
BRICS Summit 2025 — hard reset might be needed to reverse the bloc's flagging momentum
The recently concluded BRICS Leaders' Summit in Rio took place against the backdrop of great geopolitical flux. After years of growing relevance, the group appears to be struggling to maintain forward momentum. As its expanded membership grapples with its own internal contradictions and an increasingly unpredictable international system, a hard reset may be needed to get back to basics.
In recent years, BRICS has enjoyed a resurgence. In 2022, the Ukraine war and fatigue with Western-dominated global governance and finance institutions bolstered interest in alternative power centres, particularly among Global South countries.
The group's utility for its five core members has centred on shared interests, South-South cooperation and progressive internationalism. Global events bolstered the club's attractiveness as countries worldwide grappled with their geopolitical hedging strategies, seen, for example, through multi-alignment and active nonalignment behaviours.
This was clear at the 2023 Johannesburg summit, which unexpectedly (and perhaps prematurely) led to BRICS' expansion. Invitations were extended to six new members – five officially joined, including Indonesia in 2025. Saudi Arabia has yet to formally accept. At the 2024 Kazan summit, the new 'partner country' model allowed 10 more states to participate in annual summits, with limited influence on declarations and outcomes.
The group has become a vital platform for geopolitical recalibration among member states. Kazan, for example, led to a considerable strategic thaw in Indo-China relations following the first formal bilateral meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in more than five years.
Despite this positive momentum, concerns about BRICS' continued relevance in shaping the international order have intensified. This is mainly due to the bloat of its growing agenda, internal contradictions of its increasing membership and lack of a robust normative bedrock. Without this foundation, members will struggle to agree on a strategy to reform global governance and financial institutions.
This year's summit appears to have dimmed the group's prospects further. Two of the five core members' heads of state did not attend in person. Xi's absence owing to a 'scheduling conflict' arguably points to Beijing's preoccupation with domestic priorities, as it grapples with mounting economic stresses. This was the first time Xi had not attended (either virtually or in person) since assuming office more than a decade ago.
Russian President Vladimir Putin participated online, due to his International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. This is reminiscent of South Africa's quandary as an ICC Rome Statute signatory and BRICS summit host in 2023.
While this approach has seemingly become accepted by BRICS members, it points to deep contradictions in their respective international legal commitments – another impediment to pursuing global institutional reforms for a more just world.
Also absent were the Egyptian, Iranian and United Arab Emirates presidents, who sent senior representatives. Two other core BRICS members, South Africa and host Brazil, appeared preoccupied with preparations for hosting other forthcoming multilateral summits: the G20 Leaders' Summit in Johannesburg and the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém.
External pressures compound these challenges. President Donald Trump's administration had warned the bloc against initiatives to displace the US from its dominant position in global affairs. He asserted during the summit that 'any country aligning themselves with the anti-American policies of BRICS will be charged an additional 10% tariff'.
Trump had threatened earlier that any moves to replace the US dollar with a BRICS-backed reserve currency would be accompanied by 100% tariffs, perhaps forcing a more circumspect approach from BRICS members. BRICS support for de-dollarisation, led by China and Russia, is high on the group's agenda – but internal disagreement around achieving it reveals fractures in the bloc's strategic unity, geopolitical strategist Velina Tchakarova told ISS Today.
The German Marshall Fund's Dr Garima Mohan also highlighted these tensions, telling ISS Today: 'Given strained ties between two of its major founding members, India and China, it seems unlikely that the grouping will be able to speak in one voice or provide a credible critique of the current system of global governance.
'Additionally, China seeks to promote its own model – within BRICS and in other international formats – which is not more representative/democratic than the system we have in place today. This raises the question [of] whether BRICS is the right kind of platform for the reforms we need today.'
With its core members spread so thin, it is unsurprising that this year's summit produced no fireworks. Expectations were limited to institutional developments focused on consolidating BRICS membership and thematic focus areas relating to cooperation on global health, trade and finance, climate change and artificial intelligence.
The leaders' declaration contained several (fairly predictable) statements on global policy issues, and the outcomes largely validated the mild expectations for the Rio gathering. In sum, BRICS' approach this year has been to simply keep things turning over.
This logic may not be entirely misplaced. Dr Samir Puri, the security director at Chatham House's Centre for Global Governance, says: 'BRICS has not emerged as a loud challenger to the controversial steps being taken by the second Trump administration, prompting questions over whether the platform has any worth.
'But a low-key BRICS summit may prove to be [smarter]. The BRICS countries are playing the long game, and there's little gain in provoking a loud clash with a conflictual US president.'
However, this could equally be viewed as a missed opportunity. For all its flaws, BRICS remains uniquely positioned to represent global realities. Its diversity, non-ideological cooperation and growing economic heft allow coordination among nations that don't always agree but share common interests (not values). BRICS offers a platform that is pragmatic, strategic and unconstrained by the bureaucratic inertia of other multilateral bodies like the UN.
While BRICS' incremental institutionalisation is a net positive, it will not move the needle in the prevailing global environment.
The group's members are grappling with the weaponisation of trade policy, unilateral military interventionism, surging global defence expenditure and the impact of all this on the global institutional order. In this context, how will BRICS chart a new way forward for international cooperation?
For the moment, it seems content responding to the volleys being served from Washington DC, rather than pre-empting major geopolitical developments, or placing other powers on the back foot.
Against the headwinds of a revisionist US, a shaky Western alliance and a global system in crisis, bold and decisive moves by BRICS leaders are needed to usher in a more multipolar order. Simply keeping the ball rolling won't be enough. DM
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Eyewitness News
4 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
At least 3 killed as Russia, Ukraine exchange strikes
KYIV - Russia struck several regions of Ukraine overnight, officials said Saturday, reporting one person killed in Dnipro, while Moscow said two people died after a Ukrainian drone attack in the Rostov region. Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov said one person was killed in a high-rise apartment complex. Across the border, Russia's acting governor of Rostov said a car caught fire following a drone strike. "Tragically, two people died," Yuri Sliusar posted on Telegram. Ukrainian officials in Dnipro, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia all reported coming under Russian fire overnight. In Dnipro, Filatov urged people to take precautions during Russian attacks. "I understand that there aren't enough shelters, but I must say: during shelling, it is absolutely not advisable to stay on the upper floors, especially when there is an underground parking area available," he posted on Telegram. Kharkiv Mayor Igor Terekhov said that his city had come under sustained bombardment "for almost three hours". "The enemy used several types of weapons simultaneously: guided bombs, ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones," he added. In Zaporizhzhia, Governor Ivan Fedorov said several fires broke out following Russian drone attacks, one of which hit a residential building while another damaged a farm warehouse. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been pushing for a meeting with counterpart Vladimir Putin to end the war, with Kyiv proposing talks by the end of August. But the Kremlin on Thursday downplayed the likelihood any such meeting was imminent. Both sides have radically different positions at the negotiating table, and Ukraine has accused Russia of sending only low-level officials with no decision-making power. Russia has called on Ukraine to effectively cede four regions that Moscow claims to have annexed, a demand Kyiv has called unacceptable. Ukraine meanwhile has been pleading with its Western backers to send more weapons for its troops to withstand daily Russian attacks.

IOL News
17 hours ago
- IOL News
Western media finally confronts Israel's actions in Gaza
An F-35 fighter jet flies during a graduation ceremony for Israeli Air Force pilots at Hatzerim Airbase, in southern Israel. In a relentless wave of reprisals, the Israeli Defence Force has killed, maimed and arbitrarily detained largely powerless Palestinians, many without charge. Image: Amir Cohen / Reuters THE silence, nay, collaboration of the Western mainstream media with Israel's genocidal military onslaught against Gaza and the Palestinian people in general has been mind-boggling. Since October 2023, when Hamas launched a surprise violent attack in Southern Israel that resulted in some 1 200 people killed, life for Palestinian men, women and children has been akin to hell on earth. Israel's fury, vengeance and retribution against the people of Gaza have been brutal, ferocious and limitless. In a relentless wave of reprisals, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has killed, maimed and arbitrarily detained largely powerless Palestinians, many without charge. The IDF's reign of terror in every corner of Palestine has known no bounds. Since October 2023, Israelis have killed no less than 60 000 Palestinians amid a systematic annihilation of the Gaza population, and displaced nearly 2 million, according to the UN. Thousands remain trapped under the ruins of what was once a normal Gaza Strip, despite occupation by apartheid Israel. What triggered me to pen this piece this week has been the rare public criticism of Israel by four leading Western media outlets that echoed the views of the UN and more than 100 aid organisations that have accused Israel of starving Palestinians. Although this deliberate mass starvation and killing of dozens queueing for food is ubiquitous, Israel has thus far enjoyed biased support by the West. The British public broadcaster BBC, Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence-France Presse (AFP) this week issued a statement they wrote collectively in which they decry Israel's deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war. The media outlets above revealed that their own employees inside Gaza were starving and unable to fend for their families. 'We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families,' the rare joint statement read, before continuing: 'It is essential that adequate food supplies reach the people there.' This departure from the norm is significant for many reasons. Finally, it removes the veil of Israel's protection from critical public scrutiny that has unwittingly aided the extinction of the people of Gaza. Together with CNN, among other impactful Western media outlets, the West has remained largely blind and speechless to Israeli excesses in its merciless military operation against the Palestinians. It is in this context, therefore, that the public denouncement of Israel by Western media carries massive weight. Inevitably, breaking the silence by the Western media and abandoning their apparently collective complicity in what South Africa and others have described before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as sheer unadulterated genocide changes the game altogether. Not only does it cause Israel to adjust its dubious public relations drive, but it also punches holes for the Western publics and their governments to reconsider the free pass that Israel has thus far enjoyed. In the last 21 months, some 200 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israeli fire, without any iota of consequences. Of greater concern, in my book, has been the glaring absence of international outcry by the self-righteous Western media outlets in particular. The silence of Western governments has been utterly deafening, too. The Qatari news network, Al Jazeera, has lost some of its journalists to Israel's deliberate targeting of their staff due to their tough reporting approach that exposes the truth, as seen on social media worldwide. In fact, Al Jazeera is banned in Israel and the West Bank. Israel accuses their journalists as well as foreign correspondents as 'terror operatives' without evidence. Disturbingly, the Western media has turned a blind eye to the suppression of media freedom by Israel. Actually, the four media outlets that jointly issued a statement critical of Israel have themselves been previously criticised for their sheepish approach to news reporting. They have been accused of accepting the narrative of Israel about the war without any question — apparently too content to publicise the statements of the Israeli military officers as gospel truth. Last November, some 100 journalists from the BBC accused the corporation of Israeli bias and of lacking 'consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism'. The BBC denied the claims, just as AFP, Reuters, CNN, AP and others contemptuously reject any criticism levelled at them. Israel's genocide in Gaza has triggered the reconfiguration of global relations beyond measure. It has exposed the weakness and bias of Western-led global governance systems such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the shortcomings of the ICJ's lack of enforceable rulings and the ugly spectre of unilateralism in international relations. Additionally, the persistent failure of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to obligate the cessation of hostilities in Gaza has further exposed the hidden rot that plagues global bodies. The veto power possessed by the five permanent members of the UNSC has also proved to be archaic and susceptible to abuse, particularly by the US in defence of attempts to rein in Israel. The US is one of the five permanent members of the UNSC. Others are the UK, France, China and Russia. The Majority World has been campaigning for urgent reforms of the UNSC, so that all nations can exercise equal authority reflective of the 21st-century architecture of the international world order. At the UN General Assembly, any condemnation of Israel remains largely muted and unenforceable anyway. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is all but a talk shop that is past its sell-by date. The UN Charter, which is supposed to be based on the principle of 'dialogue among equals', has become a doormat where heads of state wipe their feet on entrance. The plain disability to stop Israel's genocide against Gazans and the blatant fear by the large majority of the nations of the world to emulate South Africa and call it for what it is — genocide — is an indictment of our global governance system. Israel's impunity reminds the international community that Western hegemony still reigns supreme. Its various poles of power can be seen through the activities of the EU, Nato and the G7, among others. The concerns and voices of the Global South seldom make any impact. By and large, the persistent legacy of colonialism that thrives on the notion of divide and rule still keeps like-minded weaker economies apart and unable to cooperate. It is a separate development. In its defence, its architects describe it as 'separate but equal'. The role of the media in society is to hold authorities accountable. Anarchy thrives when the media shirks its fundamental responsibilities. Additionally, appropriate media is the one that consciously stands with the weak against the powerful. Pardon the cliché, but the media that is morally upright is the one that plays the role of being the 'voice of the voiceless'. Amid the ongoing Israeli genocide, it is refreshing to note the adoption of a more responsible posture by the leading Western media networks. This is highly commendable. As they say, better late than never. Their public rebuke of Israel will certainly not go unnoticed. It would most probably be safe, whatever is left of those that are still lucky to be alive in Gaza. A media that is embedded is a media that has outsourced its responsibility and function to its handlers, be they the IDF, politicians or big business interests. Journalism that fails to question authority is a dismal failure. It is nothing short of sunshine journalism whose modus operandi is to sing for its supper to the detriment of the public they are supposed to serve. It is tempting to lambaste the Western media outlets as a collective, but that would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water. The four media houses outlined above will go down in history as having broken ranks by speaking out against Israel's monumental war crimes, albeit belatedly. * Abbey Makoe is the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Global South Media Network ( The views expressed are personal. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.


eNCA
19 hours ago
- eNCA
Hong Kong issues bounties for 19 overseas activists on subversion charges
Hong Kong police announced bounties Friday for information leading to the arrest of 19 overseas activists, accusing them of national security crimes. Political dissent in Hong Kong has been quashed since Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in 2020 after huge, sometimes violent pro-democracy protests the year before. Many opposition figures have fled abroad, while others have been arrested and sentenced to years in jail. Police said the 19 activists were involved in what they called a "subversive organisation", Hong Kong Parliament -- a pro-democracy NGO established in Canada. On July 1, Hong Kong Parliament said on social media that it was holding an unofficial poll online to form a "legislature", aimed at "opposing one-party dictatorship and tyranny and pursuing Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". In a statement on Friday, police accused the group of seeking to "unlawfully overthrow and undermine the fundamental system" of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. The investigation into the organisation is ongoing, the police said, warning that they "will offer bounties to hunt down more suspects in the case if necessary". They also called on the accused to "return to Hong Kong and turn themselves in, rather than make further mistakes". A reward of HK$200,000 ($25,500) each was offered for 15 of the activists, while the four others were already wanted for HK$1 million, the statement said. - Symbolic bounties - The bounties are seen as largely symbolic given that they affect people living abroad in nations unlikely to extradite political activists to Hong Kong or China. Friday's announcement is the fourth time the financial hub's authorities have offered rewards for help capturing those alleged to have violated the city's national security laws. "The Hong Kong government is deepening repression in Hong Kong, extending its long arm abroad and seeking to silence the diasporas," Human Rights Watch's Maya Wang said in a statement to AFP. According to the Hong Kong police's website, as of Friday there are now 34 people wanted for national security offences, including secession, subversion, or foreign collusion. Previous rounds of bounties were met with intense criticism from Western countries, with Hong Kong and China in turn railing against foreign "interference". Hong Kong has also previously cancelled the passports of other pro-democracy activists on its wanted list, under its second homegrown national security law enacted in 2024. As of July 1, authorities had arrested 333 people for alleged national security crimes, with 165 convicted in Hong Kong. Earlier this month, Hong Kong police arrested four people, including a 15-year-old, who were allegedly part of a group in Taiwan that called for the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party.