As BRICS concluded its 17th Summit in Rio de Janeiro in July 2025, the bloc of 11 emerging economies reaffirmed its ambitions for a greater role in global peace and security. However, internal divisions, geopolitical rivalries, and the group’s limited institutional mandate continue to hinder progress toward a unified security framework.
Despite wide consensus on global issues like terrorism and multilateral reform, BRICS remains constrained by divergent national interests. President Lula da Silva of Brazil captured the group’s renewed ambition by stating, “BRICS is the spiritual successor of the Non-Aligned Movement.”
Yet, the absence of China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin signaled deeper fractures within the bloc.
Strategic tensions—especially between India and China—and member states’ differing foreign policy priorities complicate efforts to develop a coherent peace and security architecture. For instance, while BRICS has consistently advocated for peaceful conflict resolution, the group avoids direct reference to disputes between its own members, instead maintaining generic support for diplomacy.
Nevertheless, BRICS has made notable strides in counterterrorism and space security. The 2020 BRICS Counter Terrorism Strategy and the establishment of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) marked critical progress in collective security measures. The group also launched a shared satellite constellation to enhance data-sharing and surveillance, demonstrating how collaboration in emerging tech can support broader peace goals.
“The Rio Declaration reflects our collective concern over unchecked military action and growing global instability,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa stated, referencing the bloc’s condemnation of recent strikes on Iran and its firm stance on the Gaza conflict.
Yet, despite vocal support for UN reform and condemnation of Western unilateralism, tangible outcomes remain elusive. The persistent dominance of the P5 within the UN Security Council has stifled the bloc’s aspirations, with Brazil and India’s bids for permanent seats repeatedly stalled—sometimes due to opposition from within BRICS itself.
While BRICS continues to advocate a multipolar global order and push back against interventionist policies, its potential to serve as a peace-building force depends on deepening internal cooperation. As global instability rises, BRICS faces a critical choice: remain a symbolic counterweight to the West or evolve into a functional multilateral security platform.
