By Heena Makhija
Despite broad consensus on issues like terrorism and multilateral reform, BRICS remains constrained by strategic tensions, limited institutional mandate, and divergent national interests in shaping a coherent peace and security architecture.
As the BRICS leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the 17th Summit held from 6-7 July 2025, the meeting came at a pivotal moment for the rapidly expanding forum. In the Joint Declaration, the 11 member states reaffirmed their commitment towards cooperation in the areas of finance, hunger, climate change, and emerging technologies. However, Brazilian President Lula’s remarks proclaiming BRICS as the heir to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), along with the absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, reignited concerns regarding the conceptual and geopolitical relevance of the grouping. With respect to developing a security architecture, BRICS has made modest progress due to the inherent strategic tension among member states. Even though differences restrict its ability to formulate a collective response towards conflict resolution, a narrow window does exist to enhance cooperation in addressing common security challenges.
BRICS and the Challenge of Security
Developing a shared framework to address common security threats and conflicts has been a persistent challenge for BRICS. In recent years, two major developments – the expansion of membership and the involvement of major member states in conflicts – have further complicated the internal dynamics. Conceptual disagreements among member states and the dominance of economically and geopolitically powerful nations within the group itself have rather diluted its original mandate, which was to serve as the developing world’s alternative to the G7 group of nations.
Conceptual disagreements among member states and the dominance of economically and geopolitically powerful nations within the group itself have rather diluted its original mandate, which was to serve as the developing world’s alternative to the G7 group of nations.
Consequently, members have been wary about forming any common security strategy, focusing instead on safeguarding their own national interests while upholding the paramountcy of the United Nations (UN) and international law in conflict resolution. For instance, regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, all BRICS declarations since 2022 have consistently recalled national positions as expressed at the UN and encouraged peaceful resolution through dialogue. The strained relationship between its two nuclear member states – India and China – also finds no mention in the official declarations, with a generic emphasis placed on the peaceful settlement of disputes through diplomatic means. Even from an institutional perspective, given its universal membership and defined mandate on issues pertaining to international peace and security, UN mechanisms take precedence.
Where Do Interests Converge?
While the UN remains the authority on conflict resolution, BRICS countries have sought to coordinate their efforts in addressing emerging security concerns. Terrorism has been highlighted as a major challenge in most BRICS declarations. The adoption of the BRICS Counter Terrorism Strategy in 2020 marked a significant step towards ideating a common approach. It also formed the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) and outlined objectives such as intelligence sharing, preventing the misuse of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), and pursuing the adoption of an international convention against terrorism. BRICS members have also collaborated in space technology and acknowledged the principle of the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS). In 2021, members signed an agreement to create a BRICS Remote Sensing Satellite Constellation, linking observation satellites from each country into a network for data sharing. BRICS’ concerns regarding the weaponisation of outer space align with its broader common stance on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), advocating for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other WMDs, particularly in the Middle East.
While the UN remains the authority on conflict resolution, BRICS countries have sought to coordinate their efforts in addressing emerging security concerns. Terrorism has been highlighted as a major challenge in most BRICS declarations.
However, notwithstanding common positionality, most submissions in the declarations, particularly those referring to UN and other multilateral reforms, have not resulted in actionable outcomes. Despite apparent consensus within the BRICS members on the need for reform, the dominance of the P5 in the UN Security Council (UNSC) continues to shape the existing security matrix and power structures. Brazil and India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC has faced repeated setbacks due to a lack of support from other countries, including China.
Rio Declaration and the Road Ahead BRICS is fundamentally a grouping of emerging economies that are geographically distant and hold diverse perspectives on global issues. The forum offers a platform for member states to counter the biases of the existing multilateral order dominated by the Global North. The potential of BRICS to evolve into an influential bloc within the multipolar world order is evident in the response of other countries to the recent summit. In his statement, US President Donald Trump was quick to threaten the imposition of an additional 10 percent tariff on countries aligning with the “Anti-American policies” of the grouping.
Opposing the Western interventionist approach has been a rallying point for BRICS members in the UN, continuing the sustained demands for reforming the existing multilateral order.
While there has been tangible headway in the areas of climate change, trade, and ICT – bilateral ties, strategic concerns, and individual priorities of member states typically dictate their response to global conflicts and security challenges. However, in the Rio Declaration, the BRICS leaders demonstrated a greater willingness to cooperate on international security. Key takeaways included the condemnation of military strikes against Iran, denunciation of unilateral and non–UNSC–approved sanctions, concern over rising global military spending, condemnation of terrorist attack in Pahalgam, and a firm stance on the Gaza Strip being part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Moreover, given the primacy of the UN, forums such as BRICS tend to possess limited scope regarding global conflict resolution. As evident in the recent declaration, member states reaffirmed their commitment to the UN Charter and encouraged dialogue between parties embroiled in conflict. Despite being a geopolitically divided forum, BRICS can jointly promote dialogue and mediation between parties through its platform. The idea of developing a common security architecture might still be off the beaten track, yet, in the current global context, BRICS members must enhance cooperation on security challenges, including a greater push for reform of the UNSC and the multilateral order.
Heena Makhija is an Associate Fellow with the Observer Research Foundation.
Observer Research Foundation
The views in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of InfoBRICS.
