BRICS+'s Role in Imperialist Conflicts

Egypt's Trade with Israel Amidst the Conflict

Egypt has significantly increased its trade with Israel, despite the ongoing conflict and allegations of genocide. One notable example is the surge in Egyptian cement exports to Israel. According to data from the Export Council for Building Materials, these exports skyrocketed by more than 16 times in 2024, reaching USD 66.2 million from just USD 3.8 million in 2023. This increase coincides with Turkey’s suspension of cement exports to Israel in April-May 2024, which made Egypt a primary alternative supplier.

This trade relationship raises concerns about Egypt's role in enabling Israel's activities in occupied territories. The cement supplied by Egypt is being used to develop illegal settlements while simultaneously contributing to the destruction of homes and infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank. Additionally, Egypt imports gas sold by Israel, further entrenching its economic ties with the country.

In June 2025, the Egyptian government cracked down on protesters who were attempting to reach the border with Israel to demand an end to the conflict and the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza. This action highlights the government's stance on the issue and its alignment with certain international interests.

Military Cooperation Between Egypt and Israel

Egypt also maintains military cooperation with Israel, particularly in the destruction of communication tunnels between its territory and Gaza. This collaboration underscores the complex dynamics between the two nations, despite the broader regional tensions.

The Role of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in BRICS+

The UAE, a full member of BRICS+, has been involved in various military interventions across the Arabian Peninsula and Africa. In the 2010s, the UAE and Saudi Arabia were close counter-revolutionary allies opposing the Arab Spring movements. They intervened militarily in Bahrain in 2011 to quell protests. In Yemen, the UAE collaborated with Saudi Arabia from 2015 onwards to restore the ousted regime, gradually pursuing its own agenda by seeking control over parts of Yemen’s coastline.

In Libya, the UAE actively supported General Khalifa Haftar financially and with arms shipments after he launched an attack on Tripoli in 2019. In Sudan, the UAE’s involvement reflects its growing sub-imperialist tendencies, including supporting military leaders and encouraging relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords. The UAE has also been involved in Somalia, funding and training rebel forces, and in Eritrea, leasing a port and airbase to support operations in Yemen.

UAE's Influence in Africa

The UAE's influence extends to Ethiopia, where it provided drones and support to Abiy Ahmed during the Tigray war. These actions have contributed to shifting the battlefield dynamics against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The UAE has evolved from a commercial hub to an active participant in African conflicts, using a combination of weapons, drones, financial resources, and mercenaries to influence outcomes.

The UAE's Role in the Arab Region

The UAE has played a central role in suppressing democratic movements in the Arab world, opposing popular movements calling for greater social justice, and supporting authoritarian regimes. At the same time, they have pursued military and economic expansion, intervening in Yemen and Libya, establishing strategic bases, and using their wealth to consolidate regional influence. Their actions often exacerbate conflicts, strengthen authoritarian regimes, and undermine peace processes while presenting themselves as a “guarantor of stability.”

The UAE's Involvement in BRICS+

The UAE officially joined BRICS in January 2024, alongside other countries, as part of a historic expansion of the group. By joining BRICS, the UAE aims to increase its global influence and gain importance on the international stage. However, the UAE remains an ally of the United States and Israel, leveraging its membership to expand investment and trade opportunities, particularly with China.

Reaction to the UAE's Membership

Donald Trump has not publicly denounced the UAE’s membership in BRICS, despite his criticisms of the group. The founding members of BRICS invited the UAE to join to broaden their influence, considering it a significant oil and financial power with traditional ties to the United States.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey's Position in BRICS+

Saudi Arabia was invited to join BRICS as a full member but has not confirmed its membership, likely due to pressure from Washington. Turkey, also invited as a partner, is demonstrating its ability to play both sides, maintaining a geostrategic position in NATO while pursuing a relatively autonomous policy.

BRICS+ Response to Conflicts

The BRICS+ coalition has not taken concrete measures to defend Iran against attacks or address the destruction caused by the United States and Israel in Yemen. The final declaration of the Rio Summit did not name the United States and Israel as responsible for attacks against Iran, indicating a defensive stance against military offensives.

BRICS+ Stance on Syria and Lebanon

Regarding Syria, the BRICS+ welcomed the lifting of sanctions against the country but did not take a strong stance against Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights. Similarly, the BRICS+ called on Israel to respect agreements with Lebanon but did not implement any concrete measures to enforce this.

BRICS+ Position on Ukraine

The BRICS+ did not condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or NATO. While condemning Ukrainian attacks on civilians in Russian territory, they did not address Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians, allowing Trump to present himself as the sole arbiter in the conflict.

BRICS+ and NATO

The BRICS+ did not mention or criticize NATO in the final declaration of the Rio Summit, reflecting a lack of engagement with the alliance.

BRICS+ and the Conflict in Sudan

The BRICS+ called for a ceasefire in Sudan, but the UAE supports the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which are responsible for large-scale crimes against humanity. The final declaration did not address the ongoing conflict in Sudan adequately.

Other Conflict Regions

The BRICS+ final declaration did not address conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Great Lakes region, Pakistan-India over Kashmir, Myanmar, or tensions in the South China Sea and over Taiwan. The only specific point addressed was the situation in Haiti, emphasizing local leadership in resolving the crisis.

Conclusion

BRICS+ is a heterogeneous and contradictory coalition that maintains close relations with Israel and reactionary regimes. Despite claims of offering an alternative to US imperialism, it fails to take decisive measures against ongoing conflicts and genocide. The coalition allows Trump to take the lead in conflicts, while continuing to support Israel in its actions. The need for independent action by the peoples and mobilizations against the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people remains crucial.