How does the Iran war reshape Brics ties and expose divisions?

The Background: A Shifting Global Order

The Brics group, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has increasingly positioned itself as a counterweight to Western-dominated international institutions. Since its inception, the group has sought to foster economic cooperation and amplify the voices of emerging economies on the global stage. The recent summit in Delhi, hosted by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, brought together leaders including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian. This gathering occurred against a backdrop of escalating geopolitical tensions, notably the ongoing war in the Middle East involving Iran, and Russia's conflict in Ukraine. These events have intensified the desire among some Brics members to reshape global governance and reduce the influence of the United States and its allies. However, the diverse interests and historical frictions among member states, such as border disputes between India and China and the Iran-UAE regional rivalry, create inherent challenges to unified action.

The war in the Middle East, in particular, has amplified the urgency for many Brics members to find alternative frameworks for economic and political engagement. The conflict's impact on global supply chains and energy markets has underscored the vulnerabilities of the existing international order. For countries like China, Russia, and Iran, Brics represents a crucial platform to dilute Western influence. India, however, navigates a more complex diplomatic path, seeking to maintain relationships with a wide array of global partners while advocating for greater "strategic autonomy." This delicate balancing act was evident at the Delhi summit, where the group aimed to present a united front despite underlying disagreements.

The Mechanism: A Declaration of Cautious Consensus

The Brics summit in Delhi aimed to produce a joint declaration that would signal a cohesive approach to global challenges. The "New Delhi Declaration" was adopted, but its content reflects a strategy of consensus-building through omission and generality. Instead of directly confronting contentious issues, the declaration employed broad language to bridge divides. For instance, regarding the war in the Middle East, it called for "maximum restraint" and condemned "attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities" without assigning blame. Similarly, its reiteration of support for a two-state solution concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was framed within existing UN resolutions, avoiding specific policy prescriptions.

A significant departure from previous Brics statements was the complete absence of any mention of Russia's war in Ukraine. This omission highlights the differing stances among member states on the conflict. On trade, the declaration expressed concerns over "indiscriminate rising tariffs" and condemned unilateral sanctions, but crucially, it stopped short of naming the United States, a move likely intended to avoid antagonizing Washington. This careful wording underscores India's diplomatic approach, which seeks to foster collaboration without alienating key global players. The success of the summit, therefore, lies less in concrete policy agreements and more in its ability to facilitate dialogue and produce a statement that, while lacking specific solutions, acknowledges shared concerns and maintains the group's cohesion in a turbulent global environment.

Who is Affected and How, Concretely

Ordinary citizens in Brics nations and beyond are indirectly affected by the group's evolving role. For countries like Iran, the summit provided a crucial platform to seek deeper economic ties and potential relief from US sanctions. President Pezeshkian's engagement with Brics members, including discussions on economic cooperation with Malaysia, India, and Ethiopia, offers a potential avenue to mitigate the impact of Washington's "Operation Economic Outcast" and naval blockades. This could translate into more accessible goods and potentially more stable economic conditions for Iranians, though the extent of this benefit remains contingent on concrete trade agreements and the easing of international financial restrictions.

For India, the summit's success in fostering dialogue, particularly between rivals like China and the UAE, strengthens its position as a key diplomatic player. The renewed focus on strengthening business ties and transport links with China, despite lingering mistrust from the 2020 border dispute, could lead to more balanced trade relations and potentially ease economic pressures stemming from the significant trade deficit. For citizens in India, this could mean greater access to Chinese markets or more opportunities for cross-border investment. The summit also provided a rare face-to-face meeting between Iran's President Pezeshkian and Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, potentially paving the way for de-escalation in regional tensions that have impacted global energy prices and trade routes, indirectly affecting consumers worldwide through fluctuations in fuel costs and supply chain disruptions.

What Happens Next, and What Would Have to Be True

The future trajectory of Brics hinges on its ability to translate the goodwill generated at the Delhi summit into tangible outcomes. For the group to evolve into a more effective "rule-shaper," member states will need to move beyond general declarations and address specific areas of cooperation, such as trade, finance, and security. This would require overcoming deep-seated historical grievances and divergent strategic interests. For instance, a more robust economic partnership would necessitate concrete agreements on trade facilitation, investment protection, and potentially the development of alternative payment systems, which would require significant coordination among central banks and financial institutions.

The continued influence of the United States and the potential return of a more protectionist trade policy under figures like Donald Trump also present a significant factor. For Brics to gain greater global traction as an alternative to Western-led institutions, its members would need to demonstrate a unified vision and a willingness to commit resources to joint projects. The success of initiatives like linking central bank digital currencies for cross-border trade, a concept previously viewed with skepticism by some, would depend on technological standardization and mutual trust. If Brics members can successfully navigate these challenges and foster deeper integration, they could indeed play a more significant role in shaping global norms and economic policies. Conversely, if internal divisions persist and concrete actions remain elusive, the group may continue to serve primarily as a forum for dialogue, with limited impact on the broader international order.