Jinshi ten countries take a step back, the joint statement is smoothly issued, Modi's performance is very unusual.

After the BRICS countries issued a joint statement in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, various Indian media immediately began to hype Modi's "diplomatic victory" in Brazil.

Mainly, this joint statement carefully considers India's previous position regarding the wording of opposing terrorism, using the strongest language to condemn the attack that happened in Pahalgam earlier, as well as the "cross-border terrorism" that the Modi government has repeatedly mentioned recently.

【Indian media hype Modi's "diplomatic victory" in Brazil】

We can also see that at this BRICS summit, India's performance is completely different from when it was at the SCO meeting, being very cooperative on all issues, following the BRICS to condemn attacks against Iran and Gaza, and also expressing its opposition to tariff policies.

It should be noted that before the SCO condemned Israel's strike on Iran, India immediately drew a clear line, and later at the SCO defense ministers' meeting, India did not want to sign the joint communique, clearly intending to block the agenda.

Why then, at the BRICS, does India act in such a different way? There are mainly multiple reasons behind this.

Firstly, the host of this BRICS summit is Brazil, and Modi's high-profile visit to the South American country is a guest of honor of President Lula. In addition, India and Brazil have common ground on United Nations reform, and there are few geopolitical conflicts between them, so the BRICS summit hosted by Brazil, India has no reason not to support it.

【BRICS ten countries take a step back, the statement uses more moderate wording】

Moreover, next year it will be India's turn to host the BRICS summit, if Modi continues to oppose, it would not be conducive to the smooth transition of the summit, and could even make him the target of criticism.

Now, Indian media believe that since Putin is not present, China has other arrangements, Modi is the "star" of the BRICS summit. Although the host is Brazil, it seems to have become India's "home ground". Driven by this concept, Modi would not undermine himself, but rather strive to ensure the successful conclusion of the summit.

In general, the wording of this joint statement found a proper balance point among the interests of all parties. In addition to the usual deepening of cooperation, there is a common point in opposing tariffs, condemning cross-border terrorism, and criticizing the attacks on Iran and Gaza. That is, none of them are named explicitly.

For example, the BRICS countries oppose tariffs, and people outside know immediately who it refers to, but naming and not naming have significantly different effects and influences.

【Modi is Lula's "guest of honor" at this summit】

The former has a certain confrontational color. Except for India and Brazil, some newly joined members also hope that BRICS maintains its current multilateral position, rather than becoming a multilateral platform specifically opposing the United States. Therefore, the wording needs to be just enough.

Opposing terrorism is inherently unobjectionable, but India insisted on naming Pakistan, which is inappropriate. The dispute between India and Pakistan should not be expanded, causing negative impacts within the multilateral framework. If India persists in its views, it will certainly face collective resistance.

Similarly, the BRICS condemns the attacks on Iran and Gaza, but says nothing about the perpetrators, which is because some members do not want to offend the US-Israel alliance. This part is represented by India and Brazil.

Therefore, the BRICS joint statement, from negotiation to release, is a process of mutual compromise, with everyone taking a step back. Brazil's balanced position as the host has largely reconciled the differences.

【Previously, at the SCO defense ministers' meeting, India refused to sign the joint communique】

Speaking of which, why did India take a hard line at the SCO, while at the BRICS, it became more accommodating? Ultimately, it's due to Modi's utilitarianism in geopolitics.

Previously, during internal interactions within the SCO, India forcefully wanted to name another member state in the joint statement, claiming that it supported "cross-border terrorism," but to this day, it hasn't provided any concrete evidence.

It's difficult not to suspect that this is a means for the Modi government to shift internal contradictions, using the Indo-Pak issue as a lever to hinder the SCO's cooperation agenda.

Additionally, when the SCO conducted "Belt and Road" cooperation, India maintained a distance. The parts of the joint statements issued by the SCO related to the "Belt and Road" often directly omitted India's name.

It can be said that India's passive participation, or alternatively, whether or not India is involved, doesn't affect the other members of the SCO in actively connecting with the "Belt and Road."

Different from the SCO, Pakistan is not a member of the BRICS, so at Rio de Janeiro, Modi can't find an object to demonstrate strength on the counter-terrorism issue.

Also, India currently has a strong demand for the BRICS multilateral platform, which is different from the SCO. So after careful consideration, India didn't continue to oppose.

【Next year it will be India's turn to host the BRICS summit】

Overall, India's utilitarian considerations in multilateral frameworks make its interest in the SCO and BRICS constantly change dynamically, unable to look at things from a long-term perspective. This time, India is willing to cooperate with the BRICS agenda, and next year as the host, it may be quite concerned, but it doesn't mean it will be the same in the future.

When China leads the agenda, India is likely to secretly resist or be passively involved.

Don't forget, when the U.S. threatened to use sanctions and other policy tools to block the BRICS "de-dollarization" strategy, before other countries made their positions known, the Modi government was the first to give in, publicly announcing it had no intention of doing so.

This shows that India is not a reliable partner for long-term strategic interaction. On the contrary, in multilateral cooperation, India has always been an unstable factor.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7524173318958760488/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the 【like/dislike】 buttons below.