- The most notable aspect seen during this year’s BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Summit hosted by India was the absence of a joint statement, as no unified stance on the West Asian situation could be taken.
- One of the biggest consequences of the West Asian crisis has been economic uncertainty across the world, while the very foundation of BRICS has always been based on economic cooperation.
- The New Development Bank received substantial attention in the BRICS document, as the push for local currency financing was given specific emphasis at this summit.
- There are visible attempts by countries like China and Russia to align BRICS according to their own strategic interests and use the organisation as an extension of their national agendas.
India hosted a very important BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Summit. This BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Summit came as the association celebrated its 20th anniversary. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar chaired the summit. Although no joint statement was released after the summit, a chair’s statement and a separate document were issued. This came at a time when the countries of BRICS are divided, particularly in the context of contemporary affairs, especially the ongoing West Asian conflict.
The theme for this year’s BRICS Summit, put forward by India, “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability,” was far more than a symbolic slogan. It strongly reflected the contemporary global realities, ranging from energy transition and digital public infrastructure to AI governance, agriculture, and disaster resilience. The theme also highlighted India’s developmental priorities within the broader multilateral discourse. Even the AI Impact Summit organised in India this February found a place in the common understanding among BRICS countries, as member states acknowledged and supported India’s ongoing commitments and initiatives in emerging sectors.
However, from an Indian perspective, BRICS has always been a very important organisation. It has been an organisation that satisfies India’s foreign policy ambitions of not aligning with any particular world order, while believing in multilateralism and providing a voice to countries that have often been isolated, particularly from the Global South.
This BRICS summit was special in multiple ways, as it came after Operation Sindoor, which has been considered a major success for India. After the Pahalgam terror attack, countries strongly highlighted India’s firm stance against terrorism during the BRICS summit. Terrorism remains an important issue for all member countries.
However, the most notable aspect seen during this year’s BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Summit hosted by India was the absence of a joint statement, as no unified stance on the West Asian situation could be taken. This largely emerged because BRICS member countries, particularly the newly added members Iran and the United Arab Emirates, became involved in a war of words and mutual blame. Both countries indirectly targeted each other.
The United Arab Emirates strongly criticised Iran and held it responsible for the crisis. The UAE has suffered losses due to continuous Iranian attacks on its territory, while the blockade of the Hormuz Strait has hurt the country militarily and economically. Since the UAE is one of the strongest regional allies of Israel, it was quite obvious that the UAE would lean towards the United States and take a position against Iran.
However, Iran blamed the United Arab Emirates for hosting Israeli military assets and argued that the UAE also shares responsibility for the current conflict. Because of these divisions, no particular stance was taken.
This is an important matter because one of the biggest consequences of the West Asian crisis has been economic uncertainty across the world, while the very foundation of BRICS has always been based on economic cooperation. Therefore, the current crisis challenges the legitimacy of BRICS, because not only are member countries directly involved in the centre stage of the conflict, but more importantly, the crisis goes against the organisation’s foundational principle of providing an emerging economic alternative to the world order. It fundamentally raises questions among those countries that consider BRICS to be an alternative global reality.
Another major difference was seen regarding Red Sea navigation. BRICS member countries failed to arrive at a common consensus and did not strongly criticise the disruptions in the Red Sea. The supply chain disruptions in the Red Sea have largely been caused by Yemeni Houthis. Major BRICS economies, particularly those dependent on global trade routes, have been affected by the crisis. However, because Russia and China maintain cordial ties with the Houthis, the organisation failed to strongly criticise the Red Sea navigation crisis.
One of the other noticeable factors was the organisation’s position on Gaza. India and BRICS condemned the ongoing starvation in the region and supported the two-state solution. Gaza remains an important issue for BRICS, as it has not only divided countries globally but could also divide BRICS internally. There are now two visible blocs within the organisation. On one side are countries like Iran, which strongly champion the Palestinian cause, while on the other side are countries like the United Arab Emirates and India, which have adopted a more cautious and balanced approach.
The New Development Bank has also received substantial attention in the BRICS document, as the push for local currency financing was given specific emphasis at this summit. This very much reflects a long-term project of partial financial decoupling that BRICS is trying to achieve from dollar-dominated systems, as the member countries of BRICS understand the politicisation and weaponisation of the economy that the United States has engaged in. It is therefore in the interest of other countries to create a parallel financial network so that, in the event of an adverse situation, the national assets of countries are not weaponised by another member of the international order.
The BRICS organisation also challenged the current trade architecture and stated that rising tariffs are among the biggest challenges facing the world economy. Although BRICS did not directly name the United States, it is widely understood that under President Trump, the United States has caused major disruptions in the global trade architecture through rising tariffs. Tariffs have emerged as one of the biggest concerns for the global economy.
Another major issue discussed was multilateral reform and the need for changes within the existing United Nations system.
This year’s BRICS summit under India’s chairmanship came at a very important time. Since BRICS is increasingly being considered one of the next major global organisations, it is important that the organisation take ownership of contemporary realities. India chairing the summit at such a critical juncture speaks volumes. Although there are visible differences within BRICS, these differences need to be resolved internally, not only to maintain the organisation’s relevance but also to uphold the real purpose of BRICS itself.
The organisation is also passing through a very interesting phase, as there are visible attempts by countries like China and Russia to align BRICS according to their own strategic interests and use the organisation as an extension of their national agendas. Countries like India and Brazil, however, have acted as balancing powers within BRICS and have argued that BRICS should not become an extension of any particular country. Instead, it should focus on its own collective objectives. Becoming an extension of any one country’s national interests would not only divert BRICS from its original intentions but would also fundamentally question its founding principles.
Aayush Pal is a freelance writer on contemporary geopolitical developments. The views expressed in his work are entirely his own.
Kumar Sheni 
Anjali Singh 
Anusreeta Dutta