The End of “Development Assistance” and the BRICS

CHAPTER 2 The End of “Development Assistance” and the BRICS Rostam J. Neuwirth Introduction The best way of predicting it [the future] is to create it! (Neuwirth 2017b, 23) In the past, the prevailing question about the BRICS countries’ cooperation as a regional bloc was their actual role and potential contribution to the governance of global affairs at large. In the meantime, and especially since the 9th BRICS Summit in Xiamen (China) held in September 2017, it can be asserted that the BRICS have consolidated their cooperation “beyond the demandeur style associated with earlier challenges of the global South via the campaign for a New International Economic Order” (Cooper 2016, ix). Yet a central issue related to their actual role remains the search for an adequate BRICS governance mode (Tapscott et al. 2017). In this respect, however, it is the role of law in global governance that is R. J. Neuwirth (B) University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 J. A. Puppim de Oliveira and Y. Jing (eds.), International Development Assistance and the BRICS, Governing China in the 21st Century, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9644-2_2 15 16 R. J. NEUWIRTH often forgotten amid concerns of a political and economic nature. The governance of both economic and political affairs requires a sound legal framework, as law can only function adequately in the right economic and political settings supported by a sound and future-oriented philosophical and scientific paradigm. Other important issues relate to the question of the precise legal qualification of the BRICS countries’ mode of cooperation and the search for novel modes of governance not based on their diversity but derived from the difference that the BRICS can make (Neuwirth 2017b, 20). Overall, the evaluation of the raison d’être of the BRICS countries as a recently formed so-called cooperation and dialogue platform continues to polarize. In less than a decade, their contribution to the global governance went from being assessed as “laying the bricks of a new global legal order” (Kornegay and Bohler-Muller 2013) to “remaining tentative at best and problematic at worst” (Pant 2013, 105). Moreover, the decision of Britain to exit from the EU (i.e., “Brexit”) was used to suggest a possible exit of Brazil from the BRICS (i.e., “Braxit”) (Simha 2016). These rapidly changing fluctuations not only underscore the importance of law in providing stability and continuity but also the significance of a coherent, inclusive and sustainable development policy. It is again for some of the media to announce an end or “doomsday” of the BRICS forum of cooperation, whereas scholars may beg to differ in their more constructive assessment (Shahrokhi et al. 2017, 11). In this regard, the critical commentators seem to overlook that the BRICS countries together account for more than 40% of the world’s population and almost 30% of its landmass (BRICS 2012, xiii, 1). This means that the BRICS countries, spread over four different continents, are here to stay, and thus their cooperation is, at best, highly useful and beneficial for everyone and, at worst, does not change much at all. A steadily growing body of research tends to reflect the actual and potential benefits derived from BRICS cooperation as well as the unlimited scope for their cooperation in different (legal) fields (Neuwirth et al. 2017; Stuenkel 2015; De Coning et al. 2015; Kornegay and Bohler-Muller 2013). Yet for future BRICS cooperation to succeed, it will require a constructive and constructivist approach that sees the glass as half full instead of half empty. It is an approach that may be circumscribed by the statement that “the best way of predicting the future of the BRICS cooperation is to create it” (Neuwirth 2017b, 23). Yet for a constructive approach to succeed, it is necessary to start from the best available premises and to also consider some success stories indicating the correctness of the choice. For this reason, the present article will 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 17 take the “end of development assistance”, inaugurated and expressed by the change in terminology by the World Bank in its 2016 World Indicators, as a factor directly or indirectly contributable to the BRICS countries. It will also use it as a starting point for a constructivist approach to the future organization of such coherent, inclusive and sustainable development policy. To this end, the article first briefly discusses the beginning of the “end of development assistance” to illustrate how a linear mode of thinking about time has repeatedly frustrated the expectations raised by political announcements or plans for a brighter world without widespread poverty and various inequalities. This kind of thinking is reflected in various changes in language, notably in those from development assistance (or aid) to development cooperation. In order to gain insights about how the abandonment of the “developing-developed country dichotomy” must be interpreted, the following section revisits some of the most notorious “end of …” stories as a critique of a widely prevalent “Endzeitdenken”, i.e., a mode of thinking influenced by the end of time or a so-called eschatological expectation. This historical review is undertaken with the purpose of paving the way for the BRICS to change the path of global development along the lines discussed in the final section. There the life-death dichotomy serves as an example of an outdated mode of thinking that may impede an adequate interpretation of the meaning of “sustainable development” as well as many similar oxymoronic concepts that dominate the present global discourses in science, technology and policymaking. In concluding, the article aims to show how thinking differently, especially about one of life’s most fundamental enigmas, namely death, by, for instance, referring to it instead as “life-after-life”, can help to alter perceptions and make a difference in the way we think, act and organize life. The Beginning of the “End of Development Assistance” A story has no beginning or end: arbitrarily one chooses that moment of experience from which to look back or from which, to look ahead. (Greene 1974, 1) 18 R. J. NEUWIRTH To recap the present state of the world, it was in 2015 that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the resolution on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the central purpose of the 2030 Agenda was explained as follows: This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. (United Nations General Assembly 2015, 2) To briefly recall, the SDGs replaced the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) formulated in 2000, mainly as a result of their failure to achieve the goals laid out therein (Sachs 2012, 2206). Or more emphatically, the MDGs produced the awareness that “inequalities persist and that progress has been uneven” (United Nations 2015, 3). Chronologically going back in history confirms that, at every moment, inequality and distributive injustice often caused by conflicts and manifest in poverty and related human sufferings have always coexisted with efforts to combat them. Taking the example of the post-World War II order, it was US President Harry Truman who in 1949 in his inaugural address announced his concept of a “fair deal”, with which he inaugurated the present “development age”. More specifically, he said in point four that more than half the people of the world are living “in conditions approaching misery”, their food being inadequate, as victims of disease and with their economic life being “primitive and stagnant”, while, at the same time, stating that “for the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people” (Rist 2008, 71). This “development age” from the period of postWorld War II until now also meant the creation of greater inequalities and many more failures in the efforts to tackle the problems related to poverty. Moreover, we saw greater divides introduced into the humanity inhabiting this single celestial body called “Earth” as the gradual introduction of the “developing-developed country” dichotomy shows, as flawed as it may always have been in conceptual, factual and philosophical terms (Neuwirth 2010; De Beukelaer 2014; Neuwirth 2017a). Similarly, the same approach also ranked different peoples and countries based on dubious and inconsistent criteria in a first, second or third world, which progressively turned the dream of improvement into a nightmare (Escobar 1995, 4). 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 19 In other words, the change from development to post-development thinking (Rist 2008; Ziai 2007) was not quickly and sufficiently followed by related terminological shifts from first development aid (or development assistance) to development cooperation and then to “development policy”. Given the delay in terminological change, the conditions found in 1949 at the time of Truman’s speech, in 2000 at the time of the adoption of the MDGs and again in 2015 at the adoption of the SDGs, were still similar to the point of their identification. It seems that the global community was back to square one, despite (or paradoxically because of) unprecedented advances in science and technology. These conditions resemble the Lampedusa paradox, where changes are made to maintain the status quo. The result was perhaps best summarized by the words used by James N. Rosenau in 1995, when he described the imminent global governance challenges as “hope embedded in despair” (Rosenau 1995, 13). Consequently, one may realistically ask what can make us believe that this time, just after the adoption of the SDGs, affairs will be different from numerous other moments in history. Or even, why should the BRICS make a difference at all? Yet not knowing the future, it is still best to try to predict the future by creating it or, at least, to fail while at least trying to succeed. At the least, there are some signs for hope at both the global level and the BRICS level. First globally, it is because the World Bank, an offspring of the Bretton Woods system conceived in 1944, has recently announced the following with regard to the use of the terminology of the developeddeveloping country dichotomy: Motivated by the universal agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals, this edition of World Development Indicators also introduces a change in the way that global and regional aggregates are presented in tables and figures. Unless otherwise noted, there is no longer a distinction between developing countries (defined in previous editions as low- and middle-income countries) and developed countries (defined in previous editions as high-income countries). (World Bank 2016, iii) Similarly, the SDGs have also noted that they are universal goals and targets “which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike” (United Nations General Assembly 2015, 3). Second, when it comes to the BRICS, the hope may be sought in various official BRICS documents, such as the one from 2015 using the motto “Welfare for everyone, development for all” (BRICS 2015) and the Delhi 20 R. J. NEUWIRTH Declaration 2012, which states that “We stand ready to work with others, developed and developing countries together”. More practically, other signs of hope related to the BRICS potentially making a tangible difference may be vested in the newly established so-called BRICS Bank or New Development Bank (NDB) (Khanna 2014). The hope vested in the BRICS in this article, however, is sought in the deeper layers of human beings and current trends, the outlines of which will be presented next. “The End of …” Stories Revisited Life, or will, thereby returns to its own original, its most elemental and natural mode of being. It returns to itself, where the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning […]. (Nishitani 1990, 98) It is another strange paradox that humans generally tend to place a great deal of hope in the future. The same problem was described by Jeremy Rifkin as the “entropy paradox”, which highlights the strange fact that in our perception, the history of the universe appears to be shifting from a perfect state toward decay and chaos, while our notion of history follows the opposite course, that is to say, it is seemingly shifting from a state of chaos to a progressively more ordered world (Rifkin 1985, 57). Thus, this human trait appears strange given that, at the end of a distant future, future’s only seeming certainty is “the end”. In German, this feeling is described by the notion of Endzeitdenken, i.e., a mode of thinking influenced by the end of time or a so-called eschatological expectation. In other words, it can also be understood as a linear thinking about phenomena being terminal, if only in terms of their conceptual delimitation between two apparently mutually exclusive or antagonistic concepts. This kind of thinking also gradually invaded scientific thought and surfaces in numerous publications using a “the end of …” terminology, which can easily be verified by a catalogue search in any library. It is interesting to note that some of the more recent examples include publications calling for an “end of the third world” (Harris 1986), which has also been related to the “end of the cold war” (Kalinovsky and Radchenko 2011). Equally, the “end of development” itself was announced (Parfitt 2002). Other well-known titles include “the end of history” (Fukuyama 1992), “the end of geography” (Greig 2002; Betlehem 2014) or “the end of war” (Chappell and de Becker 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 21 2010). Even though it may just have begun with the twenty-first century, even the “end of the Asian century” has already been announced (Auslin 2017). Finally, one may ask, is it only a matter of time until “the end of BRICS” will also be predicted in a published book? The fact is that it has already been mentioned as a possibility in view of recent economic and political problems in some of the BRICS countries (Chenoy et al. 2016, 207). However, possibly, it is less a matter of time but rather “the end of time” itself that announces itself based on revolutionary discoveries from the world of physics (Barbour 1999). Nonetheless, there are strong reasons also provided by other scientific fields that may support the argument of time (or at least our dominant mode of perception of time) coming to an end. For instance, numerous observers have noted a drastic acceleration in our perception of time or memory (Nora 1989, 15; Gleick 2000, 6). A similar trend has also been found to dominate the current epoch of the Anthropocene, which means that “human activities are significantly influencing Earth’s environment”, many of which have been found to be accelerating (Ehlers and Krafft 2006, 5). Called the “Great Acceleration of the Anthropocene”, the beginning of which was dated to 1945, the “human enterprise” is said to have “suddenly accelerated” in many ways, ranging from population growth to oil consumption or the increasing interconnectedness of cultures (Steffen et al. 2007, 617). Equally, strong trends of technological convergence in economics also testify to this trend (Lee and Olson 2010). These trends in technology and industry are also mirrored in language at large; this can be seen in the changes in language as observed by linguistics—manifest in both an increasing amount of neologisms and a special category of so-called essentially oxymoronic concepts (Neuwirth 2013, 2018). Generally, when applying an Endzeit thinking, most of the time, it is forgotten that the announcement of the eventual end of something will not end existence but instead immediately means the beginning of something new or “the return of history and the end of dreams” (Kagan 2008). In this respect, it may thus be a shortcoming particularly of a specific branch of Western scientific thought or an educational system favoring a linear mode of thinking based on exclusive logic applied to an understanding of time that seems to overemphasize the end without duly considering the possibility that it means a beginning of something new (or possibly just the repetition of the existing in perhaps a circular loop). This tendency is becoming more problematic in view of the ongoing trend of an acceleration 22 R. J. NEUWIRTH of the perception of changes in time (and correlated accelerations in the means of transport), as it means that time itself seems to disappear. With all cycles becoming shorter, such as those for changes in fashion, product cycles, or cycles of financial crises, etc., we face serious challenges regarding an efficient and sustainable mode of planning or development in general, as well as the rule of law in general and the expectations toward legal predictability and certainty in particular. In all related regulatory questions, it seems then that we miss one important link in the striving for scientific discovery, which is sound knowledge about “the end” and, most likely, what happens “after ‘the end’ finally ended”. Ironically or tragically, in the current scientific paradigm, we invest so much time, energy and money on different aspects allegedly aiming at improving human life for all, when, in fact, we do not even know about the most fundamental aspect of life itself, namely its apparent opposite, i.e., the greatest human illusory enigma that we call “death” (Benoît 1973, 154). This irony manifests itself in the paradox that we invest more in artificial intelligence than in improving human intelligence, given that we seem to be only aware of approximately 10% of our cognitive or brain abilities (OECD 2007, 113–14). Similarly, we seem to prefer to search for livable habitats elsewhere in the universe instead of making coordinated and serious efforts to save the one we inhabit right now. In health policy too, we not only fail to coordinate conventional, traditional and alternative medicines (Neuwirth and Svetlicinii 2015) and integrate them with mental health but, most of all, completely neglect the necessity to focus scientific research holistically on the quality of life, including the “life after life” (Moody 1976). Sadly, many questions about life after life, as death can also be called, are sadly relegated to pseudoscientific or paranormal phenomena or to a world belonging to religion (separated from science altogether). Consequently, this scientific failure also affects the principal understanding of development as well. It may also be responsible for the repeated failures in history to achieve the goals we set for “development aid” or, better, “development cooperation” as we currently call it. We not only apply a linguistically flawed opposition between the terms developing and the developed countries but also inconsistent logic. Most of all, we are pretty ignorant about the most fundamental question of all, i.e., the nature of life including the life after life (not seen in binary terms as mutually exclusive, incompatible and antagonistic concepts). Overall, the world is experiencing a global scientific crisis of faith in the sense of continuing 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 23 to split unitary phenomena in half, dividing them into numerous pairs of dichotomies, such as developing or developed countries, or life and death. In the question about the deficiencies of dichotomies in general and the (flawed) distinction in “developing and developed countries” in particular, it is not always clear what terminology should replace them. Moreover, it may be uncertain what the change in terminology means for the concrete policies and implementing measures that follow them. For instance, it may be alleged that abandoning the distinction will have a negative effect on those countries currently using the developing country status, particularly in international trade. It may also be abused by developed countries to reduce their commitments in development assistance. In response, however, it must be clear that the mere abandonment of the terminology and related rights or privileges (such as preferential treatment in international trade law) cannot be a stand-alone measure seen in isolation from other rights and policies. The reason for this is that the discrimination related to the dichotomy has not only been applied to economic factors, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Instead, it has also spread and affected other areas, including a weak or total lack of representation in international institutions. Therefore, the abandonment of the terminology alone is not sufficient. It is a first step, which must be followed by novel and more inclusive concepts, as well as a coherent set of flanking measures aimed at the better integration of the countries in question into “a more just, equitable, fair, democratic and representative international political and economic order” to use a phrase in the 2017 Xiamen BRICS summit Declaration. It is in this crisis of faith that the BRICS are called to make a difference. They are in a good position to make a difference, because of their own distinct historical, economic, political and cultural memory, as well as their present state and rate of development. Generally, their ability to make a difference is not because the people in the BRICS are generally speaking “distinct”. Paradoxically, it is rather the unique distinctiveness of each individual that makes everyone the same. However, inhabiting a planet of a spherical shape, no human appears to ever react the same way (as it is impossible to be at the same place in time and space, which is why no one ever has the identical source of sensory information on which subsequent decisions are being based). This means that the hope in the BRICS cooperation is vested in specific historical, cultural and philosophical reasons, and their current dynamism in the geopolitical context, such as increasing levels of glocalization, the dawn of the Asian century, or an unprecedented 24 R. J. NEUWIRTH pace and volume of scientific progress. In sum, the BRICS, like any other country, city and person on this planet, need to regard themselves as a pars pro toto, i.e., a part of the whole in the process of shaping human destiny. The overall success in this endeavor will depend on the degree to which the BRICS can use their potential strength in this regard and formulate it into a more inclusive—possibly even oxymoronic—global and sustainable development policy, the contours of which shall be outlined in the following section. The BRICS and “Development” After Development Assistance Indeed, without death there would hardly have been any philosophizing. (Schopenhauer 1958, 463) The hope associated with the BRICS countries in the field of development policy is rooted notably in their various economic, political and developmental achievements made over the past few decades (Gu et al. 2016, 5–7). Among the tangible results in global development is the gradual recognition of the absurdity of the development terminology, including notions such as “development aid” and the “developing-developed country dichotomy”. This derives from the insight that development has always started from self-help, as an internal process or one created from within and not from outside by coercion (Beisser 1970, 77) or what could also be critically connoted as “coercive charity”. The present is, therefore, an opportune moment to call for an “end of development assistance” (as we have known it). This is because in a rapidly changing environment, characterized by a strong diversity of global actors and the increasing complexity of global issues, new cognitive modes are urgently needed. The reason for this is that numerous oxymoronic concepts, such as the one of sustainable development itself (Sachs 1999, 38; Njiro 2002; Redclift 2005), call for novel approaches to how we understand life as a whole. Given that we are currently adapting our understanding to the possibility that the sole certainty in life is change, we increasingly focus on processes rather than specific objectives. This explains why we all want to be living in “(constantly) developing countries” and why, in being “developed”, there is no certainty that the same level of well-being can be maintained in the future. 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 25 This is precisely the conceptual challenge derived from the concept of sustainable development and many more oxymora dominating our current governance discourses (Neuwirth 2018). It means to accept that opposites expressed in antagonistic concepts do not simply mutually exclude each other but may instead complement each other and provide a means for reaching a higher level of understanding. For many of the so-called “trade and … ” issues, such as “trade and environment”, this means that introducing green products does not mean a zero-sum game at the cost of economic growth. Instead, awareness is rising that investment in green technologies provides the means for economic growth sustained over a longer period that also has beneficial effects on the environment. The same thinking can be applied to all other “trade and … pairs”, such as the one of “trade and development”, as well as the apparent dilemmas expressed in dichotomies. So why not also apply it to one of the most fundamental human dichotomies: the one of life versus death. In this respect, the BRICS countries’ particular history, and notably their cultural, spiritual and religious backgrounds, can provide the starting point for the hope that—even though some concepts from the past international development cooperation are being repeated in the related documents formulated by the BRICS—the BRICS will make a difference. At first sight, when it comes to the life-death dichotomy, two BRICS countries, China and India, seem to share a similar stance based on their historical ties rooted in Buddhism, which has also affected trade and diplomacy (Sen 2003, 7). Conceiving life not as ending with death but as a stage in a longer, possibly eternal process has wider repercussions for how we feel and organize the present (Flannelly et al. 2012). Moreover, it is closely tied to our understanding of evolution and the evolution of cognition, as well as dualistic thinking (e.g., the mind-body dichotomy) (Bering 2006). At a closer look, not only the other BRICS countries’ populations but everyone on the planet also has a similar view on the matter. It has been reported that often majorities of people in the so-called West believe in a life after life (Flannelly et al. 2012, 651–52). This hardly comes as a surprise given that the world’s major religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism as well as Buddhism, essentially concur in this matter (Obayashi 1992; Koslowski 2002). However, as Arthur Schopenhauer stated, different religions share their attempts to console us concerning death or to provide an antidote but diverge in the degree to which they attain this end (Schopenhauer 1958, 463). It has also been argued that, paradoxically, religion is 26 R. J. NEUWIRTH both the cause of and the relief from human anxiety (Homans 1941; Leming 1980, 347). Thus again, we encounter a paradox or essential problem rooted in a dualistic mode of thinking based on binary logic. It is thus the same problem that relates to the enigma hidden in the oxymoronic concept of “sustainable development” that challenges a binary logic or solely dualist mode of thinking. Whence the need for more paradoxical thinking, which was outlined in the following statement about the future of education: The educated person of the next century will be required to adapt to constant change and apply the basic skills of language, mathematics, and problem solving in a variety of situations that cannot be predicted today. (Eliason 1996, 341) In this regard, the studies in cultural geography of a geography of thought give rise to hope, given that it was found that Eastern people are more open to “a search for the ‘Middle Way’ between opposing propositions” (Nisbett 2003, 293) than their Western counterparts, who tend to see paradox as “as a condition based in conflict” (Kalamaras 1994, 6). Yet it would amount to a serious mistake to think that these findings are rooted strictly in geography or even in genetics. These preferences have no fixed geography, as geography itself is not fixed (considering the tectonic shifts) but they reflect years of educational and cultural traditions that have crystallized into habits or innate modes of thinking that are difficult but not impossible to change (Segal 2008, 101). The same observations also explain why it is so hard to abandon the developing-developed country dichotomy, as flawed as it may be linguistically, philosophically or logically. In short, these brief observations may help to strengthen not only the hope in the BRICS countries, which account for almost half of the world’s population, but also their responsibility in recalling humanity’s traditional and alternative thoughts and philosophies, and to merge them with novel and original scientific ideas and research about the destiny of humanity. This has already been shown in the field of medicine, where the renaissance of Chinese or Eastern traditional medicines has provided a great opportunity for countries elsewhere to re-discover their own traditional medicines to complement the advances in a globalized pharmaceutical industry (Neuwirth and Svetlicinii 2015, 341, 353). To briefly summarize the significance of these observations for the formulation and implementation of a global sustainable development policy for the future, it is necessary for the BRICS cooperation and dialogue forum 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 27 to first continue, and where possible, step up their cooperation in every possible field. Second, the BRICS countries must remain open to the entire world and other countries or regional blocs, as well as the global community as a whole, given that “BRIC(K)S are for building bridges not walls” (Neuwirth 2017b, 21). Third, their rich and diverse cultural heritages from ancient times provide a strong basis for cooperation in innovative research not only in the fields of technology but also in those of the social sciences and the arts and humanities. It may also help to focus on those areas where, at present, no global consensus can be reached. Overall, there shall be no initial boundaries as to what is scientific or possible but only a strong interest in trying to discover new aspects about humans’ fundamental traits and needs as strongly reflected in the life-death dichotomy. In this regard, the notion of “sustainable development” is not to be interpreted as a novel buzzword of international development cooperation that merely replaces the previous ones of “development aid or assistance” but a true reminder of the power of new ideas bringing new possibilities. Conclusion Those who believe that life consists in change because change implies movement, should remember that there must be an underlying thread of unity or the change, being unmeaning, will cause conflict and clash. (Tagore 2007, 707) In the beginning, the present discussion picked up on the continuing skepticism about the ability of the “BRICS cooperation and dialogue forum” to deliver a notable contribution to the governance of global affairs. In addition to obvious factual statistical reasons related to their size in land and people for their cooperation to continue, it builds on their diversity and many differences, which helps to explain the reasons why the BRICS can make a difference in global governance in general and in the context of an emerging global sustainable development policy in particular. It argued that the BRICS countries have already delivered noticeable and tangible results in this area, such as through their contribution to a change of mind by the World Bank in abandoning the “developing-developed country dichotomy” or the creation of the NDB or so-called BRICS Bank. These significant terminological and institutional changes may be taken as the beginning of the “end of development assistance” as we have known it. 28 R. J. NEUWIRTH This end of development assistance, as other “end of stories” have revealed, however, is only temporal in an age of an acceleration of change toward a continuous space-time continuum as supported by discoveries in physics regarding time, technological trends of convergence, as well as linguistic trends rooted in the rise of the rhetorical figures called “essentially oxymoronic concepts” (Neuwirth 2013). One of the most prominent representatives is the one of “sustainable development” itself. These trends underscore the importance of philosophy as the underlying thread of thoughts that constantly affects the decisions we make and the actions we take. This is also important for law, as “pure law”, i.e., law as a merely theoretical exercise, has been deemed to be an oxymoron, as “law always needs a context within which it is to be considered”.1 This also goes for development, which is not merely about rates of economic growth measured by the GDP. It also enables people to freely make a choice in accordance with their capabilities and even dreams (Sen 2000). This means that it is necessary to find novel ways to render global development both inclusive and sustainable, connoting that it will benefit everyone and have a lasting effect. Consequently, as an example of the importance of linguistic changes as both the harbinger and the cause of change in action, the life-death dichotomy was chosen to exemplify the shortcomings of development thinking in terms of dualistic modes of thinking and binary logic as infamously reflected in the developing-developed country distinction. Thus, in trying to cast light on the time after development, it was shown that the belief in “life-after-life” as a continuum rather than a possibly illusory terminal state called “death” is not only strong in the ancient philosophies of the BRICS countries but equally in the world religions and in wide sections of the entire world’s population. The BRICS were said to be “for building bridges, not walls”, and this refers most of all to the building of cognitive bridges closing the gaps left between the two opposite poles created by binary thinking and its expression in numerous dichotomies. In other words, it is necessary for the BRICS to continue their cooperation in the broadest sense possible and to push the boundaries even beyond their apparent limits: limits set more by our own imagination rather than by physical laws. Some time ago, the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore wrote about the history of science being like going “through a maze of mistakes” (Tagore 1914, 48). The same can be applied to the history of development but the importance, as he remarked in the following, is not to remember the history for its innumerable mistakes but instead, for the 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 29 “progressive ascertainment of truth” (Tagore 1914, 48). In this regard, the end of the use of the terms “development assistance” and “developed as opposed to developing countries” can be seen as the precondition for the inauguration of the beginning of a more sustainable continuum of a more equitable global legal order. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the organizers of the International Symposium on Development and Governance in the BRICS held at Fudan University in Shanghai (CHINA) in 2017 for providing the impetus for the writing of this article. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the University of Macau [MYRG2015-00222-FLL and MYRG2016-00116-FLL] underlying the research that went into the writing of this article. Note 1. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Silveira v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) [2011], O.J. No. 3157 at 22. References Auslin, Michael R. 2017. The End of the Asian Century: War, Stagnation, and the Risks to the World’s Most Dynamic Region. New Haven: Yale University Press. Barbour, Julian. 1999. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beisser, Arnold. 1970. “A Paradoxical Theory of Change.” In Gestalt Therapy Now: Theory, Techniques, Applications, edited by Joen Fagan and Irma L. Shepherd, 70–80. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books. Benoît, Hubert. 1973. Let Go: Theory and Practice of Detachment According to Zen. New York: Weiser. Bering, Jesse M. 2006. “The Folk Psychology of Souls.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 453–98. Bethlehem, Daniel. 2014. “The End of Geography: The Changing Nature of the International System and the Challenge to International Law.” The European Journal of International Law 25 (1): 9–24. BRICS. 2012. The BRICS Report: A Study of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa with Special Focus on Synergies and Complementarities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BRICS. 2015. Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership. Ufa: Russia. Chappell, Paul K., and Gavin de Becker. 2010. The End of War: How Waging Peace Can Save Humanity, Our Planet, and Our Future. Westport: Easton Studio Press. 30 R. J. NEUWIRTH Chenoy, Anuradha, Marina Larionova, Richard Manning, and Jennifer Constantine. 2016. “Looking Across BRICS: An Emerging International Development Agenda?” In The BRICS in International Development, edited by Jing Gu, Alex Shankland, and Anuradha Chenoy, 207–42. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cooper, Andrew F. 2016. The BRICS: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. De Beukelaer, Christiaan. 2014. “Creative Industries in ‘Developing’ Countries: Questioning Country Classifications in the UNCTAD Creative Economy Reports.” Cultural Trends 23 (4): 232–51. De Coning, Cedric, Thomas Mandrup, and Liselotte Odgaard, eds. 2015. The BRICS and Coexistence: An Alternative Vision of World Order. London: Routledge. Ehlers, Eckart, and Thomas Krafft. 2006. “Managing Global Change: Earth System Science in the Anthropocene.” In Earth System Science in the Anthropocene, edited by Eckart Ehlers and Thomas Krafft, 5–12. Berlin: Springer. Eliason, James L. 1996. “Using Paradoxes to Teach Critical Thinking in Science.” Journal of College Science Teaching 25 (5): 341–45. Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Flannelly, Kevin J., Christopher G. Ellison, Kathleen Galek, and Nava R. Silton. 2012. “Belief in Life-After-Death, Beliefs About the World, and Psychiatric Symptoms.” Journal of Religion & Health 51 (3): 651–62. Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Avon Books. Gleick, James. 2000. Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything. New York: Vintage Books. Greene, Graham. 1974. The End of the Affair. London: Heinemann. Greig, J. Michael. 2002. “The End of Geography?: Globalization, Communications, and Culture in the International System.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (2): 225–43. Gu, Jing, Richard Carey, Alex Shankland, and Anuradha Chenoy. 2016. “Introduction: International Development, South-South Cooperation and the Rising Powers.” In The BRICS in International Development, edited by Jing Gu, Alex Shankland, and Anuradha Chenoy, 1–24. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Harris, Nigel. 1986. The End of the Third World: Newly Industrializing Countries and the Decline of an Ideology. London: I.B. Tauris. Homans, George C. 1941. “Anxiety and Ritual: The Theories of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown.” American Anthropologist 43 (2): 164–72. Kagan, Robert. 2008. The Return of History and the End of Dreams. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Kalamaras, George. 1994. Reclaiming the Tacit Dimension: Symbolic Form in the Rhetoric of Silence. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 31 Kalinovsky, Artemy M., and Sergey Radchenko, eds. 2011. The End of the Cold War and the Third World: New Perspectives on Regional Conflict. London: Routledge. Khanna, Parag. 2014. “New BRICS Bank a Building Block of Alternative World Order.” New Perspectives Quarterly 31 (4): 46–48. Kornegay, Francis A., and Narnia Bohler-Muller, eds. 2013. Laying the BRICS of a New Global Order: From Yekaterinburg 2009 to Ethekwini 2013. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa. Koslowski, Peter, ed. 2002. Progress, Apocalypse, and Completion of History and Life After Death of the Human Person in the World Religions. Dordrecht: Springer. Lee, Sang M., and David L. Olson. 2010. Convergenomics: Strategic Innovation in the Convergence Era. Farnham: Gower. Leming, Michael R. 1980. “Religion and Death: A Test of Homans’ Thesis.” Omega 10 (4): 347–64. Moody, Raymond A., Jr. 1976. Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon— Survival of Bodily Death. New York: Bantam Books. Neuwirth, Rostam J. 2010. “A Constitutional Tribute to Global Governance: Overcoming the Chimera of the Developing-Developed Country Dichotomy.” European University Institute (EUI) Working Paper LAW 2010/20. Neuwirth, Rostam J. 2013. “Essentially Oxymoronic Concepts.” Global Journal of Comparative Law 2 (2): 147–66. Neuwirth, Rostam J. 2017a. “Global Law and Sustainable Development: Change and the ‘Developing-Developed Country’ Terminology.” European Journal of Development Research 29 (4): 911–25. Neuwirth, Rostam J. 2017b. “The Enantiosis of BRICS: BRICS La[w]yers and the Difference That They Can Make.” In The BRICS-Lawyers Guide to Global Cooperation, edited by Rostam J. Neuwirth, Alexandr Svetlicinii, and Denis De Castro Halis, 8–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neuwirth, Rostam J. 2018. Law in the Time of Oxymora: A Synaesthesia of Language, Logic and Law. New York: Routledge. Neuwirth, Rostam J., and Alexandr Svetlicinii. 2015. “Law as a Social Medicine: Enhancing International Inter-Regime Regulatory Coopetition as a Means for the Establishment of a Global Health Governance Framework.” Journal of Legal Medicine 36 (3–4): 330–66. Neuwirth, Rostam J., Alexandr Svetlicinii, and Denis De Castro Halis, eds. 2017. The BRICS-Lawyers Guide to Global Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nisbett, Richard E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why. New York: Free Press. Nishitani, Keiji. 1990. The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism. Albany: State University of New York. Njiro, Esther. 2002. “Introduction: Sustainable Development an Oxymoron?” Agenda 52: 3–7. 32 R. J. NEUWIRTH Nora, Paul. 1989. “Between Memory and History: Les lieux de mémoire.” Representations 26: 7–24. Obayashi, Hiroshi. 1992. Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. New York: Praeger. OECD. 2007. Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science. Paris: OECD. Pant, Harsh V. 2013. “The BRICS Fallacy.” The Washington Quarterly 36 (3): 91–105. Parfitt, Trevor. 2002. The End of Development?: Modernity, Post-modernity and Development. Sterling: Pluto Press. Redclift, Michael. 2005. “Sustainable Development (1987–2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age.” Sustainable Development 13: 212–27. Rifkin, Jeremy. 1985. Entropy: A New World View. London: Paladin. Rist, Gilbert. 2008. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. London: ZED Books. Rosenau, James N. 1995. “Governance in the 21st Century.” Global Governance 1(1): 13–43. Sachs, Wolfgang. 1999. “Sustainable Development and the Crisis of Nature: On the Political Anatomy of an Oxymoron.” In Living with Nature: Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse, edited by Frank Fischer and Maarten A. Hajer, 23–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2012. “From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals.” Lancet 379: 2206–11. Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1958. The World in Will and Representation. Vol. 2. New York: Dover. Segal, Gabriel. 2008. “Poverty of Stimulus Arguments Concerning Language and Folk Psychology.” In The Innate Mind: Foundations and the Future, edited by Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, vol. 3, 90–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Sen, Tansen. 2003. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of SinoIndian Relations, 600–1400. Honolulu: Association for Asian Studies. Shahrokhi, Manuchehr, Huifang Cheng, Krishnan Dandapani, Antonio Figueiredo, Ali M. Parhizgari, and Yochanan Shachmurove. 2017. “The Evolution and Future of the BRICS: Unbundling Politics from Economics.” Global Finance Journal 32: 1–15. Simha, Rakesh Krishnan. 2016. “BRICS Should Prepare for ‘Braxit’: A Brazilian Exit.” Russia Beyond, July 4. https://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_ than_fiction/2016/07/04/brics-should-prepare-for-braxit-a-brazilian-exit_ 608637. 2 THE END OF “DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE” AND THE BRICS 33 Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill. 2007. “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?” Ambio 16 (5): 614–21. Stuenkel, Oliver. 2015. The BRICS and the Future of Global Order. Lanham: Lexington Books. Tagore, Rabindranath. 1914. Sādhanā: The Realisation of Life. New York: Macmillan. Tagore, Rabindranath. 2007. The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore: Essays. Vol. 4. New Delhi: Atlantic. Tapscott, Christopher, Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira, Yijia Jing, Alexey G. Barabashev, and Navdeep Mathur. 2017. “Introduction: BRICS in Search of Governance Models.” Chinese Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–6. United Nations. 2015. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York: United Nations. United Nations General Assembly. 2015. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” A/RES/70/1, October 21. World Bank. 2016. World Development Indicators 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ziai, Aram, ed. 2007. Exploring Post-development: Theory and Practice, Problems and Perspectives. New York: Routledge.