The Pulse | Diplomacy | South Asia

SCO, BRICS, Trump-Xi: What Does the Spate of Summits Mean for India?

This year’s summit season reveals conflicting visions of global order (and India’s place in it).

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the 2026 BRICS summit as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin listen, New Delhi, India, Sep. 13, 2026.

The world is once again in the midst of summit season. The conclusion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan at the start of September was followed by the BRICS Summit in New Delhi, India last week. This week’s United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York is likely to be overshadowed by the summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump on September 24. And before the year’s end, the APEC Summit will also take place in China in November followed by the United States hosting the G20 Summit in December. 

Each of these summits offers a different vision of the international order. The SCO and BRICS both represent the Global South, advocating for a more equitable distribution of power in a multipolar global order. But the SCO has traditionally offered a more anti-Western worldview relative to the non-Western worldview propagated by the BRICS. 

Reflecting this, the SCO’s Bishkek Declaration was more vocal in calling out the Israeli-U.S. attacks on Iran by “condemning military strikes” against the country, adding that “such actions violate the principles and norms of international law” and “create serious risks to international peace, security and stability.” In contrast, the BRICS’ New Delhi Declaration raised the Iran conflict without making specific reference to the actions of the United States in starting the conflict. It expressed “deep concern over the continued escalation of tensions” while calling for “maximum restraint” by all parties, as well as ensuring the “protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure,” “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of states, and maintaining the “smooth flow of global trade, supply chains and energy.”

Meanwhile, the U.N. General Assembly is increasingly seen as an outdated forum from a bygone era when universal values, norms, and rules were bywords for the state of the international order. In contrast, the Trump-Xi meeting reflects the world we are living in now with a more power-driven, “might makes right” international system.

Each vision has its own advocates. The United States under the Trump administration clearly favors power over principle, with a preference for bilateral interactions between so-called great powers. This has been reflected in Trump’s proclivity for one-on-one meetings with strongman leaders, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last August and the meeting with Xi in Beijing in May. The Trumpian worldview also favors unilateral action as noted by the so-called Donroe Doctrine, which advocates a “spheres of influence” approach toward international relations.

Meanwhile, China seeks to project an image of itself as a more responsible power compared to the United States. In doing so, it advocates for multilateralism and upholding the rules-based international order through its support for the United Nations for example. However, in reality Beijing is increasingly leaning in the direction of unilateral action through acts of economic coercion – leveraging its centrality to global supply chains, particularly in critical and emerging technologies – and gray zone tactics, as evidenced by its actions in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. It also seeks to use forums that represent the Global South to propagate its own worldviews, embedded in its four initiatives: the Global Development, Governance, Security, and Civilization........

© The Diplomat