1. GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
BRICS New Development
Bank
Political and Financial Implications of
Decentralizing Global Economic Power
Jordan Totten
12/1/2014
Under the Directed Study of Dr. Bill Yang,
Professor of Economics at Georgia Southern University
This paper analyzes global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, as well as,
new establishments by the BRICS nations. As some emerging economies of the new millennium seek
to balance global financial order, others seek to create an anti-dollar alliance. This paper explores the
political and financial implications of decentralizing global economic power, predicts a trend indicative
of the dollar’s depreciation, and proposes a Global and American response.

2. Totten1
Introduction
At the 2014 BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, the committee announced its impatience
with failed reform within the International Monetary Fund. “We remain disappointed and
seriously concerned with the current non-implementation of the 2010 International Monetary
Fund (IMF) reforms, which negatively impacts on the IMF’s legitimacy, credibility and
effectiveness” [18]. Leaders of the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa (hereafter BRICS) have expressed the need for reform in the Bretton Woods
institutions. Collectively, BRICS account for nearly $16 trillion in GDP and 40% of the world’s
population. These countries have drafted amendments to the IMF’s voting policy and have yet to
receive a sufficient number of votes. At the summit, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff stated
the BRICS nations “are among the largest in the world and cannot content themselves in the
middle of the 21st century with any kind of dependency” [18]. Last June, Sergey Glazyev,
Vladimir Putin’s chief economic advisor, published an article outlining the need for an
international anti-dollar alliance. He called upon allies to eliminate the dollar from international
trade and trend toward depleting them from currency reserves. Recent dollar-less BRICS energy
deals, currency swaps, and foreign direct investment indicate that trend is taking place. This
paper analyzes the political and financial implications of decentralizing global economic power.
This year’s summit marks the establishment of a $100 billion dollar liquidity reserve and
a $50 billion New Development Bank (NBD) in Shanghai. As each country acts to maximize its
own utility, the emerging economies of the BRICS nations will create a paralleling international
financial system ultimately challenging the hegemony of the current western-dominated system.
New Development Bank and Contingency Reserve
On July 15, 2014 leaders of the five BRICS countries signed the articles of agreement for
the NDB, and a treaty for the establishment of a contingency reserve arrangement (CRA) in their
first effort to balance the world financial order. While the CRA is intended to relieve liquidity
pressures in times of crisis, the bank will be used to facilitate infrastructure investment and
promote sustainable development in nations facing financial constraints- something the BRICS
nations believe needs more international capital than it is receiving. The CRA is a $100 billion
enterprise with initial capital contributions reflecting each countries stake in global GDP. The
bank will start with an initial paid-in-capital of $50 billion, each BRICS country contributing $10
billion.
These shares of capital stock in the NDB not only represent equity of the contributing
member, but represent a country’s direct representation in decision-making. However, it should
be noted their balance-of-power initiative is not present in governance in either financial
instrument. Because eventually all United Nations will be eligible for membership and
borrowing, the agreements specifically outline the terms of future earning of stock. The articles
explain that a country’s increase in capital share must be agreed upon by all founding countries,
the BRICS capital share must never fall below 55%, and a non-founding member may never
increase above 7% [4]. Additionally, the paid-in-capital, or reserves, are planned to be
denominated in each country’s currency. However, there is no requirement preventing a country
from swapping it’s currency with another. In the beginning years, the administrative positions of

3. Totten2
the NDB and CRA will rotate among the founding members. After other countries purchase
membership an elected Board of Governors will cast equal votes to determine ranking leaders.
The first president of the bank will be appointed by India; the first chairman of the Board of
Governors will be Brazilian; the first chairman of the Board of Directors will be Russian; the
first regional bank will be in South Africa; and the headquarters will be in Shanghai.
The press release announcing the BRICS’ frustrations with the current system suggests
political gridlock inspired these new enterprises. Interestingly, they did not set the example in a
global balancing of power within the financial institutions, but rather the balance of power within
the BRICS themselves. However, what does separate them from their international financial
counter-parts is the capital invested equals the votes received. While it will be difficult to sway
votes as a coalition of non-founding members, there will be less financial stake. I believe
regardless of internal power distribution, the BRICS NDB will decentralize global economics by
paralleling the current institutions.
Political Gridlock
As stated earlier, growing impatience within the current western-dominated system
sparked this new financial order. To understand the impatience with the current system, it is
important to analyze its establishment. At the end of World War II the Bretton Woods
conference marked the world’s first attempt at international monetary order. Among the 44 allied
nations, the majority of the negotiators agreed that the period between the World Wars
demonstrated the disadvantages of floating currency rates [6]. International trading and investing
was fairly weak during the 1930s, largely due to lack of confidence in the flexibility of floating
currencies. Despite the lack of confidence, most negotiators at the conference were reluctant in
returning to the truly permanent fixed rate model like the 19th century gold standard. What
emerged was the ‘pegged rate’ currency regime in which national currencies entered into a

4. Totten3
currency market. So, through the compromises and deliberations of modern economist, John M.
Keynes and Harry D. White, the IMF and World Bank were born.
Voting power within the institutions was derived from a quota formula. The formula is a
weighted average of GDP (.5), openness (.3), economic variability (.15), and international
reserves (.05). In addition to the ultimate veto power given only to the United States, this
formula gave increasing control to the global economic powerhouses at the time. This voting
system was justified because at the time of the conference, the economic powerhouses were
consistently lending, and inconsistently borrowing; therefore, they argued to have a larger say in
monetary decisions. Embedded in this logic was the notion that any country transforming itself
into an economic powerhouse with the stability of being a consistent lender versus a consistent
borrower could expect to see their voting power shift, giving them significant stake in global
economic decision-making [8]. However, despite having the second largest economy, China is
still unable to become a top 5 shareholder in the IMF [8]. Canada has more influence than China.
Belgium has more influence than Brazil. As of now, the top 5 shareholders are the United States,
Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. Collectively they hold nearly 40% of the
voting power. One of the implicit rewards of the Bretton Woods institutions is the chance to
become a significant partner and actively participate in the governing of capital. But, failure to
implement the 2010 amendments has proved that the emerging economies of the BRICS are
moving faster than political reform.
In 2010, the IMF’s Board of Governors supported amendments to the quota formula,
which would shift 6% of votes from over-represented countries to under-represented countries
and increase the allocated Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for emerging economies [7]. Upon the
update in 2010 the IMF stated, “The major realignment in ranking of quota shares under this
reform will result in a Fund that better reflects global realities” [7]. However, for them to take
effect they need a favorable 85% vote. As of September 5, 2014, the amendments have received
a 77% favorable vote. The United States is among those countries who have not voted favorably.
Representation and balance of power is extremely important in institutions with the clout of the
World Bank and the IMF. An imbalance of power in a diplomatic setting of this magnitude
exposes the risk of imposing some countries political agenda at the expense of others. Let us take
a look at three historical examples.
(1) As demonstrated throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the IMF loaned Mobutu Sese
Seko, dictator to the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire), several hundred million dollars
[13]. Mobutu was possibly the most flamboyant and heinous dictator of his time. During his
kleptocracy, and despite the country’s vast amount of resources, nearly 70% percent of his
citizens lived in absolute poverty. Not only was Mobutu seen as an important anti-communist
ally by the West, he was crucial to the United States initiative to overthrow the Popular
Movement of the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) in Angola. Very few, if any, investment projects
were funded during the time of the IMF loans, nevertheless, loans were continuously granted by
the IMF. Genocide was committed between warring clans, and for years there was little initiative
by Mobutu or any other government to stop it. Mobutu squandered millions of his loans on
lavish palaces around the world and left the bill to public debt. When Mobutu was exiled in 1997
Congo’s debt was nearly $13 billion. And the country is still repaying it.
(2) In 1968 Robert McNamara became president of the World Bank. He argued that the
Philippines held such strategic military importance that it was imperative to increase their

5. Totten4
relationship with the World Bank [16]. In The World Bank: First Half Century, Bank historians
shed light on the issue:
“McNamara and his staff were annoyed at the way the Philippines legislature was
stalemating policy reforms. Thus the Philippines was an instance in which martial law
triggered the takeoff of Banking lending. Marcos dismissed the legislature and started
ruling by presidential decree in August 1972. McNamara and the Bank staff welcomed
the move.”
After securing his seat, Dictator Ferdinand Marcos removed the country’s parliamentary decision
to cap public debt at $250 million. Over the next decade the Bank granted Marcos loans totaling
$1.25 billion for structural adjustments [11]. The adjustments were intended to increase
manufacturing capacity and renovate ports. This was a product of the Bank’s favor of the export-
oriented industrialization led by the regime [11]. Each loan was directly deposited into Marcos
personal Swiss bank account and never used for such adjustments. In 1981 foreign private banks
stopped crediting Pilipino banks, yet the World Bank extended another $600 million loan that
paralleled the public debt the Philippine tax payers are still repaying.
(3) In 2010, Greece became the first Eurozone economy in need of a bailout. And, after a
2012 recession of high interest payments, the country needed yet another international bailout. In
June 2013 the IMF released an official report admitting it sacrificed its own policies in an effort
to coax the public debt of Greece, and make it appear more sustainable. The official report states
that the second bailout gave the European Union “time to build a firewall to protect other
vulnerable members, avert potentially severe effects on the global economy,” and that Greece
had failed on three out of four of its criteria to be eligible for aid [7]. However, that contrasts
statements by senior IMF officials in 2010 asserting Greece’s debt obligations were
“sustainable” and to be paid in “reasonable time” [7]. Also in the 2013 report, the IMF stated that
“even with implementation of agreed policies, uncertainties were so significant that staff were
unable to vouch that public debt was sustainable with high probability.” This sacrifice speaks to
the IMF’s impartiality. I believe the rules were bent to keep Greece in the Eurozone, though not
so much for Greece’s sake, as much as the sake of the euro. As the recent global financial crisis
hit Portugal, Italy, and Spain, other countries in dire-straits may have followed Greece back to
their own currencies. This, of course, would be a detriment to the value of the euro, one
component of the IMF’s quasi-currency, Special Drawing Rights.
Balancing power within the Bank and the IMF is among the political gridlock that has
given birth to this financial initiative. However, recent political turmoil in countries such as
Libya, Syria, and Ukraine also have some BRICS nations wanting to abandon the dollar
altogether. The mere establishment of the NDB and the CRA decentralizes some global financial
power; however, recent energy and currency swap deals suggest that the trend of an anti-dollar
alliance is well under way.
The Russian Agenda
As mentioned, Sergey Glazyev published an article in the Russian Argumenti Nedeli
outlining Russia’s plan to crash the dollar system. This plan comes from the belief that the
United States is using the IMF and its powerful currency to conspire with militant groups around

6. Totten5
the globe and ensure that the U.S. remains the financial safe haven of the world. In his
publication he stated:
“The First and Second World Wars, which caused a huge outflow of capital and minds of the
warring European countries to America… the collapse of the world socialist system, which
gave the United States the influx of more than a trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of
professionals, tons of plutonium and other valuable materials, many unique technologies. All
these wars were provoked by the active participation of the American "fifth column" in the
face of controlled, funded and supported by the American special services spyware, tycoons,
diplomats, government officials, businessmen, experts and public figures. And today, faced
with economic difficulties, the United States are trying to unleash in Europe another war to
achieve the following goals.” [9]
In an effort to unleash that war, Glazyev believes the U.S. is using the war in Ukraine to puppet
its goals. In May of 2014 Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State to European and Eurasian
Affairs, was accused of meeting with the Svoboda political party in Washington. In the past, the
Svoboda has been accused of fascism and anti-Semitism. They lead the militant protest in
Ukraine and have since received a $5 billion stimulus from the U.S. State Department to
“achieve U.S. goals in Ukraine” [12]. Glazyev claims this is the same militant group who has
“engaged in mass murder of its’ citizens” [9]. He goes on to describe the illegal takeover of Kiev
by the militant group. And, once peace deliberations had disarmed groups within the conflict
zone “Vice President Biden arrives in Kiev to support the actions of the junta,” presumably to
stir the hornets’ nest [9]. Glazyev believes the U.S. is using the protest as bait to provoke Russian
intervention.
Russian intervention into a sovereign nation gives the U.S. and NATO ally’s right to
impose financial sanctions and write-off American commitments to Russian entities, which
Glazyev estimates is in the several hundred billion dollar range [9]. The freezing of these assets
in dollars and euros will prohibit the Russian owners to service their debt, which lies mostly in
European banks. He predicts this destabilization in Europe will cause many banks to borrow
from the U.S. to avoid filing bankruptcy, thus, again making the U.S. a global financial safe
haven, as well as, a European diplomatic ally. In addition, Glazyev believes this is an effort to
displace Gazprom from the European market and cripple the nuclear supply of European power
plants. This crippling would force Europe to purchase nuclear inputs from the United States, a
further dependency. Well, Glazyev was right. In September 2014 the U.S. and European Union
imposed sanctions on Russia targeting state-run oil and gas companies- among them- Gazprom
[18].
In December 2013, Victoria Nuland addressed members of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
at a Washington forum, assuring them there are “prominent businessmen and government
officials who support the U.S. project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with
Russia” [12]. In her speech she explained the state department spent $5 billion in the last two
decades to subvert Ukraine. In several interviews, protestors told reporters at the Global
Research Centre they had received payment in dollars and euros to protest against the Ukrainian
government. Though, what is equally interesting is the biggest sponsor of the December 2013
event, Chevron. In fact, Chevron has a significant economic interest in Ukraine and Russia. Its
latest Russian investment, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), was a mere $2.7 billion
dollar construction that will transport oil from Northern Russia throughout Eurasia [5]. Along

7. Totten6
with Russia and Kazakhstan they are among the top three equity shareholders of the CPC. In
addition, Chevron owns two subsidiary companies in Russia, Chevron Neftegaz and Chevron
Oronite. Despite sanctions imposed on state-run energy organizations like Gazprom, Chevron
energy is unaffected.
To counter the conspiracy, Glazyev is calling on Russia and its allies to target the Federal
Reserve, “Washington’s funding for the U.S. war machine” [9]. To do so, he seeks to establish
an anti-dollar alliance, a coalition of countries willing and able to drop the dollar from trade and
currency reserves. The first establishment, although not a country, was none other than Gazprom.
In an interview to Reuters Gazprom’s CEO, Alexander Dyukov, assured “practically all- 95% of
our customers- confirmed their willingness to move to settlement in euros” [3]. The second
partner to join Glazyev’s coalition is China.
In early October 2014, Russian and Chinese leaders met in Moscow and signed 40 inter-
governmental agreements. Among the agreements signed, a $24.4 billion yuan-ruble currency
swap facilitated by the CRA and a $400 billion natural gas deal. The swap is among the first
concrete steps the BRICS have taken to eliminate the dollar from international trade and the
natural gas deal is the second [18]. In the provisions of the gas agreement, Russia will export 38
billion cubic meters of gas to China over the next 30 years in exchange for $400 billion dollars.
But for the first time, this energy trade will not be done in dollars, but rather Russian rubles and
Chinese yuan. This monumental economic exchange between the two countries is not
unprecedented, either. Dimitry Medvedev, Russian Premier, told reporters “over the past six
years Russia’s trade with China has almost doubled from $40 billion to $90 billion.” As China
gradually becomes the global economic powerhouse, Russia is glad to have them partner in their
anti-dollar initiative. Though, prudent Chinese investments suggest China’s motivation is purely
economic. And, as China internationalizes its currency throughout Asia and Latin America, it
challenges the hegemony of, not only the dollar, but the IMF.
China’s Latino Marshall Plan
As argued by Glazyev, among the United States’ most beneficial loans was its post-
World War II stimulus known as the Marshall Plan. In the noble lend to rebuild the crumbled
European states, not only did the U.S. earn diplomatic relationships that have proven to last
three-quarters of a century, but the nation became the global financial safe haven. Complemented
by Americas thriving economy and extensive global trade, the dollar has proven to hold enough
strength to be the global reserve currency for nearly 90 years. Latin America certainly isn’t
climbing out of a world war, but its developing economies have analogous potential for growth.
As China puts its yuan in Moscow for short-term energy deals, it is making long –term
investments in Latin American infrastructure and resources. In March 2014, Chinese premier Li
Keqiang set forth a $160 billion infrastructure investment project to rebuild Chinese urban
housing and renovate irrigation in the countryside [19]. After the world’s second largest
economy has experienced a slowdown, the Chinese government has picked up the tab with a
stimulus package aimed at boosting China’s consumption. Liu Ligang, chief China economist,
told a reporter at emergingmarkets.com the Chinese government “wants more consumption and
less state investment” and the colossal stimulus injection will certainly boost Chinese
“consumption of copper and iron ore” [19]. Among the heirs to China’s consumption will be
BRICS partner Brazil and current trade partner Peru, both lead exporters of the mining resources.
However, China’s indirect investment into their colleague’s economy isn’t the only financial

8. Totten7
impetus. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and
Caribbean (UNECLAC), China’s investment into the region was a record $11.4 billion in 2012.
That is an unprecedented spike from 2004’s measly $120 million investment which is just a
fraction of the $102.2 billion they have invested since 2005, according to a study by Boston
University [12]. For China, this is an especially advantageous time to internationalize their
currency. As Latin American developing economies are experiencing growth, let us a look at
four key projects to China’s Latino Marshall Plan.
(1) As mentioned earlier, the Boston University study determined China’s Latin
American investment to be in the $100 billion range. The largest beneficiary of that stimulus is
Venezuela. China has racked up an accounts receivable from Venezuela of nearly $36 billion in
the last decade and the debt is being serviced in exported crude oil. In September 2013, Chinese
state owned Petroleum and Chemical Corporation invested $14 billion into the Venezuelan state-
owned oil giant, Orinoco [1]. Coincidentally a few weeks after, China National Petroleum Corp.
invested another $14 billion. China’s stake in Venezuelan oil is over $28 billion dollars to date as
60% of Venezuelan oil is exported to Beijing to pay off its debt. This will prove to be a prudent
investment, especially after OPEC’s announcement this year that Venezuela holds the largest oil
reserves out of any country in the world [14]. China tightens its grasp on international trade as it
increases its influence throughout Latin America. The investment is proving to be rewarding as
the Venezuelan oil giant yields approximately 1.2 million barrels of oil a day- which it claims
could jump to 2 million by the end of next year [1].
(2) In addition to Venezuelan oil, China is partnering in yet another economic
opportunity with its BRICS partner, Brazil. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Brazil
recently auctioned off rights to explore its deep water Libra site and two Chinese firms partnered
with the state owned Petrobas to do so. Experts estimate the site holds nearly 12 million barrels
of oil, enough to supply the world for 3 months. The conglomerate of firms invested $500
million this year, but it is unclear exactly how much of the portion belonged to China.
(3) Among its natural resource endeavors, China recently purchased the rights to Las
Bambas copper mine in Peru. The Peruvian Ministry for Energy and Mining reports Peru is the
second largest exporter of copper in the world and the fifth largest exporter of gold. China’s
MMG ltd. purchased the rights to Las Bambas for $5.8 billion which gives China the rights to
one-third of Peru’s mining sector. China is to assume management and operations early in 2015.
(4) The final development China’s stimulus is creating will enhance their trade with the
rest of the world, perhaps matched historically only by the Silk Road. In December of 2014
Chinese enterprise Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development Investment is set to break ground
on a canal connecting the Pacific to the Atlantic [10]. The $40 billion contract not only gives
rights to the Hong Kong based investment group to build, but manage for the next 50 years, as
well. Jean Paul Rodrigue, transportation expert at Hofstra University, claims the project will cost
more than $40 billion and the project will be a “colossal waste of resources” [15]. However, in
light of the infrastructure investments and expected commodity exports from South America,
China seems to not only be attempting to circumvent the dollar, but U.S. controlled
transportation in Panama, as well.
It is clear that China is asserting its dominance as an international trade partner. As their
economy grows, they are finding less reasons to take no for an answer and more ways around the

9. Totten8
west and their sanctions. Through dollar-less energy trades, unprecedented currency swaps,
resources grabs, foreign direct investment, and establishment of new trade routes, China has its
hand in a diverse portfolio of promising global capital. Whether the west recognizes it or not,
China is making friends in every corner of the globe, too. This portfolio suggests China’s
allegiance to crashing the dollar is an economic interest.
Proposal
To reiterate, this analysis denies the BRICS and their financial order will crash the dollar
overnight, but it does, however, suggest the trend is taking shape. Whether that trend is birthed
with malicious intent or economic interest- the global political and financial implications are
serious. Removing the dollar as global reserve status will be detrimental to the United States
economy if austerity measures are not implemented. I believe to remain competitive the United
States should (1) invest in new energy solutions and (2) become a net exporter of energy. If the
dollar begins to significantly depreciate I propose the establishment of an international Special
Drawing Right bond market composed of multiple currencies replace the declining U.S. Treasury
bond market as the global reserve.
In light of China’s massive appetite for energy, Russia’s potential as a world-leading
energy export, and both circumventing the dollar; the dollar’s reserve status is potentially
dwindling. To combat this trend, the U.S must become a net exporter of energy. Investing in new
energy solutions is imperative to compete in the future global market. If the dollar does
depreciate, U.S. energy exports will be more competitive. However, the current U.S. net import
makes them vulnerable to voracious energy giants like the opposing anti-dollar alliance. This
negative export in energy is adding to the U.S. trade deficit, a deficit that has been coupled with
the burden of holding the dollar as the global reserve currency.
[17]
There are advantages and disadvantages for the country that uses its currency for the
global reserve. Yes, reserve status permits discounted borrowing of loans. And, central banks of
other countries must hold dollars in reserve to facilitate trade, in turn appreciating the dollar.

10. Totten9
However, this burden aids the reserve country with running a trade deficit in perpetuity, which
has taken place in the United States. But, assume the dollar remains reserve status and
simultaneously the U.S. runs a trade surplus. The Triffin dilemma then suggests the dollar would
appreciate in value and the rest of the world would suffer from a lack of liquidity and collateral.
At the current deficit the U.S. is culminating more debt and risking default. The economies of the
globe are experiencing unprecedented growth and to stabilize the future growth a nation’s
currency should no longer be the reserve. To replace a nation’s single currency, I suggest the
IMF and NDB create a Special Drawing Right bond market comprised of the leading global
currencies that eventually replaces the diminishing U.S. Treasury market from the global reserve.
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) were created in 1969 by the IMF to combat the dollar
crisis when the U.S. completely left the gold standard. As of now, they are composed of the
leading currencies: the dollar, euro, yen, and pound. Each member of the IMF is allocated a
certain amount based on their stake in global GDP. They are an interest-bearing, international
asset. Countries are allowed to freely exchange them amongst themselves for hard currency.
When holdings rise above allocation, a country earns interest on the excess. Conversely, if a
country sells more SDR’s and has fewer than allocated; that country pays interest on the
shortfall. This market of SDRs would eventually be comprised of the BRICS and IMF’s largest
economies. I expect the Chinese yuan and possibly the Russian rubble would join the dollar,
euro, yen, and pound in IMF SDRs.
Having a global currency that is composed of multiple currencies is advantageous to the
global economy in several ways. Much like diversified portfolio risk, the risk of losing value in
currency reserves shrinks. The value of all SDR bonds would be the same. As the value of a
currency increases, the value of the bond increases. Equally, if the value of a currency decreases,
the value of the bond decreases. By removing one single country from the global reserve status,
global finance is decentralized. This levels the competition. In my opinion, this balance
encourages countries to create and export value, such as my suggestion for American energy
solutions. If American competitive advantage is no longer United States currency loans, the
economy will rely heavily on production- which is advantageous for economic growth.

11. Totten10
Similarly, I expect the BRICS nations would eventually create global reserve bonds for
their new international institutions. These bonds, in addition to IMF SDR bonds, would be the
liquidity instrument of the globe which could be bought, sold, and traded internationally, creating
stability in global economy. Each currency unit within the SDR would be weighted to that
countries relative GDP size and strength. After all, the legal tender and economic strength are the
value of these currencies. This revolution of global currency would require open audits of the
participating governments, a system of checks and balances in which transparency between
global trading partners ensures stability and confidence in the market.
I conclude in opposition to an anti-currency alliance, but in welcoming of a balancing
financial order. As an economist I believe in the power of choice and the inevitable blessing of
scarcity. As an American I believe in the sovereignty of nations and the fair distribution of power
in the global community. And, as a human I believe in the economic harmony of all nations for
the benefit and progress of mankind.

12. Totten11
Works Cited
1. Chinese Investments in Venezuela (n.d.): n. pag. Orinoco. Web.
2. "American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5
Billion to "Subvert Ukraine"" Global Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
3. Blanchard. "The Longview." Russian Oil Giant Ready to Drop Dollar for Euro. N.p., 10
Apr. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
4. Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Articles of Agreement for the New
Development Bank. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
5. Chevron. "Russia." Chevron Corporation Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
6. Cohen, Benjamin. "Benjamin J. Cohen, Bretton Woods System." Benjamin J. Cohen,
Bretton Woods System. Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political
Economy, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
7. "Factsheet -- Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)." Factsheet -- Special Drawing Rights
(SDRs). N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
8. Fuller, Roslyn. "†‹ Refusing to Share: How the West Created BRICS New
Development Bank." - RT Op-Edge. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
9. Glazyev, Sergey. "BRICS Morphing into Anti-dollar Alliance." - News. Augmenti
Nedeli, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
10. "Home Page - HKND Group Nicaragua Canal Global Trade Project." Home Page -
HKND Group Nicaragua Canal Global Trade Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov.
2014.
11. Kapur, J. D. The World Bank, Its First Half Century. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution, 1997. Print.
12. Mallen, Patricia R. "Is The Partnership Between China And Latin America Paying
Off?" International Business Times. International Business Times, 08 May 2014.
Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
13. Ndikumana, Leonce, and James K. Boyce. Congo's Odious Debt: External Borrowing
and Capital Flight in Zaire (1998): n. pag. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Web.
14. "OPEC." Venezuela News, Views, and Analysis. Venezuelan Government, n.d. Web. 13
Nov. 2014.
15. Rodrigue, Jean-Paul. "Nicaragua Canal Project." N.p., n.d. Web.
16. Toussaint, Eric. "The World Bank and the Philippines." CADTM. N.p., n.d. Web.
17. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and
Analysis." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. 11
Nov. 2014.
18. "VI BRICS Summit." Press Releases. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
19. Wilson, Elliot. "Latin Hopes Grow for New China Fiscal Stimulus." Emerging Markets.
Emerging Markets, 29 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.