������Ƶ

•Says BRICS’ expansion not logical, group yet to achieve anything since he coined the acronym 

•Declares Nigeria ought to focus on being included among G-20   

•Expresses disappointment with Nigeria’s economic performance, leadership

Obinna Chima

As the debate over the non-invitation of Nigeria by members of BRICS countries to join the club, Lord Jim O’Neill, who coined the BRICS acronym in 2001, has advised Nigeria not to be bothered about the development, saying the as the group was yet to achieve anything tangible since they became a bloc.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with ������Ƶ, yesterday, O’ Neill, a former Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs, noted that Nigeria should be more focused on being included in the G-20.

He, however, expressed disappointment with the performance of the Nigerian economy since 2013, when he coined MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey), noting that the West Africa country was still too dependent on oil and has not been fortunate with good leadership.

The BRICS group currently includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. At the onset, it was BRIC, without South Africa.

But Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and Argentina, were recently invited to become members of the group of developing nations in its first expansion in over a decade.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa had announced the countries invited at their annual summit held in Johannesburg recently.

But O’Neill, in the interview, pointed out that: “I personally think Nigeria shouldn’t worry about not being included in BRICS, because it is a club that hasn’t achieved anything yet. Secondly, I personally believe that Nigeria is probably the most outstanding country to be included in the G-20, if they are going to expand it.

“If they are going to expand the G-20, Nigeria should be one country that should be next to become a member.  That is because it is the biggest country in Africa. If you want to make the global system truly representative, in my opinion the G-20 is close to being the most legitimate thing we have, because it already has 80 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), half of the world’s population.

“So, adding Nigeria would make a lot of sense. I don’t think the BRICS group is likely going to have any global power.”

He noted that economically, only two of the BRICS countries had been successful, which he identified as China and India.

“The other two – Russia and Brazil – because I didn’t include South Africa at the beginning – had a very good decade, but since after 2010, both have been extremely disappointing and of course South Africa as well.

“In fact, each of the three countries’ share of global GDP is back to where it was when I created the acronym in 2001. So, the aggregate of the BRICS is completely dependent on India and especially China.

“China today, despite having significant problems, is twice the size of the other BRICS countries put together. So, BRICS is a club that is dependent on the importance of China and India.

“As for the expansion of the political club, I don’t really understand what they are trying to achieve, because they have never achieved anything political together so far.

“At the same time, I don’t understand the criteria they used in choosing the countries to join them.  I don’t know why they want to expand when they have never achieved anything yet as a club, because it would be harder for them now and I don’t understand why they chose the six countries they announced,” he explained.

Speaking further, O’Neill, who in 2015, was appointed to the UK House of Lords and took up a post at the UK Treasury under the Conservative George Osborne, noted that the BRICS country’s ought to have considered the MINT countries in the expansion plan.

“So, if you are going to expand the BRICS group, economically, you would firstly include Indonesia, probably Mexico and not Argentina, because Mexico is much bigger, probably Turkey and very relevant and almost definitely, Nigeria ahead of Ethiopia or Egypt.

“Nigeria is the biggest economy in Africa and holds almost 15 per cent of Africa’s population. Whilst Egypt and Ethiopia have a lot of people, it is less than half of the people of Nigeria. So, I don’t why they chose the countries they did.

“For me, the expansion is not logical, it doesn’t make any sense and it is very disappointing.”

Responding to a question on how Nigeria could position itself to be more relevant in the international system, O’Neill said: “To be honest with you, Nigeria has been very disappointing. Nigeria has not reformed enough and is still too dependent on oil, even though there were some encouraging steps recently to reduce subsidy on petrol prices. “Somehow, Nigeria has to develop its economy to become less dependent on oil prices and oil revenue. Since I visited in 2013, I don’t think the country has been very successful.

“The leadership in Nigeria in my opinion has been very disappointing. But I still think it should be the next country to join the G-20, because it is the most important country in Africa.”