BRICS leaders condemn Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure
The leaders of BRICS — including President Cyril Ramaphosa — have strongly condemned Ukraine for recent attacks on Russian railway infrastructure, but remained silent on Russia's constant bombardment of Ukraine, which has killed many civilians.
The BRICS nations, meeting in Rio de Janeiro for their annual summit on Sunday and Monday, 6 and 7 July, issued a 126-point declaration covering a wide range of political, economic and security issues.
It included the following:
'We condemn in the strongest possible terms the attacks on bridges and railway infrastructure deliberately targeting civilians in the Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh regions of the Russian Federation on May 31, and June 1 and 5, 2025, which resulted in the deaths of several civilians, including children.'
The declaration made no mention of Russia's constant missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, which have intensified in recent weeks and caused greater death and destruction, in part because of US President Donald Trump's reduction of US military support, leaving Ukraine without sufficient anti-missile defences.
Ukraine has occasionally struck back at military targets inside Russia, though its attacks have been far fewer than Russia's attacks on Ukraine.
The Bryansk, Kursk and Voronezh provinces which were mentioned in the BRICS declaration 'are all located near Ukraine's northeastern border and have played a central role in Russia's war effort, serving as key logistical hubs and launch sites for missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities — often targeting civilian infrastructure and causing casualties', according to the Kyiv Independent.
The BRICS declaration otherwise mentioned Ukraine only briefly and did not present a united position on the war, probably because of the different positions of member countries.
Instead, the declaration allowed members to maintain their varying positions by stating:
'We recall our national positions concerning the conflict in Ukraine as expressed in the appropriate fora, including the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly.
'We note with appreciation relevant proposals of mediation and good offices, including the creation of the African Peace Initiative and the Group of Friends for Peace, aimed at peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. We expect that current efforts will lead to a sustainable peace settlement.'
Russia is one of the original BRICS members, along with Brazil, India and China. South Africa was admitted in 2010, and since then, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates have also been admitted, as well as 10 partner countries that enjoy partial membership benefits.
Russian President Vladimir Putin did not attend the summit in person, presumably because of the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for his arrest, which Brazil would have felt obliged to execute as it is an ICC member. Putin participated by video link and sent his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, to represent him in person. Chinese President Xi Jinping did not attend either, apparently because of a clash of schedules.
Strikes on Iran
The presence of Iran — which has supplied drones to Russia to attack Ukraine — was felt in a condemnation of the recent US and Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
'We condemn the military strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13 June 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and express grave concern over the subsequent escalation of the security situation in the Middle East.
'We further express serious concern over deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA.
'Nuclear safeguards, safety, and security must always be upheld, including in armed conflicts, to protect people and the environment from harm. In this context, we reiterate our support for diplomatic initiatives aimed at addressing regional challenges. We call upon the United Nations Security Council to be seized of this matter.'
Though the declaration characterised Iran's nuclear facilities as 'peaceful', they have not been unequivocally confirmed as such by the IAEA.
Gustavo de Carvalho, a BRICS expert at the SA Institute of International Affairs in Johannesburg, said the Rio de Janeiro declaration was more or less what he had expected. As a consensus-based body, it was difficult for BRICS to engage with divisive language.
He welcomed what he said was the first endorsement by China and Russia — the two BRICS permanent members of the UN Security Council — of the aspirations to permanent Security Council membership of Brazil, India and two African countries (still to be identified by Africa).
He noted that the summit had advanced the ongoing process of strengthening links between the BRICS members on issues such as artificial intelligence, health and education.
He saw progress in the BRICS initiative to increase trade among member countries in their own currencies, rather than the US dollar and interbank payments.
He said that every year there was an expectation that BRICS would take a strong anti-Western position in its summit declarations.
'But we never really see it, partially because most of its members don't consider themselves to be anti-Western, but rather as non-Western, with different layers of interaction and integration with Western countries.'
De Carvalho said that while the BRICS countries acknowledged the threats to multilateralism posed by the Trump administration, they had chosen to take a positive, longer-term stance by emphasising the roles they could play in strengthening international bodies like the UN, the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization — 'rather than just pointing a finger at the US, which would create a much stronger war of words but not really resolve the issues'. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
an hour ago
- Eyewitness News
Donald Trump threatens extra 10% tariff in response to ‘Anti-American' policies from BRICS Bloc
In April, Trump unveiled a series of tariffs targeting trade partners worldwide, as part of his administration's "America First" approach. In a statement, the BRICS group said, "We voice serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with WTO rules," prompting Trump to hit back via a post on his Truth Social account, threatening further tariffs and BRICS nations or countries aligned to the bloc. Speaking to Stephen Grootes on The Money Show, Yash Ramkolowan, Managing Director and economist at DNA Economics
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Taxes and tariffs — Trump's big wins, but be careful what you wish for
The Trump administration is claiming a major victory with the passage of its 'One Big Beautiful Bill' even if many of its provisions may hurt the Republicans' chances in the mid-term election next year and turn the economy away from the future. Then there is all the uproar over a new tariff regimen that is about to crash down on the rest of the world. A few days ago, Donald Trump scored a major — albeit problematic — win with the passage of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' into law via a squeaker of votes in both houses of Congress. Meanwhile, he is now unleashing major international economic policy changes through the imminent imposition of killer tariffs on 9 July — if the administration doesn't reverse its course yet again. Through Trump's triumphal signing ceremony for his massive tax and government policy law on the Fourth of July, American Independence Day signalled major shifts in the country's tax policies, as well as a range of industrial sector subsidies and the country's health and welfare safety nets. Key provisions will make some previously temporary tax rate cuts for the rich and big corporations permanent as well as eliminate taxes on tips and ostensibly provide some tax relief for retirees. (The latter will take effect provided retirees earn below certain limits for any taxes due on their Social Security payments.) Besides substantially increasing funding for military procurement and beefing up the budget for the ICE police force now enforcing those draconian deportations and arrests of undocumented migrants, other provisions of the law include some serious funding cuts in Snap (the programme formerly called 'food stamps') and Medicaid. Funding arrangements of the latter have underpinned provisions of popular Obamacare medical coverage as well as affecting support for the operating costs of hundreds of hospitals in rural areas. In addition, the new law will axe some subsidies for renewable energy development and EVs, among other provisions. Some of the most onerous provisions only really kick in after the mid-term election next year, a recognition of the fact that the more voters know what the new law enables to happen will be anathema to many of Trump and company's supporters. Growing debt Numerous projections, including from the Congressional Budget Office (Congress's own fiscal analysis unit), say the net effect of this legislation will add significantly to both the national debt and the government's annual deficits. Other calculations say the effect of the new law will push the government's indebtedness to a level last seen when the country was funding its herculean efforts during World War 2. Such an increase in the debt and deficit spending would drive the US Treasury Department to offer higher interest rates on any new treasury bond issues to attract investors, thus absorbing capital that might otherwise be directed towards more productive investments. The current indebtedness already represents a major share of government expenditure. But beyond that, if American sovereign debt is paying higher interest rates, other national bond issuers will almost certainly be driven to match the US interest rate if they hope to attract investors for their new debt instruments. The net effect may well shrink the pool of capital globally available for investment in productive efforts, probably helping goose along an economic slowdown and inflation simultaneously. Not a good outcome, given persistent global jitters over Middle Eastern conflicts (and thus potential challenges to oil and natural gas shipments) and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, now in its third year. Of course, the Trump administration insists the new tax provisions will liberate funds for investment — the venerable trickle-down theory. However, it is just as likely those lower tax levels will fuel the purchase of cryptocurrency tokens, Maui beachfront properties, over-the-top mansions in the Hamptons, or new super-yachts, opposed to new semi-conductor chip factories or new smokestack industrial plants. There is still worse in these new tax provisions. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman argued after the Bill had become law, 'The Chinese simply can't believe their luck: that at the dawn of the electricity-guzzling era of artificial intelligence, the U.S. president and his party have decided to engage in one of the greatest acts of strategic self-harm imaginable. They have passed a giant bill that, among other craziness, deliberately undermines America's ability to generate electricity through renewables — solar, battery and wind power in particular. 'And why? Because they view those as 'liberal' energy sources, even though today they are the quickest and cheapest ways to boost our electricity grid to meet the explosion of demand from AI data centers.' The Trump administration is thus facing backwards into history, hoping to direct invest in old-style smokestack industries where the jobs are not, even as China, the US' chief economic rival, is massively investing in the industries of the next industrial revolution. Friedman adds, 'In sum, this dog's breakfast of a bill — rushed through without a single congressional hearing with independent energy experts or even one scientist — is sure to put at risk billions of dollars of investments in renewable energy, mostly in Republican states, and potentially kill the jobs of tens of thousands of U.S. workers. By the way, the bill also bans for 10 years a first-ever fee on excess methane emissions from oil and gas production, a key driver of global warming. 'So, in one fell swoop, this bill will make your home hotter, your air conditioning bill higher, your clean energy job scarcer, America's auto industry weaker and China happier. How does that make sense?' What, exactly, is this plan supposed to achieve? Nobody really knows, unless one believes in the magic of Republican reverse Robin Hood-ism. Tariff deadline looming Meanwhile, the Trump administration is continuing its meandering, zig-zag course of threats, blandishments, carrots and sticks over the country's tariff regimen to its international friends and competitors alike, with its latest Trumpian pronouncement being the threat of additional tariffs on any country supporting the supposed anti-Americanism of the BRICS grouping. In theory, unless trade agreements are reached by 9 July between the US and a whole range of foreign nations, punishing tariffs will be imposed on those nations, in addition to other tariffs already in effect on various products and countries. For example, as the Washington Post reported on Monday, 7 July, 'With only three days remaining before President Donald Trump's self-imposed July 9 deadline, U.S. and European negotiators continue to haggle over a skeletal trade deal that would defer a resolution of their toughest commercial disputes. 'The prospective accord, which would spare European goods the 50 percent tariffs that Trump has threatened to impose, is one of a relative handful of deals the administration is set to finalize by Wednesday. Any European bargain might prove modest. But Trump's decision to pursue his goals by ignoring the global trading rules that American leaders helped to write marks a significant break with decades of U.S. policy.' But up until the time of this writing, actual agreements have been reached only with Vietnam and Great Britain — leaving pretty much the rest of the world at risk of facing a new round of punishing tariffs — and the UK agreement is more an outline than a precisely defined document. These threats are coming down the track for most nations, despite prior tariff agreements already in existence. This includes adherence to the trading rules of the World Trade Organization and America's traditional policy of the 'most favoured nation' tariff regimen (that calls for no nation to be more favourably treated than another), or other existing international arrangements such as Agoa's window (the American law known as the African Growth and Opportunity Act that provides duty-free entry for thousands of African products) for many African nations. For African officials relying upon a renewal of Agoa this year by the US Congress, they may well be backing a horse no longer in the race, given the reality that profoundly protectionist feelings are running strongly in Congress, most especially among Republicans. The challenge for most foreign national governments attempting to find a path forward is to determine what the sweet spot with Trumpian wheeler-dealer-ism really is, instead of the performative elements of his threats and blandishments song and dance and to make their best deals possible, but without disrupting existing trade arrangements any more than necessary. While the 9 July deadline for agreements is in place, there are chances for further extensions as negotiations continue. Uncertainty for SA Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent held out the possibility that the deadline could be extended to 1 August for countries actively seeking to reach deals. As Bessent said on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, 'There's a lot of foot-dragging on the other side, and so I would expect to see several big announcements over the next couple of days. We're going to be very busy over the next 72 hours.' Bessent went on to say the administration would begin informing countries about the (new, higher) tariff rates they could face if they did not quickly reach trade agreements with the United States. Ah ha, the Trumpian-style carrot and stick. All of this obviously has serious potential repercussions for an exporting and trading nation like South Africa. The US remains one of South Africa's largest, most important trading partners. Beyond primary mineral exports like platinum, South African exports include assembled motor vehicles, vehicle parts, industrial inputs such as aluminium, and processed agricultural products such as citrus products, tree nuts, and, of course, wine. These have been aided by Agoa access, and they represent a significant percentage of skilled employment in the country. In fact, on Monday, 7 July, Trump announced numerous countries' imports are to face steep blanket tariffs starting 1 August. Sharing on social media what were in effect form letters to the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Laos and Myanmar, the letters explained imports from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Kazakhstan will now face 25% tariffs, while South African goods will be subject to a 30% tariff. Meanwhile, imports from Laos and Myanmar will face a 40% duty. Wielding the carrot and stick simultaneously, the letters bearing Trump's signature added the US will 'perhaps' consider adjusting the new tariff levels, 'depending on our relationship with your Country'. As an illustrative aside to the possible impacts of trade and tariff uncertainty, amid all the constantly changing tariff levels being imposed or threatened over the past several months, one of the suppliers to the local wine dealer in our neighbourhood gave up exporting high-end wines to the US, handing them off to our local vintner instead. Really good for us, but not so good for South Africa's export earnings. South Africa's trade negotiations are also being challenged by an often-poisonous bilateral relationship — much of it largely unrelated to core US-South African ties. However, questions such as that chimera of Afrikaner farmer genocide or South Africa's continuing stances on Gaza or Ukraine may yet make it harder to achieve a bilateral trade agreement between the US and South Africa, especially if a minority of Republican congressmen and women have their say about either those trade discussions leading up to 9 July — or all those other issues. If that happens, it may become a new world for South African exports to the US, but not a particularly pleasant one. DM
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Trump slaps 30% tariff on South African exports to US from 1 August
US President Donald Trump warned that any retaliatory tariffs from SA would be met with further hikes. Other, near-identical letters, with varying tariff rates, were addressed to the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Myanmar, Laos, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. US President Donald Trump announced on Monday, 7 July that he would subject imports from South Africa to new 30% tariffs that would take effect from 1 August. In a letter addressed to President Cyril Ramaphosa, which was signed by Trump and posted to his Truth Social, he said: 'We have had years to discuss our trading relationship with South Africa, and have concluded that we must move away from these long-term, and very persistent, trade deficits engendered by South Africa's tariff, and non-tariff, policies and trade barriers. 'Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from reciprocal. Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge South Africa a tariff of only 30% on any and all South African products sent to the United States, separate from all sectoral tariffs.' Trump added that if South Africa were to increase its tariffs in response to his announcement, the amount it chooses to raise them by would be added on top of the existing 30%. 'If you wish to open your heretofore closed trading markets to the United States, and eliminate your tariff and non-tariff policies and trade barriers, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter. 'These tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your country. You will never be disappointed with the United States of America,' he said. Trump's letter to Ramaphosa was among several posted to his Truth Social on Monday. Other, near-identical letters, with varying tariff rates, were addressed to the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Myanmar, Laos, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. Trump imposed a 30% tariff on South Africa in April, as part of his global ' reciprocal ' tariffs, before agreeing to suspend their application for 90 days, saying he would hammer out bilateral deals with trade partners. The 90-day pause on Trump's tariff hikes was expected to come to an end on 9 July. SA, and other countries around the world, have been pushing to negotiate trade deals with the US to prevent Trump's sweeping tariffs. But only two preliminary deals, with the UK and Vietnam, have since been announced. SA first presented its draft Framework Deal to the US on 20 May, a day before Ramaphosa met Trump at the White House in Washington. The initial proposal included deals on agriculture, critical minerals, automotive and other exports. Last week, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) said SA had requested an extension of the 90-day pause, to enable it to revise its proposed trade deal in accordance with the Trump administration's new template for US trade with sub-Saharan Africa. Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau said he believed trade discussions with America would continue beyond 9 July, as the US had indicated at a recent meeting that there was still ' room for engagement ' on the matter. On Sunday, 6 July, Trump also threatened to impose an additional 10% tariff on countries that align themselves with the 'anti-American policies' of BRICS, according to a Reuters report. He said there would be 'no exceptions to this policy'. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the BRICS bloc, including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and a handful of other nations, voiced 'serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures' which, they said, 'distort trade and are inconsistent with' World Trade Organisation rules.
