BRICS Unity Tested by Divided Response to Israel-Hamas Violence
Bloc split on Middle East crisis reflects wider foreign policy differences. That's multilateralism, baby!
The BRICS bloc finds itself divided in response to the explosive clashes between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. After Hamas launched a massive attack on Israel over the weekend, the crisis continued to escalate. In this context, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa have taken different positions reflecting some of their divisions.
It is important to note that the BRICS nations have never expressed an official common position on any major geopolitical issue, as is the norm for most international organizations. As such, this article is intended purely as an examination of the individual reactions of each state, and not meant as criticism to highlight potential weaknesses where none exist.
Brazil took on the role of chair of the UN Security Council, convening an emergency session and supporting the two-state solution. However, to some extent, both China and Russia have used more ambiguous language, urging an immediate ceasefire and a return to peace talks, but they too have long explicitly supported a two-state solution in the past.
Meanwhile, South Africa has voiced probably the strongest criticism within the BRICS, denouncing Israel's "illegal occupation" of Palestinian land and violations of international law. It urged international action for the creation of a Palestinian state.
The sympathetic closeness between South Africa and Palestine dates back to the days of Mandela and Arafat, who always claimed to share the issue of apartheid in their respective countries.
India has taken an opposite approach, expressing solidarity with Israel against the Hamas attack. This confirms India's close ties with Israel in recent years, especially in security and defense matters, the ruling Hindu Nationalist Party in India sees Israel as a natural ally against terrorism.
Several factors help explain these different reactions. Domestic political considerations and public opinion hold a prominent place. The assumption of a pro-Palestinian position resonates with local attitudes in much of South America, the Arab world, and South Africa.
Brazil seeks to balance latent sympathy for Palestinians in Latin America with cultivating ties as a rising global power.
Strategic relationships also play an important role. Russia and China have growing partnerships with Israel in trade and technology, hence their more cautious reactions aimed at both sides. India's ties with Israel have increased. South Africa sympathizes more with the Palestinian authorities.
Economic interests are intertwined with these foreign policy calculations. China and India, in particular, have large energy investments in the region. The various positions emphasize different national priorities rather than a unified BRICS position.
Even among the new BRICS members, positions on the Israel/Palestine issue seem to diverge, and Middle Eastern countries themselves have taken different positions. Iran has explicitly supported Hamas, with officials praising the group. Saudi Arabia blamed the violence on the Israeli occupation while calling for de-escalation. The United Arab Emirates agreed denouncing Hamas rocket attacks, urging the protection of civilians on both sides.
In Latin America, Argentina held mass demonstrations in Buenos Aires to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Its government has consistently called for a peaceful resolution. On the diplomatic front, Argentina summoned Israel's ambassador to express concern and actively participated in international talks.
The reactions of world powers underscore the complex political dynamics at play. Different relations with Israel, ties with the Palestinian authorities, and national interests determine each nation's response. National public opinion also matters.
While most nations urge de-escalation, concrete actions taken vary. Positions reflect deeper political priorities, alliances, and values. However, with violence threatening to spiral out of control, there is a growing demand for mediation efforts and progress in peace talks before it is too late.
All eyes are on the UN Security Council and key regional players to use their influence to bring both sides back from the brink. But some wonder if years of inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fanned the flames for this week's conflagration. The world must deal with this outbreak of violence by working to address the root causes, avoiding a descent into all-out war.
With the BRICS divided, their ability to influence the situation may be limited. The bloc lacks coherence when member countries' interests diverge. Although the group has the potential for cooperation in areas such as economics, complex political conflicts often trigger disunity. The divergent reactions to violence between Israel and Hamas highlight that BRICS still has a long way to go as a geopolitical force.
At the end of the day, multilateralism is also about being able to express one's positions freely, but always keeping the dialogue open in a constructive manner and available to shared decisions.
The varied responses to the Israel-Hamas clashes reflect the reality that the BRICS forum is primarily an economic coordination body, not a unified political or security alliance. While splits on foreign policy do not indicate inherent flaws in the BRICS structure, they do serve as a reminder of the barriers to the bloc adopting joint geopolitical stances given the divergence of interests, relationships, and priorities between the member states.
This article aims to analyze these different perspectives without making any undue assumptions about BRICS itself.
In the meantime, we all hope that this serious situation will subside and the diplomatic route will be taken, otherwise, it will be a problem for the whole world.