During the 18th BRICS Summit in India on Saturday, leaders from the BRICS nations issued a joint declaration urging maximum restraint in the Middle East, as the escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran poses risks to civilians, energy resources, and global shipping.
President Cyril Ramaphosa affirmed the New Delhi Declaration alongside other BRICS leaders.
The declaration conveys significant concern about the intensifying violence, advocating for conflict resolution through dialogue, diplomacy, and multilateral institutions.
Additionally, it opposes unilateral economic sanctions not authorized by the United Nations Security Council, directly relevant to ongoing restrictions against Iran and Russia.
The adoption of this resolution is politically notable because BRICS encompasses both Iran and the United Arab Emirates, two countries with contrasting stances in the ongoing Gulf conflict.
BRICS Urges Restraint
The declaration asks all parties involved in the Middle Eastern conflict to refrain from actions that may further escalate tensions.
It emphasizes the necessity to safeguard civilians, civilian infrastructure, and nuclear facilities while upholding sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Notably, the document refrains from directly naming the United States, Israel, or Iran as responsible for the recent escalation.
This careful wording allowed BRICS members with differing diplomatic relationships to achieve consensus.
Achieving this agreement required significant effort to reconcile divergent views on the conflict and the positions of Iran and the UAE, according to Reuters.
Thus, the declaration should be interpreted as a negotiated consensus rather than a blanket endorsement of all statements made by individual BRICS governments.
South Africa Advocates for Diplomacy
Ramaphosa’s involvement clearly positions South Africa in support of calls for restraint and the resolution of conflicts through multilateral means.
South Africa has consistently maintained that international disputes ought to be settled through the United Nations and other diplomatic avenues.
The nation has also criticized military actions that jeopardize civilian lives or infrastructure.
The declaration aligns with this position while allowing South Africa to engage diplomatically with countries on opposing sides of the conflict.
Support from South Africa does not imply any military alliance with Iran, Russia, or any other BRICS member.
BRICS continues to function as a political and economic cooperation entity without a collective defense agreement similar to NATO.
Absence of Specific Attributions
One of the most crucial aspects of the declaration is the lack of direct blame.
Iran has accused the United States and Israel of hostility, while Washington and Israel justify their actions by citing threats posed by Tehran and its regional allies.
BRICS Maintains Neutral Stance
The declaration refrains from adopting either side’s narrative in its entirety.
Instead, it articulates broader principles advocating for:
- Maximum restraint
- Protection of civilians
- Upholding international law
- State sovereignty
- Territorial integrity
- Nuclear safety
- Dialogue and negotiation
- Multilateral conflict resolution
This language illustrates that while the bloc can agree on foundational principles, it remains divided regarding accountability for the conflict.
Claims suggesting that BRICS formally pinpointed a specific nation as culpable would extend beyond what the declaration states.
BRICS Opposes Unilateral Sanctions
The declaration also challenges sanctions and economic restrictions that are imposed without the UN Security Council’s approval.
Several BRICS members, notably Russia and Iran, have faced Western sanctions.
The bloc contends that unilateral sanctions disrupt trade, financial flows, and the economies of developing nations.
BRICS leaders expressed concerns regarding tariffs and non-tariff barriers that hinder global commerce.
This position is particularly pertinent as international tensions impact oil supplies, maritime routes, and insurance markets.
However, the declaration itself does not obligate the United States, EU, or other countries to lift existing sanctions.
It functions as a collective political declaration rather than an enforceable mandate.
Support for Gaza and Palestinian Statehood
BRICS reiterated its support for a ceasefire in Gaza and a negotiated settlement centered on Palestinian statehood.
The bloc has previously backed the full membership of Palestine in the United Nations and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
South Africa has prioritized Palestinian rights in its foreign policy and has pursued legal avenues against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
The New Delhi Declaration broadly reaffirms this diplomatic stance, though it does not announce new legal actions, sanctions, or sever relations.
Threats to Shipping Routes
The declaration was adopted during a time when two of the world’s critical energy and shipping corridors faced increasing pressure due to conflict.
The Strait of Hormuz has seen significant disruption due to the US-Iran confrontations.
Meanwhile, Houthi forces have gained ground along Yemen’s Red Sea coast and have seized territory near the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Saudi Arabia’s East-West oil pipeline, which allows crude exports to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, was also temporarily shut down following drone strikes.
These combined disruptions have led to increased international costs for oil, freight, and maritime insurance.
As a result, BRICS called for the safeguarding of seafarers and commercial shipping routes.
For South Africa, increased disruption could result in a greater number of vessels circumnavigating the Cape of Good Hope instead of utilizing the Red Sea and Suez Canal.
Implications for South Africa
As a founding BRICS member, South Africa leverages this group to enhance the influence of developing countries within global governance.
The New Delhi Declaration aligns with several longstanding objectives of South African foreign policy:
- Reform of international institutions
- Increased representation for the Global South
- Prioritization of diplomacy over unilateral military efforts
- Opposition to sanctions beyond UN oversight
- Advocacy for Palestinian statehood
- Protection of international trade routes
- Strengthened collaboration among emerging economies
The declaration might attract criticism from those who feel that BRICS should have more explicitly named Iran or its allies, while others may argue for a clearer condemnation of US and Israeli military actions.
This compromise reflects the competing pressures within the group.
BRICS Shows Unity Amidst Differences
The expanded BRICS group now includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE.
These members have vastly different political systems, military ties, and economic interests.
India and the UAE maintain strong relationships with the United States, while Russia and Iran face severe Western sanctions. China, while seeking greater influence for BRICS, relies heavily on stable international trade.
Reaching consensus during an ongoing conflict that directly involves one of the bloc’s members represents a significant diplomatic challenge.
The declaration reveals BRICS’s ability to agree on overarching principles, although it does not lay out a common military strategy or enforcement mechanism.
Looking Ahead
Attention will now be directed towards:
- Potential statements from Ramaphosa regarding South Africa’s position
- Whether BRICS will initiate any mediation efforts
- Responses from the US, Israel, and Iran
- Further developments around the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab
- Progress on alternative payment systems within BRICS
- Implementation of maritime safety cooperation
- Any new sanctions or tariffs impacting member nations
- Outcomes from the remaining sessions of the summit
Ultimately, the key outcome is that South Africa and the other BRICS nations have endorsed a collective declaration advocating for maximum restraint, civilian protection, and diplomatic resolution of conflicts.
While the document signifies political unity, it does not assign blame or enforce a ceasefire.
This story is still developing.
