In geopolitics, symbolism and substance often march hand in hand. The recent BRICS summit in Brazil is a case in point. While Western media largely reduced the event to a footnote, dismissing it as just another gathering of emerging economies, the joint declaration issued by the BRICS bloc signals something far more profound: the slow but undeniable erosion of Western hegemony and the ascent of a multipolar world order.

The BRICS declaration underscores what is increasingly self-evident: multipolarity is no longer an aspiration; it is a geopolitical fact. For decades, the world has operated under a system shaped by the neoliberal values of the so-called “Washington Consensus,” a system that has too often served as a thin veil for neocolonial exploitation. Today, that consensus is fracturing, and BRICS—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and now expanding to include new members like Indonesia—is emerging as one of the architects of this change.

Palestine: A Stand Long Overdue

One of the most striking features of the BRICS declaration was its unequivocal support for Palestinian statehood based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital. The bloc called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the release of hostages, and the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid. It is a position that flies in the face of Western double standards.

The contrast is instructive. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West was quick to mobilize outrage, sanctions, and military aid. Yet when Israel's bombardment of Gaza results in mass civilian casualties, the Western response is often muted, mealy-mouthed, or altogether absent. BRICS has rightly pointed out this hypocrisy, calling for adherence to international law and the dignity of all people, regardless of political alliances.

This is not merely rhetoric. The call for Palestinian self-determination harks back to the spirit of the Bandung Conference of 1955 where post-colonial nations gathered to assert their right to chart their own course free from imperial domination. In this regard, BRICS is not creating a new path but reviving an old one—one the world sorely needs to revisit.

Standing Against Economic Coercion:

Equally significant was the BRICS condemnation of U.S. protectionism and unilateral economic measures that bypass the United Nations and undermine global stability. By denouncing tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and so-called “green protectionism,” the bloc has shone a spotlight on the selective application of rules that have long skewed global trade in favor of advanced economies.

Historically, the West has preached free trade while practicing protectionism when convenient. The United States, once the greatest advocate of open markets, has in recent years weaponized tariffs as part of its broader geopolitical strategy, from the Trump administration’s trade war with China to the Biden administration’s continuation of restrictive policies under the guise of national security and environmental protection.

BRICS’s call for reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO)—including restoring its dispute settlement mechanism—underscores a collective frustration among developing nations that the current system serves the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. This is not mere economic discontent; it is a clarion call for fairness.

The Ghosts of Interventionism

The bloc’s demand for Israel to withdraw from occupied Syrian territory and its condemnation of terrorist activities in the region highlights another crucial theme: the defense of state sovereignty. Western interventions—from Iraq to Libya—have left behind a trail of shattered states and human misery, often under the pretense of democratization or humanitarian intervention. BRICS is positioning itself as an alternative voice, one that prioritizes sovereignty, non-intervention, and dialogue over military adventurism.

The recent lifting of unilateral sanctions on Syria—welcomed by BRICS—points to a recognition that punitive measures often do more harm to civilian populations than to the regimes they target. It is a nuanced position that echoes the failures of past Western interventions and the urgent need for more balanced approaches.

Ukraine: A Divided World’s Litmus Test

The BRICS condemnation of Ukraine’s attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, though controversial in Western eyes, reflects the bloc’s commitment to opposing violence against non-combatants irrespective of the actors involved. While the West’s singular focus remains on Russian aggression, BRICS seeks a more comprehensive view—one that condemns all attacks on civilians, including those committed by Ukraine.

This balanced approach may not align with Western narratives, but it reflects the bloc's insistence on consistency in international law, a principle too often sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical expediency.

Shift in Global Balance

Perhaps the most geopolitically significant development was BRICS’s expansion. The formal inclusion of Indonesia, along with the recognition of new partner countries such as Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Nigeria, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Uganda, and Uzbekistan signals a decisive shift in the global balance.

This is not an anti-Western coalition. Rather, it is a grouping of countries seeking to expand their strategic options in an increasingly polarized world. Southeast Asian nations, for example, are turning to BRICS not to reject Western ties but to diversify their economic and diplomatic engagements. This is what Fareed Zakaria once aptly called “nonalignment 2.0”—a world where smaller powers refuse to be mere pawns in great-power rivalry.

The New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement offer viable alternatives to the IMF and the World Bank, institutions that, while ostensibly neutral, have historically served Western geopolitical interests. By offering financial and infrastructural support without the usual political strings attached, BRICS is helping Global South nations regain a measure of sovereignty over their development trajectories.

Challenges and Opportunities:

None of this is to suggest that BRICS is without its internal contradictions. The South China Sea disputes, lingering mistrust between India and China, and the varying political systems of member states all pose challenges to unity. Yet the bloc’s ability to set aside differences in pursuit of common goals should not be underestimated.

The summit in Rio de Janeiro will be a litmus test for the group's future. As Southeast Asian countries deepen their engagement, the choices they make will help determine whether BRICS can evolve into a credible counterweight to Western dominance or whether it will falter under the weight of its own diversity.

The Age of Choices:

In the end, BRICS represents more than just an economic grouping; it symbolizes the emergence of agency in the Global South. For too long, the contours of the world order were drawn in the boardrooms of Washington, London, and Brussels. That era is drawing to a close.

The BRICS declaration—on Palestine, on global trade, on sovereignty—is a statement of intent: the age of choices is here. And in a world where choices abound, power is no longer the exclusive preserve of the few.

(The author is a political and strategic analyst based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmail.com)