BRICS meeting in Rio ends without joint statement due to UN Security Council reform agenda

The first BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting after the bloc’s expansion took place on April 28 and 29. Hosted in Rio de Janeiro and chaired by Brazil, the meeting covered topics such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and COP 30. Despite the friendly atmosphere during the discussions, the event failed to reach a final agreement due to the lack of consensus on the topic of reforming the United Nations Security Council.

Multilateral cooperation has come under the spotlight in recent weeks with the first BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting following the group’s expansion. Initially made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the bloc underwent a reform in 2024 to include six more emerging economies: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Iran.

The meeting took place on April 28 and 29 in Rio de Janeiro, in preparation for the BRICS Leaders’ Summit to be held in July in the same city. The April meeting was restricted to the participation of foreign ministers and sherpas, who are diplomats appointed to align the following discussions in July.

During the sessions, topics such as global and regional crises, the reform of international institutions and the role of the Global South in multilateralism were addressed. In addition, the ambassadors discussed the functions of the NDB, in which its leading role in financing industrialization in the Global South was highlighted. The NDB, therefore, figures in the new order that is being shaped by the group, as an alternative to institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, which have historically been based on the logic of Northern countries, not aligned with the realities of emerging countries.

Brazil holds the rotating presidency of the bloc, and was responsible for coordinating the work of the event. In his opening speech, Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said that “BRICS has a vital role to play in strengthening the principles of international law, supporting the peaceful settlement of disputes and promoting the reform of multilateral institutions, in particular the United Nations and its Security Council, to better reflect contemporary geopolitical realities”.

The reform of the UNSC is a prominent topic, due to the different positions of the countries on the changes that should be made to the body. For this reason, the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting did not reach a joint statement at the end of the event, issuing only a statement from the presidency, made by Ambassador Mauro Vieira. The communiqué circumvented the lack of agreement on the UNSC topic, focusing on issues on which there was consensus, such as climate challenges and criticism of the tariff war.

The need to reform the UNSC

The Security Council currently has fifteen members. Five are permanent members, established when the UN Charter was created in 1945. Called the P5, the group is made up of China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia. They have special powers within the body, such as the power to veto any resolution.

The other (non-permanent) members serve on a rotating basis, elected by the UN General Assembly for two-year terms. In terms of geographical division, five seats are reserved for Africa and Asia, two for Latin America, one for Eastern Europe, and two for Western Europe and other states. According to the UN, more than 50 member states of the organization have never been elected to the UNSC. A member state of the UN, but not of the Council, can take part in discussions when the body considers that its interests are affected, but without the right to vote.

This institutional arrangement has already been questioned several times by the international community, as it is considered outdated in the face of new geopolitical configurations that no longer reflect the effects frozen by the post-World War II context. Several countries, such as the BRICS members, are demanding more space in the decision-making process, through reform proposals to recompose the structure of permanent and non-permanent members.

However, the lack of consensus on what this new structure should look like has made it impossible to mobilize a single proposal for change. As a result, UNSC reform remains stuck, with the agenda reduced to long and repetitive negotiations, without formal changes.

The proposals within BRICS

The first mention of reform came in a joint statement after the third BRICS summit, held in 2011 in Sanya, China. The statement reaffirmed the need to change the multilateral order in order to be more representative and effective in tackling today’s global challenges.

Despite representing different interests and motivations, the founding countries of the BRICS had a certain consensus on some points: the UNSC needs to be reformed to ensure greater visibility for emerging countries. The current order does not represent everyone’s interests, freezing a configuration of the international system that is no longer as relevant as it was in the context in which it was founded.

BRICS has two permanent seats on the UNSC, with China and the United Kingdom. Before the group’s expansion, the reform advocated sought more prominence for the other members – South Africa, Brazil and India. The three countries make up the India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), with an interest in securing a fixed position within the Council.

It’s worth noting that India and Brazil are also part of the G-4, along with Germany and Japan, who are pushing for permanent seats in the body. The group is responsible for the most notable proposal in recent years, which called for a change from fifteen to twenty-five total members, including six new permanent members, without veto power, and four rotating members.

Another group that stands out in the reform negotiations is the African Union. The proposal of the so-called African Consensus, or Ezulwini Consensus, is similar to that of the G-4: six more permanent members and five more non-permanent members, with a total of twenty-six members. The permanent members, however, would have the power of veto. It should be noted that South Africa’s participation in IBSA and the African Union is a point of conflict, as its position in favor of the BRICS countries breaks the African Consensus.

With eleven members, the BRICS debate is now focused on reconciling divergent proposals. The entry of countries like Egypt and Ethiopia brings to light the African Union’s declared position. The nations question South Africa’s natural candidacy as the region’s representative, which diverges from the consensus around the arrangement structured by the founding countries.

Ambassador Mauro Vieira said that the countries of the African Union “have a very specific position, which Brazil recognizes, adopts and approves of, and so do several other countries”. UNSC reform is a long topic that has been dragging on for more than two decades. The different views on who should enter and how they should enter the body make general consensus impossible, as has been observed in discussions on the subject.

The expansion of the group favors the countries in certain areas, such as the strengthening of multilateral trade and the possibilities of confronting the unilateral policies adopted by countries in the Global North. However, it also has its costs, such as the deadlock over the reform of international institutions, which is so central to the bloc’s debates. The BRICS needs to negotiate the issue carefully, so that there is finally a consensus declaration at the July summit.