The New Delhi Joint Declaration
The
New Delhi Declaration adopted at the 18th BRICS Summit comprises of one hundred and forty paragraphs, which cover diverse subjects, from wars and terrorism, trade and
tariffs, finance and development, energy and critical minerals, technology and
artificial intelligence, climate, health and global governance. On the surface,
it reads like an exhaustive catalogue of positions on almost everything that
concerns the world today, and that is precisely what is so interesting and
intriguing about it.
Image Courtesy - Google Photos
Reports
indicate that reaching a consensus was itself a substantial diplomatic
exercise. Negotiations were prolonged due to sharp differences between Iran and
the UAE over the West Asian conflict, yet the members eventually found language
they could all accept, and this fact is, perhaps, more important than any
individual paragraph in the document. The subject of each of the one hundred and forty paragraphs
is important, but more intriguing is the fact that such a diverse collection of
countries could finally agree upon such a joint declaration.
Strip
away the diplomatic language and the enormous document begins to reveal a
simpler common agenda: sovereignty, security, peace, development, economic
opportunity, greater representation and a stronger voice in institutions that
shape the international system. Broadly the declaration calls for a more
representative and fairer international order and a reinvigorated and reformed
multilateral system.
It
points to a question that goes well beyond BRICS - how does one effectively
govern an interconnected planet more equitably, with organisations created in a
different era and comprising of a different global power structure? The
distribution of power in the present has changed so dramatically.
Power is Reality
International
relations have never been free of power. Military strength is the most visible
form of power, and it matters. So does economic weight. Technology, finance,
energy, resources and control of supply chains increasingly confer strategic
influence. Nations will continue to pursue their national interests, protect
their security and seek advantage for their people. There is nothing inherently
wrong with that.
The
problem begins when power becomes a substitute for rules and institutions.
The
post-Second World War international system was not designed to eliminate power.
It was an attempt to manage it. The United Nations sought to provide a
framework for collective security and conflict resolution. The Bretton Woods
institutions sought greater stability in international finance and development.
The GATT, and later the WTO, helped create a framework that put international
commerce within a rules-based framework, the fundamental goal being to use
trade to improve people's living standards, create better jobs and promote
sustainable development.
However,
the world for which these institutions were designed has seen profound changes.
In 1945, much of Asia and Africa was still under colonial rule. Economic and
military power was concentrated in a relatively small number of countries.
Today, power is more widely distributed. New economic centres have emerged.
Developing countries have greater weight. Regional groupings have multiplied.
Technology has transformed societies and warfare. Interdependence has made
events in one part of the world consequential far beyond its borders.
The
profound changes in the world are not reflected in the architecture of global
governance, as it has not evolved to keep pace with these changes. The BRICS
declaration makes precisely this point in calling for reform of the UN and of
the Bretton Woods institutions so that they better reflect contemporary global
realities and the increased weight of emerging and developing economies.
When Power
Becomes Coercion
Power
can persuade. It can deter. It can also compel and coerce.
Military
force remains the most visible form of coercion, but it is no longer the only
one. Tariffs, sanctions, technology controls, financial restrictions, critical
minerals, energy dependence and vulnerable supply chains can all become
instruments of pressure.
National
interest provides a legitimate reason for countries to protect strategic
capabilities and economic security. It is being noticed that there is a point
at which legitimate competition becomes unilateral coercion. Who determines
where that line lies? And, who decides when measures taken by one powerful
country affect the legitimate interests of many others?
These
are no longer abstract questions. The declaration itself expresses concern over
“unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” and calls for greater reliance on
multilateral approaches to international trade. The issue, therefore, is not
power itself.
Power
is reality; coercion is the misuse of this reality.
The Purpose of
Institutions
Institutions
matter, as they were created for just these kinds of contingencies. Multilateral
institutions were never intended to make national interests disappear. Their
purpose was to provide mechanisms through which competing interests could be
negotiated, moderated and, where possible, reconciled.
When
institutions function, as designed, power remains part of international
politics without becoming its only language. When they fail, countries
increasingly fall back on unilateral action.
The
answer is not to abandon multilateralism because it is imperfect. It is to
reform it. The issue is not whether every country should have equal power. That
is neither possible nor desirable.
The
issue is whether countries affected by global decisions have a meaningful voice
in shaping them. This is where representation becomes a question of legitimacy.
War is the
ultimate test
Nothing
exposes the limits of global governance more starkly than war. The ongoing wars
in Ukraine and West Asia demonstrate how difficult it remains for the
international community to convert competing national interests into negotiated
outcomes.
The
BRICS grouping itself illustrates the difficulty. Its members do not share a
common view of these conflicts. Some have direct interests at stake. All
countries, including the BRICS member states are impacted by the two wars.
Others have relationships with opposing parties. Yet the declaration still managed
to find a common language around restraint, sovereignty, dialogue, diplomacy
and peaceful resolution.
On
West Asia, the text calls for maximum restraint, the protection of civilians
and civilian infrastructure, and a return to dialogue and diplomacy. It
expresses serious concern over deliberate attacks on peaceful nuclear
facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It reaffirms
support for a just and lasting two-state solution to the Israeli Palestinian
conflict - a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine within the
internationally recognised 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital,
living side by side in peace and security with Israel. It supports full United
Nations membership for Palestine, opposes the forced displacement of
Palestinians from Gaza, and calls for the maintenance of ceasefire arrangements
together with full and unhindered humanitarian access.
The
declaration is equally explicit on terrorism. It condemns in the strongest
terms the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025, in which 26
people were killed. It reaffirms a commitment to combating terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations, including the cross-border movement of terrorists,
terrorism financing and safe havens. It insists that terrorism cannot be
associated with any religion, nationality, civilisation or ethnic group, and
calls for zero tolerance without double standards.
A
declaration should not be considered enough achievement, as diplomatic language
is not the equivalent of peace. A joint declaration does not resolve a war.
National interests do not disappear because leaders sit around the same table.
But
there is something important in this ability to find common ground, despite
profound disagreement.
Peace
does not require nations to agree on everything. It requires them to agree that
disagreement cannot always be settled by force. That is one of the most
important purposes of multilateral institutions.
Equity is Not
Equality
The
word equity can easily sound idealistic. It is not so. Equity does not mean
that countries should possess identical economic or military weight. The world
will never be equal in that sense. Equity means something more practical -
those affected by global decisions should have a meaningful opportunity to
participate in making them.
This
applies to the Security Council. It applies to international financial
institutions. It applies to global trade rules. It applies to development
finance, technology, energy and access to resources.
The
legitimacy of an international system depends not only on the rules it creates
but also on whether those who live under those rules believe they had a voice
in creating them.
This
is why the demand for greater representation by the Global South need not be
interpreted as an attempt to overturn the existing order. It can equally be,
and should be, understood as a demand to make that order more representative of
the world that now exists.
The
declaration explicitly links reform of global governance with greater
representation of developing countries and reform of the international
financial institutions to reflect changes in the global economy.
The Economic
Dimension
The
same issue appears in economics. Trade connects nations as never before. But
interdependence can also create vulnerability. A tariff imposed in one country
can affect manufacturers thousands of kilometres away. A disruption to a
shipping route can raise food and energy prices across continents. Restrictions
on technology can alter the development prospects of entire economies. Control
over critical minerals can create strategic dependence.
The
question is therefore no longer simply how much wealth the global economy
creates.
It
is also who controls the systems through which that wealth, technology and
opportunity flow.
The
old debate between protectionism and free trade is insufficient. The real
challenge is to create a trading and financial system that recognises
legitimate national interests without allowing economic power to become
unrestricted coercion.
That
is why strengthening institutions such as the WTO and reforming the
international financial architecture matter.
A New
Frontier of Power
The
next transformation may be even more profound.
Artificial
intelligence, semiconductors, data, biotechnology, space capabilities and
critical minerals are rapidly becoming sources of national power. The
geopolitical competition of tomorrow may therefore not be fought only over
territory. It may be fought over knowledge, computing capacity, energy, data
and the resources needed to sustain technological power.
A
country may be politically sovereign yet technologically dependent. It may
possess abundant natural resources but lack the technology or capital to
convert them into value. Another may possess extraordinary technological
capabilities while depending on resources and markets elsewhere.
Interdependence
is therefore unlikely to disappear. The challenge is to prevent interdependence
from becoming permanent asymmetrical dependence.
This
makes global governance—not less relevant, but more so.
What Does BRICS
Actually Tell Us?
It
would be a mistake to portray BRICS as the answer. Its members have competing
interests, different political systems and serious disagreements amongst
themselves. They are hardly a homogeneous coalition.
Nor
should the objective be to replace one hierarchy of power with another.
The
significance of the New Delhi Declaration lies elsewhere. It demonstrates that
countries with substantial differences can still negotiate towards a broad area
of common ground.
The
fact that the declaration emerged after difficult negotiations is itself
significant. The Iran-UAE differences over the West Asian conflict were serious
enough to threaten consensus, yet the members eventually adopted a common
declaration.
That
is diplomacy at its most basic, and perhaps, most necessary. It is not about
eliminating differences, but about finding enough common ground to make
coexistence possible.
Reform, Not
Replacement
The
temptation in periods of geopolitical upheaval is to search for a new dominant
power or a new bloc. This would miss the larger lesson from this BRICS summit.
The
objective should not be one power replacing another, or one bloc replacing
another. It should be a stronger system in which competing powers negotiate
their interests through institutions that are representative, credible and
capable of restraining unilateral action.
The
United Nations needs reform. The global financial institutions need greater
representation. The WTO needs renewed credibility. Mechanisms for conflict
prevention and resolution need strengthening.
The
governance of technology, resources and global commons needs to become more
inclusive.
None
of these requires the abolition of national interest.
On
the contrary, it recognises that national interests will remain the driving
force of international relations.
But
national interest cannot become a licence for unilateral decisions on matters
whose consequences extend far beyond national borders. Power cannot and should
not be the final arbiter of our common affairs.
A Larger
Purpose
Perhaps
this is what lies beneath the verbosity of the New Delhi Declaration. One
hundred and forty paragraphs may seem excessive. But each addresses an issue on
which countries sought to reconcile their interests. The sheer breadth of the
document reflects the complexity of governing an interconnected world.
And
perhaps the most remarkable thing is not that these countries agreed on
everything. They clearly did not; they found sufficient agreement to speak a
common minimum.
That
is the essence of diplomacy. And perhaps this offers a modest lesson for the
wider international system.
The
world does not need to become free of power, competition or national interest.
It never will. It needs institutions capable of mediating them. It needs rules
that apply with sufficient consistency to retain legitimacy. It needs
participation broad enough to give those rules credibility. And it needs a
conception of development in which prosperity is not simply a contest over who
can extract the greatest advantage from an interconnected world.
Gandhiji’s
words are so relevant for mankind, “There is enough in the world for
everyone’s need, but not enough for one man’s greed.”
The
future global order will not become equitable because nations suddenly become
altruistic. It will become more equitable when institutions make cooperation
more rewarding than coercion, participation more useful than confrontation, and
negotiated compromise more effective than unilateral power.
This
is the real challenge before global governance. Power is reality. Coercion is
its misuse. Institutions are the means to mediate it. Equity is the objective. And
perhaps, ultimately, that is what the 140 paragraphs are really telling us.
Comments