Brics Summit: A stern rebuke to Trump’s unilateralism and expansion of India’s strategic space

Brics Summit: A stern rebuke to Trump’s unilateralism and expansion of India’s strategic space

Prime Minister Narendra Modi should consider sending a ‘thank you’ note to Donald Trump. The success of the 18th edition of the Brics summit under India’s chairship owes a lot to his antics. While evaluating the event, I can’t help but think about the way the Western media has reacted to it. Ignoring the summit for the most part bar perfunctory reporting from a povertarian lens (e.g., consider this photo carried by The New York Times as a defining image from the Brics Summit, the dominant narrative nevertheless has been a binary between whether the members are ‘conspiring’ to dethrone the US dollar or failing to do so. Perhaps it’s the inherent solipsism that compels the West to perceive the world as a binary between those ‘with us’ and those ‘against us’. I don’t know. What I do know is that Trump’s aggressive unilateralism, hyper-transactionalist foreign policy, unrestrained militarism, bullying of allies and partners, abusive communication style and economic protectionism have acted as a binding force for Brics members to shelve their internal differences and project an image of unity and resolve. In a fragmented landscape that defines the anxious space between the decline of a hegemon and the rise of a challenger, the 18th edition in New Delhi achieved a result of great consequence. Countries with profound internal conflicts and diverse interests sat across a table and were able to reach a consensus. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. A document forged out of consensus involving give and take from all sides does not need to be unanimous. The fact that India managed to thrash out the joint statement at all despite some members currently navigating severe bilateral tension sends a clear message across the world about the structural effectiveness of the Brics platform. Without explicitly naming the United States, the summit sent a clear, unified message to the Trump administration — that the Global South will not be a passive recipient of economic coercion, nor will it allow its developmental trajectories to be derailed by the tariff wars and unilateral sanctions. As paragraph 22 from the New Delhi Declaration pointed out, “We condemn the imposition of unilateral coercive measures that are contrary to international law, and reiterate that such measures, inter alia in the form of unilateral economic sanctions and secondary sanctions, have far-reaching negative implications for the human rights, including the rights to development, health and food security, of the general population of targeted states, disproportionally affecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations, deepening the digital divide and exacerbating environmental challenges.” The declaration was particularly vocal regarding global trade and economic architecture. It voiced “serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with WTO rules”. The language referenced the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to international trade, including the introduction of so-called ‘reciprocal tariffs’. The communique called for the immediate restoration of a “fully functioning, two-tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism,” targeting the US policy of blocking appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body, which has paralysed the institution. On the escalating conflict in West Asia, the declaration voiced “serious concern” over attacks on civilian infrastructure and “peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the IAEA”. This was a clear condemnation of actions taken during the recent escalations in West Asia, emphasizing that such strikes violate international law and IAEA resolutions. It amounts to a blunt rebuke of the US and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. By framing these strikes as violations of international law, the operations are termed ‘illegal aggression’. The fact that India is a signatory to a document that criticises the actions of US and Israel in such terms may not necessarily mean that New Delhi was fully behind the language. It is, however, the hallmark of a consensus document where compromises have to be made. What India seems to have achieved in return is quite extraordinary. Paragraph 40 states that Brics members “express strong condemnation of any acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed. We condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025, during which 26 people were killed and many more injured. We reaffirm our commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including the cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorism financing and safe havens.” It is worth noting that instead of “Pahalgam”, the text situates the Pakistan-sponsored terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. This adds a layer of validation to Jammu and Kashmir as India’s sovereign space and leaves little space for Pakistan to manoeuvre. China’s policy has always been to refer to Jammu and Kashmir as “disputed” in line with Pakistan’s narrative. For the Chinese to concede that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India in a signed document is a substantial achievement of Indian diplomacy. Beyond geopolitical posturing, the summit pushed towards frameworks for resilient global supply chains and cross-border payment integration. Paragraph 90 provides an interesting insight into the diversity of opinion among members of a common payment mechanism beyond the overarching need for building a resilient architecture that may shield members from America’s weaponisation of the dollar or the SWIFT banking system. The text stressed on “exploring pragmatic solutions for efficient cross-border payment mechanisms”, “while respecting national priorities and acknowledging that there is no one-size-fits-all approach.” There are clearly two sets of opinion on this. While members such as Russia, China and Iran want an alternative to the Western financial architecture dominated by the US, for India, the aim is a more limited one – a bilateral payment mechanism through local currencies. India’s nuanced position evolves from its need to stay within the America-led financial ecosystem while ensuring that it retains options when things go south. Evidently, if it needed to be reinforced, the summit proved again that New Delhi is a moderating force within the platform. It does not want to create an anti-West bloc, push the global architecture towards an antagonistic environment, or replace a US-led order with a China-led one. India’s idea within the Brics platform is to foster greater cooperation among members and limit the deleterious impact of a declining hegemon’s unpredictable actions. New Delhi also seeks to reform legacy Bretton Woods Institutions “to make them more agile, effective, credible, inclusive, fit for purpose, unbiased, accountable, and representative, to enhance their legitimacy” and to make their governance structure amenable to “transformation of the global economy since their establishment.” But if that can’t be done within the existing global order, in India’s vision, Brics should prepare options for members to eventually do so. To my mind, the summit expanded the space for India to exercise its strategic autonomy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the only world leader who may share embraces with both Benjamin Netanyahu and Masoud Pezeshkian. The image of Prime Minister Modi clasping the hands of the Iranian president will remain the defining image of the summit. The fact that India can utilise the Brics framework to engage with multiple global powers simultaneously ensures New Delhi evaluates global partnerships based strictly on its own developmental needs and security interests. From New Delhi’s standpoint, the summit functioned as a calculated mechanism to buffer the Indian economy against global unpredictability. By inching towards energy security cooperation and an alternative financial routing system within the Brics network, New Delhi is building systemic shock absorbers that may allow for parallel tracks to maintain trade and commerce. More to the point, India executed this hedging strategy while safeguarding its access to and integration with Western markets, capital and technology. Navigating the Brics framework did not require India to pivot away from the US or Europe. India’s demonstrated capacity to manage competing interests and moderate the Global South enhances its indispensable value to Western and non-Western partners. India showed that it may engage robustly with non-Western powers while avoiding Cold War-style bloc politics. The summit validated India’s capacity to lead in a volatile era, securing its own economic future while championing a more equitable, cooperative global order.