22 minutes agoShareSaveAdd as preferred on GoogleAzadeh MoshiriSouth Asia Correspondent, Delhi
ReutersThis weekend, some of the most powerful people in the world gathered in Delhi around a vast circular table.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that together, the leaders next to him should increasingly become “rule-shapers”, not “rule-takers”.
Among those listening were members of the Brics group, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
These are hardly natural allies. They have histories of border disputes and even military confrontations.
India and China engaged in a deadly clash along their disputed border in 2020. Iran and the UAE have been on opposing ends of the war in the Middle East, with Tehran launching missiles and drones at its fellow Brics member as the conflict sent shockwaves across global economies.
The fact that India was able to gather these leaders together in person is a feat in and of itself and testament to its diplomatic reach. The weekend also provided a platform for countries to reassess their relationships in light of the Iran war.
But agreeing on what a new global order should look like and achieving clear, tangible outcomes was a much harder task, and that tension ran through this weekend’s summit.
For members such as China, Russia and Iran, Brics offers a vehicle to dilute the influence of the US and western Europe.
But India has been reluctant to cast Brics as an anti-Western bloc. Modi himself said at the summit that the group is “not against anyone”.
That distinction matters for Delhi, which wants to preserve its relationships with nations at odds with each other.
“There are countries in the grouping which would like it to become anti-western, but it is not that,” says Anil Trigunayat, a veteran Indian diplomat and former ambassador. What India has achieved, in his view, is a push for “strategic autonomy in an era of war” and initiatives to “enhance greater collaboration amongst themselves”.
Getty ImagesThe summit succeeded in delivering a joint declaration when divisions among members have rarely been so glaring.
Twice earlier this year, meetings between Brics ministers had failed to produce a joint statement. This time a consensus was reached, but by side-stepping issues that members sharply disagree on, with few solutions.
The “New Delhi Declaration” was adopted on the first day of the summit. But what is striking is what it doesn’t say.
On the war in the Middle East, the declaration urges “maximum restraint”. It also condemns “attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities” but assigns no blame.
It reiterates support for a two-state solution, opposes forced displacement of Palestinians or actions that could “legitimise or prolong occupation”, framing it carefully around existing UN resolutions.
It makes no mention at all of Russia’s war in Ukraine, a departure from previous Brics declarations.
There is similar caution on trade. It lists concerns over “indiscriminate rising tariffs” and condemns unilateral sanctions but stops short of naming the US, and is likely to avoid Washington’s ire.
Several Brics members would have been loath to draw President Donald Trump’s anger, as he has previously called the group’s proposals, including potentially linking central-bank digital currencies for cross-border trade, “anti-American”.
“Not mentioning any country by name, even as they condemned the conflict in the Middle East, bears the hallmark of India,” says Praveen Donthi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.
“I was pleasantly surprised that there was a strong reference to tariffs, because India could have wanted to be less direct about it, but perhaps this was a chance to convey their displeasure,” he added.
Getty ImagesIn the wake of Trump’s trade threats and the shock of the war in the Middle East, reshaping the global order has become a vital need for many member economies.
What the summit did provide is a platform for meetings that seemed hard to imagine just a few months ago.
Iran’s Pezeshkian and Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince sat down for talks together – the highest-level face-to-face meeting known between the two countries since the war began.
This weekend offered Tehran a chance to show that it does not stand alone amid the US and Israel’s military attacks and economic pressure.
As Iran tries to withstand US sanctions, Washington’s “Operation Economic Outcast” and a naval blockade on its ports, Pezeshkian pressed for deeper economic ties with Brics members, including Malaysia, India and Ethiopia.
As for China, this was President Xi’s first visit to Delhi in seven years. There has been deep mistrust between China and India since the 2020 border dispute, but those tensions have eased. There is also a large trade imbalance, with a deficit tilting heavily in China’s favour.
There was a cordial handshake between Xi and Modi, not the latter’s signature hug. Xi also stayed for less than 24 hours, skipping the gala dinner hosted by Modi on Saturday night.
But the weekend was still a big moment for two countries with such a difficult relationship. According to official readouts, the two leaders agreed to strengthen business ties and transport links and address barriers to trade.
Trigunayat believes this is part of a gradual warming of relations in recent years, and that there is a will on both sides to work together. But whether it will produce substantial progress remains to be seen.
“I always say we have to trust, but verify first,” he says.
The summit showed that Brics can create space for rivals to talk and manoeuvre outside Western-dominated institutions.
The harder question is what happens next. It’s clear that members agree they need a new global order more than ever, but what exactly should replace it and how to get there is far more challenging to answer.
Additional reporting by Charlotte Scarr
IndiaAsiaChinaNarendra ModiXi JinpingVladimir PutinRussiaIran
