NEW DELHI — The 18th BRICS Summit ended in New Delhi with leaders adopting a joint declaration that calls for a more multipolar world, reform of global institutions and deeper cooperation among emerging economies.
The agreement was a diplomatic success for India, which hosted the meeting at a time when the group’s expanded membership and competing national interests threatened to derail a common statement. But the carefully calibrated document also exposed the central limitation of BRICS: it can often unite around broad principles, while struggling to assign responsibility or take collective action on the conflicts dividing its members.
The New Delhi Declaration, approved unanimously by the 11-member bloc, expressed “deep concern” over the escalating Middle East conflict, called for maximum restraint and urged the peaceful resolution of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. It criticized unilateral tariffs and sanctions outside the United Nations system, called for more representative global governance and placed renewed emphasis on trade, development, technology and supply-chain resilience.
For India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and the bloc’s newer members, the summit was meant to show that BRICS has become an important platform for countries that want a greater role in shaping global rules. For the United States and European allies, it showed a grouping that is not yet a unified anti-Western alliance but is increasingly capable of challenging Western influence in diplomacy, trade and global governance.
Here are the main takeaways from the New Delhi summit.
1. India kept a divided bloc together
The biggest immediate achievement was consensus itself.
The New Delhi Declaration came after difficult negotiations involving BRICS members with sharply different interests in the Middle East. Iran is part of the grouping, but so is the United Arab Emirates, a U.S. partner that has faced Iranian attacks during the regional conflict. Those tensions had already prevented BRICS foreign ministers from reaching a joint statement in May.
India’s task was to produce language broad enough to preserve unity without forcing any member to accept an explicit condemnation of a country it supports or a position it rejects.
The result was cautious. The declaration called for “maximum restraint” and warned against actions that could worsen the Middle East crisis. But it did not identify the United States, Israel, Iran or Gulf states by name.
That formulation was not accidental. It allowed the bloc to register concern while avoiding a direct confrontation among its own members.
The same approach appeared in the declaration’s language on the Russia-Ukraine war. Leaders urged the peaceful resolution of international disputes but did not specifically name Ukraine or Russia’s invasion. The document also criticized unilateral sanctions not authorized by the U.N. Security Council, language that aligns with Russia’s longstanding objections to Western sanctions.
The summit therefore demonstrated both BRICS’ diplomatic value and its operational ceiling. It can maintain dialogue among countries that do not otherwise agree. It can produce common language on peace, sovereignty and multilateralism. But when members’ strategic interests collide, its statements become general enough to preserve consensus rather than precise enough to resolve disputes.
2. The Global South is the summit’s central message
The dominant political theme in New Delhi was not opposition to a single country. It was the demand that emerging and developing economies have more influence over the global order.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told leaders that the Global South should become a “rule-shaper,” rather than remain a “rule-taker” in institutions and systems established largely by Western powers.
That phrase captures the ambition of BRICS. Its members argue that the global rules governing trade, lending, security, technology and development have not kept pace with changes in economic power and population.
BRICS originated in 2006 as a forum for Brazil, Russia, India and China; South Africa joined in 2010. The grouping has since expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. The 11 countries account for nearly half the world’s population and approximately 40% of global gross domestic product, according to Al Jazeera.
The numbers explain why BRICS is seeking a larger diplomatic role. The group spans major energy producers and importers, large manufacturing economies, fast-growing consumer markets, critical-mineral suppliers and countries with substantial influence across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
The declaration calls for reform of the United Nations, international financial institutions and the multilateral trading system. It argues for a more representative international order and greater participation by emerging markets and developing countries in bodies such as the U.N. Security Council, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
For India and Brazil, the issue includes their long-standing push for permanent representation on a reformed Security Council. For African members, it includes broader representation for the continent in global decision-making. For all BRICS members, it is part of a larger campaign to challenge systems they believe reflect a post-World War II balance of power rather than today’s reality.
3. BRICS wants multipolarity, not necessarily confrontation
The summit repeatedly returned to the idea of a multipolar world: one in which no single power or group of powers dominates global affairs.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said BRICS countries want a multilateral system in which “there is no dominance of one player or country over others,” and described the group’s goal as a world in which countries respect one another’s sovereignty and advance their own interests without being subordinated to a single center of power.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin have made similar arguments, though their political objectives and relationships with Western powers differ significantly from India’s and Brazil’s.
Modi sought to define BRICS differently from a formal anti-Western coalition. “BRICS is not against anyone,” he said, arguing that the grouping should move forward by “taking everyone along.”
That distinction is important.
India continues to work closely with the United States, Europe, Japan and other Western partners on trade, technology and security. The UAE maintains deep security and commercial ties with Washington. Brazil and South Africa also have diverse diplomatic relationships outside BRICS.
BRICS is better understood as a platform for strategic diversification. Its members want more options — more trading partners, more development-finance channels, more diplomatic forums and more room to act independently of U.S. or European policy.
That does not mean the group lacks criticism of Western influence. It clearly does. But it does mean that a future BRICS action should not automatically be read as evidence of a unified geopolitical bloc opposed to the United States.
4. Trade, tariffs and sanctions are a shared grievance
The declaration warned against “unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” that distort trade and criticized sanctions imposed outside the authority of the U.N. Security Council.
The statement did not mention the United States by name, even though U.S. tariffs and sanctions form an important part of the summit’s political context. Washington has imposed tariffs on several BRICS countries, including China, Russia and India, while U.S. sanctions have targeted Iran and Russia.
The decision not to name Washington reflects the same diplomatic balancing that shaped the Middle East language. BRICS members may share objections to tariffs and sanctions, but they also have strong economic incentives to preserve bilateral ties with the United States.
Still, the declaration’s message was unmistakable. BRICS leaders see trade policy, sanctions, export controls and supply-chain restrictions as instruments of geopolitical power. They want more resilient commercial links among member states and a stronger role for the World Trade Organization.
The group called for an open, fair, inclusive and rules-based multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core. It also pressed for a fully functioning two-tier dispute settlement system, including the appointment of new appellate body members.
For businesses, the result is a practical reminder that trade is no longer only about cost and efficiency. Supply routes, tariff exposure, currency settlement, access to technology and political alignment are increasingly connected.
5. The Middle East was the summit’s toughest test
The Middle East conflict loomed over the New Delhi meeting.
The declaration expressed concern over the continued escalation of tensions and called on all parties to avoid steps that could intensify the crisis. It also called for the protection of civilian infrastructure, energy flows, trade routes and maritime security.
The language represented a compromise between countries with incompatible positions.
Iran, a BRICS member, has faced U.S. and Israeli military action and has conflicted with Gulf states. The UAE, also a BRICS member, occupies a very different position in the regional security environment. India, China and Russia each have their own relationships with Tehran, Gulf capitals, Washington and Israel.
Rather than try to resolve those contradictions, India focused on preserving the group’s ability to speak at all.
The declaration was more explicit on Palestine. It expressed firm opposition to the forced displacement of Palestinians and attempts to change the geography or demographics of occupied Palestinian territory. It called for humanitarian access, support for the U.N. Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, full U.N. membership for Palestine and a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a sovereign Palestinian state.
That contrast reveals BRICS’ political calculus. The group found greater common ground on Palestinian statehood than on the broader regional conflict, where Iran-UAE tensions and U.S.-Israel relations complicated any effort at stronger collective language.
6. Technology and critical minerals moved higher on the agenda
Beyond conflict and diplomacy, the summit placed major emphasis on technology, innovation and critical minerals.
The New Delhi Declaration called for reliable, diversified, resilient and sustainable supply chains for critical minerals, resources needed for batteries, electric vehicles, renewable-energy technologies, electronics and defense systems. It also emphasized the sovereign right of resource-rich countries to manage their mineral resources and pursue domestic value creation.
This reflects a broader global race over lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements and other materials essential to the energy transition and advanced manufacturing.
For countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, the debate is increasingly about whether they will remain exporters of raw minerals or build domestic processing, manufacturing and technology industries. BRICS leaders signaled support for value addition and industrialization in resource-rich countries rather than simply extraction for foreign supply chains.
The group also addressed digital cooperation, innovation and artificial intelligence. India’s chairmanship emphasized resilience and innovation, while South Africa used the meeting to advance calls for stronger global oversight of AI.
Those issues may prove more consequential over time than the summit’s headline diplomacy. The rules governing AI, data infrastructure, semiconductors, mineral supply and clean-energy manufacturing will shape economic competitiveness for decades.
7. The next test is implementation
The New Delhi Declaration is extensive, but declarations do not implement themselves.
BRICS now faces the more difficult work of turning commitments into institutions, projects, standards and funding. That includes increasing intra-BRICS trade and investment, mobilizing finance for infrastructure, building more resilient supply chains, coordinating technology policy and advancing reforms in global institutions.
South Africa’s priorities illustrate the challenge. Ramaphosa said Pretoria is seeking expanded intra-BRICS trade and investment, more industrialization and value addition, and greater investment in African infrastructure linked to the African Continental Free Trade Area.
Those are concrete objectives. But progress will depend on financing, trade rules, transport links, political stability and private-sector participation, not simply summit language.
The group’s consensus model remains both a strength and a weakness. It creates a forum broad enough to include countries with very different systems and interests. But it makes binding action harder when members disagree.
The next BRICS summit is scheduled to be hosted by China in 2027. By then, the question will be whether the bloc has produced tangible outcomes from the New Delhi agenda or whether its most durable achievement remains the ability to issue carefully balanced statements.
For now, the summit showed that BRICS has entered a new stage. It is larger, more visible and more ambitious than the forum created two decades ago. It is also more diverse, more complicated and more constrained by its own internal contradictions.
Its power lies in creating alternatives and amplifying demands for reform. Its limitation lies in whether it can translate shared dissatisfaction with the current order into sustained collective action.