The BRICS grouping has reached an agreement on a joint declaration that is expected to condemn the unilateral imposition of war by any country, while stopping short of naming a specific nation, according to reports citing people familiar with the negotiations. The agreement comes as leaders gather in New Delhi for the 2026 BRICS summit, with the grouping attempting to present a common position on major global conflicts despite significant differences among its members.

The proposed language is significant because BRICS includes countries with sharply divergent foreign-policy interests. The expanded grouping brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others. The ongoing conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel has particularly complicated efforts to arrive at a consensus.

No direct naming of any country

According to the reports, the declaration is likely to criticize unilateral military action without identifying a particular country as the aggressor. Diplomatically, this formulation allows BRICS members to endorse a broad principle while avoiding language that could force individual members to take sides in a highly sensitive geopolitical confrontation.

The decision also highlights the balancing act facing India as the current BRICS chair. New Delhi has sought to keep the organisation focused on cooperation, multilateralism and global governance rather than allowing the summit to become an explicitly anti-Western political platform.

The wording of the declaration therefore appears designed to preserve consensus among members while still sending a message against military action undertaken without broad international legitimacy.

Iran-UAE divide complicates negotiations

One of the biggest challenges during negotiations has been the differing positions of Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Both are BRICS members, but their interests and positions in the current Gulf crisis are not aligned.

Reuters reported that reconciling these differences was an important part of the negotiations over the joint declaration. The agreement on a common text is therefore being viewed as a diplomatic effort to prevent the bloc’s internal divisions from overshadowing the summit.

The expanded membership of BRICS has increased the group’s global weight but has also made consensus more complicated. Members have different security partnerships, economic priorities and approaches to the United States and other Western powers.

India’s diplomatic balancing act

For India, the summit represents a particularly important diplomatic test. New Delhi maintains close strategic relations with the United States and Europe while also maintaining long-standing partnerships with Russia and expanding engagement with countries in West Asia.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly emphasized dialogue and diplomacy as the preferred means of resolving international disputes. During his bilateral meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian ahead of the summit, Modi stressed the importance of freedom of navigation, maritime commerce and the safety of seafarers.

India therefore has an interest in ensuring that the BRICS declaration addresses the consequences of conflict without turning the document into a direct attack on any particular power.

Russia and Iran seek stronger criticism of the West

The negotiations have also taken place against the backdrop of strong criticism of the United States and Western countries from Russia and Iran.

Russian and Iranian representatives have criticized what they describe as Western aggression, sanctions and unilateral economic measures. Their position has created additional pressure for stronger language in the BRICS declaration. At the same time, other members have been cautious about adopting language that could transform BRICS into an explicitly anti-Western bloc.

This difference illustrates the broader challenge for BRICS: the grouping wants to promote a more multipolar global order but does not have a single foreign-policy position on every international crisis.

BRICS and the principle of multilateralism

The proposed declaration’s emphasis on opposing unilateral war fits with BRICS’ broader advocacy of multilateralism and respect for international institutions.

Previous BRICS statements have repeatedly emphasized the UN Charter, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The Indian government’s own record of BRICS diplomacy has also stressed opposition to sanctions that lack authorization under the UN Security Council framework.

The latest declaration is therefore likely to continue a familiar BRICS approach: support general principles while avoiding language that could create an unmanageable dispute among members.

Economic issues remain central

Although geopolitical conflicts have attracted considerable attention, the BRICS summit is not exclusively focused on security matters. Economic cooperation, trade, investment, financial connectivity and reform of global institutions remain central to the group’s agenda.

BRICS finance ministers and central bank chiefs have separately raised concerns about unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures, warning that such policies could disrupt global trade and undermine multilateral economic frameworks.

India is also pushing greater cooperation in digital payments. New Delhi has proposed linking central bank digital currencies among BRICS members to facilitate faster and more efficient cross-border transactions. However, geopolitical tensions and differences between members could make deeper financial integration difficult.

Why the wording matters

The decision not to name a specific country may appear cautious, but it is diplomatically significant. A direct reference to a particular nation could have made consensus impossible, especially given the competing relationships and interests of BRICS members.

By using general language, the bloc can condemn unilateral military action while allowing individual countries to interpret the principle within their own foreign-policy frameworks.

For India, this approach also helps preserve its diplomatic space. New Delhi can support international law and opposition to unilateral military action while continuing dialogue with all major powers involved in global conflicts.

Read more like this:

• NMC Adds Over 13,000 MBBS Seats, Total Intake Crosses 1.4 Lakh
• ऋषिकेश-कर्णप्रयाग रेल परियोजना में ऐतिहासिक उपलब्धि, 10 km की लंबी सुरंग निकास आर -पार, लहराया तिरंगा
• Supreme Court Questions FSSAI on Thresholds for High Sugar, Salt and Fat Warnings

A test of BRICS unity

The joint declaration will ultimately be judged not only by its wording but also by whether BRICS can demonstrate that its expanded membership can overcome internal differences

The grouping now represents a substantial share of the world’s population and economy, giving its collective statements growing international significance. But its members do not always agree on major geopolitical questions

The successful negotiation of a joint declaration despite disagreements over the West Asia conflict could therefore be presented as evidence that BRICS remains capable of finding common ground.At the same time, the careful avoidance of naming individual countries demonstrates the limits of that consensus.

Conclusion

The expected BRICS declaration reflects a carefully negotiated diplomatic compromise. The bloc is set to condemn the unilateral imposition of war while avoiding direct criticism of any particular country.

For India, the outcome represents an important diplomatic balancing exercise. New Delhi is seeking to strengthen BRICS cooperation and its role in global governance without allowing the grouping to become a platform for confrontation with the West.

The declaration’s final wording will therefore be closely watched. Its ability to address war, sanctions, sovereignty and multilateralism while keeping all members on board could determine how effectively BRICS presents itself as an influential voice in an increasingly divided international system.