BRICS condemns ‘unilateral economic sanctions’, stops short of naming any actors

The BRICS 2026 joint statement, adopted unanimously on September 12, 2026, condemned unilateral sanctions but did not find any mention the US-Iran war that has defined the past six months of its member nations' foreign policy. What the text itself reveals is not a stern position naming actors, but rather a vague condemnation of aggression, without attributing any agency.

This year, with the war continuing, the language has softened. The New Delhi Declaration's core passage on West Asia reads, "We express deep concern over the continued escalation of tensions in the Middle East/West Asia and, recalling our respective national positions, call for exercising maximum restraint…We encourage increasing efforts, through dialogue and diplomacy, towards a long-term understanding that will contribute to lasting peace, security and stability in the region."

No condemnation, no name or date of any specific event. Words like "concern", "tension", “escalation” feature prominently. The framing is so ambiguous that it could be applied to any conflict. It was used for a war that has stretched beyond six months and pushed the global supply chain at risk. It had drawn in the Persian Gulf, Houthis and the Red Sea.

The New Delhi Declaration mentioned the catastrophic situations unfolding in Gaza and the continued violence in the Occupied West Bank. The declaration mentioned Israel to highlight a “legal obligation to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza”. It did not mention the aggressor in the West Asia war or in the Gaza humanitarian crisis. It mentioned Israel while discussing the occupation of Lebanon, but the US did not find a single mention in the 45-page-long declaration.

Also Read: Is Europe’s shift to the far right monolithic and spontaneous?

Compared to that, in paragraph 22, BRICS leaders had no trouble reaching for the strongest word in their vocabulary. "We condemn the imposition of unilateral coercive measures that are contrary to international law," specifically naming "unilateral economic sanctions and secondary sanctions" as measures with "far-reaching negative implications" for the populations of targeted states, an indirect critique of Trump’s protectionist agenda. It also covers Cuba elsewhere in the text.

A year ago in Rio, the framing was more unambiguous. The bloc sharply rebuked the United States and Israeli bombardments of Iran in June 2025, calling them a “blatant breach of international law” while voicing strong support for the creation of a Palestinian state. However, it deliberately omitted the aggression of one of its founding members, Russia, in Ukraine. It condemned aggressive economic policies without directly naming US President Donald Trump, a standing BRICS position. The statement drew a reaction from Trump, who then warned that “anti-American policies” would face added tariffs.

The retreat could be traced back to the presence of both Iran and the UAE in the family. The BRICS foreign ministers' gathering in May ended without any joint statement. Though Iran was not particularly on a “victory lap” in New Delhi, it had already humbled the US for six months and had control over two of the most strategic maritime chokepoints in global trade. As Iran's bordering state, Abu Dhabi has taken severe hits to its US bases as well as civilian and energy infrastructure. This could have created resistance to any statement that favoured Iran.

India, as the chair, needed a consensus among every member. A statement which could be feasible for everyone to sign. According to reports, sherpas worked till 4 am before they could close the gap. The result was an exit from naming any aggressor and continuing with the acts of “deep concern” and "tensions", taking away attribution and agency. It would not offend Iran or the UAE, or its patron in the US. It is very unlikely to agitate Trump while India's trade negotiations with the US continue. But it has revealed the fault lines within the bloc and shown that the narrative of a united Global South has practical limitations.