Tossing a Bric: Big Emerging Economies Abstained on UN Libya Vote

The west may be going to war with Muammar Gaddafi and his minions, but the world's largest emerging economies do not have their back. After abstaining on the Libya vote, the larger implication is that the BRIC nations are assessing the world through the lens of their own needs and opportunities - and those may well be different from Europe and the US. That said these votes could be a signal that future agreement will come at a cost like permanent seats on the Security Council, as befits their economic heft, or it could simply be opposition to intervention, on which the Chinese and Russians have been consistent over the years. But whatever the reason, anyone who thought economic emergence would align global interests may well have been dreaming.

Harvey Morris reports in the Financial Times:

"If the western powers go to war with Muammer Gaddafi, it will be without the support of one of the key emerging components of the new global architecture – the Brics.

Brazil, Russia, India and China all abstained in Thursday’s UN Security Council vote to mandate military action against the Libyan regime.

India and China are permanent members of an institution that reflects the global power structure in the immediate aftermath of the second world war. Brazil and India, presently serving two-year terms, are seeking permanent seats on a reformed council that would more closely reflect the realities of the 21st century.

The Russians and Chinese take a consistent line against what they regard as interference in the internal affairs of UN member states. They could have vetoed resolution 1973 but that would have meant turning their backs on a direct appeal from traditional friends in the Arab League to impose a no-fly zone.

China’s foreign ministry said on Friday that Beijing did not use its veto because of the “concerns and stance of Arab countries and the African Union as well as the special situation in Libya”.

Reservations expressed by India and Brazil at the close of Thursday’s debate indicated an expanded council would strengthen the hand of the non-interventionists and weaken that of the west with its three permanent seats – the US, France and UK.

Manjeev Singh Puri, Indian ambassador, noted: “It is very important that there is full respect for sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Libya.”

“It was a clear signal to the international community that they will not be the west’s lapdogs,” said Carne Ross, who heads the New York-based Independent Diplomat consultancy. “And there was certainly an element of posturing for permanent seats.”

He doubted there was any active collusion among the Brics on how to vote but said council dynamics reflected an element of “follow my leader”. “If China and Russia had voted in favour, it’s very unlikely India and Brazil would have abstained.”

According to Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs: “That was the best solution for all Bric countries – not to disturb relations with the west, but to distance themselves from responsibility.”

Brazil, which is non-interventionist at heart, has long believed in the seductive power of its rainbow diplomacy, which it claims can open doors and broker peace deals that other countries cannot.

Brazil has a professional diplomatic corps that is long hardened in trade negotiations, but despite an extensive diplomatic network it remains a newcomer to global security concerns and lacks the foreign policy experience and think-tank framework of some of its Bric peers, particularly Russia.

Jorge Castañeda, political scientist and former Mexican foreign minister, wrote in Foreign Affairs earlier this year: “It is the traditional powers in the west that will determine the international response to this [Middle East] crisis – not because they are favoured by global institutions, but because their word is backed by military and diplomatic weight. In contrast, the world's rising economies lack the ability – and the values – to project their power on the world stage.”

Thursday’s vote was a close-run thing. Germany, another aspirant to permanent membership, also abstained but that almost certainly had more to do with domestic resistance to the use of military force.

The outcome is unlikely to deter western leaders from paying at least lip service to an expansion of the security council.

President Barack Obama might well express US support for Brazil’s elevation to permanent status when he visits the country at the weekend. Western leaders, however, know that wrangling over the format for expansion, and indeed competition among rival aspirants, is likely to stymie reform for many years to come