By: Ahana Sarkar

On June 13, 2025, protests erupted in Belgrade in response to leaked reports suggesting that the Serbian government was quietly negotiating territorial compromises with Kosovo. Demonstrators flooded the streets near the National Assembly, voicing frustration not only over the Kosovo issue, but also over growing discontent with the government’s broader handling of national affairs. The protests turned violent by nightfall, with riot police dispersing crowds and dozens injured. While such demonstrations are not new in Serbia, this latest unrest marked a culmination of deeper and longer-standing tensions.

Serbia has been navigating a complex set of challenges for years. Its refusal to recognise Kosovo’s independence continues to strain its international relations. At home, economic stagnation, democratic backsliding, and a resurgence of nationalist rhetoric have added to public frustration. Over the past year, the government has faced criticism for increasing censorship, sidelining political opposition, and consolidating power.

These domestic issues have now collided with international concerns. In June 2025, the European Parliament suspended Serbia’s EU accession talks, citing a lack of progress on rule-of-law reforms and concerns about press freedom. Meanwhile, NATO has deployed additional troops to northern Kosovo following violent clashes between ethnic Serbs and Albanians, raising fears of a regional escalation.

The current crisis in Serbia cannot be fully understood without revisiting the unresolved traumas of the 1990s. The violent breakup of Yugoslavia left a legacy of ethnic division, political instability, and deep societal scars across the Balkans. Serbia, as the largest successor state, was at the centre of this collapse. The wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and later in Kosovo were marked by widespread violence, displacement, and war crimes, many of which still await full accountability. For many Serbians, especially those who lost family or fled their homes during this period, the past remains painfully present.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in February 2008, a move recognised by over 100 countries but still firmly rejected by Belgrade. For Serbia, Kosovo is not only a territorial matter but a deeply symbolic issue tied to national identity and historical memory. The Serbian constitution still defines Kosovo as an integral part of its sovereign territory, and the refusal to accept Kosovo’s independence remains a core tenet of both state policy and public sentiment.

In the years following the 2008 declaration, Serbia and Kosovo fell into what many analysts have termed a “frozen conflict”: a state of formal peace but with no viable resolution. While international actors have attempted to mediate, both sides have often treated dialogue as a strategic tool rather than a genuine path toward compromise. Over time, this has only deepened mistrust.

Under President Aleksandar Vučić and the Serbian Progressive Party, nationalist rhetoric has re-entered the political mainstream. Narratives of victimhood, sovereignty, and external betrayal have shaped domestic discourse, particularly around Kosovo. Vučić himself, a former information minister during the Milošević era, has leveraged these sentiments to consolidate political control and suppress dissent.

As one displaced Kosovo Serb recently told Deutsche Welle, “They talk about us like pieces on a chessboard, but we are the ones who lost homes, memories, and futures.” This sentiment captures the emotional undercurrent beneath the headlines: a population still living with the consequences of a war that officially ended, but never truly concluded.

The crisis in Serbia escalated dramatically in mid-2025, with a series of political, social, and economic developments converging to expose deep fissures within the country’s governance and its place in the international order. These events have intensified public dissatisfaction and raised international concerns about regional stability in the Western Balkans.

The most immediate spark came in June 2025, when leaked documents revealed that the Serbian government had been engaged in covert negotiations regarding potential territorial adjustments with Kosovo. The leak suggested that President Aleksandar Vučić’s administration was considering redrawing boundaries in northern Kosovo, an area dominated by ethnic Serbs, without public consultation or parliamentary debate. This revelation triggered widespread protests in Belgrade and other cities. What began as peaceful demonstrations quickly turned violent, as riot police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds. Over 40 people were reportedly injured, and multiple journalists were detained while covering the unrest. Civil society groups accused the government of deploying surveillance tools and spyware to monitor protest organisers and suppress dissenting voices.

Meanwhile, violence between ethnic Serbs and Albanians in northern Kosovo has also intensified. In early June, several deadly incidents occurred near the divided town of Mitrovica, prompting NATO to deploy additional peacekeeping troops to the region. The clashes included road blockades, arson attacks on municipal buildings, and reports of armed confrontations. Both Pristina and Belgrade blamed each other for the instability, and fears of a broader conflict have resurfaced. For residents in border regions, the situation remains tense and unpredictable.

On the international front, Serbia’s relationship with the European Union suffered a major setback. In response to growing concerns about democratic backsliding, media control, and the erosion of judicial independence, the European Parliament announced in June 2025 that it would suspend all accession talks with Serbia. This decision, though expected by some, dealt a serious blow to the country’s European integration ambitions. In reaction, Belgrade has shown signs of pivoting further towards strategic partnerships with Russia and China, both of whom continue to invest in Serbian infrastructure, energy, and defence sectors, largely without the governance conditionalities required by Western institutions.

Compounding these political tensions is a worsening economic situation. Serbia has been grappling with an energy crisis since late 2024, driven by rising global fuel prices and a disrupted regional supply chain. This, combined with soaring inflation, particularly in food and utility costs, has hit working-class Serbians hardest. Public frustration over declining living standards has only added fuel to the political fire, with many citizens expressing disillusionment not only with the current government but with the broader political system.

At the heart of Serbia’s current turmoil lies a steadily deepening crisis of governance. Over the past decade, President Aleksandar Vučić and the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) have gradually consolidated power, reshaping the country’s political landscape in ways that have eroded institutional independence and narrowed space for dissent. While presented to the public as a path to “stability and national unity,” this concentration of power has come at a significant democratic cost.

One of the most concerning developments has been the systematic undermining of press freedom and judicial independence. Independent media outlets face intense political pressure, financial strangulation through state advertising bias, and targeted disinformation campaigns. Investigative journalists, particularly those reporting on corruption or state surveillance, often experience harassment or lawsuits. Meanwhile, the judiciary has increasingly lost its autonomy, with key appointments and decisions perceived as influenced by political actors close to the executive.

The culture of surveillance and disinformation has further narrowed the space for open debate. Civil society organisations and human rights defenders report frequent monitoring and bureaucratic hurdles. Some have been branded as “foreign agents” for receiving international funding, creating a climate of suspicion and hostility. These developments have prompted a growing number of young Serbians, particularly academics, activists, and professionals, to leave the country, contributing to a worsening brain drain.

The opposition, meanwhile, remains fragmented and largely ineffective. While public discontent has grown, no single party or leader has emerged with a strong, unifying alternative to the SNS. The 2024 municipal elections became a flashpoint, with widespread allegations of voter suppression, media bias, and ballot manipulation. The aftermath saw renewed protests, but momentum was quickly lost amid government crackdowns and the absence of a coordinated opposition strategy.

Serbia’s internal crisis cannot be separated from its complex position on the global stage. As the Western Balkans once again draw international attention, Serbia finds itself walking a diplomatic tightrope between East and West, seeking to preserve strategic autonomy while increasingly leaning on non-Western partners for political and economic support.

Russia continues to cast a long shadow over Serbian foreign policy. Moscow remains a vocal supporter of Belgrade’s stance on Kosovo, consistently backing Serbia in international forums such as the UN Security Council. This alignment is not only symbolic; it is also strategic. Serbia depends heavily on Russian gas supplies and defence cooperation. Additionally, pro-Russian narratives dominate segments of Serbian media, influencing public opinion and reinforcing scepticism toward the European Union and NATO. Even after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Belgrade has resisted joining Western sanctions, citing national interests.

China’s growing economic presence has added another layer to Serbia’s geopolitical balancing act. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has funded major infrastructure projects, including highways, railways, and energy facilities. While these investments have helped modernise key sectors, they have also created growing dependency and raised concerns over transparency, debt sustainability, and environmental degradation. Protests over Chinese-owned mining operations in eastern Serbia reflect rising public unease about unchecked foreign involvement.

On the other side, Western engagement has faltered. The EU’s inconsistent approach to enlargement, frequently delayed timelines, shifting benchmarks, and political hesitations has bred frustration among Serbians. The recent suspension of accession talks in June 2025 has further widened the credibility gap. Meanwhile, the United States has scaled back its direct involvement in the Balkans, focusing on broader global realignments.

Beyond politics and geopolitics, Serbia’s crisis is deeply rooted in a growing sense of social disillusionment, especially among the younger generation. Many young Serbians find themselves trapped between the unhealed wounds of past wars and a present marked by limited opportunities, shrinking freedoms, and a deepening sense of stagnation.

A major symptom of this discontent is the surge in emigration. Over the past two years, Serbia has witnessed record numbers of young professionals and university graduates leaving the country, primarily for Germany, Austria, and Canada. According to local NGOs, the primary drivers are not just economic hardship, but also a lack of trust in institutions and the perceived absence of a future worth investing in at home.

At the core of this unrest is an unresolved identity crisis. Serbia remains rhetorically committed to EU membership, but government actions often suggest a deeper cultural alignment with Slavic allies like Russia. This duality, between Western aspirations and Eastern loyalties, leaves many citizens feeling politically disoriented and socially divided.

The crisis unfolding in Serbia today is layered and deeply consequential. Politically, the erosion of democratic norms and concentration of power have weakened institutions and trust. Geopolitically, Serbia’s balancing act between East and West has led to increased instability and uncertainty, both domestically and across the region. Psychologically, the collective exhaustion of a population caught between unhealed historical wounds and a lack of meaningful progress has created a sense of national drift.

This is no longer just a question of borders or leadership; it is about the soul of a country, and by extension, the stability of the Western Balkans. Serbia’s direction will influence not only its own future but also the trajectory of neighbouring states still navigating the legacy of the Yugoslav wars.

By: Namya Sethi

As a sociology student, I’ve often found myself captivated by Egypt’s unique position in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. It isn’t just about pyramids or abstract geopolitics—it’s the living, breathing ways Egypt shapes and is shaped by everything from youth protests to water politics. The more I read, the clearer it becomes: Egypt doesn’t just matter in MENA—it anchors it. Its history, military strength, population dynamics, religious authority, cultural power, and economic policies intersect with some of the most pressing challenges and transformations across the Arab and African worlds. Understanding this helps contextualize how domestic developments reverberate regionally. Egypt’s influence acts as both a mirror and a mold for the aspirations and struggles across neighboring nations.

Strategic Geography and the Suez Canal

Geographically, Egypt occupies an extraordinary position. At the intersection of Africa, the Arab world, and the Mediterranean, it controls one of the planet’s most vital trade arteries: the Suez Canal. As of May 13, 2024, nearly 12% of global trade flowed through this narrow waterway. But in that same year, the canal faced a serious crisis. Attacks by Houthi rebels in the Red Sea diverted ships away from the route, leading to a 61% collapse in revenue, from US$10.25 billion in 2023 to just US$ 3.99 billion. Traffic fell from over 26,000 ships to roughly 13,200. Egypt responded quickly, expanding a 10-kilometer section of the southern canal, which is now helping boost capacity by 6 to 8 ships a day. The Suez Canal is more than infrastructure—it’s leverage, and Egypt is well aware of its geopolitical value. It symbolizes national pride, and every policy linked to it reverberates far beyond Egypt’s borders. With climate disruptions and regional instability increasing, the importance of the Suez Canal is only expected to grow in coming decades.

Population Power and the Energy of Youth

With a population of over 111 million in 2025, Egypt is the most populous Arab country. Even more striking is that about 63% of its people are under the age of 30. This massive youth demographic, while full of promise, also presents pressure points. Youth unemployment hovers around 15%, and it’s especially dire for young women—over 37% remain unemployed. Still, Egyptian youth are highly engaged and digitally connected. Many have created startups, feminist podcasts, environmental campaigns, and art collectives that challenge existing norms. They aren’t waiting for change—they’re demanding it, online and offline. Young people’s role in shaping political narratives—especially through social media—is now central to understanding state-society relations. Whether in protests or digital spaces, their voices are too significant to ignore. Their capacity to transform societal norms and participate in transnational activism positions them as critical agents in Egypt’s democratic evolution.

Economic Shifts and Regional Energy Leadership

Egypt’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025 stands at about US$ 347 billion nominally, with a purchasing power parity (PPP) of over US$ 2.37 trillion. The economy is dominated by services, followed by industry and agriculture. The country has suffered from inflation, which has hovered around 20%, causing significant cost-of-living concerns. However, the energy sector offers a promising future. The Zohr gas field, which now produces over 20 billion cubic meters annually, along with liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity (7.5 million tons in 2024), positions Egypt as one of Africa’s largest natural gas exporters. On February 6, 2025, a US$ 3.1 billion deal with the European Union (EU) and Germany to expand LNG infrastructure reinforced Egypt’s role as a vital alternative to Russian gas. Additionally, the East Mediterranean Gas Forum positions Egypt at the center of multilateral energy diplomacy. By leveraging its geographic advantage and production capacity, Egypt is carving out a permanent seat at the global energy table.

Military Power and State-Society Dynamics

Egypt maintains one of the largest and most powerful militaries in the region, with over half a million active personnel. It receives US$ 1.3 billion annually in United States (U.S.) military aid and collaborates with global powers like France and Russia. Domestically, the military not only fights insurgency in places like the Sinai Peninsula but also builds infrastructure and operates development projects. This blurs the boundaries between the state and military—creating what some scholars call a “deep state” but also ensuring stability during moments of economic or political crisis. It’s an unusual setup, but one that makes Egypt distinct. Military presence in civilian sectors often limits dissent but also prevents state collapse in times of crisis. Understanding civil-military relations is crucial to decoding Egypt’s political behavior.

Religious Soft Power Through Al-Azhar

Al-Azhar University, based in Cairo, remains one of the most important centers of Sunni Islamic thought. Its fatwas, sermons, and theological interpretations influence Muslim communities from Nigeria to Malaysia. On June 30, 2024, Al-Azhar launched a digital campaign to counter online radicalization and promote moderate Islamic teachings. This combination of tradition and tech shows how Egypt continues to adapt its religious institutions to meet modern global challenges. As a student of sociology, it fascinates me how much religious authority can act as a geopolitical tool in the 21st century. Al-Azhar’s reputation lends Egypt soft power in regions where hard influence may not reach. Its voice shapes theological debates across vast transnational networks.

Cultural Influence and Arab Media Domination

Egyptian culture—its music, cinema, literature, and TV—continues to dominate Arabic-language entertainment across the Middle East and North Africa. Iconic figures like Umm Kulthum still echo through playlists, while Egyptian series lead regional streaming platforms. Egyptian Arabic is so familiar across the Arab world that it often becomes the default in entertainment. In 2025, Egyptian cinema is gaining critical international attention again, and film festivals like El Gouna are becoming cultural diplomacy tools. Egypt speaks to the region not just through embassies, but through screens and songs. Cultural production acts as a form of narrative diplomacy—projecting a vision of Egypt that blends nostalgia, resilience, and leadership.

Urban Planning and the New Administrative Capital

Egypt’s Vision 2030 reform plan includes an ambitious US$ 58 billion New Administrative Capital project outside Cairo. This futuristic city is already partially operational, with government offices and embassies relocating there. While the project has faced critiques over displacement and elite-focused planning, it marks Egypt’s intention to modernize infrastructure and relieve Cairo’s congestion. Watching this unfold feels like a real-time sociology class on urbanization, governance, and inequality. The city is designed with smart infrastructure and green technology in mind. But its accessibility to lower-income Egyptians remains contested and symbolically significant. It raises key sociological questions about who cities are built for, and whether modernization can coexist with inclusive development.

Diplomacy and Mediation in a Troubled Region

Egypt’s foreign policy is both historical and active. Since signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, Egypt has taken on a recurring role as mediator between conflicting parties in the region. In 2025, it helped broker ceasefires between Israel and Hamas and facilitated aid corridors into Gaza. It also sent medical aid and field hospitals to war-affected areas in Sudan and Libya. Egypt’s role isn’t necessarily neutral, but it’s consistently engaged—and that gives it diplomatic credibility few others in the region possess. Egyptian diplomats often work behind the scenes in multilateral forums, providing stability in otherwise unpredictable contexts. This diplomatic strategy allows Egypt to navigate competing allegiances with the Gulf states, Western powers, and African nations, asserting itself as a regional anchor in diplomacy.

The Nile and Ecological Sovereignty

More than 90% of Egypt’s population lives near the Nile River, and about 97% of Egypt’s water needs come from it. The ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has reached international courts in 2025. Egypt, facing rising climate threats, is heavily investing in desalination plants and promoting water-saving agriculture. These actions aren’t just economic—they’re existential. For Egypt, control over the Nile is a question of survival, sovereignty, and national pride. International pressure for equitable water sharing is growing, making hydro-politics a defining issue of Egypt’s regional diplomacy. Egypt’s domestic water strategy—blending public awareness campaigns, technology upgrades, and infrastructure development—illustrates how environmental issues are being nationalized as security threats.

Africa Policy and Continental Influence

Although often seen through a Middle Eastern lens, Egypt is a key player in Africa. In 2025, it continues to chair African Union (AU) committees, lead peace talks in the Sahel, and push for trade and connectivity projects like the Cairo–Cape Town Highway. Egypt’s Africa policy is now more visible than ever, with diplomatic and commercial investments spreading across the continent. It seeks leadership not only through historical prestige but through practical cooperation on health, energy, and infrastructure. Cairo’s involvement in African innovation forums and regional climate summits has helped rebrand Egypt not just as a bridge but as an engine of African development.

Health Diplomacy and Humanitarian Aid

Health diplomacy is one of Egypt’s understated strengths. After becoming a major vaccine producer in North Africa post-COVID, Egypt has extended medical outreach to places like Libya and Sudan. In 2025, Egyptian doctors delivered trauma care in conflict zones, acting out what scholar’s call “civic solidarity.” This mix of humanitarianism and soft diplomacy helps Egypt maintain regional goodwill, even in politically complex zones. Its aid is also part of an image strategy to position Egypt as a stable regional caretaker and provider. Egypt’s push for South-South cooperation in global health—through World Health Organization (WHO) partnerships and vaccine diplomacy—further strengthens its soft power credentials.

Environmental Policy and Climate Innovation

Facing threats like sea level rise in Alexandria and desertification inland, Egypt has taken several proactive steps. In May 2025, it launched Africa’s largest floating solar farm on Lake Nasser. As an active participant in Conference of Parties (COP) climate summits, Egypt champions climate financing and regional adaptation plans. These are not just symbolic efforts—they reflect Egypt’s role as a serious actor in environmental diplomacy in the Global South. Green policy is fast becoming a pillar of Egypt’s international development model and soft power toolkit. Egypt’s partnership with organizations like the African Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme is pushing regional green transformation with Egyptian leadership at its core.

Gender Rights and Social Transformation

Egypt is slowly becoming more inclusive. As of 2025, women make up around 27% of parliament, and national mentorship programs aim to empower girls in rural regions. While women still face systemic challenges, especially in labor participation (just 16.9% compared to men’s 70.3%), reforms in harassment laws and public representation are pushing Egypt forward. These aren’t just gender stories—they’re social revolutions in slow motion. Increasingly, Egyptian feminists are collaborating across borders, connecting gender struggles to broader movements for justice and equality. Women-led civil society groups are also documenting everyday challenges with a view toward policy reform, making gender equality not just a slogan but a collective project.

Technology, Innovation, and Digital Diplomacy

Egypt’s tech scene is growing. In 2025, it hosted the first Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Tech & Ethics Forum and continues to expand digital infrastructure, e-learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) programs. From offering rural digital ID access to enhancing cybersecurity, Egypt is embedding technology into development. This tech-forward approach is not only economic—it’s deeply sociological, reshaping how people access rights, resources, and representation. The digital divide remains a challenge, but Egypt is committed to inclusive digital transformation. With smart city projects, youth-led coding initiatives, and partnerships with global tech firms, Egypt is reshaping how power, identity, and governance function in digital space.

Conclusion: Egypt as Anchor and Aspiration

In the Middle East and North Africa region, Egypt remains indispensable—not just for what it was, but for what it is becoming. It blends hard power with soft influence, tradition with innovation, and diplomacy with pragmatism. As a student, I don’t just study Egypt—I learn from it. Egypt matters because it teaches us how nations adapt, survive, and lead in turbulent regions. It is not flawless, but it is foundational. Whether through summits, protests, or stories on a screen, Egypt continues to shape the MENA region’s future—one decision, one movement, one generation at a time. For sociologists and political scientists alike, Egypt offers a rare case of multi-layered influence that evolves with its people, crises, and ambitions. It serves as a living laboratory of governance under stress, youthful activism, and transregional diplomacy, making it a compelling subject for critical scholarship and regional imagination alike.

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

The morning prayer of the National Defence Academy, Khadakwasla, which is the world-renowned Tri-Services training institution located in Pune, India has a line “Choose the harder right, than the easier wrong”.

In today’s world where only power and money matter, this line of the NDA Prayer holds a deep significance for every profession and organisation as when history is written many years and decades down the line, every aspect will be intensely studied since in hindsight issues acquire deeper clarity than while in the midst of it.

As India races towards the goal “Viksit Bharat 2047” of being a developed nation in 100-years of her independence in 2047, it is a whole-of-the-nation approach in which every organisation and citizen has to contribute in own capacity and capability.

At the end of 2047, which is just 22 years down the line, when stock is taken of India having become a developed nation, one aspect that will be discussed in detail will be the role of the mainstream electronic news channels (hereafter referred to as the mainstream media) and the leading social media handles (hereafter referred to as the social media) which are very active in today’s era, as they command phenomenal viewership and followers and help shaping narratives. Every word spoken in the mainstream media and written in the social media has a deep impact not only on the 1.46 billion Indian citizens but also in global geopolitics.  

India has 465 news channels comprising English, Hindi and regional languages channels and amongst them are 20 news channels which have the maximum viewership. Out of the 1.46 billion Indian citizens, 1.17 billion watch television. The mainstream & social media are also watched/followed by the Embassies and High Commissions located in India who regularly send back reports back to their countries on the internal situation in India. Also, this media has immense global viewership.

There are 75 leading social media handles in India which have a combined followership running over 1.5 billion. The current global population is 8.2 billion. In contrast only 400 million Indians read newspapers. Thus, the mainstream electronic news channels and the leading social media handles are a very powerful medium of conveying information and shaping narratives.

While it is easy to say that the mainstream media anchors and the social media handles are independent, but when the same persons are seen in official/political party functions then it is amply clear that they do enjoy the official/political party backing.

The aim is not to name and shame such mainstream & social media, but to drive home the point that while immediate gains may be made in Television Rating Points (TRPs) which in turn leads in to increase in advertising and hence more revenue, and gains in electoral politics, the international image of the nation suffers as does the domestic social fibre.

Thus, mainstream & social media matter globally as well as domestically.

Each individual has to take the call-are TRPs and electoral dividends important, or is the nation’s image more important? Blind pursuit of profits with utter disdain to social impact isn’t just morally incorrect, it is blatantly dangerous.

Take the case of Germany. After it’s defeat in World War I, Adolf Hitler in his bid for power started blaming the Jews for Germany’s defeat. That time, Jews comprised just 1% of the German population and had contributed in equal measure for Germany’s growth. Adolf Hitler was so successful in selling the narrative of Jews being responsible for the German defeat, that resulted him in not only seizing power but in the Holocaust of Jews leading to the killing of 6 million Jews. Judaism not only survived as a religion but catastrophe befell Germany and it was split into two nations after the end of World War II – East Germany & West Germany. It took 45 years for Germany to be united again in 1990. For mere 12 years of being in power from 1933-45, Adolf Hitler not only killed millions but had his country divided into two nations too.

Another nation that merits attention is Myanmar. In 1947, Aung San, a prominent politician of Burma (now Myanmar) had said that if Unity in Diversity of Burma is played with, Burma will sink in chaos. In 1962, the Military Junta seized power and did contrary to Aung San’s caution, started playing merry-hell with Burma’s Unity in Diversity. Burma was renamed Mynamar in 1989. As the internal strife in Myanmar continued because of the Military Junta’s playing with the Unity and Diversity of the country, China started taking advantage of the internal mayhem in Myanmar and started supporting various terrorist outfits. One of such terrorist outfit is the United Wa State Army which controls large swathes of the nation in which no soldier of Myanmar’s army can dare enter. The country which has 90% Buddhist population and Buddhism is regarded as one of the most peaceful religions in the world, has now slipped into a civil war with the conditions having come to such an impasse that the Myanmar President Myint Swe declared on November 09, 2023 that Myanmar will be split if the violence doesn’t stop.

India too is a land of Unity in Diversity, like Myanmar is but a much bigger bouquet of 89 major and minor religions and 122 major languages and 1599 other languages that are spoken across the length and breadth of the country.  

There will be enough reasons to support or decry the views expressed in this article. But an example will amplify the case better. Would one like to visit a house whose inhabitants are seem to be always shouting at each other and bringing out mistakes of few of their family members in the media which is widely watched and read the world over? Answer this question honestly to yourself.

India’s size is 897% times Malaysia’s size. India has everything to offer what a tourist would want – mountains, beaches, deserts and islands, same as Malaysia offers, but with much more choices. But in 2024, 25 million foreign tourists visited Malaysia as compared to only 9.7 million foreign tourists who visited India the same year. It is here that the mainstream & social media’s role becomes important. In 2019, 10.9 million foreign tourists visited India. A clear drop of 1.2 million foreign tourists visiting India in the five-year period from 2019 to 2024. Tourism is one industry which the mainstream & social media can help grow manifold by projecting how safe a country is, as any tourist considers the security in the visiting country of paramount importance while planning a trip.

Sample this. Last year in a capital city of an Indian state, a rape and murder took place in a hospital. The mainstream & social media for weeks together broadcast and posted news of this issue, as this state is ruled by a particular political party whom they want removed from power.

The same year in an important town in a central Indian state, an Army officer was robbed and his girlfriend raped at midnight. Since this state is ruled by a political party whom the mainstream & social media likes, this news was hardly mentioned for few minutes. Any act of violence should definitely be reported in the mainstream & social media, but the brazen double-standards adopted in cases depending on which political party is in power, needs deep introspection.

And when such incidents are run on the mainstream & social media non-stop for weeks, the world notices. The world gets the message that India is unsafe for women. It is then the foreign countries issue advisories for travel to India. Latest case in point being the US issuing India Travel Advisory on June 16, 2025 placing India in Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution.

Don’t rape and murders occur in the US or the UK? How much of such news is run on the Western mainstream media like BBC, CNN, France24 etc?

Discussions happen on the Western mainstream electronic news channels too but no fighting or abusing amongst the co-panellists takes place as in commonly seen in almost all the Indian mainstream media.

In 2020, a retired Indian Army Major abused a retired Lieutenant General and a retired Brigadier on a news channel. In 2023, a retired Indian Army Major General called a retired Lady Indian Army Officer as a mosquito. In 2025, a retired Indian Army Major called another country’s Foreign Minister as son of a pig on his social media handle, leading to a diplomatic row between India and that country, with which good relations exist.

In 2023, a leading Indian social media handle mocked at a neighbouring foreign country leading to increased tensions between the two neighbours. Eventually, resulting in that nation embracing China openly.

The Indian mainstream & social media is also obsessed with Pakistan. Why should we compare ourselves with Pakistan? It is a failed nation. When one has to progress in an organisation or a career, does one look at the success stories or failures? Why success stories of countries like Switzerland and Spain are not shown in the Indian mainstream news channels? Why success stories of Indians within the country are rarely aired and discussed? Does India lack success stories? No, we don’t. But the answer is obvious too. There are no TRPs and electoral gains accruing by success stories abroad or Indians excelling domestically.

As for a person to succeed, it is imperative that he/she has a positive outlook and gains inspiration from people who have already succeeded in that particular field. Similarly, the narrative for India required from the mainstream & social media is of positivity and success stories and not just communally oriented programmes and posts & and selective stories of rapes and murders, based on the states they occur in.

Shaping of narratives is important and not TRPs and electoral gains. Money will come and go, followers on social media handles will increase or decrease, political parties will loose and gain power. But India will always stand as a nation.

“With great power there must also come…great responsibility!” quoted Stan Lee. The Indian mainstream electronic news channels and the leading social media handles are undoubtedly immensely powerful. It is time for change in these powerful mediums of information in India as 2047 is just over a little two decades away. The mainstream & social media should indulge in fair and equitable reporting staying clear of over-sensationalism for prolonged periods.

Steve Jobs in his famous speech on Jun 12, 2005 in the Stanford Stadium had aptly remarked “You can’t connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards”. In 2047, the role of the mainstream & social media who for the last few years have only kept TRPs and electoral gains paramount, without the effect it is having on the domestic social fabric and global geopolitics, will definitely be assessed as they comprise the Fourth Estate which has an equal role in national building as others.

By: Shreya Dabral, Research Analyst, GSDN

Turkey is considered as a strong nation when we hear about global geopolitics. Well, the significance arises from the nation’s location that forms the bridges between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Turkey possesses a strong control on Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits that create a link between the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea on to the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

Turkey is being governed under the Montreux Convention (1936) and it continues to regulate the passage of civilian and the military vessels, providing a strong impact over the naval access to and from the Black Sea. The control over the two straits is considered necessary for regional and global maritime trade and also for maintaining tight securities.

Turkey is Russia’s second huge trading partner, Ankara is reportedly known to continue relying on Russian gas and banking networks, clearly making it a US$ 60 billion in trade with Moscow annually. Turkey has been seen improving its relationships with Russia since 1995 when the former nation stopped supporting the Kurdish Workers Party that simultaneously made Turkey stop supporting Chechen rebels. Turkey has expressed criticism over Russia’s plan to establish the military bases in Syria, particularly in Tartus and Khmeimim. Moreover, Turkey still continues to control the airspace in the northern parts of Syria, it still retains the strategic upper hand to limit Russian’s access in the region.

Guardians of the Black Sea and the Bride of the Sea.

Turkey possesses the longest stretch of coastline along the Black Sea among all bordering nations and maintains one of the region’s most advanced and capable naval forces. Its location allows Turkey to position itself in the whole Black Sea region, the Caucasus, the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean. Being a country in possession of a coastline but also a capable navy (one of the only capable navies in the region), they will act as one of the key regional actors in deterring Russian expansion while also being a party to the West.

Turkey is a founding member of NATO’s southern flank and it hosts key military infrastructure with NATO as it also hosts air domination assets and can also provide and provide assessment – the Turkish military is NATO’s second-largest in terms of troop strength. Turkey has been an important regional alliance in intelligence collection and sharing, counter-terrorism operations and stabilization operations.

Blending East and West

Turkey’s foreign policy has taken on one of the most unique activities of any state, and that has been hedging alliances between the West and non-Western states. Turkey is a NATO Ally and is trying to become a member of the European Union, and has continued military cooperation with the West against traditional enemies. However, Turkey has also established strategic relationships with non-Western states like Russia, Iran, and China.   The drive to balance the United States and NATO, on the one hand, and the East on the other, is demonstrated in Turkey’s arms procurements where Turkey acquired Russian S-400 missile defense systems. This procurement was a bold step and increased tension with Washington while at the same time displaying Turkey’s desire to assert its right to maintain sovereign defense choices. Turkey’s commitment to both the Western military coalitions and the East allowed it emerge in previous years as a middle power state in the diplomatic world capable of playing multiple roles and loitering across different diplomatic spaces.

Turkey has been increasingly engaged as a regional peacemaker.

 Turkey has brought parties to the table in discussions between Russia and Ukraine over the last couple of years, held a number of talks at the leadership level, and agreed on most notably, what would happen with grain exported from Ukraine through the Black Sea. All these are significant actions that contributed to prevention of food shortages in the world, especially in the developing world that relies heavily on Ukrainian food products.

With regards to the Syrian civil war, Turkey comprised a host of multiple roles – as a military actor, space for hosting refugees, diplomatic mediation role and humanitarian response. Turkey has done military operations in Syria to eliminate threats to its own borders; it has also held peace negotiations between warring factions in Syria. Turkey’s engagement has included similar mediation roles in the conflicts arising from Libya, the South Caucasus, the Gulf.

Turkey’s actions in these areas have elevated its profile in the international arena, and done so while acting as an independent actor with its own regional objectives.

Energy Transit Centre of the Region

Turkey has become an energy corridor linking producers to the Middle East, Central Asia, and Russia, to European consumers. Pipelines such as the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and the Southern Gas Corridor traverse Turkish territory, providing Europe energy alternatives that are not Russian.

Moreover, Turkey serves as the end point for several oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Iran. Turkey is also a central point for liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals and future hydrogen transmission routes. With Europe pursing diversifying away from Russian energy, Turkey’s capacity to be a stable transit country becomes particularly salient.

In addition to transit, Turkey is investing in domestic energy supplies such as nuclear and renewables, and with international partnerships Turkey is able to develop its capacity and resiliency to energy infrastructure.

Economic Power and Regional Influence

Turkey is one of the top 20 economies globally but has seen ups and downs in its economic growth. Turkey still remains a global trade participant, representing both developed and emerging economies.

Turkey’s economy has engaged with countries in a wide spectrum; from engagements with the European Union and Gulf states to economic deals with China and Russia. Turkey has also deepened ties with African states through infrastructure projects, trade missions, and defense agreements. This economic diplomacy advances its geopolitical objectives and, in its effort, to expand its sphere of influence.

Relative to some of the challenges Turkey has faced in recent years, for example, inflation rates, currency devaluation and external debt, Turkey articulates its role as a bridge linking East and West; through providing investment opportunities, transport connectivity and manufacturing opportunities.

Military Strength and Technological Development

Turkey’s defense and domestic defense industry are undergoing a serious modernization effort, and is now situated as one of the few countries in the world designing and manufacturing sophisticated drones, warships, and missile systems with combat experience.  Turkish-made drones were used extensively and effectively in each conflict in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine.

The development of indigenous defense technology will increase Turkey’s strategic autonomy and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. Furthermore, it enables Ankara to engage in defense diplomacy through arms exports and exports to strengthen its relationships with allies and partners throughout Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

Turkey has made tremendous advances on the maritime front to increase its naval capabilities and expand areas of operation in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. The “Blue Homeland” doctrine reflects Turkey’s willingness to project power in its maritime zones and, importantly, to protect its energy and security interests.

Diplomatic Aspirations and Global Autonomy

Turkey’s foreign policy is becoming characterized increasingly by a doctrine of strategic autonomy—putting national interests first, irrespective of bloc politics. It wants to be a significant player, not just regionally but globally.

Turkey calls for reform to international institutions, specifically the United Nations Security Council, indicating that no single bloc or group should dominate global governance. It is taking an active role in multilateral forums such as the G20, OECD, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and Developing 8.

Turkey is also assertively trying to move away visually from being a peripheral NATO ally toward being a central diplomatic power which can manage both regional crises and global issues, through summits, bilateral engagements, and humanitarian efforts.

Domestic Politics and the International Complications

The internal political trends of the past decade in Turkey have considerable ramifications in the international arena. The past decade has seen the consolidation of executive authority, restrictions on freer expression, and a continued tension between democratic economic side and executive authority that intends to concentrate power. These issues have raised alarm for many of Turkey’s Western partners and have called into question its more legitimate democratic credentials, but more importantly, its relevant geopolitical value very often overshadows these domestic issues. Most Western states remain willing to engage Turkey in bilateral arrangements based on Turkey’s functional role in managing migration, counterterrorism, and security strategy in the region. However, the fact that domestic governance should remain important in any long-term relationship is lost if there are no parallel attention to governance issues along with strategic engagements.

Turkey’s elections, legal reforms, and civil social movements are monitored closely by international observers and a concern for domestic stability should be paramount for Turkey’s continued regional leadership.

Expanding Footprint in Africa, Central Asia, and the Caucasus

Turkey is extending its geopolitical reach into regions beyond its traditional sphere. In Africa, it has opened over 40 embassies, launched numerous infrastructure and development projects, and secured defense cooperation agreements with multiple states. Its visibility in Africa reflects both humanitarian interests and competition with other powers such as China, Russia, and the Gulf.

In the Caucasus, Turkey played a decisive role during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war by backing Azerbaijan militarily and diplomatically. The outcome enhanced Turkey’s leverage in the region and enabled it to promote new trade corridors linking the Caspian to Europe.

In Central Asia, Turkey’s cultural and linguistic ties have been utilized to foster deeper engagement through organizations like the Organization of Turkic States. This outreach diversifies Turkey’s partnerships and aligns with its broader goal of strategic diversification.

 In conclusion Turkey is a prominent player in global geopolitics because it serves as a bridge, a buffer, and a centre for power. Turkey’s influence is not limited to its immediate geography but spans across continents and issue spaces—from maritime security and energy, conflict resolution and economic diplomacy.

Turkey is one contender amongst several, but what stands out is its ability to balance relationships with both the West and East, to mediate in conflicts, to secure vital energy corridors and to sustain military strength as needed. This makes Turkey one of the most essential players in the international system regardless of its domestic political challenges.

As global fault lines shift and new power centres emerge, Turkey’s role in the geopolitical equation becomes more daunting—whether it is as a partner at the peace table, a counterweight in the region, or a military strategic balancing act amongst rivals.

By: C Shraddha

The existence of the United States-Israel relationship predates the statehood of the Jewish nation-state. On March 3, 1919, the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, endorsed the creation of a “Jewish homeland in Palestine” known as the Balfour Declaration. He expressed, “The allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth”. This materialised in the 1920s and 1940s when the US Congress pushed for the creation of the Jewish state through the endorsement of resolutions of the Balfour Declaration. Another instance of such American urgency can be traced back to May 14, 1948. On that day, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed statehood. 11 minutes later, the US became the first country to officially recognise the state of Israel. In the words of then-President Harry S Truman, “I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now.”

Despite such early examples of international brotherhood, the initial two decades following statehood was quite the opposite. As a result of the Suez War, Israel fell out of favour with President Eisenhower. Consequently, Washington threatened to cut aid unless Israel withdrew from the captured territories. Meanwhile, the communist superpower, Soviet Union, threatened to fire missiles at the Zionist state if it did not withdraw from the area. Additionally, the nuclear programme of the state raised concerns for the Kennedy administration in the 1960s. 

The “special relationship” as endorsed by President John F Kennedy thrived in the post-1967 war era. The Six-day war between Israel and the Arab axis of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan showcased the defence capability of the Jewish nation. Israel was able to defeat the Arab coalition, capture new territory, and minimize losses while receiving little to no support from international players or forces. Furthermore, the humiliating strategic position of the United States in the Vietnam war and their inability to actively intrude in the matters of the Middle East, framed Israel as a worthy ally in the region. As the Stanford University Professor on Middle East history, Joel Beinin aptly observed “What’s key about the ‘67 War was Israel defeated the Arabs hands down in six days with absolutely no American military assistance. What that said to the United States was, ‘These guys are good. We are in a mess in Vietnam.  Let’s be connected to them’. Now, the Jewish nation was no longer a mere potential military foothold for the Americans, but it also served as a medium for repelling the socialist-communist ideologies propagated by the Soviet Union. 

The 1990s and 2000s witnessed the uninterrupted flow of US aid to Israel under the Clinton administration, aimed at supporting the “sacred mission” of establishing lasting peace in West Asia. Clinton, along with the newly elected Prime Minister Ehud Barak, held a joint press conference in which the former urged the US Congress to hasten the US$ 1.2 billion aid reserved for Israel as per the Wye peace agreement. Additionally, Clinton stated the intent of the nation to continue offering aid to Palestinians and other Arab nations in an attempt to balance the delicate situation in West Asia. 

In the context of Israel-Palestine relations, the stance of the US has slightly varied throughout the centuries. While consistent support for Israel has been the cornerstone of American policies, initial positions indicate an interest in assuming the role of a diplomatic mediator between the two parties. In 1998, Clinton served as a mediator between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat during the Wye River Memorandum. Although Israel agreed to give up control of parts of the West Bank in return for the Palestinian administration undertaking steps to prevent attacks against Israeli civilians, the promises fell apart not long after. Netanyahu lauded the memorandum by stating, “Today’s a day when Israel and our entire region are more secure. Now, this has required sacrifice from both sides and reaching into what Lincoln called the better nature of mankind.” However, despite his appreciation for the accord, Israeli forces never withdrew from the agreed 13.1 per cent of the West Bank. Furthermore, the US$ 1.2 billion was not released. 

The relationship between the two countries can be superficially categorised into financial, ideological and military. Since its inception, the Jewish state has been the largest cumulative recipient of US aid, receiving approximately US$ 310 billion in military and economic assistance. While the US has provided assistance to other countries of the region, such as Iraq and Egypt, the enormous economic assistance received by the Zionist state’s military has enabled it to be the best in West Asia. Provisionally, the US has agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide Israel with US$ 3.8 billion annually till 2028. 

Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, America has provided direct military aid of over US$ 12.5 billion through various legislations, including US$ 3.8 billion in March 2024 and US$ 8.7 billion due to a supplemental appropriation act in April 2024. As per analysts from Brown University, Linda J Bilmes, Stephen Semler and William D Hartung, Israel has received US$ 17.9 billion from the United States since the inception of the war. This figure entails the cost of replenishing weaponry for Israel by the US Defense Department. 

This provokes the question of why the US is heavily invested in the Zionist state. Israel is the linchpin in America’s Middle East policy. Republican party Senator Lindsey Graham once referred to Israel as the “eyes and ears of America”. The country’s interests in the region are driven by several factors, including the oil abundance, which leads it to assume the role of a guarantor and mediator of regional stability. This can be witnessed across time periods. Despite ideological evolution and strategic realignment, the tactical basis for this relationship has remained the same throughout. For the US, Israel is an instrument through which it can control the radicalisation of West Asia and regulate threats of Islamic extremism and violence. Furthermore, the advanced military capabilities of the states have enabled them to bar the advancements of nuclear programmes and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of volatile players such as Syria and Iraq. 

Political scientist Brent Sasley has aptly summarised the Israel-US relationship. According to Sasley, the US views the other as a “force of stability” in the West Asia region. Sasley explains that “in the sense that Israel can stabilise what’s going on in the Middle East. If there’s fear of Jordan being undermined by an internal or external enemy, the United States sometimes turns to Israel to pose a threat to that threat.” However, experts have noted the drawbacks of this overly-invested alliance. While the heads of the states remain in collusion despite the genocide in Gaza, critics argue that the unwavering American support has jeopardised the nation’s stronghold over the region. International actors and scholars have criticised the Biden as well as Trump administration for aiding the ‘world’s most documented genocide’ and blatantly ignoring human rights under the guise of self-defence. 

Despite such commentary, the US and Israel still continue to assist each other in traditional security measures through sharing intelligence on extremism, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and regional politics. Together, they have developed advanced military technologies such as the Arrow missile defence systems, David’s Sling counter-rocket and the Iron Dome. The Iron Dome, or the missile defence shield of Israel, was constructed with the components and financial assistance provided by the United States. As Israel boasts about possessing one of the most advanced defence systems in the world, President Donald Trump suggested the creation of a “Golden Dome”, a large-scale next-generation missile shield inspired by the Israeli model.   

Furthermore, Israel remains home to a key US military base that serves the purpose of containing and blockading Iran’s nuclear development plans. In order to strengthen its strategic position, two months before the war broke out, the Pentagon granted a multimillion-dollar tender to a prominent Israeli construction company, Bryan Ashush JV or Ashush, for the expansion of the base. Known as “Site 512”, this US-classified base is situated on top of Mount Har Qeren in the Negev desert, with Iran as its primary focus. Hailed as the “life support facility,” it showcases the rising presence of the US in the Middle East while intending to fulfil a secondary objective, that is, to keep Iran out of the -Palestine conflict- an effort that has ultimately failed.   

The decades-long United States- Israel alliance is one of the most controversial yet stable partnerships in the modern-day geopolitical environment. Since the inception of the state, the US has deemed the country to be a stable ally powerful enough to maintain the balance of the Middle East. As President Ronald Reagen voiced, “Israel is an integral part of the free world… Both a secure state of Israel and a stable Mideast peace are essential to our national interests.” While this relationship has proven to be advantageous to the administrations involved, it has raised criticism from all sections of society. The unwavering military and economic assistance provided by the US during the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has tarnished America’s moral credibility on the global stage. The blanket support provided by the superpower for the Jewish state in international organisations such as the United Nations has provoked accusations of selective justice. As the region continues to remain volatile, the constant intervention of the US leadership has inadvertently and disproportionately favoured Israel while failing to address the intensity of the underlying issues. 

By: Ahana Sarkar

Field Marshal Asim Munir’s recent visit to the United States marks a critical juncture in Pakistan-USA relations, coming at a time when Pakistan faces mounting economic crises, political instability, and regional security challenges. The visit also coincides with shifting global dynamics, including the USA’s strategic focus on countering China and ensuring stability in South Asia. Against this backdrop, the meeting reflects the ongoing importance of military diplomacy as both nations seek to address their respective priorities.

This visit raises key questions about the nature of Pakistan-USA relations: Is it a move toward deeper collaboration, a continuation of their historically transactional ties, or a balancing act in an increasingly multipolar world? General Munir’s engagements in Washington, including discussions on counterterrorism, military cooperation, and regional stability, suggest a pragmatic approach to recalibrate ties amidst evolving global realities.

Pakistan and the US have had a rollercoaster relationship over the decades. Born during the Cold War, this partnership was initially meant to counter Soviet influence, with Pakistan getting economic and military aid in return for its geostrategic location. Key moments like Pakistan’s role in helping the US to make peace with China in the 70s, its involvement in the Afghan-Soviet war in the 80s and its cooperation in the post 9/11 war on terror have made it a significant, if often troublesome, player in Washington’s foreign policy game.

Despite decades of collaboration, the nature of Pakistan-USA relations remains complex, often driven by immediate strategic needs rather than a shared long-term vision. This closeness is frequently seen as transactional, reflecting the priorities of the moment rather than a genuine partnership. For Pakistan, the United States has been a source of critical military and economic aid, while for Washington, Pakistan serves as a key player in regional security and counterterrorism. Yet, this relationship is marred by mutual mistrust and diverging regional goals.

In the early years of the Cold War, Pakistan emerged as a critical ally for the USA in its global campaign against Soviet expansionism. Joining military alliances such as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in 1954 and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1955, Pakistan positioned itself as a key player in the West’s containment strategy. In return, it received substantial military aid and economic assistance, which bolstered its defence capabilities and economic development. However, these alliances also deepened its dependency on the USA and often led to criticism from non-aligned nations.

The 1980s marked a turning point when Pakistan’s geographical position became vital during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As a frontline state, it facilitated American covert operations to support Afghan mujahideen fighters. Billions of dollars in military and economic aid flowed into Pakistan, strengthening its armed forces and intelligence networks. This period not only solidified Pakistan’s importance in American foreign policy but also fostered the emergence of complex regional challenges, such as the rise of militancy and instability in Afghanistan.

Post-9/11, Pakistan once again became indispensable to the USA, this time as a key ally in the War on Terror. Its cooperation was crucial in countering extremist groups and facilitating military operations in Afghanistan. The relationship deepened, with Pakistan receiving significant military aid, intelligence-sharing arrangements, and economic support. However, this era also brought heightened scrutiny and mistrust, as the USA often questioned Pakistan’s commitment to combating terrorism, citing instances of double-dealing and harbouring extremist networks.

The cornerstone of Pakistan-USA cooperation has been their military and strategic partnership. Joint military operations, particularly in the post-9/11 era, have underscored the importance of this collaboration. Pakistan’s support for the United States during the War on Terror was instrumental in dismantling terrorist networks in the region. Intelligence-sharing agreements and counterterrorism operations further solidified this alliance, with Pakistan serving as a crucial hub for American interests in South Asia. Additionally, the USA has historically relied on Pakistan’s air bases for logistical and operational support, especially during conflicts in Afghanistan. This strategic access has underscored Pakistan’s geographical significance. In return, the USA has provided substantial military aid, modern weaponry, and training for Pakistan’s armed forces, enhancing its defence capabilities.

Economic assistance has been another pillar of Pakistan-USA relations. Through USAID, the United States has funded a range of development programs in Pakistan, addressing critical sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Investments in public health initiatives, such as immunisation campaigns and maternal health programs, have improved the quality of life for millions of Pakistanis. In education, scholarship programs and funding for schools have expanded access to learning opportunities in underserved regions. Infrastructure projects, including energy and water management systems, have aimed to bolster Pakistan’s economic growth and stability. While these programs have been impactful, they are often viewed through a strategic lens, aimed at fostering goodwill and stability in a region of vital interest to the USA.

Beyond strategic and economic ties, cultural and academic exchanges have fostered people-to-people connections between Pakistan and the USA. The Fulbright Scholarship Program, for example, has enabled Pakistani students to study at prestigious American universities, enriching academic and professional ties between the two nations. Similarly, cultural initiatives, such as performing arts tours and language programs, have promoted mutual understanding and appreciation. The Pakistani diaspora in the United States has also played a pivotal role in strengthening bilateral ties. As one of the fastest-growing immigrant communities, Pakistani-Americans contribute to various sectors, from technology to healthcare, while maintaining cultural and economic links with their homeland.

One of the most persistent challenges in Pakistan-USA relations is the deep-seated mistrust between the two nations. The United States has frequently accused Pakistan of supporting militant groups operating in the region, such as the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban. These allegations, particularly during the post-9/11 era, have strained their partnership, with Washington questioning Pakistan’s commitment to counterterrorism. On the other hand, Pakistan perceives the USA as an unreliable partner, citing instances of abrupt policy shifts and perceived abandonment, such as the cessation of military aid during the 1990s and the USA’s pivot towards India. The 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, without prior notice to Islamabad, further deepened the trust deficit, exposing the fragile nature of their alliance.

National interests often diverge between Pakistan and the United States, leading to friction in their relationship. For Pakistan, India remains its primary security concern, shaping much of its foreign and defence policies. However, the USA’s growing strategic partnership with India, particularly in countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific, has been a source of unease for Islamabad. This shift is viewed as undermining Pakistan’s regional position and contributing to an imbalance in South Asia.
Similarly, their approaches to Afghanistan have often been at odds. While Pakistan seeks a stable and friendly Afghan government to counter Indian influence, the USA has criticised Pakistan for allegedly harbouring insurgents who destabilise Afghanistan. This divergence has complicated cooperation, especially during the USA’s prolonged military engagement in the region.

The nature of American financial aid to Pakistan has also been a contentious issue. While billions of dollars in military and economic aid have flowed into Pakistan over the decades, this assistance is often seen as a tool of influence rather than a genuine investment in mutual growth. Critics argue that American aid is highly conditional, tied to strategic imperatives rather than the long-term development of Pakistan’s economy or institutions. This dependency on external aid has created vulnerabilities for Pakistan, undermining its sovereignty and fostering a perception of imbalance in the relationship. At the same time, the USA has expressed frustration over the perceived misuse of funds, alleging that financial assistance meant for development or counterterrorism has been diverted for other purposes.

Both countries have gained significantly from their partnership. For Pakistan, American military aid and advanced weaponry have strengthened its defence capabilities, while economic assistance has supported development in key sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure. On the other hand, the USA benefits from Pakistan’s strategic geographical location, providing a gateway to South Asia and the Middle East. Pakistan’s role in facilitating American military operations and intelligence-gathering in Afghanistan has been indispensable, particularly during the War on Terror. While these benefits highlight the utility of the relationship, they also expose its pragmatic nature, where collaboration is often driven by immediate needs rather than shared long-term goals.

The closeness between Pakistan and the USA has far-reaching implications for regional and global politics. In South Asia, this partnership serves as a counterbalance to India’s growing influence and China’s expanding presence. However, it also exacerbates tensions, particularly with India, which perceives Pakistan-USA ties as a threat to its strategic interests. In the broader Middle East, the partnership influences the balance of power, particularly in counterterrorism and conflict resolution efforts. The USA’s engagement with Pakistan indirectly shapes its relationships with other regional players, including Iran, Afghanistan, and the Gulf states, underscoring the global interconnectedness of their alliance.

Looking ahead, the future of Pakistan-USA relations depends on their ability to address existing tensions while capitalising on shared interests. A deeper alliance would require rebuilding trust and aligning long-term strategic objectives, particularly in areas like counterterrorism, climate change, and economic development. However, the transactional nature of their partnership, rooted in historical precedence, may persist. Both nations are likely to continue prioritising short-term goals over enduring commitments, especially as global geopolitics become increasingly multipolar.

The Pakistan-USA relationship is a testament to the complexities of modern geopolitics, blending strategic necessity with underlying mistrust and diverging priorities. Over the decades, their partnership has evolved through phases of cooperation and contention, driven by shared interests in military collaboration, counterterrorism, and regional stability. Yet, persistent challenges, ranging from a trust deficit to conflicting regional goals and economic dependencies, underscore the fragile foundation of their closeness.

In my view, the relationship between Pakistan and the United States is neither wholly strategic nor purely transactional but a hybrid shaped by the ever-changing dynamics of global politics. While both nations derive significant benefits from their collaboration, the lack of a unified long-term vision limits the potential for a deeper alliance. This ambivalence reflects not only historical precedence but also the complex interplay of regional and global forces that continue to shape their interactions.

As the world transitions toward an increasingly multipolar order, alliances like the one between Pakistan and the USA face greater scrutiny and uncertainty. The sustainability of their partnership will hinge on their ability to rebuild trust, address mutual concerns, and adapt to new geopolitical realities. A more constructive relationship will require transparent dialogue, a commitment to shared objectives, and a recognition of each other’s evolving priorities. Whether this partnership can transcend its transactional nature and achieve true strategic depth remains an open question, one that will define its relevance in the years to come.