The BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting underscored the grouping’s preference for pragmatic engagement, institutional reform, and issue-based cooperation, even when geopolitical fault lines prevent full consensus
With the conflict in West Asia still looming large, the BRICS Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held on 14 and 15 May in New Delhi. The meeting was closely watched, given the presence of two of BRICS' newer members – Iran and the UAE – who remain on opposing sides of the ongoing tensions. While the meeting concluded with a Chair's Statement rather than a Joint Declaration, the outcome was not entirely unexpected. The forum faced heightened expectations given its members' involvement in the wider regional conflict. Yet as a consensus-based forum focused on issue-based cooperation, BRICS has a record of navigating geopolitical tensions that overshadow prospects for security cooperation.
Despite underlying tensions, the meeting saw active participation from most member and partner countries. At the BRICS Foreign Ministers' Meeting, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia were represented by their Foreign Ministers or Ministerial-level officials, while China was represented by its Ambassador to India. Among the partner countries, Cuba, Malaysia, Thailand, and Uganda attended at the ministerial level, with Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam also taking part. The agenda spanned three sessions: global and regional developments; BRICS@20: Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability; and Reform of Global Governance and the Multilateral System. Held against the backdrop of Trump's high-stakes visit to China, the meeting also included bilateral engagements and an interaction with Prime Minister Modi, concluding with the adoption of a comprehensive Chair's Statement.
From an institutional perspective, BRICS was not designed as a collective security arrangement requiring absolute political alignment; its novelty lies in its ability to sustain engagement among economies with differing priorities, competing interests, and at times, active political tensions.
Marking BRICS' 20th anniversary, the statement reiterated the forum's commitment to reforming global governance mechanisms while upholding the principles of the UN Charter. It also emphasised strengthening development finance, climate financing, resilient supply chains, and a rules-based global trading system centred on the WTO. Despite the absence of a joint declaration, the statement underscored several notable positions on peace and security: the ministers reiterated their support for UN Security Council reform; opposed unilateral sanctions imposed without UNSC authorisation; condemned violations of international humanitarian law, including the denial or obstruction of humanitarian access; condemned all acts of terrorism and extremism; and reaffirmed support for the State of Palestine's full UN membership and commitment to the two-state solution.
The most visible friction came from the heated exchange between two of the forum's members – Iran and the UAE. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the UAE of standing "alongside the United States and Israel in the war", while the Emirati representative rejected "the Iranian claims and attempts to justify attacks against it". The Chair's Statement also acknowledged the differences among members over the situation in West Asia. Based on their respective national positions, the members emphasised the need for early conflict resolution, the value of dialogue and diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and upholding international law. The ministers also stressed the importance of safe and unimpeded maritime commerce through international waterways — specifically the Red Sea and Bab Al-Mandab Strait — and the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms for vessels of all states, in accordance with international law. However, formal reservations tabled by one member on aspects of these clauses ultimately prevented the adoption of a joint declaration.
In the current geopolitical context, the forum was under considerable pressure to deliver a joint declaration. Yet while its absence has drawn critique, the outcome was not entirely unforeseen. From an institutional perspective, BRICS was not designed as a collective security arrangement requiring absolute political alignment; its novelty lies in its ability to sustain engagement among economies with differing priorities, competing interests, and at times, active political tensions. The 2020 Galwan clashes between India and China — a direct military confrontation between two member states — offer a pertinent example: engagement within the forum persisted nonetheless. India participated in the 2020 Foreign Ministers' Meeting and Leaders' Summit, which produced a media statement, while subsequent meetings in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 produced Joint Statements. Throughout this period, New Delhi continued to engage constructively within BRICS even as it pursued its bilateral concerns on separate tracks.
Now broader in both scope and membership, the grouping appears to be navigating a shifting global order and growing internal complexities through issue-based cooperation and sustained diplomatic engagement.
When the 2022 BRICS Summit and Foreign Ministers' Meeting took place amid the Russia-Ukraine war, the resulting statement recalled members' national positions as expressed at the UN while maintaining agreement on humanitarian concerns, dialogue, and diplomatic engagement — a pattern that would repeat itself in New Delhi. Even the BRICS Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Brazil in April 2025 culminated in a Chair's Statement rather than a joint declaration. The lack of consensus at the earlier BRICS Deputy Foreign Ministers' Meeting had similarly foreshadowed this pattern. While expectations of a joint declaration — and a possible role in conflict resolution — may be aspirational, BRICS was fundamentally conceived as a consensus-based platform for emerging economies. Now broader in both scope and membership, the grouping appears to be navigating a shifting global order and growing internal complexities through issue-based cooperation and sustained diplomatic engagement.
Delivering India’s National Statement, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar called for “stronger cooperation among BRICS nations to address growing geopolitical and economic instability,” stressing that the world faces a series of challenges testing the resilience of multilateral institutions. Even as disagreements over the crisis in West Asia revealed fault lines within the bloc, members broadly converged on reform of global governance institutions, respect for international norms, peaceful settlement of disputes, terrorism, development finance, sustainability, global health, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
As India prepares for the Leaders' Summit later in the year, the grouping's priority appears to be sustaining a pragmatic space for dialogue and consensus-building on issues of mutual interest. Within a fragmented global order, plurilateral groupings such as BRICS face growing pressure to expand their scope and deliver tangible outcomes — particularly as new members join, conflicts intensify, and multilateral institutions face deadlock. Yet as global geopolitical fault lines deepen, BRICS appears to prioritise shaping a more representative international order through its focus on economic resilience and reform of the multilateral system.
Heena Makhija is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
Sandra Thachirickal Prathap is a Research Assistant with the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Makhija is an Associate Fellow at ORF and specializes in the study of Multilateralism, International Organizations, Global Norms, India at UN, Multilateral Negotiations, and ...
Read More +
Sandra Thachirickal Prathap is a Research Assistant with the Observer Research Foundation’s (ORF) Strategic Studies Programme (SSP). Her research examines the geopolitical dynamics of the Global ...
Read More +
PREV
