Advertisement
.png?itok=bcjjKRme&v=1692256346)
Opinion
Brics doesn’t need a unified voice on Iran war to have a future
The grouping has a future, not as a binding structure demanding policy alignment but as a tool for members to enhance leverage and maximise options
3-MIN READ3-MIN
5
Listen
Brian Wong is an HKU-100 assistant professor in philosophy at the University of Hong Kong.
With the war in the Middle East entering its third month, questions have surfaced over its geopolitical ramifications in the region and beyond. An entity that has drawn particular scrutiny is Brics. The 10-member grouping is defined less by a clear set of common values and more by contingently overlapping interests. It does not and cannot speak with one voice on the conflict.
Two Brics members, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), are at loggerheads: Tehran has launched missile and drone attacks targeting strategic Emirati sites, including oil facilities in Fujairah, in recent weeks. China has taken a nominally neutral stance on the war, given its robust ties with both Iran and Sunni-majority Arab states, while Russia has been more overt in backing Iran, perhaps with the intention of diverting Western resources from Ukraine.
As the Brics summit chair, India seeks to straddle its deepening strategic ties with Israel and symbolic commitment to the Global South, while ensuring the safety of its diaspora in the Middle East. Its challenges are compounded by the deterioration in relations with the United States under the second Trump administration, and criticism from domestic opposition over the government’s “uncritical silence” on the US-Israel attacks.
Select Voice
Select Speed
1x
AI-generated voice