BRICS should aim at common, cooperative, sustainable security

As senior officials gathered in New Delhi this week for the 16th Meeting of BRICS National Security Advisors and High Representatives on National Security, an undercurrent was the mounting resolve among developing countries to reject their long-assigned place "on the menu".

Representing nearly half the global population and about 40 percent of the world's GDP, the grouping has evolved from a coordination mechanism for its founding members into one of the most important platforms for the Global South to amplify its voice and influence. Its growing focus on security cooperation indicates that countries long relegated to the margins of global security governance are no longer content to be at someone's mercy.

That broader transformation formed the backdrop to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit to New Delhi for the security meeting.

The series of bilateral meetings Wang had with officials from different countries on the sidelines of the BRICS gathering, including India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, Deputy Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Qadir Nizamipour and South Africa's Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, show China's commitment to enhancing communication and coordination with the BRICS members.

A common thread ran through those discussions. In a world facing mounting security challenges, closer cooperation and coordination are essential.

BRICS members increasingly see themselves as stakeholders in a multipolar international order. Security should encompass economic resilience, social stability and human well-being.

BRICS therefore serves as a builder of multilateralism at a moment when the practice is under strain. The grouping's appeal lies in its rejection of the old either-or logic that has long dominated geopolitics and its upholding of dialogue instead of confrontation, partnership instead of bloc politics, and cooperation instead of containment. In an age seemingly defined by polarization, such common-sense ideas should prevail.

Just as importantly, BRICS should champion political solutions to international disputes.

Too many crises today are framed through the lens of military options before diplomatic ones have been exhausted. Lasting peace cannot be imposed; it must be negotiated. That requires respecting legitimate security concerns, seeking common ground and refusing to allow disagreements to become permanent barriers.

The larger question hanging over global politics is who gets to write the rules. BRICS is a defender of fairness and justice in a system that was designed without the full participation of developing countries. The grouping advocates a more representative multipolar order and a more inclusive form of globalization — one that reflects today's realities rather than yesterday's hierarchies.

Underlying much of this vision is China's Global Security Initiative, which calls for common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. Its central premise is difficult to dismiss: in an interconnected world, security cannot be hoarded by a few and denied to the many.

The conversations in New Delhi suggest that, despite the grouping's differences on some issues, its members are increasingly inclined toward a common understanding that BRICS should evolve into a force promoting a more balanced international order through cooperation.

BRICS members should strengthen security cooperation by managing internal security matters effectively and delivering visible results in both traditional security and nontraditional areas such as technology governance and counterterrorism.

The overextension of "security" by some countries, however, is becoming an excuse to weaponize economic and trade policies — a dangerous trend that warrants collective attention.

Security challenges today are inextricably linked — no country can be secure at the expense of another. The only viable path forward is common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security, grounded in respect for sovereignty and a commitment to dialogue over confrontation.