Lead

As the war in the Middle East enters its third month, the Brics grouping has come under scrutiny for its inability to present a unified stance on the conflict. With member states holding sharply divergent interests, the bloc's limitations have become increasingly apparent. Yet, analysts suggest that Brics' value lies not in its cohesion but in its flexibility and the opportunities it offers for selective cooperation.

Coverage Comparison

Two analyses from the South China Morning Post examine the geopolitical role of Brics amid the ongoing Middle East crisis. Both pieces highlight the grouping's internal discord, particularly between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, and its struggle to articulate a coherent response to the war. They also place the conflict in the broader context of Brics' ambitions to reshape global engagement, noting that the grouping's expansion has made alignment more difficult rather than less.

Key Claims

  • The war in the Middle East has entered its third month, with Brics members Iran and the UAE at loggerheads. Tehran has launched missile and drone attacks targeting strategic Emirati sites, including oil facilities in Fujairah, according to the South China Morning Post.
  • China has adopted a nominally neutral stance on the war, given its robust ties with both Iran and Sunni-majority Arab states. Russia has been more overt in backing Iran, possibly with the intention of diverting Western resources from Ukraine.
  • India, as the Brics summit chair, seeks to balance its deepening strategic ties with Israel against its symbolic commitment to the Global South, while ensuring the safety of its diaspora in the Middle East. Its challenges are compounded by a deterioration in relations with the United States under the second Trump administration and criticism from domestic opposition over the government's "uncritical silence" on US-Israel attacks.
  • Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have highlighted the need for diversification away from oil and natural gas.
  • Brics has attracted attention as it adds members and positions itself as the voice of the Global South. The grouping wants to be seen as a platform through which emerging economies can reshape global engagement rules.
  • The term "jinzhuan," or "gold brick," is used in Chinese to describe the Brics grouping, reflecting its early aspirations.
  • Brics has struggled to articulate a unified response to the war, and the group includes countries with sharply differing interests and alignments.

Perspectives

Proponents of Brics' relevance: Despite its lack of cohesion, Brics matters because it signals widespread dissatisfaction with the existing global order and offers a platform for emerging economies to seek greater autonomy. As the South China Morning Post reports, the grouping is best conceived as a tool for leverage enhancement and optionality maximisation, allowing members to cooperate selectively on areas of mutual benefit.

Skeptics of Brics' effectiveness: The same analysis notes that Brics does not and cannot speak with one voice on the conflict, and the coming foreign ministerial meetings in New Delhi are unlikely to yield concrete breakthroughs over the war. The grouping's expansion has made it harder to align, and its internal divisions were laid bare by the Middle East crisis.