Brazil's leader Lula condemns Gaza ‘genocide' at BRICS
'We cannot remain indifferent to the genocide carried out by Israel in Gaza, the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and the use of hunger as a weapon of war,' President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told leaders from China, India and other nations on Sunday.
His comments came as Gaza truce talks between Israel and Hamas resumed in Doha and as pressure mounted to end the 21-month war, which began with Hamas's October 7, 2023, attacks in southern Israel.
Lula said 'absolutely nothing could justify the terrorist actions' of Hamas on that day, which resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly Israeli civilians.
But he also offered fierce criticism of Israel's subsequent actions. Israel's military campaign has killed at least 57,418 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians.
BRICS countries have been in disagreement over how strongly to denounce Israel's bombing of Iran and its actions in Gaza.
'Autonomy in check once again'
Leaders in Rio called for reform of traditional Western institutions while presenting BRICS as a defender of multilateral diplomacy in an increasingly fractured world.
With forums such as the G7 and G20 groups of major economies hamstrung by divisions and the disruptive America First approach of United States President Donald Trump, expansion of BRICS has opened new space for diplomatic coordination.
In his opening remarks, Lula drew a parallel with the Cold War's Non-Aligned Movement, a group of developing nations that resisted formally joining either side of a polarised global order.
'BRICS is the heir to the Non-Aligned Movement,' Lula told leaders. 'With multilateralism under attack, our autonomy is in check once again.'
BRICS nations now represent more than half the world's population and 40 percent of its economic output.
Leaders from Brazil, Russia, India and China gathered for the its first summit in 2009. The bloc later added South Africa and last year included Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as members. This is the first summit of leaders to include Indonesia.
Some leaders were missing from this year's summit, however. Chinese President Xi Jinping chose to send his prime minister in his place. Russian President Vladimir Putin is attending online because of a warrant issued for his arrest by the International Criminal Court.
Still, several heads of state were gathering for discussions at Rio's Museum of Modern Art on Sunday and Monday, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
More than 30 nations have expressed interest in participating in BRICS, either as full members or partners.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Donald Trump live: US president to host Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu
United States President Donald Trump will host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House for talks about Iran, Gaza and more. Trump has threatened to impose an additional 10-percent tariff on countries that align with the 'anti-American policies' of the BRICS economic alliance, named for its initial members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran will pursue all legal avenues to seek redress from its attackers
The international legal order loses its effectiveness when faced with the unilateralism of hegemonic powers as well as acts that flout universally accepted norms. If such practices remain unaddressed, there is a risk that the order will lose its foundational purpose: the protection of justice, peace, and the sovereignty of nations. The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, including the targeted killings of scientists and intellectuals, bombing of IAEA-approved nuclear facilities, and strikes against residential, medical, media, and public infrastructure, is a prime example of illegal, unilateral action that must not remain unaddressed. It is a wrongful act and a clear violation of fundamental norms of international law. In this context, the principle of state responsibility, which dictates that states are held accountable for wrongful acts, must be applied. This principle was codified by the International Law Commission ILC in its 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which have since been widely recognised and cited by international courts and tribunals. Per their provisions, the commission of a wrongful act – such as the unlawful use of force – constitutes a violation of an international obligation and imposes a binding duty on the responsible state to provide full and effective reparation for the harm caused. In the case of the illegal acts committed by the United States and Israel, the scope of legal responsibility goes far beyond ordinary violations. These acts not only contravened customary international law, but also breached peremptory norms, the highest-ranking norms within the international legal hierarchy. Among these, the principle of the prohibition of aggression is a core and universally binding rule. No state is permitted to derogate from this norm, and violations trigger obligations, requiring all members of the international community to respond collectively to uphold the law. There are at least two relevant legal precedents that can guide the application of the principle of state responsibility and the obligation for reparations in the case of Iran. In 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 487 in response to Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. It unequivocally characterised this act of aggression as a 'serious threat to the entire safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]', which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution also fully recognised the inalienable sovereign right of all states to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes. Article 6 stipulates that 'Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel'. By mandating that the aggressor compensate the victim for the resulting damages, the resolution provides a clear legal precedent for pursuing redress in similar cases. Thus, given the fact that the attacks by the US and Israel were carried out with public declarations confirming the operations and are well-documented, the application of the principles and provisions of Resolution 487 to the Iranian case is not only appropriate and necessary but also firmly grounded in international law. Another relevant document is UN Security Council Resolution 692, which was adopted in 1991 and established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The commission was tasked with processing claims for compensation of losses and damages incurred as a result of the invasion. The creation of UNCC demonstrated the capacity of international mechanisms to identify victims, evaluate damage, and implement practical compensation – setting a clear model for state responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression. This precedent provides a strong legal and institutional basis for asserting the rights of the Iranian people. It is therefore both appropriate and necessary for the UN to establish a rule-based mechanism, such as an international commission on compensation, to redress Iran. Such a commission, initiated and endorsed by the UN General Assembly or other competent UN bodies, should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the damages inflicted by the unlawful and aggressive acts of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran. The establishment of reparative mechanisms – whether through independent commissions, fact-finding bodies, or compensation funds operating under international oversight – would contribute meaningfully to restoring trust in the global legal system and provide a principled response to the ongoing normalisation of impunity. Iran also has another avenue for pursuing justice for the illegal attacks it was subjected to. In the lead-up to them, the IAEA published biased and politically motivated reports about the Iranian nuclear programme, which facilitated the commission of aggression by the US and Israel and breached the principle of neutrality. This places Iran in a position to seek redress and claim damages from the agency under Article 17 of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a state harmed by the agency's manifest negligence, Iran is entitled to full reparation for all material and moral damages inflicted upon its peaceful nuclear facilities and scientific personnel. In this context, pursuing accountability for the IAEA, alongside the aggressor states, is a vital element of Iran's broader strategy to uphold accountability within the international legal order. By relying on recognised, legitimate, and binding international mechanisms, Iran will steadfastly defend the rights of its people at every forum. Ultimately, responsibility for the recent crimes of this war of aggression does not lie solely with the direct perpetrators, the US and Israel, and those who aided them, the IAEA. All states and international organisations bear an undeniable obligation to implement effective legal measures to prevent such crimes. The international community as a whole must respond decisively. Silence, delay, or any form of complicity in the face of aggression and atrocities would reduce the principle of state accountability under international law to an empty slogan. In its pursuit of accountability, Iran will exhaust all available resources and will not relent until the rights of its people are fully recognised and they receive adequate redress. It will continue to seek the prosecution and accountability of those responsible for these crimes, both domestically and internationally, until justice is fully achieved. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What are the main sticking points in Gaza ceasefire talks?
What are the main sticking points in Gaza ceasefire talks? NewsFeed US President Donald Trump says a ceasefire deal on Gaza could be reached within days, but major hurdles include the status of the US- and Israeli-backed food distribution system that has been described as a 'death trap'. Video Duration 02 minutes 50 seconds 02:50 Video Duration 01 minutes 01 seconds 01:01 Video Duration 01 minutes 12 seconds 01:12 Video Duration 00 minutes 25 seconds 00:25 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 02 minutes 47 seconds 02:47 Video Duration 02 minutes 36 seconds 02:36
