BRICS 2026 Reveals Ambition, Contradictions, and Uncertain Futures
Por Reed Chervin — The Diplomat
Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific
BRICS’ New Delhi Summit expanded the grouping’s ambitions, but geopolitical divisions and weak institutional clarity continue to challenge its future.
Much fanfare accompanied the two-day (September 12-13) 2026 BRICS Summit in New Delhi. The Indian government shut down the capital through road closures, dignitaries made grand statements – including, notably, one by Russian President Vladimir Putin that the “old leaders” (the G7) are being replaced by “ new engines of economic growth ” (BRICS countries).
The grouping of an expanded 11 full members (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) issued a 140-point declaration on topics from Bretton Woods to conflict in the Middle East. Indian Member of Parliament Vikramjit Singh Sahney proclaimed that the summit was “historic” and “ a major diplomatic achievement for India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi .”
But what did the meeting actually accomplish, and what is the future of BRICS?
The BRICS New Delhi declaration made many pledges. Two of these reaffirmed the “ BRICS spirit of mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusiveness, collaboration and consensus ” as well as a commitment to upholding international law. Though these sounded agreeable, “mutual respect,” “democracy,” “openness,” and “upholding international law” ring particularly hollow in view of ongoing conflicts involving some BRICS members as well as the global tilt toward autocracy in recent years .
Nevertheless, the declaration went on to stress the importance of developing nations’ promoting dialogue for a more just and stable international order. It referenced the BRICS Payment Task Force and the exploration of efficient cross-border payment mechanisms.
That said, BRICS opposes carbon border adjustment mechanisms, deeming them discriminatory toward developing nations. Though this might be true, these nations should account for the carbon output of companies in the Global South via the implementation of their own border adjustment mechanisms , which would capture not only carbon, but also tax revenue.
On the environment, the declaration acknowledged the challenges of urban development, water availability, biodiversity, desertification, deforestation and waste management. This document named a variety of new initiatives to address these problems such as the BRICS Guidelines for Disaster Management Early Warning Data Integration and the Network of BRICS Institutions to Advance Knowledge Sharing, Research and Innovation in Sustainable Lifestyles.
In terms of human rights, it affirmed the importance of intellectual property protection and economic advancement for women. But without proper execution, these statements are just words on paper.
In addition, geopolitical fault lines are hard to ignore. Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr referred to India as an “outlier,” due to its ties with Israel and the United States (Batista said explicitly that he would not go as far as others in calling India a “Trojan horse” in BRICS, however).
The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are currently involved in direct and indirect fighting with Iran, China and India disagree over their shared border, Pakistan and trade, and Egypt and Ethiopia have unresolved issues pertaining to water rights . These are just a few of the geopolitical issues that threaten to dismantle this grouping BRIC by BRIC.
Senior Fellow at the Pune International Centre Ajit Ranade argued convincingly that the greatest achievement of the latest BRICS conference was on the sidelines in the form of bilateral engagement between India and China. With this event being the first time in seven years that Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited India, it enabled leaders of the two countries to make progress within certain compartments of their complex relationship. Any positive developments between China and India – even at the level of increased cultural exchanges and direct flights – benefits humanity.
The idea of advancing humanity by prioritizing the needs of the Global South certainly did not originate from BRICS 2026. The New Delhi Declaration made explicit reference to the 1955 Bandung Conference, where African and Asian countries expressed their commitment to the Ten Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Bandung signified an important step in the trajectory of countries then emerging from colonial rule, and BRICS has built upon the idealism enumerated there.
But if BRICS is to succeed, the arrangement needs to have clear membership criteria, take advantage of opportunities made available by the missteps of G7 countries (especially by the United States on climate), build robust, long-lasting supply chains within BRICS, offer attractive investment and trade deals to middle powers, and remain committed to what it favors, rather than merely what it opposes.
As Dean of International Studies at Aligarh Muslim University Aftab Alam observed , although the New Delhi Declaration described the shortcomings of the existing order, BRICS has yet to articulate clearly what a more just and equitable system would look like.
Strict World Trade Organization compliance, additional BRICS members as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and a strong BRICS New Development Bank – emblematic of a parallel financial system that gives developing nations more options – might define this new international order.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info ™.
Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.
Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won’t find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.
Already have an account? Log in .
Much fanfare accompanied the two-day (September 12-13) 2026 BRICS Summit in New Delhi. The Indian government shut down the capital through road closures, dignitaries made grand statements – including, notably, one by Russian President Vladimir Putin that the “old leaders” (the G7) are being replaced by “ new engines of economic growth ” (BRICS countries).
The grouping of an expanded 11 full members (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) issued a 140-point declaration on topics from Bretton Woods to conflict in the Middle East. Indian Member of Parliament Vikramjit Singh Sahney proclaimed that the summit was “historic” and “ a major diplomatic achievement for India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi .”
But what did the meeting actually accomplish, and what is the future of BRICS?
The BRICS New Delhi declaration made many pledges. Two of these reaffirmed the “ BRICS spirit of mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusiveness, collaboration and consensus ” as well as a commitment to upholding international law. Though these sounded agreeable, “mutual respect,” “democracy,” “openness,” and “upholding international law” ring particularly hollow in view of ongoing conflicts involving some BRICS members as well as the global tilt toward autocracy in recent years .
Nevertheless, the declaration went on to stress the importance of developing nations’ promoting dialogue for a more just and stable international order. It referenced the BRICS Payment Task Force and the exploration of efficient cross-border payment mechanisms.
That said, BRICS opposes carbon border adjustment mechanisms, deeming them discriminatory toward developing nations. Though this might be true, these nations should account for the carbon output of companies in the Global South via the implementation of their own border adjustment mechanisms , which would capture not only carbon, but also tax revenue.
On the environment, the declaration acknowledged the challenges of urban development, water availability, biodiversity, desertification, deforestation and waste management. This document named a variety of new initiatives to address these problems such as the BRICS Guidelines for Disaster Management Early Warning Data Integration and the Network of BRICS Institutions to Advance Knowledge Sharing, Research and Innovation in Sustainable Lifestyles.
In terms of human rights, it affirmed the importance of intellectual property protection and economic advancement for women. But without proper execution, these statements are just words on paper.
In addition, geopolitical fault lines are hard to ignore. Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr referred to India as an “outlier,” due to its ties with Israel and the United States (Batista said explicitly that he would not go as far as others in calling India a “Trojan horse” in BRICS, however).
The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are currently involved in direct and indirect fighting with Iran, China and India disagree over their shared border, Pakistan and trade, and Egypt and Ethiopia have unresolved issues pertaining to water rights . These are just a few of the geopolitical issues that threaten to dismantle this grouping BRIC by BRIC.
Senior Fellow at the Pune International Centre Ajit Ranade argued convincingly that the greatest achievement of the latest BRICS conference was on the sidelines in the form of bilateral engagement between India and China. With this event being the first time in seven years that Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited India, it enabled leaders of the two countries to make progress within certain compartments of their complex relationship. Any positive developments between China and India – even at the level of increased cultural exchanges and direct flights – benefits humanity.
The idea of advancing humanity by prioritizing the needs of the Global South certainly did not originate from BRICS 2026. The New Delhi Declaration made explicit reference to the 1955 Bandung Conference, where African and Asian countries expressed their commitment to the Ten Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Bandung signified an important step in the trajectory of countries then emerging from colonial rule, and BRICS has built upon the idealism enumerated there.
But if BRICS is to succeed, the arrangement needs to have clear membership criteria, take advantage of opportunities made available by the missteps of G7 countries (especially by the United States on climate), build robust, long-lasting supply chains within BRICS, offer attractive investment and trade deals to middle powers, and remain committed to what it favors, rather than merely what it opposes.
As Dean of International Studies at Aligarh Muslim University Aftab Alam observed , although the New Delhi Declaration described the shortcomings of the existing order, BRICS has yet to articulate clearly what a more just and equitable system would look like.
Strict World Trade Organization compliance, additional BRICS members as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and a strong BRICS New Development Bank – emblematic of a parallel financial system that gives developing nations more options – might define this new international order.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info ™.
Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.
Fonte: The Diplomat
