BRICS Divided as Middle East Disputes Block a Joint Statement

A meeting of BRICS foreign ministers in New Delhi ended without a joint statement, exposing the political challenges facing the expanded bloc and raising a broader question: can the Global South speak with one voice when Middle East crises are placed at the centre of the agenda?

According to Reuters, top diplomats from BRICS countries failed to agree on a joint statement after a two-day meeting in India’s capital. India, which chairs BRICS in 2026, issued only a chair’s statement acknowledging “differing views” among some members on the situation in West Asia and the Middle East. The meeting included countries such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates, which hold sharply different positions on sensitive regional issues.

The failure to issue a joint statement was significant because the disagreement was not over a secondary matter. It involved the war in Iran, Gaza, Red Sea security and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, issues that connect politics, energy, maritime trade and the interests of Arab and regional powers. The Associated Press reported that the meeting ended without a joint statement because of differences over the Middle East conflict, with reservations over sections dealing with Gaza and security in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had urged BRICS members to condemn the United States and Israel over what he described as unlawful aggression against Iran. But the Indian chair’s statement made clear that the group could not adopt a unified position in those terms. Reuters reported that Araghchi said, without naming the UAE, that one BRICS member had blocked parts of the statement.

The failure does not mean BRICS has lost its relevance. On the contrary, the bloc has become more visible after its expansion and now includes influential countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. But the same expansion that increased its weight has also made political consensus harder, especially when countries with direct regional disagreements sit at the same table.

BRICS began as an economic platform for rising powers, but it has gradually evolved into a wider political space that seeks to present itself as a voice for the Global South. The New Delhi meeting showed that the Global South is not a single, unified political camp. It includes energy exporters and importers, countries aligned with the West and countries in open confrontation with it, Arab states, Iran, and major Asian powers such as China and India. Each brings its own interests, alliances and limits.

Middle East crises are a real test of that structure. Gaza, Iran, the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz are not symbolic issues. They affect energy flows, global trade, shipping costs and inflation. That makes joint wording difficult, because every phrase can be read as a political, security or economic alignment.

This is the central contradiction of the expanded BRICS. The larger the group becomes, the greater its international weight. But the larger it becomes, the harder it is to speak with one voice on sensitive political issues. Expansion gives BRICS broader representation of the Global South, but it also brings the Global South’s own disagreements inside the bloc.

For Arab countries inside or close to BRICS, the development carries particular importance. The presence of Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia gives Middle East issues a stronger place in the group’s discussions. But Arab participation does not automatically produce a single regional position. Each country enters BRICS with its own national priorities, from security and investment to energy and relations with Washington, Beijing, Moscow and Tehran.

India, as chair, appears to be trying to preserve a language of balance that keeps the dialogue alive without allowing the dispute to break the meeting apart. The chair’s statement was a compromise: not a full joint statement, but not a collapse of the meeting either. It allowed BRICS to move past the disagreement for now, while still revealing that political consensus has become more difficult after expansion.

The episode suggests that BRICS’ future may not lie in producing unified political positions on every crisis. Its more realistic strength may be in practical cooperation on trade, finance, energy, infrastructure and technology, while using flexible language on the most sensitive geopolitical issues.

But that approach also has a cost. If BRICS wants to be more than an economic forum and present itself as a counterweight or alternative voice in the international system, it will need clearer ways to manage internal disagreements. If it remains unable to agree during major crises, its political influence may continue to fall short of its economic and demographic weight.

The New Delhi meeting was not just a dispute over wording. It was an early test for the expanded BRICS. The bloc is now larger and more important, but also more complicated. The main message is clear: the Global South can gather in one room, but speaking with one voice remains difficult when the Middle East is on the table