BRICS foreign ministers meet  ends without joint statement as internal rifts surface

As the BRICS grouping of emerging powers convenes its foreign ministers in Rio de Janeiro ahead of its highly anticipated July summit, cracks within the expanded coalition are becoming increasingly visible. Despite shared concerns over global trade and geopolitical shifts, the meeting ended without a joint communique — an uncommon outcome that underscores growing internal disagreements. BRICS first summit was held in 2009. It originally brought together Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to reshape global governance in a way that reflects the growing economic and political weight of the Global South.

In 2024, the group expanded significantly to include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran — an enlargement aimed at amplifying its geopolitical influence. Together, BRICS nations represent over 40 per cent of the global population and a significant share of global GDP, positioning the bloc as a potential counterweight to Western-dominated institutions like the G7, the IMF, and the World Bank. Its growing economic heft and strategic alignment have made it central to discussions about a new multipolar world order. However, this recent meeting revealed that size does not always translate to cohesion.

The group was unable to issue a joint statement — a traditional diplomatic outcome — due to disagreements among members, particularly over language relating to United Nations reforms. Egypt and Ethiopia reportedly objected to proposals endorsing a stronger role for South Africa in a reformed Security Council, a priority for legacy BRICS members like India, Brazil, and South Africa. Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira acknowledged the divisions but emphasised that “there is room to resolve differences before July.” He highlighted that while consensus was reached on major issues, the diversity of the group, especially post-expansion, requires more negotiation to align positions.

Despite these diplomatic fissures, the foreign ministers rallied around a common concern: the rise of protectionist economic policies, particularly those implemented by the United States under President Donald Trump.

The Chair statement issued by Brazil expressed “serious concern at the prospect of a fragmented global economy and the weakening of multilateralism.” Without naming the US directly, the statement criticised “unjustified unilateral protectionist measures” and specifically condemned the “indiscriminate raising of reciprocal tariffs and non-tariff measures.”

These comments clearly referenced the Trump administration’s aggressive trade policies, including high tariffs on Chinese goods and escalating trade spats that risk destabilising the global economy. China, which has borne the brunt of these tariffs — facing levies as high as 145 per cent — reportedly pushed for stronger language in the statement. While Brazil and others supported a unified position, some newer members were less enthusiastic about directly antagonising the US, reflecting varied foreign policy alignments within the bloc.

The 2024 expansion of BRICS brought new energy and increased global clout to the bloc, but it also introduced conflicting interests and historical rivalries. Diplomats acknowledged that with greater power comes a need for more diplomacy. Indeed, the expansion has its costs, but it also gives BRICS more resources and a bigger platform for cooperation. Besides, so far the journey of BRICS has been rather rhetorical than real. It is yet to take on the Western world and establish itself as a formidable force in world trade and the geopolitical landscape.

Despite its growing economic clout and strategic aspirations, BRICS continues to suffer from several structural handicaps that limit its effectiveness as a unified global force. Chief among them is the vast political, economic, and ideological diversity among its members, which often results in conflicting priorities and diluted consensus. While legacy members like India, Brazil, and South Africa push for democratic reforms in global institutions such as the United Nations, newer entrants like Egypt and Ethiopia may resist initiatives that undermine regional balances or national interests.

Additionally, the bloc lacks a permanent secretariat or institutional framework to enforce decisions or coordinate policies, relying instead on rotating presidencies and ad hoc mechanisms. Geopolitical rivalries — such as the uneasy relationship between China and India — further complicate joint action. These internal frictions frequently undercut the group's ability to present a cohesive front on major global issues, from trade and security to climate policy and governance reform.

Looking ahead to the July summit, the challenge for BRICS will be to forge a coherent strategy that accommodates its internal diversity while pushing forward its shared interests — particularly in trade, development finance, and institutional reform. As the global system edges away from US unipolarity towards a more fragmented and competitive landscape, BRICS ability to function as a unified bloc may well determine how the emerging multipolar world takes shape.