Marcus Vinicius de Freitas, a visiting professor at China Foreign Affairs University and senior researcher at the Policy Center for the New South, wrote the agenda of the 18th BRICS Leaders Summit, held in New Delhi on September 12-13, for AA Analysis.
Perhaps the most striking result of the BRICS Summit in New Delhi lies not in any paragraph of the final declaration, but in the fact that a declaration itself was put forward. The BRICS came together during an extraordinarily challenging time. Iran is in a direct war with Israel and the United States of America (USA). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) occupies a very different strategic position in the Gulf. India maintains important relations with Washington, Israel and Tehran. While China and India continue to navigate a complex relationship in which cooperation and competition intertwine, Russia continues its war in Ukraine. Despite this, BRICS members were able to reach a consensus on the New Delhi declaration.
Coordination group, not compliance
This situation gives us an important clue as to how we should understand the group. It is necessary to seek harmony within BRICS in coordination, not in harmony between members. BRICS is neither similar to NATO nor the European Union (EU). What holds it together is not a common security doctrine, a political system, or a shared view of the international order. Making an assessment based on the similarity in the geopolitical perspectives of its members would be to misunderstand the nature of the platform. After all, the claim of multipolarity in the absence of conflicts would be self-contradictory.
The conflict in the Middle East poses an extraordinary test for the group. The text of the agreement reached in New Delhi was deliberately cautious. The leaders expressed concern about the escalation of tensions, called for moderation and reaffirmed the importance of dialogue and diplomacy. The declaration did not eliminate the deep differences between the members, on the contrary, it paved the way for the reconciliation of these differences.
This situation is both a limitation and a strength for the group. BRICS cannot resolve Israel and the United States' war against Iran, Russia's war in Ukraine, border disputes between China and India, or strategic divisions in the Gulf. Here diplomatic consensus should not be confused with the capacity for collective action. However, BRICS has perhaps delivered something more meaningful in a less spectacular and fragmented international order. This is the ability to keep countries whose strategic interests differ greatly from each other on the same political dialogue ground.
A pragmatic agenda for economic cooperation
The group is making progress mainly in the areas of economic cooperation and global governance. New Delhi reiterated its support for reforming the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to increase the representativeness of developing and emerging economies. Leaders opposed unilateral tariffs and coercive economic measures, supported the multilateral trading system, and made progress on cross-border payments, local currency financing, and greater interoperability between national payment systems.
These may seem less striking than geopolitical statements, but the practical importance of BRICS needs to be evaluated precisely on this level. While the New Development Bank remains an important tool for mobilizing development finance, efforts to facilitate trade, investment and payment linkages aim to reduce transaction costs and diversify the economic options available to member countries.
At the summit, no decision was taken regarding the common BRICS currency, which has been on the agenda from time to time in international comments. The prominent agenda is more pragmatic. Local currency settlement, interoperability of cross-border payment systems and reserve diversification are presented as separate projects progressing at different speeds and under different political constraints. Strengthening the new Development Bank and creating additional financial options may ultimately be more important than announcing an alternative currency that members are not yet ready to adopt.
Diversity: Both a weakness and a strength
This situation reveals a much more important truth than a simple "de-dollarization". While BRICS countries are demanding more influence within existing institutions, they are also developing additional tools outside these institutions. They are not choosing between reforming the existing order and building alternatives, but increasingly pursuing both goals.
The China-India relationship reflects the same logic. Strategic rivalry, unresolved disputes and India's relationship with the US have not prevented Beijing and New Delhi from maintaining their presence in the BRICS. While BRICS does not eliminate the conflict between the parties, it provides an additional institutional basis for managing the conflict.
Therefore, diversity within the group, on the one hand, hinders progress and, on the other hand, strengthens the group. This slows down negotiations, encourages cautious language and limits ambitious geopolitical agreements. The expansion of BRICS membership may make inter-member harmony more difficult in the future. Yet the importance of the BRICS, as an expression of the Global South, derives precisely from such diversity. A completely homogeneous BRICS would perhaps be more productive, but it would just become an ordinary bloc. This distinction is important for the international order that is taking shape. BRICS does not need to replace existing institutions to change the system. The group's importance stems in part from its challenge to the assumption that a single corporate center should set global priorities.
Ultimately, New Delhi offers a useful lesson in multipolarity. This process will be complex; Overlapping partnerships, conflicting interests, and sometimes challenging compromises will emerge. However, disagreement should not automatically be confused with dysfunction.
The real test for BRICS is not whether it can eliminate the contradictions of multipolarity, for it cannot. The real test is in developing the ability to manage these conflicts while maintaining common goals. The New Delhi summit shows that BRICS is taking steps on how to achieve this goal. BRICS is one of the best laboratories for a new and rising world order, with its structure that includes differences and various difficulties, yet emphasizes that dialogue should always be at the center.
