BRICS’ Fuzzy Focus: A Study in Evasion

The recent BRICS summit in New Delhi has left many scratching their heads over the group’s ability to avoid taking a clear stance on key global issues, particularly the US-Israel war on Iran. The 11-member bloc’s adoption of the New Delhi Declaration was met with relief by some, who saw it as a sign of the group’s growing influence and its willingness to challenge Western dominance. However, upon closer examination, the declaration reveals a more nuanced – and perhaps more concerning – reality.

One of the most striking aspects of the New Delhi Declaration is its deliberate vagueness on the issue of US-Israeli strikes in Iran. While the document expresses “deep concern over the continued escalation of tensions” in the Middle East, it carefully avoids condemning the specific actions of the United States and Israel. This diplomatic finagling has been seen as a key factor in securing consensus among BRICS members, particularly India, which has maintained close ties with both the US and Iran.

The omission is striking given that Iran is a member of BRICS, as is the UAE, which has faced Iranian attacks during the conflict. It’s likely that this avoidance was driven by a desire to maintain good relations with key players in the region rather than taking a firm stance on the issue.

The New Delhi Declaration also warrants attention for its vagueness on the Ukraine war. The statement calls for international disputes to be resolved through “dialogue, consultation, and diplomacy” without mentioning Ukraine explicitly. This approach may seem cautious, but it’s telling that the document criticizes unilateral sanctions not authorized by the UN Security Council – a clear nod to Russia’s own struggles with Western-imposed sanctions.

BRICS’ failure to take a firm stance on these issues has significant implications for the group’s credibility. If BRICS cannot muster the will to condemn even the most egregious human rights abuses or blatant disregard for international law, what exactly is its purpose?

Some might argue that BRICS’ incremental approach is necessary in an increasingly complex and multipolar world. However, this interpretation raises more questions than it answers: can a group truly shape global governance if it cannot take firm positions on key issues? Or does BRICS’ focus on maintaining consensus merely perpetuate the status quo?

The New Delhi Declaration’s careful language may have secured consensus among its members, but it also underscores the limitations of BRICS’ influence – at least for now. The 11-member bloc constitutes nearly half the world’s population and accounts for approximately 40 percent of global GDP. With this kind of economic and demographic heft, one would expect a more forthright stance on critical issues.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assertion that BRICS had reached a “coming of age” moment and called on the Global South to become a “rule-shaper” rather than simply accept rules set elsewhere is telling. It suggests that New Delhi sees BRICS as an opportunity to advance India’s own interests – and perhaps to assert its influence within the global South.

As we move forward, it will be fascinating to see how BRICS navigates these complex dynamics and whether its members can find common ground on critical issues. The stakes are high: if BRICS fails to deliver on its promise of a more multipolar world, it risks becoming nothing more than a talking shop for nations seeking to advance their own agendas.

The question remains: will BRICS be able to overcome its limitations and become the catalyst for change that its founders envisioned? Or will it remain mired in its own contradictions – a symbol of the challenges facing global governance in an increasingly complex world.