The 18th BRICS Leaders’ Summit, held in New Delhi on September 12–13, underscored efforts to maintain dialogue despite geopolitical divisions among members. The conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States, the Russia-Ukraine war, China-India relations and strategic differences in the Gulf were among the main issues discussed at the summit.
Agreement did not eliminate differences among members
According to an assessment by Marcus Vinicius de Freitas, a visiting lecturer at China Foreign Affairs University and a senior fellow at the Policy Center for the New South, the summit’s most notable outcome was that members with different strategic priorities were able to reach agreement on a joint declaration.
De Freitas said BRICS was not built around a common security doctrine, political system or vision of the international order like NATO or the European Union. In his view, the group’s cohesion stems less from members sharing the same views than from their ability to coordinate despite their differences.
In the New Delhi Declaration, the leaders expressed concern about the escalation of tensions in the Middle East. The declaration called for restraint and emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy; however, it did not eliminate the fundamental differences among members.
Economic cooperation remained at the center of the agenda
The summit addressed more concrete issues in economic cooperation and global governance. BRICS members supported reforms aimed at increasing the representation of developing and emerging economies in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.
The leaders also opposed unilateral tariffs and coercive economic measures. Supporting the multilateral trading system, improving cross-border payments, financing in local currencies and increasing interoperability among national payment systems were also discussed.
The New Development Bank emerged as one of the instruments for mobilizing development finance. Measures aimed at facilitating trade, investment and payment links were intended to reduce transaction costs and diversify the economic options of member countries.
No decision was made on a common currency
No decision was made at the summit to establish a common BRICS currency. Instead, settlements in local currencies, the interoperability of cross-border payment systems and the diversification of reserves were addressed as separate issues.
De Freitas assessed that strengthening the New Development Bank and creating additional financial options could be more important than announcing an alternative currency that members were not yet ready to adopt.
Diversity viewed as both a limitation and a strength
BRICS members are seeking greater influence in existing international institutions while also working to develop new instruments outside those institutions. This approach combines the goal of reforming the existing order with efforts to create alternative mechanisms.
Strategic competition and unresolved disputes between China and India did not prevent the two countries from maintaining their presence within BRICS. Although BRICS does not eliminate the problems between the parties, it provides an additional political dialogue platform for managing disagreements.
According to De Freitas, the group’s diversity slows negotiations, encourages the use of cautious language and limits ambitious geopolitical compromises. At the same time, that diversity enables BRICS to bring different priorities in the Global South together on a single platform.
The New Delhi Summit showed that BRICS is seeking to manage rather than eliminate the contradictions of multipolarity. De Freitas said the group’s ability to improve its management of differences while preserving common objectives would be decisive for the emerging international order.
