Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt

In an extensive article signed by Eric Toussaint in the digital mouthpiece of the ‘Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt’, the Belgian historian and political scientist raises, providing all kinds of data, sources and statistics, several extremely uncomfortable but also fundamental questions:

Why have the BRICS BRICS The term BRICS (an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) was first used in 2001 by Jim O’Neill, then an economist at Goldman Sachs. The strong economic growth of these countries, combined with their important geopolitical position (these 5 countries bring together almost half the world’s population on 4 continents and almost a quarter of the world’s GDP) make the BRICS major players in international economic and financial activities. countries not openly condemned what many describe as genocide in Gaza?

Why do many of the founding countries of this organisation not only maintain privileged trade relations with the State of Israel, but also supply it with weapons that it will then use to bomb Gaza?

Through an in-depth and extraordinarily well-documented analysis, Toussaint shows us the flagrant contradictions between the discourse and practice of these emerging capitalist powers. Although the BRICS present themselves as an alternative to Western power, their response to the Palestinian tragedy has been lukewarm, evasive and, in many cases, complicit.

To understand this phenomenon, Éric Toussaint advises us to look closely at the individual positions of its most prominent members: China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa.

Each of them has a particular relationship with Israel, and these relationships are marked by economic, geopolitical and military interests that explain, though do not justify, their passivity or ambiguity in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Palestine.

China: the Strategic Silence of Israel’s Largest Supplier
China is currently Israel’s largest trading Market activities
trading Buying and selling of financial instruments such as shares, futures, derivatives, options, and warrants conducted in the hope of making a short-term profit. partner. This relationship has grown stronger year after year. According to Toussaint, Chinese exports to Israel rose from $13 billion in 2022 to nearly $19 billion in 2024, and in 2025 they continued to grow.

In other words, while military operations were being carried out in Gaza with thousands of civilian casualties, bilateral trade not only continued uninterrupted, but prospered.

Drones sold by Chinese companies are being used by the Israeli army to commit war crimes against Palestinians.

Even more worrying is the fact that Chinese-made technological products, such as drones manufactured by companies such as Autel Robotics and DJI, are being used by the Israeli army in actions that international organisations such as Euro-Med Monitor have denounced as war crimes.

These drones, originally designed for civilian use, have been modified to drop explosives on densely populated areas, causing civilian deaths, including children.

Despite repeated warnings from the UN and recommendations for companies to act in accordance with international law, the Chinese authorities have not taken measures to prevent this type of commercial practice. Nor have they publicly questioned Israel. At the 2025 BRICS Summit, China avoided using any strong terms such as ‘genocide’ or ‘ethnic cleansing.’

Russia: ambiguous diplomacy and opaque relations
Russia’s stance is another example of deliberate ambiguity. Although Vladimir Putin maintains a critical rhetoric towards the West and presents himself as a defender of a multipolar international order, he has not condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. Moreover, the relationship between Putin and Netanyahu is described as cordial and even friendly.

Russia has also not severed its trade relations with Israel. Despite the war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed by the West, trade between Russia and Israel not only continued but recovered after a slight decline. In 2024, it reached $3.9 billion. Israel continues to import grain, oil, gas and coal from Russia and to export high value-added products such as medical and chemical technology.
Between 2023 and 2024, soldiers with dual Russian-Israeli nationality participated in military operations in Gaza. At least 500 of them were involved and nine were killed

Another disturbing fact revealed in Eric Toussaint’s article-report is that between 2023 and 2024, soldiers with dual Russian-Israeli nationality participated in military operations in Gaza. At least 500 of them were involved and nine were killed. The Russian authorities have not issued any criticism of this participation.

Furthermore, Russia has refused to join South Africa’s lawsuit before the International Court of Justice and has not supported the Hague group promoting sanctions and blockades against Israel.

All this indicates that, for Moscow, its geostrategic interests take precedence over actively defending human rights in Palestine.

India: the arms alliance with Israel
The case of India, another of the founding members of BRICS, is particularly alarming.

Since the far-right Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, the country has been strengthening its ties with Israel, both militarily and economically. Bilateral trade is worth around $10 billion, and India has become the main buyer of Israeli arms, accounting for 37% of its exports in this sector.

While Gaza was being bombed, Indian companies continued to send arms to Israel. Among them are companies such as Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems and Munitions India Ltd. At the same time, India continued to receive Israeli missiles, drones and defence systems without interruption.

In April 2025, the Indian government even abstained in a UN vote calling for a ceasefire and an arms embargo against Israel.

Narendra Modi has also changed India’s historical approach to Palestine. He was the first Indian head of government to visit Israel without stopping in the Palestinian territories, marking an important symbolic shift. Internally, the Hindu right has promoted a narrative that delegitimises solidarity with the Palestinian people, thus reinforcing the state’s pro-Israeli orientation.

South Africa: between denunciation and contradiction
South Africa is the BRICS country that has taken the most critical stance against Israel. It was the first to file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice for genocide, an action that sets an important precedent at the international level. It has also promoted the creation of the ‘Hague group,’ together with other countries of the global South, in order to coordinate legal and diplomatic actions against Israeli policies.

However, this courageous attitude coexists with a serious contradiction: South Africa continues to export coal to Israel. According to some sources, 15% of the coal used by the Israeli state comes from South Africa. This export continues despite complaints, based on unconvincing commercial and legal arguments, such as compliance with WTO WTO
World Trade Organisation The WTO, founded on 1^st January 1995, replaced the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). The main innovation is that the WTO enjoys the status of an international organization. Its role is to ensure that no member States adopt any kind of protectionism whatsoever, in order to accelerate the liberalization global trading and to facilitate the strategies of the multinationals. It has an international court (the Dispute Settlement Body) which judges any alleged violations of its founding text drawn up in Marrakesh.

rules.

Professor Patrick Bond Bond A bond is a stake in a debt issued by a company or governmental body. The holder of the bond, the creditor, is entitled to interest and reimbursement of the principal. If the company is listed, the holder can also sell the bond on a stock-exchange. has been one of the most vocal critics of this inconsistency, pointing out that many countries have disobeyed international trade rules when it comes to human rights issues without facing significant reprisals. As UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese concludes, supplying energy to a country that uses it in a war of occupation and extermination can make suppliers complicit in international crimes.

Brazil: a late change full of ambiguities
Brazil’s foreign policy has undergone significant ups and downs depending on the government in power. Under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, relations with Israel became particularly close. With the arrival of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to power in 2023, changes were expected, especially with regard to respect for human rights and solidarity with oppressed peoples. However, until July 2025, Brazil had not taken a strong position in defence of the Palestinian people.

It was not until the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro in July 2025 that the Brazilian government announced its intention to join a future international lawsuit against Israel. Although this decision is welcome, it comes late and is not accompanied, at least for now, by concrete measures such as the suspension of trade agreements or the cessation of exports that could benefit the Israeli military apparatus.
Brazil maintains important economic ties with Israel, both commercially and in terms of technology and military. Despite its progressive rhetoric, Lula’s government has maintained normal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and has not proposed sanctions or embargoes

Brazil maintains important economic ties with Israel, both commercially and in terms of technology and military. Despite its progressive rhetoric, Lula’s government has maintained normal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and has not proposed sanctions or embargoes, either within the framework of BRICS or unilaterally.

This behaviour reflects an uncomfortable reality: although many governments in the Global South verbally express their solidarity with Palestine, in practice they do not take decisions that really alter the status quo. The economy, geopolitical interests and international pressures weigh infinitely more heavily than principles.

BRICS as a group: between rhetoric and action
One of the most important criticisms in Eric Toussaint’s article is that, as a bloc, the BRICS have not acted in a unified or decisive manner to denounce what is happening in Gaza. The final declaration of their July 2025 summit did not mention the words ‘genocide’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ or even “massacre”. They merely expressed their ‘concern about the excessive use of force’, repeating diplomatic formulas with no real consequences.

This is particularly striking when we consider that the BRICS countries represent nearly half of the world’s population, 40% of fossil fuel reserves and a substantial share Share A unit of ownership interest in a corporation or financial asset, representing one part of the total capital stock. Its owner (a shareholder) is entitled to receive an equal distribution of any profits distributed (a dividend) and to attend shareholder meetings. of global GDP GDP
Gross Domestic Product Gross Domestic Product is an aggregate measure of total production within a given territory equal to the sum of the gross values added. The measure is notoriously incomplete; for example it does not take into account any activity that does not enter into a commercial exchange. The GDP takes into account both the production of goods and the production of services. Economic growth is defined as the variation of the GDP from one period to another. . If they wanted to, they could exert significant pressure on Israel, particularly by cutting off trade relations or suspending the supply of energy inputs essential to maintaining the Israeli economy and military apparatus.

BRICS defend a capitalist, productivist and extractivist economic model. And in this model, trade relations, market stability and access to technology and resources take priority over the defence of human rights

But they do not. And this inaction cannot be explained solely by ‘diplomatic prudence’ or respect for multilateralism. As Toussaint points out, these countries ultimately defend a capitalist, productivist and extractivist economic model. And in this model, trade relations, market stability and access to technology and resources take priority over the defence of human rights.

Furthermore, Western powers—especially the United States—continue to play a central role in world politics. Many countries in the Global South, including members of the BRICS, fear reprisals or isolation if they openly align themselves against Israel, a strategic ally of Washington.

What alternatives exist?
Faced with this situation, it is legitimate to ask: what can the peoples of the world do in the face of their governments’ passivity? Eric Toussaint’s article offers some clues. On the one hand, citizen mobilisations such as university occupations, street demonstrations and boycott campaigns are highlighted. In some cases, these actions have succeeded in halting agreements or generating political pressure.

On the other hand, he highlights the role of legal initiatives, such as lawsuits before the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. Although these avenues are slow and complex, they allow legal precedents to be set and crimes to be documented that would otherwise go unpunished.

Finally, it is essential to promote critical awareness that allows for an understanding of the structural causes of the conflict. The war in Palestine is not an isolated phenomenon, but the result of decades of colonialism, apartheid, military occupation, and systematic dispossession. And as long as the international system allows economic and military interests to prevail over human rights, these tragedies will continue to occur.

A historical opportunity wasted
The war in Gaza is one of the most documented and denounced conflicts of the 21^st century. Every day, new evidence comes to light showing the magnitude of civilian suffering, the destruction of basic infrastructure and the systematic violation of international law. In the face of this, the passivity of the BRICS countries is unacceptable.

China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have the power — economic, diplomatic and symbolic — to make a difference. But so far, they have preferred to protect their interests rather than defend justice. Their rhetoric about a ‘new world order’ rings hollow if it is not accompanied by coherent action.

Beyond summits and official communiqués, what is at stake is the lives of millions of people. Every drone sold, every barrel of oil exported, every shipment of coal sent contributes to sustaining a machinery of death that has been operating for decades. And that cannot and must not be ignored.

Toussaint’s message to ‘those on the left who have illusions about the BRICS’
Based on all the data provided in his report, Toussaint concludes by stating that:

‘For those on the left who harbour illusions about the BRICS’ willingness to take clear initiatives in favour of the people, the latest summit and their attitude as a bloc towards the genocide in Gaza and their relations with Israel should help to open their eyes.’

In a follow-up to this report, according to historian Eric Toussaint, it will be possible to see how the BRICS leaders support the capitalist mode of production that has led us to the current disaster. The BRICS are in favour of maintaining the international financial architecture (with the IMF IMF
International Monetary Fund Along with the World Bank, the IMF was founded on the day the Bretton Woods Agreements were signed. Its first mission was to support the new system of standard exchange rates.

When the Bretton Wood fixed rates system came to an end in 1971, the main function of the IMF became that of being both policeman and fireman for global capital: it acts as policeman when it enforces its Structural Adjustment Policies and as fireman when it steps in to help out governments in risk of defaulting on debt repayments.

As for the World Bank, a weighted voting system operates: depending on the amount paid as contribution by each member state. 85% of the votes is required to modify the IMF Charter (which means that the USA with 17,68% % of the votes has a de facto veto on any change).

The institution is dominated by five countries: the United States (16,74%), Japan (6,23%), Germany (5,81%), France (4,29%) and the UK (4,29%).
The other 183 member countries are divided into groups led by one country. The most important one (6,57% of the votes) is led by Belgium. The least important group of countries (1,55% of the votes) is led by Gabon and brings together African countries.

http://imf.org and the World Bank World Bank
WB The World Bank was founded as part of the new international monetary system set up at Bretton Woods in 1944. Its capital is provided by member states’ contributions and loans on the international money markets. It financed public and private projects in Third World and East European countries.

It consists of several closely associated institutions, among which :

1. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, 189 members in 2017), which provides loans in productive sectors such as farming or energy ;

2. The International Development Association (IDA, 159 members in 1997), which provides less advanced countries with long-term loans (35-40 years) at very low interest (1%) ;

3. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), which provides both loan and equity finance for business ventures in developing countries.

As Third World Debt gets worse, the World Bank (along with the IMF) tends to adopt a macro-economic perspective. For instance, it enforces adjustment policies that are intended to balance heavily indebted countries’ payments. The World Bank advises those countries that have to undergo the IMF’s therapy on such matters as how to reduce budget deficits, round up savings, enduce foreign investors to settle within their borders, or free prices and exchange rates.

at its centre) and international trade (WTO, free trade agreements, etc.) as they exist today.

Source: canarias-semanal.org

Translated for CADTM by Sushovan Dhar