South Africa
Source: iol.co.za

Demonstrators gather outside the Daniel Patrick Moynihan US Courthouse as ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro awaits his arraignment hearing. US special forces conducted a daring raid in Caracas, capturing Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on narco-terrorism charges, followed by announcements of prolonged US oversight of Venezuela's vast oil reserves.

AS India assumes the BRICS presidency for 2026, the grouping gains renewed relevance at a moment when multilateral diplomacy faces its sternest test. The opening week of 2026 has seen a flurry of bold US foreign policy actions under President Donald Trump.

On January 3, US special forces conducted a daring raid in Caracas, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on narco-terrorism charges, followed by announcements of prolonged US oversight of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. Just days earlier, on Christmas Day 2025, US strikes targeted alleged ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria’s Sokoto State, justified as protecting Nigerian Christians from terrorism.

Meanwhile, renewed threats to acquire Greenland, citing national security, rare earth minerals, and Arctic routes, have escalated tensions with Denmark, a NATO ally, with the White House not ruling out military options. Many nations in the Global South are searching for platforms that defend global norms.

These developments, unfolding rapidly, raise profound questions for the Global South.

Indian columnist TK Arun provides a compelling framework for understanding the current global shift. In prescient writings such as his December 31, 2025, Substack post “2026: Into the world according to Trump” and a subsequent analysis for The Core titled Trump’s Imperial Turn Leaves India With No Easy Choices, Arun characterises Trump’s foreign policy as a deliberate revival of 19th-century imperialism.

He draws a direct parallel to figures like President William McKinley, arguing that this approach actively dismantles the post-World War II rules-based order, a system built on treaties, sovereignty, and multilateralism. In its place, Arun contends, Trump is erecting a paradigm of transactional dominance where raw self-interest and resource extraction are paramount.

This thesis is crystallised in actions like the Venezuela intervention, which, though framed by Trump as a law-enforcement operation, ultimately resulted in US control over the nation’s oil exports, epitomising the new imperial logic.

Arun extends this critique to coercive economic tools, such as threats of up to 500% tariffs on nations buying Russian oil, forcing alignment or punishment. The Nigeria strikes, coordinated with local authorities but framed by Trump as a “Christmas present” to terrorists targeting Christians, risk expanding US footprints in Africa under anti-terror pretexts.

Greenland threats, Arun implies in his broader analysis of imperial resurgence, could also fracture alliances like NATO, treating sovereignty as negotiable when it suits US strategic needs.
Evaluating Arun’s insights against January 2026 realities: His warnings of imperial revival are strikingly validated. The Venezuela operation, while tactically successful in capturing Maduro (now facing trial in the US), has drawn bipartisan Senate efforts to curb Trump’s war powers.

Nigeria’s strikes killed multiple militants but sparked local debates on sovereignty and raised fears of broader African intrusion. Greenland rhetoric has prompted European solidarity with Denmark and warnings of NATO's potential crisis.

Another paradox has emerged for the Global South: Trump’s justifications, combating narco-terrorism in Venezuela, terrorism in Nigeria, and securing strategic assets in Greenland, seem compelling in regions plagued by corruption, instability, or external threats. In corrupt or failing states, decisive action by the US, promising order and accountability have tempted views of intervention as a “necessary reset”.

Arun counters this effectively, elucidating that such moves undermine sovereignty for all nations, setting dangerous precedents and destabilising the system that protects smaller states.

His core suggestion in his home country is that India should step forward to champion a rules-based global order, independently of waning US leadership. He argues that, as the world’s largest democracy with a tradition of strategic autonomy and non-alignment, India is uniquely positioned to lead this order.

This involves strengthening institutions like BRICS, building robust bilateral ties with Africa, Latin America, and other Global South regions, and transcending sectarian religious divides and class inequalities. This vision resonates with other Indian commentators, who advocate diversifying partnerships amid unreliable US policies and focusing on self-reliance to weather disruptions.
The early days of Trump’s second term have confronted the world with a stark conundrum in international diplomacy: how to uphold sovereignty and multilateral norms when a superpower increasingly acts unilaterally, justifying interventions with appeals to security, anti-corruption, and anti-terrorism while pursuing evident resource and strategic gains.

The Venezuela raid, the Nigeria strikes, and Greenland threats, all framed as necessary for global stability, illustrate this tension. Smaller nations, BRICS+ Nations and the Global South face a dilemma: condemn actions that erode the rules-based order, yet simultaneously grapple with the might of the US. In this age of Trump, diplomacy risks becoming transactional, where “might” overshadows multilateralism.

Africa, facing its own governance challenges, should prioritise internal reforms, anti-graft measures, and social cohesion to reduce vulnerabilities, inviting pretexts of invasion.

In this turbulent era, ethical and principled leadership are going to be essential. Arun’s call reminds us that survival demands not submission to might, but collective advocacy for norms that uphold human dignity and sovereignty for all.

* Phapano Phasha is the chairperson of The Centre for Alternative Political and Economic Thought.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media.

South Africa
Source: www.dailymaverick.co.zalink

Donald Trump doubled down on his threat to take Greenland from Denmark and also threatened Colombia and others despite facing criticism for the brazen attack on Venezuela.

Even as the nations of the world reacted to the audacious 3 January US military strike on Venezuela, President Donald Trump was looking beyond that country to new horizons, doubling down on his ambition to annex Greenland and threatening to attack Colombia and perhaps even Mexico if they did not curb alleged drug trafficking to the US. He also threatened a second invasion of Venezuela if its interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, did not comply with US requirements.

Countries of the Global South have generally been sharply critical of the US, calling the attack “state terrorism”, “aggression”, “hegemonic behaviour” and “crossing an unacceptable line”.

A strong US military force attacked Venezuela early on Saturday, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and transporting them to the US, where they appeared in a New York court on Monday, on several charges related to drug trafficking.

SA condemns attack

South Africa and most of its partners in the BRICS-Plus forum condemned the attack on Venezuela, while a few said very little or nothing at all.

On Monday, South Africa’s acting deputy ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Passmoor, said the US action in Venezuela “wantonly violates the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Venezuela. Once again, the belief that might is right is reinforced, and diplomacy is undermined.

“History has repeatedly demonstrated that military invasions against sovereign states yield only instability and deepen crisis,” he added, citing foreign interventions in Libya, Iraq and “countless cases in Africa”.

“South Africa stresses that allegations of internal governance challenges, human rights concerns or acts of criminality by a head of state cannot justify a breach of the [UN] Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.”

Passmoor said disputes should be resolved peacefully, including bringing a case before the International Court of Justice or seeking action from the UN Security Council.

“If we do not stand up to the sovereign rights of any nations/states being undermined and wantonly violated, then which one of us are safe or are guaranteed protection by the principles of the Charter and international law?” he asked, calling for decisive action against such violations.

Caution and criticism

The Indian foreign ministry issued a cautious statement that did not mention the US by name and merely added that “recent developments in Venezuela are a matter of deep concern…” calling on “all concerned” to address issues peacefully.

Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates, which all joined BRICS in 2023, did not react publicly.

However, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, a founding BRICS member, posted on X that the attack had “crossed an unacceptable line”, and that “attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability”.

Russia and China, also BRICS founding members, condemned the attack, which Russia called an act of armed aggression against Venezuela and added that the pretexts used to justify the strike were “indefensible”.

China’s foreign ministry slammed the “hegemonic acts” and condemned the US’s “blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president”.

Iran, which joined BRICS in 2023, said, “The US military aggression against an independent state that is a member of the UN represents a grave breach of regional and international peace and security” and would affect the entire international system.

Indonesia, the newest BRICS member, which joined in 2025, issued a milder statement, emphasising “the importance of respecting international law and the principles of the UN Charter”, but going no further.

‘Reminiscent of colonial era’

Africa was generally also cautious. North African states Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria — as well as Egypt — all failed to respond

The African Union, on Saturday, urged restraint and respect for international law, particularly the principles of state sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination under the UN charter.

Ghana issued one of the strongest African condemnations of the attack, saying the use of force violated the UN Charter. It criticised Trump’s remark that the US would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition” and that US companies would be asked to “go in”.

“These declarations are reminiscent of the colonial and imperial era. They set a dangerous precedent for the global order.”

In Venezuela’s neighbourhood, Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermúdez called the attack “state terrorism against the Venezuelan people and against our America”.

But Argentina’s right-wing President Javier Milei, a close regional ally of Trump, welcomed the development, writing on social media: “Freedom moves forward. Long live freedom.”

European response muted

Official European reactions were more muted about the US and also more critical of the Maduro regime.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, reaffirmed the EU’s long-standing position that Maduro “lacks legitimacy”, while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU supported a peaceful and democratic transition.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on X: “We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz posted on X that international law should remain the guiding framework, but that “The legal assessment of the U.S. intervention is complex and requires careful consideration.”

He accused Maduro of leading his country “into ruin”, with the country’s most recent election “rigged”, adding that like many other countries, Germany had not recognised his presidency.

France was more critical of the US action, saying, “No lasting political solution can be imposed from outside” and expressing concern about the increase in violations of the principle of non-use of force by permanent members of the UN Security Council.”

The French foreign ministry statement also condemned “the authoritarian excesses” of the Maduro regime, adding that “the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro was not based on any credible democratic foundation”, and noting that the results of the last presidential elections on 28 July 2024 had never been published.

Spain was the most critical European country. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said on X on Saturday: “Spain did not recognize the Maduro regime. But neither will it recognize an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence.”

Ukraine’s foreign minister said his country “has consistently defended the right of nations to live freely, free of dictatorship, oppression, and human rights violations”, accusing the Maduro government of “violating all such principles in every respect”.

UN voices concern

In a debate on the crisis in the UN Security Council on Monday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply concerned about the possible intensification of instability in the country, the potential impact on the region, and the precedent it may set for how relations between and among states are conducted”.

In remarks delivered by Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo, Guterres noted that the panel of electoral experts which he had appointed had highlighted serious issues in Venezuela’s 2024 elections.

“We have consistently called for full transparency and the complete publication of the results of the elections,” he said. He added that the Office of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights had catalogued “serious violations”.
But he said he was deeply concerned that rules of international law had not been respected in the US attack on Venezuela on 3 January.

He noted that the UN Charter prohibited the use of force or the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Guterres said the situation in Venezuela was critical, but it was still possible to prevent a wider and more destructive conflagration.

He called on all Venezuelans to engage in “an inclusive, democratic dialogue in which all sectors of society can determine their future”.

He added that he was ready to support all efforts aimed at assisting Venezuelans in finding a peaceful way forward.
The meeting ended without any resolution or statement, presumably because member states were aware that the US would have vetoed anything which criticised its attack on Venezuela.

Trump’s next targets?

Trump shrugged off all criticism and appeared to be looking to new horizons of conquest.

After the Venezuela attack, he told The Atlantic: “We do need Greenland, absolutely”, claiming that the island — a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark — was “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships”.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded on Sunday that Washington had “no right to annex” Greenland and strongly urged the US “to stop the threats against a historically close ally”.

She added that Greenlanders had made it clear they were “not for sale”, that Denmark was part of Nato and that a defence agreement with the US already gave Washington “wide access to Greenland”.

Meanwhile, Katie Miller, the wife of Trump’s powerful adviser Stephen Miller, posted provocatively on X a map of Greenland, covered by the US flag under the caption “SOON”.

In his Sunday remarks to reporters on Air Force One, Trump also threatened Colombia, Cuba, Iran and Mexico. He particularly targeted Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying: “Colombia is very sick, too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States. And he’s not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you.”
Asked if he meant there would be military action against Colombia, Trump said, “Sounds good to me. Yeah.”

He also warned Mexico to stop alleged drug trafficking to the US.

Petro responded on X: “Stop slandering me, Mr Trump” and called on Latin America to unite against the US, saying that the region risked being “treated as a servant and slave”. DM

South Africa
Source: www.dailymaverick.co.za

Ukrainian Association protests in Simon’s Town against Russian navy’s participation in Will for Peace
The SA Navy will join warships from China, Russia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran in practising maritime safety and protection operations.

Warships from China, Russia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been arriving in False Bay for the joint naval exercise Will for Peace, which South Africa is hosting from 9-16 January.

The Ukrainian Association of South Africa mounted a protest in Simon’s Town on Friday, calling on South Africa to immediately stop military cooperation with Russia. It said “the Russian Navy is directly involved in the russification, indoctrination and militarisation of Ukrainian children” who had been abducted from Ukrainian territory.

It also pointed out that the International Criminal Court (ICC) had on 25 June 2024 issued an arrest warrant for Russian Admiral Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov for directing the naval bombardment of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure when he was commander of the Black Sea Fleet.

The association also noted that after several months of efforts by Pretoria, Russia had still not freed the 17 South Africans who had been lured to fight for Russia in Ukraine and remained trapped on the frontline.

“It is the height of cynicism to involve the Russian Navy in a training called ‘Will for Peace’ while Russia has waged an imperial war against Ukraine for more than 12 years,” said Dzvinka Kachur from the Ukrainian Association of South Africa. “A force that bombs cities, occupies territory, deports and militarises children, and recruits vulnerable African citizens into its military aggression wants to bring similar ‘peace’ to South Africa?”

The SA Navy has described this as an exercise of the Brics-Plus group of 10 nations, but has not said which ones will participate.

So far the Chinese guided missile destroyer Tangshan (No 122); the Chinese replenishment ship Taihu (No 889); the Russian corvette Stoikiy (No 545); the Russian oil tanker Yelnya; the Iranian corvette IRIS Naghdi (No 82); the Iranian forward base ship IRIS Makran (No 441); the Iranian expeditionary base ship IRIS Shahid Mahdavi (No 110-3); and the UAE corvette Bani Yas (No 110) have arrived in False Bay.

The Democratic Alliance has protested that conducting military exercises with these three countries undermines South Africa’s supposed non-aligned global posture and that BRICS is not supposed to have a defence function.

One of the pictures we used in this photo essay was miscredited. We apologise for the error and have taken it down.
DM
This story was updated on Friday, 9 January 2025, to include the Ukrainian Association of South Africa’s protest.

Israel
Source: www.jpost.com

China, Russia, Iran start 'BRICS Plus' naval exercises in South African watersBRICS Plus is an expansion of a geopolitical bloc originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - and seen by members as a counterweight to the US.A Russian vessel arrives at the Simon's Town

China, Russia, and Iran began a week of joint naval exercises in South Africa's waters on Saturday in what the host country described as a BRICS Plus operation to "ensure the safety of shipping and maritime economic activities."

BRICS Plus is an expansion of a geopolitical bloc originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - and seen by members as a counterweight to US and Western economic dominance - to include six other countries.

Though South Africa routinely carries out naval exercises with China and Russia, it comes at a time of heightened tensions between US President Donald Trump's administration and several BRICS Plus countries, including China, Iran, South Africa, and Brazil.

The expanded BRICS group also includes Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Chinese military officials leading the opening ceremony said Brazil, Egypt, and Ethiopia participated as observers.

"Exercise WILL FOR PEACE 2026 brings together navies from BRICS Plus countries for ... joint maritime safety operations (and) interoperability drills," South Africa's military said in a statement.
Lieutenant Colonel Mpho Mathebula, acting spokesperson for joint operations, told Reuters all members had been invited.

Trump calls BRICS policies 'anti-American'

Trump has accused the BRICS nations of pursuing "anti-American" policies, and last January threatened all members with a 10% trade tariff on top of duties he was already imposing on countries across the world.

The pro-Western Democratic Alliance, the second-largest party in President Cyril Ramaphosa's coalition, said the exercises "contradict our stated neutrality" and that BRICS had "rendered South Africa a pawn in the power games being waged by rogue states on the international stage."
Mathebula rejected that criticism.

"This is not a political arrangement ... there is no hostility (towards the US)," Mathebula told Reuters, pointing out that South Africa has also periodically carried out exercises with the US Navy.

"It's a naval exercise. The intention is for us to improve our capabilities and share information," she said.

USA
Source: abcnews.go.com

Chinese, Russian and Iranian warships arrive in South Africa for naval drills as tensions run high
Chinese, Russian and Iranian warships are in South African waters for a week of naval drills as geopolitical tensions run high over the United States’ intervention in Venezuela

CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- Chinese, Russian and Iranian warships arrived in South African waters for a week of naval drills starting Friday off the coast of Cape Town as geopolitical tensions run high over the United States' intervention in Venezuela and its move to seize tankers carrying Venezuelan oil.

The Chinese-led drills were organized last year under the BRICS bloc of developing nations and South Africa's armed forces said they will bring members of the bloc together to practice maritime safety and anti-piracy operations and “deepen cooperation.”

China, Russia and South Africa are longtime members of BRICS, while Iran joined the group in 2024.
The Iranian navy was taking part in the drills while protests grow back home against the Islamic Republic's leadership.

It was not immediately clear if other countries from the BRICS group — which also includes Brazil, India and the United Arab Emirates among others — would take part in the drills. A spokesperson for the South African armed forces said he wasn't yet able to confirm all the countries participating in the drills, which are due to run until next Friday.

Chinese, Russian and Iranian ships have been seen moving into and out of the harbour that serves South Africa's top naval base in Simon's Town, south of Cape Town, where the Indian Ocean meets the Atlantic Ocean. China's ships include the Tangshan, a 161-meter (528-foot) -long destroyer class vessel.

South Africa also hosted Chinese and Russian ships for navy drills in 2023.

The latest drills were meant to happen in late November but were delayed for diplomatic reasons because South Africa hosted Western and other world leaders for the Group of 20 summit around the same time.

The drills are bound to further strain ties between the U.S. and South Africa, which is the most advanced economy in Africa and a leading voice for the continent but has been especially targeted for criticism by the Trump administration.

U.S. President Donald Trump said in an executive order in February that South Africa supports "bad actors on the world stage" and singled out its ties with Iran as one of the reasons for the U.S. cutting funding to the country. China and Russia have often used BRICS forums to launch criticism of the U.S. and the West.

South Africa has long claimed it follows a nonaligned foreign policy and remains neutral, but Russian presence on the southern tip of Africa has strained its relationship with the U.S. before. The Biden administration accused South Africa in 2023 of allowing a sanctioned Russian ship to dock at the Simon's Town naval base and load weapons to be taken to Russia for the war in Ukraine. South Africa denied the allegation.

South Africa's willingness to host Russian and Iranian warships has also been criticized inside the country. The Democratic Alliance, the second biggest political party in the coalition government, said it was opposed to hosting drills that included “heavily sanctioned” Russia and Iran.

“Calling these drills ‘BRICS cooperation’ is a political trick to soften what is really happening: Government is choosing closer military ties with rogue and sanctioned states such as Russia and Iran,” the Democratic Alliance said.

Qatar
Source: www.aljazeera.com

South Africa is hosting the BRICS exercises, but two founding members are not participating amid tensions with the US.

New Delhi, India – Joint naval drills involving several members of the BRICS bloc, including China, Russia and Iran, have kicked off near South Africa’s coast with South Africa describing the manoeuvres as a vital response to rising maritime tensions globally.

The weeklong Will for Peace 2026 exercises, which started on Saturday, are being led by China in Simon’s Town, where the Indian Ocean meets the Atlantic Ocean. They will include drills on rescue and maritime strike operations and technical exchanges, China’s Ministry of National Defence said.

The drills involving warships from the participating countries come amid frayed ties between South Africa and the United States. Washington sees the bloc as an economic threat.

The BRICS acronym is derived from the initial letters of the founding member countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – with South Africa serving as the current chair. India and Brazil, however, opted out of the drills.

So why do the drills matter, and what is their aim? And why are some founding members not participating?

Who is participating in the drills?

China and Iran sent destroyers, Russia and the United Arab Emirates sent corvettes and South Africa deployed a mid-sized frigate.

Chinese officials leading the opening ceremony on Saturday south of Cape Town said Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and Ethiopia were joining the drills as observers.
Advertisement

Speaking at the ceremony, South Africa’s joint task force commander, Captain Nndwakhulu Thomas Thamaha, said the drills were more than a military exercise and a statement of intent among the BRICS group of nations.

The host country described this as a BRICS Plus operation aimed at ensuring “the safety of shipping and maritime economic activities”. BRICS Plus is an expansion that enables the geopolitical bloc to engage with and court additional countries beyond its core members.

South African officials said all members of the bloc were invited to the drills.

Iran joined the group in 2024. The bloc was simultaneously expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Why do the drills matter?

South Africa has previously carried out naval drills with China and Russia.

“It is a demonstration of our collective resolve to work together,” Thamaha said. “In an increasingly complex maritime environment, cooperation such as this is not an option. It is essential.”

The South African Department of Defence said in a statement that this year’s exercise “reflects the collective commitment of all participating navies to safeguard maritime trade routes, enhance shared operational procedures and deepen cooperation in support of peaceful maritime security initiatives”.
The ongoing exercises come amid heightened geopolitical tensions. They started just three days after the United States seized a Venezuela-linked Russian oil tanker in the North Atlantic, saying it had violated Western sanctions.

The seizure followed a US military operation that abducted President Nicolas Maduro from the capital, Caracas, with his wife, Cilia Flores and a pledge from US President Donald Trump to “run” Venezuela and exploit its vast oil reserves.

The Trump administration has also threatened military action against countries such as Cuba, Colombia and Iran and the semiautonomous Danish territory Greenland.

How does Trump see BRICS?

Trump has accused some BRICS members of pursuing “anti-American” policies.

While Washington’s relations continue to be sour with China and Russia, Trump has attacked Iran and imposed punishing tariffs on India, which it has accused of funding Russia’s war against Ukraine by buying Russian oil.

After taking office in January 2025, Trump had threatened all the BRICS members with an additional 10 percent tariff.

“When I heard about this group from BRICS, six countries, basically, I hit them very, very hard. And if they ever really form in a meaningful way, it will end very quickly,” Trump said in July before the annual summit of the developing nations. “We can never let anyone play games with us.”

In their joint statement from July, the BRICS leaders took a defiant tone and called out global concern over a “rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” without naming the US and condemned the military strikes on Iran.

Who opted out of the joint drills and why?

Two of the founding members of the BRICS alliance, India and Brazil, are not participating in the naval drills.

While Brasilia joined the exercises as an observer, New Delhi stayed away.

Since Trump returned to the White House, New Delhi has seen its stock crash in Washington.
India’s purchase of Russian oil is among the biggest flashpoints in their bilateral ties with a trade deal hanging in the balance. Trump has imposed 50 percent tariff on Indian goods – the highest in the world. According to media reports, Trump has okayed a new bill that will hike the tariff to up to 500 percent. And last week, the US withdrew from the India-led International Solar Alliance (ISA).
For New Delhi, opting out of the drills is “about balancing ties with the US”, said Harsh Pant, a geopolitical analyst at the New Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation. “But these so-called wargames are also not the BRICS mandate.”

BRICS essentially is not a military alliance but an intergovernmental partnership of developing nations focused on economic cooperation and trade aimed at breaking an overreliance on the West.
Pant told Al Jazeera that for China, Russia, Iran and to some extent South Africa, the joint military exercise “helps [a narrative] about positioning themselves vis-a-vis the US at this juncture”.

“India would prefer not to be tagged in the BRICS wargames,” Pant said, adding that New Delhi would also not be comfortable with the gradual evolution of BRICS’s foundational nature. “This is not really something that India can take forward, both pragmatically and normatively.”

On top of that, Pant argued, there are key differences between countries in BRICS Plus – like the UAE and Iran, or Egypt and Iran – for the bloc to become a formidable military alliance.
When did South Africa last host joint drills?

South Africa conducted Exercise Mosi, as it was previously called, twice with Russia and China.
The first Exercise Mosi, which means “smoke” in the Sesotho language, took place in November 2019. The second iteration, Exercise Mosi II, was held in February 2023, coinciding with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

South Africa had faced heat from the West for hosting the joint drills then.

A third edition was scheduled for late 2025, but it overlapped with a Group of 20 summit that was held in South Africa in November. Washington did not send any delegates. The ongoing Will for Peace 2026, now rebranded, is the third edition of the drills.

What’s at stake for South Africa?

The exercises in South African waters will likely further raise tensions with Washington.
Since Trump took office again, South Africa-US ties have deteriorated over a range of issues, and Trump has imposed 30 percent tariffs on South African goods.

A part of the fallout is also rooted in the South African government’s decision to bring a genocide case against Israel, a top US ally, before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It accuses the Israeli government of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In a preliminary ruling, the world court found it plausible that Israeli actions amounted to genocide.

When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the White House in May, hoping to mend ties, Trump falsely claimed that white South African farmers were facing systematic killings.

Ramaphosa rejected the claims. None of South Africa’s political parties says there is a “white genocide” happening in the country as the Trump administration claims.

Hosting the wargames at a time of global geopolitical upheaval has its own risks, given that the US sees some of the participants as a military threat.

Ramaphosa’s government also faces criticism from one of its largest coalition partners, the liberal Democratic Alliance (DA). A DA spokesperson, Chris Hattingh, said in a statement that the bloc has no defensive role or shared military plans to warrant such exercises.

The party said BRICS had “rendered South Africa a pawn in the power games being waged by rogue states on the international stage”.