> For instance intra-Third-World economic connections between Brasil-
> India-South Africa is also looked at as a bad-deal by many U.S.
> corporations.
The three countries you mention -- Brazil, India, and South Africa -- have had a moderating influence on poorer countries' economic conflicts with richer countries. They do have differences with richer countries, but their strongest complaint seems to be focused on unfair and unequal accesses to foreign markets in international trade (in which poorer countries make more onerous concessions than richer ones, the latter of which have hung on to important export subsidies and the like even while preaching the virtue of free trade to the rest of the world). That is not an insignificant complaint, which has had an effect of slowing down the development of multilateral free-trade agreements, but even if the three got what they wanted, it wouldn't much help countries poorer than them that have few really competitive products in international markets.
If they had fought harder on the intellectual property and international debt fronts, it would have been a different story. However, they just don't have the same interests as heavily indebted countries on the debt front (India's foreign exchange reserve -- $137.20 billion -- is larger than its foreign debt of $119.2 billion [at <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1473047.cms>]; Brazil has paid off its $15.4 billion IMF debt ahead of the schedule [at <http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=10000086&sid=aT.YdxLDsR9o&refer=news_index>]; etc.), and on the intellectual property front, India has amended its patent laws in line with what richer countries demanded <http://www.guardian.co.uk/ india/story/0,12559,1443897,00.html>, and Brasilia and Washington mutually retreated from their most aggressive positions on this issue <http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/c/brazil/bna06262001.html>.
The three have also developed closer relations with Washington in military terms. For instance, recall the role of Brasilia in the occupation of Haiti (after Washington's ouster of Aristide), the nuclear quid pro quo between New Delhi and Washington (New Delhi going along with the Washington agenda on Iran in exchange for Washington's promise for nuclear technology sale), Washington's increasing military assistance and sales to South Africa (cf. <http:// www.prairienet.org/acas/military/miloverview.html>), etc.
If the three governments had used their powers on behalf of poorer ones, it would be great, but, for that to happen, different forces would have to come into power in their respective countries.
Here is a paradox: on one hand, the capitalist development of countries like Brazil and India, the emergence of China as a major capitalist economic force to reckon with, the integration of the European Union and the strengthening of the Euro, etc. have led some to believe that the hope for an economically and politically multi- polar world has become closer to reality; on the other hand, their capitalist development has caused significant segments of their own populaces (as well as their neighbors, as in the case of Brazil's relation to Bolivia <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/ Week-of-Mon-20060403/034980.html>) a great deal of hardships and discontents, leading to social conflicts. Such social conflicts may in the future become generalized on a national scale and take yet another left turn, but they have not so far. Their respective power elites' interests are probably closer to Washington's than poorer countries'.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>