The BRICS group is preparing for its annual summit in Rio de Janeiro next week, but internal divisions and a perceived lack of unified action, particularly concerning Israel’s war on Gaza, have raised questions about its effectiveness and credibility as a representative of the Global South. Experts suggest the group’s struggle to build consensus on major geopolitical crises, including the Middle East escalation, highlights limitations in challenging the US-led world order. Key takeaways include the upcoming summit’s muted expectations, prominent leaders’ expected absence, and member states’ diverging interests and actions regarding the Gaza conflict.
Contents
A Summit Amidst Geopolitical Strain
The summit in Rio, scheduled to begin on July 6, is already facing challenges. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to skip the event, reportedly due to diplomatic and political considerations.
Brazil, as a signatory to the International Criminal Court, faces the obligation to arrest Putin should he attend in person, leading the Russian leader to opt for virtual participation. Reports also suggest Xi Jinping’s decision to send his prime minister instead might be linked to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s scheduled state visit to Brazil around the same time, potentially aiming to temper the political significance of the BRICS gathering.
The expected absence of these leaders has lowered expectations for major outcomes from the summit, with observers anticipating a focus primarily on maintaining existing cooperation rather than tackling major geopolitical issues with targeted language in official documents.
BRICS and the Gaza Conflict: A Revealing Divide
Despite its stated aim to represent the Global South and reform the international system, BRICS’ response to the conflict in Gaza has exposed significant internal differences. While the group collectively supported South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), only Brazil and Egypt among the member states have joined the case.
Conversely, India has emerged as a strong supporter of Israel since October 2023, providing weapons, including combat drones and AI weapons, and sending Indian construction workers to replace Palestinian laborers. India has also declined to endorse an arms embargo on Israel. This stance contrasts sharply with the positions of other BRICS members like South Africa and highlights the diverse foreign policy objectives within the bloc.
Experts note that if BRICS is intended to be an alternative center of political and economic power, the varied responses to Gaza reveal a deep divide. Beyond state-level positions, some analysts point to economic ties, noting that companies from several BRICS nations, besides Iran, continue to benefit from or engage with Israel’s military-industrial complex or related industries, such as energy exports and port operations.
Structural Challenges and Future Role
Since its founding in 2009, BRICS has aimed to consolidate economic cooperation and advocate for reforming global institutions to better serve developing economies. However, progress has been uneven, hampered by internal contradictions and competing national interests that appear to have intensified.
India, a foundational member, has positioned itself as a leader of the Global South while simultaneously deepening ties with the United States. Delhi has reportedly emphasized BRICS as primarily an economic project, pushed back against rapid expansion to potentially limit Chinese influence, and shown little interest in pursuing a common BRICS currency to challenge the US dollar, instead favoring trade in national currencies.
Analysts suggest that the inclusion of new initiatives may have distracted BRICS from its core goal of refining a common agenda to address the international governance system and financial institutions. This lack of a cohesive, shared agenda is seen as a structural issue.
While BRICS leaders have issued calls for a ceasefire and civilian protection in Gaza, these collective decisions are not legally binding on individual states, resulting in no significant impact on members’ differing foreign policies. This variance in interests prevents greater institutionalization, such as establishing a permanent secretariat or making summit decisions binding.
Despite these challenges and internal inconsistencies, some observers believe BRICS retains symbolic importance and utility. It serves as a platform for Global South countries to coordinate responses to the Western-led order and remains a vital component of core members’ foreign policies related to South-South cooperation, progressive internationalism, and strategic non-alignment. While the group may face the possibility of weakening under the weight of its contradictions, its symbolic value as a collective representing emerging economies is likely to persist.
Explore Related Topics
