public enterprises, was alluding to this when he remarked recently in jest that Vedanta's investments had reduced the president's target of $100 billion as FDI to $99 billion only.

Trade is projected to show much potential for growth. It peaked at about $14 billion in 2012-13. But the value of trade declined to $9.3 billion in 2016-17.[7] India is South Africa's fourth largest import partner and seventh largest export partner. Both Indian and South African officials have spoken of $20 billion as the goal to be reached in the next five years. Its attainment would naturally depend on joint efforts in the future as well as the success of "an action plan" that Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu promised while speaking at the Business Summit on April 30.

Additional measures

A few days last month, spent in intensive interaction with a cross-section of South Africans and fellow Indians in Johannesburg and Pretoria, revealed that rejuvenation in India-South Africa economic cooperation is achievable in the medium term.

The skill gap is a major constraint in South Africa's economic development. Indian companies have been assisting industry with this problem, and they can do more. An Indian initiative to establish the Gandhi-Mandela Skills Institute in Pretoria, with full assistance of the Indian government, promises to be an innovative step.

Two obstacles to the growth of economic cooperation are the difficulty employees of companies face in obtaining visas to visit South Africa and the absence of direct flights between the two countries. The South African government is addressing them.

Other challenges include the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) codes that require foreign companies to share ownership with South Africans, and South Africa's bureaucracy and red tape. These constrain all foreign corporates, not just Indian companies.

India's public diplomacy in South Africa is in high gear to showcase the rich legacy and enticing opportunities in the India-South Africa relationship. South Africa also plans to encourage its representatives to scale new heights. Both sides also need to consider favourably the proposal to initiate a Track 1.5 Dialogue between think tanks and officials.

Communication and interaction at the highest political level too needs to be boosted. President Ramaphosa and Prime Minister Modi are due to meet in South Africa at the BRICS summit in July. South Block could do well by inviting President Ramaphosa to pay a bilateral visit as soon as possible. This will help him politically and impart strong momentum to the relationship in an historic year.

Rajiv Bhatia is Distinguished Fellow, Gateway House. He is a former high commissioner to South Africa.

This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.

For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact or 022 22023371.

© Copyright 2018 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.


[1] Martin, Michaela Elsbeth, Hussein Solomon, 'Understanding the Phenomenon of "State Capture" in South Africa', Southern African Peace and Security Studies, 5, 1, <>

[2] Indian High Commissioner Ruchira Kamboj stated: "The India-South Africa Business Summit is born from a conviction: a conviction that our two countries share a future as rich as our past."

[3] Please see his inaugural speech. Ramaphosa, Cyril, 'Full Text: Now is the time to lend a hand, says President Cyril Ramaphosa in inaugural SONA 2018 speech', news24, 16 February 2018, <>

[4] Please see comment by the Editor (P.2-3) and the article by Oscar van Heerden (P. 8-11) in The Thinker, Quarter 2 – 2018.

[5] In contrast, China-South Africa trade stood at $26.5 billion in 2017, about three times higher than India's trade with South Africa. In 2015-16, Chinese large and medium-sized companies were covering diverse sectors (viz, banking and finance, infrastructure, mining, manufacturing and marine cooperation) with a total estimated investment of $16.5 billion, four times higher than India's.

[6] Pricewaterhouse Cooperhouse, Confederation of Indian Industries, Indian industry's inclusive footprint in South Africa: Doing business, doing good, (South Africa: PWC)

[7] Ibid. The above study states: "A number of factors explain this decline, including South Africa's credit rating downgrade, policy uncertainty, political and economic uncertainty as well as exchange rate fluctuations." P.5.
Investment and Finance
Investment and finance in BRICS
40 years later: Toward a new era of political and economic realism (40 лет спустя: к новой эре политического и экономического реализма) / China, May, 2018
Keywords: expert_opinion, economic_challenges
Author: Einar Tangen

As the world and China gaze into the tea leaves of the last 40 years, we see a growing schism between the rhetoric and the reality of China and its future. On one side is ongoing rhetoric about the inevitable liberal democratic capitalist theory, metrics and ideology, and the continuing march toward Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History." On the other side is the reality of what China has achieved using a hybrid Socialist-Communist pragmatism, which has challenged the current paradigm metrics and created a new kind of economic and political realism.

Rather than repeat the successes and challenges of China's last 40 years, which is being covered at length in numerous opinion pieces, this article will take a look at how existing political and economic paradigms are changing -- the reality of China and Asia's rapidly growing consumer markets, as well as how these changes are elevating Asia from second-class status to an equal partner in geopolitical affairs.

The best example of this is the current rapprochement of India and China.

Population and capital: A global tipping point

The post-WWII, Cold War economic and political world is at a tipping point. Developed nations -- with their negative population growth and slowing economies -- while controlling the majority of the capital, do not have the markets they need to grow. In looking at the graph above, there can be little doubt where the consumer markets are, and will continue to be. Developing and emerging nations, especially in Asia, with their large populations and growing middle classes, have fast growth but lack capital.

China and India alone represent 40 percent of the world's population and will soon have more middle-class people than the total populations of the U.S. and EU combined. Add ASEAN, and you are closer to 50 percent of the world's population. Add the fact that these nations are growing at more than twice the rate of developed nations, the asymmetrical dependency is clear.

To date, the assumption has been that capital controls markets, but with their slow growth economies and shrinking populations, the developed nations (the U.S. and EU alone control 60 percent of the world's capital), cannot rely on their own markets. The only feasible investment alternative is the fast-growing emerging markets.

Once relegated to second-tier political and economic significance, these emerging Asian nations are coming to realize that they are now the gatekeepers of their own markets. The idea that market entry is a privilege, which can be imposed on countries, rather than an issue to be negotiated, is over. Developed economies and their corporations will soon find themselves, as they have in China, negotiating their entrance through bilateral or multilateral accords, rather than dictating terms. This is the basis of what seems to be a new kind of economic and political reality, which is causing friction with failing post-WWII and Cold War paradigms.

The rise of Asia's markets and realpolitik

The race to tap Asia's massive markets has been on for some time. Over the last 17 years, under the WTO, the world has changed from one dominated by the U.S., Europe and a handful of other developed nations, to a multipolar economic and political world order, where new fast-growing consumer markets in Asia have displaced the supremacy of American and European ones.

Japan and S. Korea have long been the leaders of Asian development, now followed by China, India and ASEAN. These market changes have exposed political frictions between the incumbent developed nations, especially the U.S., and the rising nations like China and the rest of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). At the core of this conflict is the American conviction that its economic, political and military dominance, rooted in American exceptionalism, is essential to imposing liberal democratic capitalism on the rest of the world. The irony is hard to escape, as it was China and Russia's determination to do the same with Communism which sparked the U.S. to paint them as ideological extremists. To understand how this is playing out, you have to look at the current political postures of each nation, but the conclusion is inescapable: the U.S. is becoming more isolated by the day, as Trump seeks to impose by brute force his vision of "America First," which ignores all conventional diplomacy in favor of naked self-interest.

Policy and strategy in the post-Cold-War world

The U.S.

The unstated policy of the U.S. is to control China's expansion by encircling its trade routes in the East and South China Seas, creating leverage over China's access to resources and markets. This desire represents a revisionist return to the "greatness" Trump promised to those who elected him. The dream is to reestablish American political, economic and military hegemony as means to ensure American prosperity. This mercantilist vision discards the multilateral trade framework that the U.S. itself prioritized and created, in favor of bilateral trade agreements, where the U.S. can use its superior military, economic and political muscle to exact favorable trade terms, arms sales and security concessions. The irony is that for the U.S. to grow, it will need to tap into the very markets it is alienating with its ham-handed tactics.


China's response is the Belt and Road Initiative, a project of multi-pronged land and sea routes that aims to ensure access to all its adjoining resources and markets. It is envisioned as a "win-win" strategy that will create and connect markets based on trade, not ideology. Xi has made it clear he has the will and the time to see the project through, but he will need other countries to see the value and invest in this grand multilateral approach. Unfortunately for China, its rapid growth, while envied by many, is causing uncertainty among its neighbors, in large part fanned by media from developed countries wedded to liberal democratic capitalist ideology, but confounded by China's continued success. For evidence of this, one only has to look at the predictions of publications like The Economist, which has forecast China's imminent demise for the last two decades.


Russia is still nursing hard feelings because of promises made as the USSR was being dismantled, which were broken by the U.S. and EU. In response, Moscow has been moving closer to Beijing, as its relationship with Washington deteriorates. In his 2007 speech in Munich, Putin outlined his frustration with a world order he saw as rigged against Russia, and if anything, things have gotten worse since then. Effectively locked out by economic sanctions aimed at crippling its energy businesses and economy, Russia is seeking alternatives. Their recent move to put more of its energy trade in euros is an example. And if Trump continues to make enemies and alienate allies, this could be a threat to the petrodollar hegemony the U.S. has enjoyed since the early 1970s.

The EU

Politically, the EU is in the middle; still standing by the U.S., but unnerved by Donald Trump's unilateralism, nativism, climate change denial and unreliability. The EU is still in financial recovery mode, and while it still sees itself as a champion of liberal democratic capitalism, it is a much more socialist brand than that being promoted by the U.S. The differences in policy and style are alienating Brussels from Washington. In addition, the EU is also dealing with overexpansion, lack of leadership and an impossible fiscal status, not to mention distractions like Brexit and the political rise of fringe groups advocating separatism and neofascism.

Economically, like the U.S., the EU needs new markets to preserve its political stability. If the euro becomes an alternative settlement currency, the flow of funds would provide a new source of liquidity for the zone. Where the EU stands in terms of Asia's markets is mired in its political outlook, but increased friction with the U.S. could be a factor in pushing an alliance of expediency. Additionally, EU companies would be in the best position to benefit from any U.S.-China trade war, as they are the only real competition the U.S. has.


Japan is under a thirty-year shadow of low growth, deflation and a declining population. Economically, Abenomics has failed to deliver the structural changes that were essential to Abe's approach to jump-starting Japan's economy. Real wages are languishing in the midst of productivity problems, while a stronger yen and weaker dollar are eating into revenues for companies producing in Japan. Politically, Tokyo has eyed China's rise warily, both as a regional rival and ideological adversary. It has used the threat of a rising China together with the DPRK as an argument to revoke its pacifist constitutional requirements.

Shinzo Abe thought he had a "bromance" with Donald Trump, only to be disappointed over steel and aluminum. This added to alleged scandals at home is likely to cost Abe the government in the next election.

After trade tariffs were announced and Japan did not get an exemption, they sent an overture to China indicating interest in the Belt and Road Initiative. Like India and many other countries around the world, Japan may admire the U.S. form of government, but not its current leader whose unpredictability is making China's stability more attractive every day. If Japan were to join the Belt and Road Initiative, and China were to negotiate a bilateral with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it would in effect isolate the U.S. economically.


India, which is badly in need of investment in both private business and public infrastructure, may be looking to balance its U.S. security arrangements with a Chinese trade relationship. India has its own brand of political and economic issues, and Modi now needs a revolutionary idea to turn India's perceived weaknesses -- its massive population, lack of funding, social needs and high youth unemployment -- into strengths. It is a country with tremendous markets, which are languishing due to lack of capital, poor infrastructure, red tape and corruption. Each of these issues needs to be solved, but to finance private investment, pay for infrastructure and pay higher wages to government workers to nullify corruption, India has to monetize itself as a market opportunity.

Sino-Indian economic accord: A new global economic and political reality

Against this backdrop, If Modi and Xi were to agree to work together economically, the combination of China and India would flip the political, economic and social calculus of the world. As the gatekeepers to their own markets, China and India would have unprecedented leverage over developed nations. While this would raise new issues, it would also reflect the reality of a world increasingly fragmented and multipolar, marked more than ever by political and economic realism -- a less ideological, more pragmatic approach to global and country-to-country relations.

The other consequence of a China-India economic pact would be to change the shape and range of the Belt and Road Initiative. To date, China has been careful to create a series of redundant trade routes that can both guarantee its access to resources and markets, and grow regional markets in historically less accessible and underdeveloped areas. The strategy, as can be seen on the map, is to ensure no competing power can control its trade routes. If India was to allow the China-Nepal rail line to continue through India to its east coast, the value to all would be compounded. China would have an open door to Africa and the Middle East that would bypass the Malacca Strait and the U.S.'s string of military bases. It would create an open economic door to western China. India would have a two-way corridor for both domestic and international goods and an open development path for its eastern provinces.

In addition, with an alternative Trans-India route, Beijing would be less reticent about cooperating with Russia on a Trans-Siberian route to Europe. For Russia it would also be a golden opportunity to reach eastern markets and open up its vast eastern resources. For China, it would create a safe passage to Europe for value-added goods through a resource-rich route which would bypass complications at sea and shorten transmission times.

This would also decrease pressure on China to establish and maintain a safe route through Pakistan while speeding up trade development. The U.S. should be concerned about this, but given the current domestic and international circus in Trump's Washington, it is doubtful it will be understood.


Modi is scheduled to meet Xi on the sidelines of the SCO. If both sides see the economic upside to their economic cooperation and sign an agreement to work together on the BRI, or allow China to establish a railway link to India's east coast ports, it will be the beginning of a new era where Asian markets will be on equal footing with developed economy capital. It will also signal the start of a new era of economic and political realism, where countries will balance their security and growth concerns -- an era that does not align with Trump's vision of continued American economic, political and military dominance.

Einar Tangen is a political and economic affairs commentator, author and columnist.

Why We Need a Global Public Economics (Почему нам нужна глобальная общественная экономика) / USA, May, 2018
Keywords: economic_challenges, expert_opinion, ndb
Author: Inge Kaul

Global public goods, from health to peace to security, crisscross national and social boundaries. We need a new economic theory to understand their pivotal role in the global economy.
This post is part of an INET series on BRICS and the global economy. The series is written by authors of the New Development Bank's report, "The Role of BRICS in the World Economy & International Development." According to the Goa Declaration, delivered at the 8th BRICS Summit in India in 2016, the BRICS are committed to support the emergence of "a more just, democratic, and multipolar international order based on the central role of the United Nations, and respect for international law." They welcome the United Nations' Agenda 2030 and reconfirm their commitment to lead by example in promoting its implementation, and ensure the increased voice of the dynamic and emerging and developing economies while protecting the voice of least developed countries, poor countries and regions. And they are ready to support the provision of global public goods (GPGs)—public goods whose benefits reach across borders, generations and population groups—in a wide range of areas, including climate change, health, food security, management of the global knowledge and technology stock, building a multilateral trade system with development at its core, control of corruption and illicit flows, international peace and security, and the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. These objectives were also stressed at earlier summits and have been reconfirmed at the Xiamen Summit in 2017.

Importantly, aspirations and intentions have in many instances been translated into concrete action by the BRICS jointly as a partnership, and individually, within the domestic context. A prominent and much noted action was the creation of the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement in 2014.

However, while the BRICS have done a lot and, sometimes, even more than the even more advanced countries, global challenges, notably challenges of the global public good type, continue to multiply. Long-standing ones linger unresolved, though they are well understood and tackling them would be feasible; and new challenges—such as the uncertainties associated with the dawning new technological age—are emerging. The reason is that most countries address transnational challenges to the extent that global and national interests overlap. But, mounting evidence shows the sum of what individual actors are willing to do for GPGs out of national, private or personal interests does often not suffice to ensure an adequate provision of these goods. Many GPGs have particular systemic integrity requirements that must be met in order to ensure that the goods deliver the services expected of them. This holds for climate change mitigation, financial stability, communicable disease control or eradication and, ocean health.

Among the reasons, which in turn explain the individualistic behaviour of states in the presence of GPGs is the lack of a full-fledged theory of global public economics. Yet, such a theory is urgently needed in this age of increasing multipolarity, in which power politics as a tool of international cooperation and, hence, also GPG provision is losing its effectiveness. In order to be effective international cooperation now needs to be incentive-compatible—perceived by all the concerned parties as mutually-beneficial and fair. But, at present, GPG provision for the most part is being approached as if it were foreign aid or development assistance—through the conventional aid agencies and aid instruments, as evident, for example, from the fact that the legacy multilateral development banks (MDBs) as well as the newer ones still largely operate based on a country and sovereign-loan focused business model rather than on a dual-track model that respects the differences between development support and GPG provision in order to benefit from the synergies that emerge when both development and GPGs are adequately realized.

So, how should we get started on constructing this missing second track—the GPG track—of the theory of global public economics, and explore and better understand its links with the development track? Two eminently do-able next steps could be considered:

  1. The BRICS could raise the issue of the missing theory and, consequently, the missing policy practice of effective and efficient GPG provision at the forthcoming G20 Summit in Argentina in November this year and suggest that the G20 support the creation of a global research network on this topic by making the requisite funding available. Despite all the differences and tensions among them, G20 members might actually be willing to jointly undertake such an initiative because whatever future they envision for themselves and the world will come to naught, if some of the essential risks materialize that we are currently confronting, notably the risk of run-away global warming.
  2. The community of economists can step forward to devise a theory of global public economics.
The time is ripe for such an initiative, because a lot of insights about how public economics might have to change when applied to global challenges exist already in the professional journals, waiting to be pulled together into a coherent analytical framework, indicating concrete steps for state and nonstate actors, individually and collectively toward not only addressing global challenges a bit, here and there—but actually resolving these challenges and fostering the often pronounced but continuously unrealized goal of more inclusive and sustainable global growth and development.

Here is where the academic community could add real global-public value: by breaking the collective-action problem that now keeps states, the BRICS, the G7 and all the other 180 or so countries trapped in 20th Century public-economics thinking. Clearly, if guided by dated theories, states are unlikely to do a good job at correcting market failure. So, the academic community should step forward now, with new concepts allowing policymakers and all of us—the global public—to better conceive and understand current policymaking realities.

This is perhaps the most striking lesson to learn from the rising global engagement of the BRICS to date. Yes, in many respects, they have helped improve the world. But just more of the same won't do. A qualitative step-change is necessary, including incentive-compatible ways to better combine the global and the national. Or in other words, we need a comprehensive, well-founded theory and policy practice of global public economics.

India suggests Aadhaar-like IDs, realtime alert system for financial transactions across BRICS nations (Индия предлагает ID, подобные Aadhaar, как систему оповещения в реальном времени о финансовых транзакциях между странами BRICS) / India, May, 2018
Keywords: economic_challenges, terrorism, digital

While the BRICS nations have been discussing ways to tackle terrorism for a long time, India has a new suggestion to offer to address the issue. The proposal is to introduce an Aadhaar-like unique identification number for every individual and company across BRICS nations, reports The Economic Times.

To keep a check on suspicious transactions in any of the BRICS nations, India has suggested realtime alert system and also proposed a uniform format for recording and reporting transactions of banks.

"Earlier, it was a request-based alert. So during the course of investigation, if we found any foreign transaction happening, we raised a request to get details from the country concerned. This process consumes a lot of time," said a senior official.

"Most of the time, investigators are clueless about foreign transactions. So if we raise an alert immediately and provide the relevant information to the concerned country, we can have an effective investigation conducted on terror financing that involves several countries," the official added.

An example of how transaction alerts can help keep a check on activities of terrorists is an investigation probe in Bangladesh. In the neighbouring country, a few months ago,investigators had stumbled upon information leading to an economic fraud. A further probe revealed that the fraud led to financing of a Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) module in West Bengal's Burdwan district.

During a meeting attended by BRICS nations' joint working group on strategy for counter terrorism and tackling terrorism financing that started from April 18, India's participation included a seven-member team comprising senior officials of the Union ministries of home and external affairs, National Security Guard and Enforcement Directorate.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is likely to join the BRICS meeting in July, said people aware of the matter. According to them, a sub-group on terrorism financing has subsequently been formed.
BRICS Co-Operation in MICE sector develops for South Africa (Совместное сотрудничество БРИКС в секторе MICE развивается для Южной Африки) / South Africa, May, 2018
Keywords: concluded_agreements, economic_challenges, trade_relations
South Africa

A reciprocity agreement is to be signed between the India Exhibition Industry Association and the South African Association for The Conference Industry at 2nd BRICS MICE Co-operation Forum Meeting in Hydrabad, India on Thursday.

Inkanyezi Events CEO, Andrew Binning, who is the South African Representative on the Forum, and South African Association for The Conference Industry CEO Rudi Vyver, will sign the agreement on behalf of the South Africa Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) sector.

Binning has also been invited to address 800 MICE sector delegates at the premium International BRICS gathering, hosted by the India Exhibition Industry Association on Friday 11 May.

The BRICS MICE Co-operation Forum aims to look at creating strategies which will enhance opportunities for cooperation in the MICE sector.

"India has a massive, competitive economy which points to the value and potential of business tourism created by synergistic events and the participation of the Indian business community in South African hosted MICE activities", Binning said.

Binning said following the first BRICS MICE Co-operation Forum held in China, late last year, the South African representation, led by SAACI, sought to build partnerships and extract real returns from it.

"The agreement is significant and a start of a formal process which we trust will bring good returns,'' Binning said. "Relationship building is a long-term process but we are discussing specific activities and actions to move the forum into tangible returns for the partners."

"As a result I will also be visiting Russia after the forum to meet BRICS, industry and SA Embassy representatives to explore cooperation between SA and Russia, Binning said.

Binning will input, alongside other international presenters, on the programme for the conference, which deals with Emerging Formats of Meeting Events.

"It will cover new formats of exhibitions and conferences and the technological advancements that are driving heightened delegate and exhibitor experience and value."

Inkanyezi Events, based in Port Elizabeth, with a national footprint, is one of South Africa's foremost MICE sector companies. Established in 1998 it celebrates its 20th year of operations in 2018.

World of work
Social policy, trade unions, actions
THE Emerging Economies University Rankings 2018: new name, wider frame (Рейтинги университетов развивающихся стран 2018: новые имена, более широкие рамки) / United Kingdom, May, 2018
Keywords: social_issues, rating, expert_opinion
United Kingdom
Author: Phil Baty

We've dropped the term 'BRICS' not to disparage any country's feats but rather to recognise an expanding world of strength and diversity, says Phil Baty

You may already have noticed something a little different about the 2018 edition of the Times Higher Education Emerging Economies Rankings – a small but significant tweak to its name.

Since first publishing this ranking in 2014, we have included in its title the famous "BRICS" acronym – coined in 2001 by the economist Jim O'Neill to highlight the major emerging economic powerhouses of Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa added later. But now we have dropped the "BRICS" from our name.

This move is in no way to diminish the importance of the BRICS nations in global higher education – indeed, China in particular is now clearly established as a world higher education superpower competing alongside the traditional Anglo-American heavyweights. Russia is making solid progress on the global scene with its ambitious "Project 5-100", which aims to propel five universities into the ranks of the world's top 100 by 2020. And India has launched its own version of the "excellence initiatives" that have raised standards in many emerging economy higher education systems: its "Institutions of Eminence" plans will allow a select group of up to 20 leading institutions from both the public and private sectors to embrace global competition with additional funding and unprecedented levels of institutional autonomy.

Our name change is not about belittling any country's hard-won achievements but rather aims to recognise the exceptional strength in the wide diversity of the emerging economy nations, BRICS and all.

Any nation deemed an emerging economy by the FTSE Group's Country Classification process is included for analysis in this ranking. This edition includes a total of 42 nations represented among more than 350 institutions ranked.

The ranking includes the "MINT" nations predicted to become economic giants – Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. It also takes in most of the group that THE itself labelled the "TACTICS" – Thailand, Argentina, Chile, Turkey, Iran, Colombia and Serbia – which appear to be particularly poised for success in higher education, with young populations, strong growth in higher education participation and expanding research output.

So a subtle change to the name of this ranking represents a far less subtle change taking place in global higher education – the rise of a rich and diverse range of nations, spread across the globe, powered by higher-level skills, talent, research and innovation. We are delighted to celebrate that.

Phil Baty
Editorial director, global rankings

Made on