Can BRICS Turn Tariff Pressure Into Solidarity?

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi opened a two-day BRICS summit in New Delhi with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian among the leaders attending. Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia sent their presidents or prime ministers; the United Arab Emirates sent Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, and Brazil sent Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira. The expanded group also includes Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Trade, investment, cross-border payment channels, artificial intelligence and the wars disrupting energy and shipping are on the agenda.

The immediate adhesive is pressure from the United States. President Donald Trump has threatened an additional 10 percent tariff against countries aligning with what he calls BRICS’s anti-American policies, while his administration has used tariffs against members including Brazil, India and China. That gives governments with little ideological affinity a practical question: how much of their commerce should remain exposed to US markets, dollar clearing and institutions within Washington’s reach?

The strongest case for solidarity is therefore narrow rather than romantic. Members do not need a common worldview to settle more trade outside US-controlled channels, coordinate positions at the World Trade Organization or finance infrastructure that lowers transaction risk. A coalition can become useful before it becomes friendly. If tariff threats continue, even governments wary of China or Russia may decide that limited redundancy is cheaper than repeated vulnerability.

The countercase is sitting at the same table. Xi’s arrival marked his first visit to India in seven years, reflecting a thaw after the India-China border dispute produced deadly clashes in 2020 and 2021, but a visit does not settle the border. Iran and the UAE are on opposing sides of a regional war, and a BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in May failed to produce a joint statement about that conflict. Sanctions exposure, competing exports and different relationships with Washington further narrow the bargains each member can safely accept.

That is why the summit record must be read below the level of adjectives. Modi and Putin have agreed to deepen ties, but the consequential documents will specify financing, currencies, access rules, governance and dates. The final declaration should also preserve reservations rather than laundering them into consensus. A communiqué can announce an alternative system; only contracts, appropriations and operating rules can build one.

Expansion becomes consequential if members fund a payment mechanism, publish a schedule for testing it, assign institutions to administer it and report who actually uses it. Bilateral agreements need amounts and implementation dates, not merely another promise to deepen cooperation. If those details survive the summit photograph and appear on the follow-up calendar, US pressure may have created limited solidarity. If they do not, BRICS will remain a large constituency with a shared complaint and eleven different exit routes.