Top News

India failed to secure a joint BRICS-MENA statement on the US-Israel-Iran conflict, as members held divergent views. A Chair’s summary noted “deep concern” over the crisis. India’s cautious diplomacy prioritised cohesion over agenda-setting, unlike China. BRICS expansion has made consensus harder, though intra-BRICS trade and influence continue to grow.

New Delhi: India failed to persuade Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) and (Middle East and North Africa) MENA members to reach a consensus on the US-Israel war against Iran. At the conclusion of the BRICS-MENA meeting at the deputy foreign ministerial level in New Delhi, India, which currently holds the chair of the BRICS grouping, was forced to issue a Chair’s summary rather than a joint statement.

Senior diplomats saw the Chair’s statement, which reflects a summary of the positions of various members within the grouping, as both “cautious” and “non-controversial,” with the general statement simply stating that member states had expressed “deep concern” over the ongoing conflict. The statement recently released by the MEA said, “Members expressed deep concern on the recent conflict in the Middle East (West Asia) and offered views and assessments on the matter.”

The inability to persuade member states to agree was not surprising, given that Iran and the UAE, both BRICS members, along with Russia, China, and India, hold differing views on the Iran war. This was despite a statement released by the Iranian embassy on X. Referring to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s telephonic conversation with Prime Minister Modi on March 21, the statement “called for the group to play an independent role in halting aggressions against Iran and in safeguarding regional and international peace and stability.”

So far, this has not happened for a number of reasons. Differing views aside, a senior diplomat who focuses on international organisations believes that New Delhi faces its own challenges but also opts for more traditional diplomacy. “Our style of diplomacy is different. We focus on maintaining the cohesion of the grouping rather than pushing any agenda. This results in a non-confrontational and cautious statement that can then be worked upon and polished at the foreign ministerial level scheduled for May. This keeps everyone in the room and assures smaller members that their concerns are reflected.”