Conversation with erstwhile Vice president of the fresh improvement Bank, Prof. Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr.
You are most likely 1 of the fewer economists who, on the basis of their own experience, can compare the global Monetary Fund with an entirely fresh institution, the fresh improvement Bank operating at BRICS. We so have a western financial institution and a BRICS financial institution. What differences do you see between them?
– I actually spent 8 years at the IMF in Washington, D.C., and immediately after that I moved to Shanghai, where I became 1 of the founding members of the fresh improvement Bank. Why did we make a fresh improvement Bank? In particular, due to the fact that the IMF did not respond to the request for change. There were any changes in the IMF in 2008, 2009 and 2010, but since 2010, the structure of the IMF – and the same applies to the planet Bank – has become as if it had become ossified. No reforms were carried out and no reforms seemed real, likely in the foreseeable future. At any point – I think it was someway in 2011 or 2012 – the BRICS Group realized that it should address this issue. It was not about leaving the IMF and the planet Bank, which were inactive members of all its countries, but about creating an alternative. We did it. I moved to Shanghai in 2015 and stayed there until 2017. We have attempted to make something new. The fresh improvement Bank, called the BRICS bank, is actually just starting to operate. Even today, 10 or 11 years after its inception, it inactive tries to become a strong institution. Building a multilateral institution is not a simple task. The BRICS Group has never done anything like this before. We learn from our mistakes. I'm disappointed at the pace of our progress. Let me give you 1 example. We were going to make a global bank, and in the meantime we only have 10 members and there is no way to talk about it. We have 5 founding members of BRICS and 5 another countries that joined somewhat later. Meanwhile, we request to have a lot more members. I do not know what Poland would say. possibly Poland would like to join us. The bank is open to all emerging markets and developing countries without any exceptions. It is besides open to western countries that want to be lenders, to high-income countries that are ready to lend. At the moment, we do not have any, but for the United arabian Emirates, which are a country with advanced incomes, but this is simply a somewhat different case. All the another members are mediate or low income countries. I think Poland would be a good candidate, although I have never heard the bank address it.
Incidentally, it is very interesting due to the fact that we have any similarities between Latin American countries and Poland erstwhile it comes to the policy of the global Monetary Fund and the planet Bank towards them. I mean the terms of the loan. As we know in the 1980s the concept of the Washington Consensus for Latin American countries emerged. Right after the break-up of the east bloc, in the beginning of our transformation, we besides had akin conditions for the IMF and the planet Bank. Do you think that the global Monetary Fund and another financial institutions controlled by the West proceed to impose the conditions set out in the past as the Washington Consensus?
– I think they inactive apply. We are dealing with institutions based in Washington, the IMF and the planet Bank, which are controlled by the United States and the largest Western European countries and Japan. These 3 centres together with Canada and Australia dominate the IMF and the planet Bank. It's a Western control system. Latin American countries have no access to it. What do we do about it? We avoid utilizing these credits as shortly as possible due to the fact that their macroeconomic conditions frequently have nothing to do with the needs of our countries. Brazil has been avoiding the global Monetary Fund for many years. If I'm not mistaken, the last programs he funded were closed in 2013 or even earlier. However, the weaker countries of Latin America inactive search his support. Poland is simply a peculiar case due to the fact that it received support from a credit line called the Flexible Credit Line, which I co-created and which is characterised by low-cost conditions. Poland was 1 of the fewer countries that could usage it. It proved her potential. In general, however, I think that Poland is besides 1 of those countries that feels unrepresented in the fund at the appropriate level. Poland and Switzerland share the position of Executive Director, but this is only 1 of 25 executive positions. I think the Polish side is not happy with this. possibly not as much as Latin America, but it is besides not satisfied with the situation in the IMF and the planet Bank.
Yes, this was especially the case in the 1990s erstwhile we were given conditions in the form of deregulation or privatisation of a large part of our economy. In those days, the full neoliberal agenda was imposed on countries specified as Poland, from outside. However, I would now like to ask you about the fresh improvement Bank. Are there any conditions that a country curious in cooperating with this bank must fulfil?
– Well, usually the bank lends to associate States. In respective exceptional cases, he granted loans to non-member countries. However, it usually supports associate States. We created this bank just to avoid creating any additional conditions. That was our goal. Of course, the bank has to accept all project. These projects must have a healthy basis. However, erstwhile we negociate them with associate States, we emphasise respect for the political framework and the political priorities of the recipient country. This definitely separates us from the planet Bank and the IMF. The planet Bank is trying to transform the countries to which it lends money, in line with Washington policies. The same applies to the IMF. Meanwhile, the fresh improvement Bank may not have made a breakthrough yet, but it has set any goals for itself. They are part of his strategy and are enshrined in the text of the agreement establishing the bank. I have any doubts, answering your question, due to the fact that 1 of the weaknesses of the fresh improvement Bank is the deficiency of transparency. Thus, not being inside the bank – just like me – you don't truly know what's going on. Incidentally, 1 reason for the deficiency of transparency is that we have given work to the Russians. The Russians are large people, but transparency is not their specialty. On the contrary, they are active in combating information fighting and hiding certain things. The bank is so very closed. Not only by the Russians, but it was they who put their hand on it. The current president of the fresh improvement Bank is erstwhile Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, of the origin of partially Bulgarian. Rousseff is highly qualified. She was the president of our country. I think it's moving the bank forward. I'll most likely go to Shanghai in June and effort to look at the bank's work. As 1 of its founding members, I am peculiarly curious in its success.
What were the most serious obstacles that faced the fresh countries planning or intending to join the fresh improvement Bank, which have not yet done so?
– I think about it myself, due to the fact that always since I worked there, we've been trying very hard to expand. I've been talking to over 50 countries in the world, convincing them to join the bank. After I left the station, we had a problem. Russia was erstwhile again. The Russians wanted to usage the fresh improvement Bank's loans for their needs and were afraid that its opponents would get a membership of the bank. That's why Russia blocked all negotiations. Another problem is India due to the fact that they are afraid about joining the Bank of China-related states, which would weaken their position in this institution. That's besides bad. erstwhile we worked on the text of the agreement to set up a bank, we concluded a point in it that did not let for consensus-based decision-making, due to the fact that in the case of a consensus method, which is strictly understood as unanimity, all associate State would have the right to veto. This is in the text of the agreement. In practice, however, all time a bank acts under the rule of consensus. So if Russia is against it, no fresh country can be adopted. The same is actual erstwhile India is opposed. Almost never a vote is held to reject a veto against a country, and this leads to paralysis. This involves the fact that many of our countries, but China, are in the process of seeking the position of applicable actors in global relations. This applies to all, but China, the founding countries of the fresh improvement Bank. But like I said, I hope we decision forward. There are many another examples of global institutions that started very poorly and timidly and later developed dynamically. 1 of them is simply a bank with us, in Latin America, CAF, or Comunidad Argentina de Fomento. He started very modestly, and present he is 1 of the largest multilateral improvement banks in the world, although he is inactive small known, even in Latin America.
Since we are in Latin America, I would like to ask you about the anticipation of extending the BRICS Group in the future. We remember that before there were political changes in readiness to join Argentina. Do you see any another Latin American countries ready to join this group?
– Uruguay membership has long been accepted. I have late heard that the Uruguayan Parliament is having any difficulty ratifying the accession agreement. That's very sad news. I hope we can overcome them. Another country is Colombia. Colombia joined the bank, bringing a lot to it. And as for Argentina, do you mean the bank itself, or the full political bloc?
Political and, in fact, political and economic. I mean the BRICS group itself. But I'm besides talking about the bank.
“The members of the bank are Uruguay and Colombia. Argentina received an invitation to join the political bloc, but fortunately she rejected it. For if we now had Argentina and Milei straight subordinate to Trump in the integration process of the BRICS Group, it would be a serious interior problem, especially in view of the fact that the group besides acts on a unanimous basis. Argentina would be a serious blocking component in this situation. As you most likely know, another invited country that has not responded to the invitation is Saudi Arabia. It's besides good due to the fact that Saudi Arabia is in the Western camp today, which is peculiarly clear in the context of the war against Iran. As we are already outside Latin America, another country, outside Iran, that received and accepted the invitation, was the United arabian Emirates. I wonder who had the thought of sending an invitation to the United arabian Emirates. Yes, it is simply a high-income country, a rich country, but geopolitically it has absolutely nothing to do with BRICS. I request to check it out, but I think the UAE organization was promoted by India. India is now a problem for BRICS.
Yeah, that's an interesting point. I mean India, not in the economical but political dimension, with their attitude towards Iran, with their support for any of the Israeli-American coalition's actions fighting Iran. It's at least weird. On the example of India, I would like to ask you if, in the face of interior contradictions in the BRICS block, its further integration is even possible?
– This has always been a problem, but it has now become even bigger due to the increasingly serious geopolitical and military situation following the attack on Iran. India may be afraid for at least 2 reasons. 1 of them is their relation with Israel. How is it possible that shortly before the attack on Iran, Prime Minister Modi is paying a visit to Israel, clutching with the war criminal Netanyahu and speaking on the Kneset forum? If I were an Indian, I'd be ashamed. It's truly outrageous. This behaviour is unworthy of a BRICS member, due to the fact that BRICS was to be a group of countries calling for reforms. It was not meant to be an anti-Western group, but, however, trying to make an alternate to the West, not necessarily entering conflict with it. As I mentioned, Iran is simply a associate of BRICS. It appears that Iran fits BRICS more than India, although India was 1 of the founding countries of the group. The problem is with Modi's government. Modi's government is from this point of view much worse than the cabinet of the erstwhile Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. Singh supported the fresh improvement Bank. He came up with this thought on behalf of India, and another countries supported this idea. The present India is completely different. I can't justify what they're doing, but trying to explain it in the shortest possible terms – India has problems with Pakistan on the 1 hand and with China on the other. They can no longer trust on good relations with Russia, as in the past. And it's not that their relation with Russia is highly bad, but Russia is very close to China, especially after the invasion of Ukraine. Russia is so no longer specified a close partner for India. In what direction is India looking? They look at the United States due to the fact that they fear China. Modi made the situation worse by his attitude towards the Muslim minority. India must so lead a policy of balance, but it has been very close to the United States lately. This is despite the fact that Trump stabbed them in the back last year in the form of the introduction of very advanced duties. Yet India is inactive betting on the United States. This is tragic, due to the fact that in 2026 India is chairing BRICS, the full integration process of the group. What can be expected from specified leadership in India? Nothing, nothing and nothing again. Although as a Brazilian, I could say that Brazilian leadership in the group last year was besides a failure and a large disappointment. So I have no greater right to criticize India besides harshly. But look at what we can expect. In 2027, China will be chaired. I can only hope that China will do a much better occupation next year than India and Brazil. India inactive has time. However, given their relation with Israel and, above all, with the United States, I would not anticipate anything peculiar from them.
So you think China can become the main driver of BRICS integration?
– I believe that China and Russia, as well as Iran, are the biggest drivers. Russia and China are immense countries that have proven to be resistant to Western pressure. China has shown a large example of how to deal with Americans erstwhile they responded to Trump's customs policy last year. Russia, on the another hand, proves that it deserves respect on the battlefield. That's what Iran does. To be honest, it is impossible to say the same about another BRICS countries. I was talking about India. However, South Africa and Brazil are equally weak links. Why? due to the fact that here in Brazil, we have a large, rich number in Europe, and especially in the United States. Her representatives think we're part of the West. Meanwhile, Brazil is not part of the West. Brazil is part of the Global South. Geographically, it is located in the west, but geopolitically it is not considered an equal partner by Western countries. That's why we're in BRICS. However, there is no consensus in Brazil on this issue. erstwhile our country tried to take any steps last year, opposition rose, and Trump's threats besides frightened many members of the government. It's not president Lula, it's quite a few his ministers terrified of Trump's threats. Unfortunately, due to this, our actions at BRICS were most likely paralyzed.
Let's decision on to another question about Latin America. erstwhile we read the strategy of the United States, we see that they declare a direct return to Monroe's doctrine. any commentators even claim that we have a doctrine they call the Donroe doctrine, which is much more aggressive than its historical counterpart. any analysts argue that Brazil is the only country capable of opposing the United States' dominance of the Western Hemisphere. Do you think that Brazilian possible could become a core for independent Latin America?
– I have carefully read both the strategy papers made public by the United States – the national strategies of last year and the defence strategy of January of this year. Both emphasize the request for United States hegemony in the Western hemisphere. The Western hemisphere is understood in them as a space extending from Greenland to Patagonia. They treat her as a whole. In my opinion, the attack on Venezuela in early January of that year was an incarnation of it. It was truly outrageous. There has never been a akin aggression against South America. This happened for the first time in a very long history. This was shocking, especially because, let's face it, the United States has done so almost at no cost or has incurred very small costs, and present they control the Delcy Rodriguez government, which has become the vassal of Americans. This is simply a serious problem. However, erstwhile we read the strategy of the United States, we will see that it is not actual that, as any say, the Americans are confined to the Western hemisphere. Yes, they want to control it, but they have not given up their most crucial goal of global hegemon status. It's beautiful obvious. This is confirmed by their subsequent actions, including against Iran. The United States is not confined to the Western hemisphere. And who do we have in this Western hemisphere? Can't number on Canada. Canada is an crucial country, but depends on the United States.
When we look south, which countries are not connected to Trump now? There's Colombia, there's Brazil, and there's Mexico. We inactive have Nicaragua and Cuba. I think that's it. The remainder is already subordinate to Trump and his doctrine, the doctrine of Donroe, as you called it. This is best seen in Milei’s example, but we have many another cases. It is so so crucial for Brazil to play an independent role. I don't want to advocate any group here. I'm not a associate of president Lula's party. I'm frequently very critical of him. However, given that the opposition against him in the upcoming presidential election this year is Trump's people in Brazil, the boy of erstwhile president Bolsonaro Flávio Bolsonaro, I am very much afraid about Lula's re-election. He is inactive the favourite of the polls, but the difference is small. Meanwhile, from the point of view of Donald Trump and the United States, the best, easiest way to take control of the Western Hemisphere would be to defeat Lula in the elections that will take place in October of this year. From a geopolitical point of view, elections in Brazil can be decisive for the full world. A very crucial election will besides take place in Colombia. If they can win president Petro, Colombia will stay in our camp, which is very important. Let me just say briefly that Claudia Sheinbaum, president of Mexico, woman, Jew, is truly excellent. He's doing a large job. We must realise that in an economical sense Mexico is highly dependent on the United States. Nevertheless, it shows large courage in the face of the American dictatorship. Cuba, on the another hand, is an example of a tiny country, with 10 million inhabitants, like Israel, but capable of resisting sanctions and pressures of a large superpower right at its borders, even from the early 1960s.
I hope Brazil will aid Cuba to keep its independency more. erstwhile we perceive to the Cuban leaders, we conclude that they are large people, very specific, very serious, much better than leaders in Europe or in the United States. Especially erstwhile we look at the present Western Europe and the United States. It's an amazing sight. I truly hope that Cuba can escape the trap she's trying to get her to. What I will say now is rather selfish, but 1 origin can play a affirmative function here: the fact that the United States is stuck in Iran and the mediate East makes them incapable to take on our behalf. They concentrate on a different place. However, the United States is simply a power capable of acting on different fronts simultaneously. Anyway, Iran has proven that they are incapable to do whatever they want, anywhere they like.
Thank you for talking to me.
Prof. Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr (born 1955 in Rio de Janeiro) – Brazilian economist, in the past, Deputy Minister of Planning, Advisor to the Minister of Finance, in L. 2007-2013 – Executive manager of the global Monetary Fund, in 2015-2017 – 1 of the founders and vice president of the fresh Bank for improvement BRICS.
The full interview available on YouTube channel Against Censur.
Think Poland, No. 21-22 (24-31.05.2026)
