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

Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province, has increasingly become a battleground as pro-independence groups, particularly the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), escalate their attacks on Pakistani security forces and infrastructure. This surge in militant activity is a manifestation of long-standing grievances related to resource exploitation, political marginalization, and a fervent quest for autonomy that has characterized the region for decades.

In mid-December 2024, the BLA and BLF executed a series of coordinated attacks across various districts in Balochistan, strategically targeting military installations, logistical operations, and communication infrastructure. Notably, on December 15, BLA fighters assaulted a military post in Mirabad, resulting in the deaths of at least two soldiers and injuries to four others. The following day, they targeted a truck transporting minerals in Dukki, shooting its tyres and rendering it immobile while also destroying communication towers. Meanwhile, on December 16, BLF fighters attacked a military camp in Heronk, leading to one soldier’s death and injuries to two more. Additionally, earlier on December 13, the BLF executed Abdul Ghafoor, a military informant. These incidents reflect a broader strategy by both groups to disrupt state operations and assert their claims over Balochistan’s resources.

The roots of the conflict in Balochistan date back to its incorporation into Pakistan in 1948. Since then, various insurgent movements have emerged, fuelled by grievances over political representation and economic exploitation. The BLA and BLF have positioned themselves as key actors in this struggle for autonomy. The Pakistani government has historically been accused of neglecting Balochistan while extracting its rich natural resources such as coal, copper, gold, and oil without adequately compensating local communities. Reports indicate that between 2020 and 2024, at least 62 individuals working on projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) were killed in various attacks across Pakistan. The BLA’s Majeed Brigade has been particularly active in targeting Chinese nationals associated with these projects.

Recent assessments indicate that the threat posed by Baloch separatist groups is escalating. A report from the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies noted that the frequency of attacks attributed to the BLA reached alarming levels in November 2024, with 12 attacks resulting in 45 fatalities, more than those attributed to the Pakistani Taliban during the same period. This trend underscores a notable advancement in the operational capabilities of these groups.

The implications of these recent attacks are profound and multifaceted. Firstly, the human cost is significant; these assaults have not only resulted in military casualties but also threaten civilian lives, exacerbating an already precarious humanitarian situation in Balochistan. The ongoing violence disrupting communities and heightens fears among civilians who often find themselves caught between state forces and insurgents. Secondly, targeting communication infrastructure undermining state operations and hampers emergency services, isolating affected areas and making it difficult for security forces to respond effectively. Lastly, the psychological impact on security personnel is considerable; the increasing frequency of attacks creating immense pressure that leads to potential retaliatory actions against civilians as frustrated military forces grappling with their battlefield losses.

In response to this escalating violence, Pakistani authorities initiated “Operation Azm-i-Istehkam” aimed at countering separatist militant groups operating. However, this operation has largely failed to tackle the underlying issues fuelling unrest. Despite extensive military operations throughout 2024 attacks have continued unabated with minimal success reported against insurgent groups like the BLA and BLF. In fact, during just the first half of 2024 alone, the BLF claimed responsibility for 108 attacks resulting in 112 security personnel deaths a stark indication that military offensives have not effectively curbed insurgent activities or addressed local grievances.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), there were 72 incidents linked to the BLA recorded in 2024 alone that resulted in at least 253 fatalities, 55 civilians among them alongside significant losses among security forces (144 personnel). In contrast, during the same period in 2023, only 34 incidents resulted in just 69 fatalities overall.

Moreover, Pakistan has increasingly relied on Chinese military support to secure CPEC projects and counter threats from groups like the BLA and BLF. The Chinese government has provided not only financial investments but also military assistance aimed at bolstering Pakistani forces’ capabilities against insurgents. Reports suggest that Chinese security personnel have been deployed alongside Pakistani troops to protect critical infrastructure linked to CPEC initiatives.

Moreover, major operations conducted by these insurgent groups reveal their growing capabilities; for example, Operation Hereof carried out by the BLA involved coordinated attacks across seven districts on August 25-26, 2024. This operation resulted in at least 130 military personnel reported killed.

As Pakistan grapples with this escalating violence from separatist movements like the BLA and BLF while simultaneously managing international scrutiny over its human rights record regarding counterinsurgency operations against local populations the path forward remains fraught with challenges for Pakistan.

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analsyt, GSDN

With the return of Trump in the White House again, the question of US-Iran Nuclear deal has come to the attention again and how is he going to deal with the issue in the second term. Iran anticipates the reintroduction of his “maximum pressure” policy, which could severely damage its economy and international relations. Iranian officials have signalled openness to a direct political approach, warning that a return to a maximum-pressure 2.0 approach will only result in ‘maximum defeat 2.0.’

Iran is feeling uneasy with the future of their Nuclear Program especially after becoming a part of Israel-Palestine war in order to stop the current genocide going in the Gaza and West-Bank and now spreading in Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries as well. Now, all eyes are on Trump administration to make decision on Iran Nuclear deal. The objective is to get Iran to accept zero nuclear enrichment which looks less compelling for Iran.

US-Iran Nuclear Deal

The not-so-unexpected victory of former president Donald Trump on November 5 has renewed the discussion on how Trump’s approach towards Iran Nuclear deal will change from his first tenure and the Biden administration. In his first term, he imposed more than 1,500 sanctions on Iran as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign with the intent to destroy the economy of Iran and bring the country to its knees. Trump also withdrew from the JCPOA and issued a twelve-point set of conditions for talks with Iran, which included terminating the military dimension of its nuclear program, allowing rigorous and sudden inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, halting Iran’s ballistic missile program, ceasing support for regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and disarming Iraqi militias and integrating them into Iraq’s security forces. Trump also ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, which makes difficult for the Iranian regime to engage in negotiations with a leader they hold responsible for Soleimani’s death.

The Abraham Accords, establishing diplomatic ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan were undoubtedly the most prominent foreign policy achievement and legacy of the first Trump administration. Israel appears to favour a compartmentalized approach, Saudi Arabia, however, seems to prefer a comprehensive approach, with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan reiterating the need for a recognized Palestinian state as a precondition for any deal with Israel.

The Biden Administration was not as extreme as Trump, against the Middle-East Policies. In the Biden’s Presidency, US was trying to restore the 2015 nuclear deal but it broke in September 2022, due to accusation made by France, Germany and the UK for the violation of  ‘Security Council Resolution-2231’ last year when Iran supplied drones to Russia during the Russia-Ukraine conflict even though Iran knows that Russia might use the Drones to target the Nuclear Facilities. Although Biden said the US is ready to make a deal if Iran is willing to comply. This 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal has been wavering since Trump abandoned it in 2018.

Iran has been under the close inspection for last few years due to recent nuclear development. Iran war also accused to nearing to becoming a nuclear state. Although, CIA director Bill Burns stated that US intelligence has found no evidence against Iran’s uranium weaponization. In the beginning of 2023, Burns stated that Iran can make at least one ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ in ‘the matter of weeks‘. The US defence authority Colin Kahl said Iran might make one nuclear bomb’s worth of fissile material in just 12 days instead of 12 months. But now in the end of 2024, it is considered that Iran has enough fissile material to produce three nuclear missiles within weeks.

Other than that there are few EU sanctions including missile, nuclear and other weapon, that has expired in October 18, 2023. On which Iran said it will be illegal for the EU to maintain sanctions on Iran. Re-establishing 2015 JCPOA deal and limiting Iranian stockpiling at this point will not stop the Uranium weaponization in Iran, because Iran has enough material to develop two Nuclear bomb. Thought one nuclear bomb is not enough to deter Iran from nuclear threat. Grossi said that there will be instability if the IAEA is unable to tell world that the nuclear program of Iran is completely peaceful.

Trump’s approach towards Iran Nuclear deal in his second term

It is estimated that, Trump might continue his “maximum pressure” campaign, possibly endorsing more aggressive actions, like supporting Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities like Israel has done previously. Such scenarios could create significant friction with some Middle-eastern countries and United States. Trump has signalled on several occasions that he does not seek regime change in Tehran and that he wants an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program. Iranian Vice-President for Strategic Affairs Javad Zarif, has indicated that Tehran would enter into talks with Trump if it is treated with “respect.”

Before election 2024, Tehran said its tactics might change but who ends up winning the White House won’t alter its strategies. While President Joe Biden’s administration has worked to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East and act as a moderating influence on Netanyahu, Trump’s return to power could signal a much tougher approach. This could also create friction between the GCC ‘Gulf Cooperation Council’ states and Iran. This will force the GCC countries to make a delicate balance between their strategic partnership with Washington and their efforts to maintain stability with Tehran.

The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel is currently the most pressing regional issue, with a risk of evolving into an all-out, multi-party, multi-front war. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has promised a “tooth-crushing” response to Israel in retaliation for air strikes on Tehran and multiple other provinces on October 26. It is expected that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) might involve the Iranian army as well after four army soldiers were killed by Israeli bombs.

Besides war scenario, Iran has been dealing with economic crisis high inflation by U.S. sanctions. Following the withdrawal of 2015 JCPOA deal, Trump imposed vital oil sanctions as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign.  This plummeted the oil export of Iran to 300,000 barrels per day or less by 2019. During the Biden’s administration the relation of Iran and US were getting better because of which Iranian oil export has improved to 1.5 Million barrels per day currently, up from 400,000 barrels per day in 2020. This changed Iranian economy significantly, roughly 70%, since oil export is Iran’s primary source of revenue generation.

Easier access to oil revenues also will be an attractive proposal for the Iranian government. This could give Iran an opportunity to sale Iranian oil to other nations more than China. If Iran could export oil out of U.S. sanctions, it could find potential buyers elsewhere at higher prices, contributing to Iran’s economy. This can help de-escalating the worsening relationship between US-Iran, giving Trump an opportunity to negotiate a deal with Iran.

Trump wants to make a deal with Iran, though many will try to block it, including Trump’s foreign policy advisers, some donors, and the Israeli government. All are pushing Trump to revert back to maximum pressure, arguing that this will “bankrupt” Iran and deprive its resources to pursue its nuclear and regional goals. Therefore, Trump might choose from two distinct track to follow. He can either putting ‘maximum pressure 2.0’ which is destined to escalate the current war in Middle-East or he can try lifting oil sanctions from Iran to increase their economic growth and to ease the relationship in order to negotiate a deal with Iran, on which both nations agree peacefully.

Impact on US-Arab Relationship

Post October 07, 2023, attack Israel and US both has been in continuous conflict with not only Palestine but also Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, other non-state actors such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi movement. All of these state and non-state actors in the war are heavily influenced by Iran. Which makes Iran Nuclear deal even more problematic for Donald Trump. US Supporting Israel unconditionally can fuel the conflict and it will work against the Trump intent to de-escalate the global conflict. 

Russia might be helping to advance Iran’s missile system. Russia supported U.S. and European efforts to compel Iran to limit its nuclear program a decade ago. However, Iran has developed close relations with Russia in last few years. Tehran’s agreement to supply Moscow with sophisticated armed drones during Russia-Ukraine war. Russia and Iran continued cooperation to secure the Assad regime in Syria. Russia and China have recruited Iran into several multilateral organizations, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, that can help Iran mitigate the effects of intensified U.S. sanctions. Though Iran will take some time to restarting a complete weaponization program which was stopped in 2003, but with Russia’s help and it advanced technology, it could be sooner than expected.

Saudi Arabia has shown signs of obtaining the nuclear weapon if Iran ever successfully detonates one. Although, it is too early to warry about Saudi Arabia right now. The Arab Gulf states have all improved ties with Iran since Trump left office after his first term. They all seek to de-escalate several regional conflicts in Middle-East, because they are concerned that Israel-Iran conflict might affect the economic growth of gulf countries.

Syria is a transit point for weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has dragged them into the Israel Palestine conflict. Syria always has the territorial dispute with Israel over Golan Heights. Though, Syria was a primary base of the ISIS, they have not been a part of this conflict yet. The small military present in Syria trying their best to keep a close watch on ISIS activities to prevent them out of the war.

The relation between Iraq and Iran has also grown recently. Both Iraqi army and Iran-led Resistance group continues to attack US forces in Iraq and Syria. This has worsened the relationship between US and Iraq, despite the Strategic Framework Agreement they signed in 2008. Approximately 2,500 US troops are stationed in Iraq, to keep a watchful eye on ISIS activities. Recently, US has done an agreement with Iraq to withdraw US army from Iraq by the end of 2026. The second term of Trump administration might find it hard to go along with this agreement or Trump might even go against this deal and decide to keep the troops in Iraq, according to Iraq’s behaviour towards this conflict.

Conclusion

It is still too early to determine which approach would the Trump administration chose in his second presidency. Tensions between Tehran and Washington have steadily worsened, primarily due to the unwavering and unconditional support of U.S. for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a key role in widening the gap with the current conflict. The assassination of Soleimani in first Trump’s presidency and attempt to kill Trump before the election of 2024, could influence Trump’s personal stance, adding another layer of complexity to the US-Iran Nuclear issue.

Trump could decide to do ‘maximum pressure’, considering Iran has been expanding ties with Russia, China, and Gulf states to increase their economy and military power. However, this could not only have a deteriorating effect in the relation of U.S. with Iran but other gulf countries as well. A diplomatic approach between Iran and the U.S. can give both parties a chance to negotiate and accept a compromised US-Iran Nuclear deal. This will help both countries to return to diplomatic successes similar to the Obama era.

By: Tanuja Baura, Research Analyst, GSDN

On November 5, 2024, the United States conducted presidential elections. The Republican ticket of Donald Trump, the 45th president (2017–2021), and JD Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, defeated the Democratic ticket of Kamala Harris, the current vice president, and Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota. Trump and Vance are to be inaugurated as the 47th president and 50th vice president on January 20, 2025, following the Electoral College’s formal vote. President Joe Biden initially ran for re-election as the Democratic nominee, facing little opposition and easily defeating Representative Dean Phillips. However, after a widely panned debate performance in June 2024 raised concerns about his age and health, pressure mounted within the Democratic Party for Biden to step aside. Although he had initially resisted, Biden withdrew from the race on July 21, making him the first eligible sitting president to do so since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. Biden endorsed Vice President Harris, who was officially nominated by the party on August 5, 2024, and selected Walz as her running mate.

Trump, who lost to Biden in 2020, wanted another term and got the Republican nomination with Vance after a strong showing in the primaries at the 2024 Republican National Convention. His campaign was full of false and misleading claims, including stolen election claims about the 2020 election, anti-immigrant rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and dehumanizing language toward opponents. Historians and former Trump officials described his political movement as authoritarian, with some drawing comparisons to fascism. Voters priorities during the election included the economy, healthcare, democracy, foreign policy (especially in terms of U.S. support for Israel and Ukraine), immigration, abortion, climate change, education, and LGBTQ rights.  With 312 Electoral College votes to Harris’ 226 votes, Trump won handily. He carried all the swing states and flipped six states that had voted Democratic in 2020: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump’s victory was credited to stronger support from working-class voters, especially young men, those without college degrees, and Hispanic voters. He is the second president who has won an election after a previous win, following the 2016 win over Hillary Clinton and the loss in 2020 against Biden.

Background

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution explains that in order to serve as president, an individual has to be a natural-born citizen of the United States, have at least attained the age of 35 years, and have been resident of the United States for at least 14 years. The nomination of candidates from a major political party is by means of a primary election where delegates to the party’s national convention are elected. The nominee then selects a running mate for vice president, and this choice is typically ratified by the convention’s delegates. If no candidate receives a majority of the delegates’ votes or if the presumptive nominee withdraws prior to the convention, a brokered convention may ensue, in which delegates may shift their support to a different candidate. The general election in November is an indirect process in which voters choose members of the Electoral College, who then directly elect the president and vice president.

Election officials across the country are facing increased workloads and heightened scrutiny. Many states have sought additional funding to hire staff, enhance security, and expand training programs. Offices are also having to deal with an influx in public records requests, something partly driven by distrust fuelled by Trump’s talk of election fraud following the 2020 loss. This comes along with increased retirement rates for election workers. His first impeachment by the Democratic-led House of Representatives in December 2019 charged him with “abuse of power and obstruction of Congress” for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, by withholding military aid. Trump’s second impeachment on January 13, 2021, accused him of “incitement of insurrection” concerning the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Impeached twice by the House, Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times and is eligible to run again for president in 2024.

Efforts by state courts and officials to prevent Trump from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because of his involvement in the Capitol assault include a Colorado Supreme Court decision, an Illinois Circuit Court decision, and a ruling by the Maine Secretary of State. The efforts were not successful. On March 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Trump v. Anderson that states lack the authority to disqualify candidates for federal elections under Section 3. The Court clarified that only Congress can disqualify candidates or pass legislation empowering courts to do so.

Donald Trump’s false claims of interference

Donald Trump kept insisting baselessly that the 2020 presidential election was tainted with voter fraud and refused to accept it as valid even as election day of 2024 approached. In July 2024, The New York Times reported on an aggressive legal campaign by the Republican Party and its allies aimed at reshaping the voting system to their partisan advantage. This included efforts to limit access to the polls before Election Day and preparing for potentially spurious legal challenges to the certification process if Trump lost. Trump continued to espouse his now-familiar “stolen election” narrative of 2020, sometimes referred to as the “big lie”. He also repeatedly charged President Biden with politicizing the Justice Department against him through ongoing criminal trials

 His promise to weaponize the Justice Department against political adversaries, to deploy the military in cities that have high crime rates or are active with drug cartels by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, and his public endorsement of the January 6 attack on the Capitol increased apprehensions about the future of American democracy. In addition to these statements, the Republican Party took steps to monitor the election process closely. The Trump campaign vowed to deploy over 100,000 attorneys and volunteers to polling stations in battleground states. They also rolled out an “election integrity hotline” for poll watchers and voters to report perceived voting irregularities. Critics contended that this kind of action would be enough to create an intimidating atmosphere not only for the voters but also for election officials.

Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump

In 2023 and 2024, Donald Trump was confronted with serious legal challenges, including being held liable in civil cases for sexual abuse, defamation, and financial fraud, as well as being criminally convicted of falsifying business records. These legal issues were expected to feature in the 2024 presidential campaign. By December 2023, Trump had been criminally indicted in four separate cases, amounting to 86 felony counts, along with other pending lawsuits. On May 30, 2024, he was found guilty on all 34 counts of felony in The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. It was about the falsification of business records to hide hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in an attempt to quiet claims of a sexual tryst in the 2016 presidential election

Trump and many Republicans reacted to his trials by coming up with various false claims that they were “rigged” or politically motivated acts of “election interference” orchestrated by President Biden and the Democratic Party without evidence to back up these claims. Apart from the New York case, Trump faces 52 felony counts spread out across three major cases: Four counts in United States of America v. Donald J. On May 9, 2023, a jury ruled guilty on E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding him damages of $88.3 million. In New York v. Trump in September 2023, he was found guilty for financial fraud and ordered to pay $457 million judgment, for which he appealed.

Public opinion is divided on whether Trump deserves the legal troubles that have befell him. An April 2024 Reuters/Ipsos poll found 74% of registered voters say the federal election interference allegations are serious, with other high percentages for the alleged Georgia (72%) and handling of classified documents (69%) cases. After conviction in the hush money case, 54% of registered voters said that the jury made the right decision but 15% of likely Republican voters and 49% of independents think Trump ought to get out of the presidential race. But 56% of Republicans were unmoved by the verdict, and 35% of Republicans, along with 18% of independents, said they were more likely to vote for Trump. Trump tried delaying his trials, hoping to drag proceedings past the November 2024 election.

Analysis of results

As of 2024, Trump was the eighth presidential nominee in U.S. history to gain non-faithless electoral votes in at least three elections, joining such figures as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and Richard Nixon. Trump and Nixon are the only candidates to win a large number of electoral votes in three elections since the Twenty-second Amendment established term limits for presidents. Trump is also the only one of these eight to win the popular vote exactly once (Clay and Bryan never won it. Between the 2020 and 2024 elections, nearly 90% of U.S. counties swung in Trump’s favour both rural and urban areas. All 50 states and Washington, D.C. This election marked the first time since 1976 that all states and D.C. swung in the same direction, shifting towards Trump. Harris only won more votes than Biden in Maine, Utah, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, and Wisconsin. She lost votes in crucial battleground states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan. Trump picked up 2.5 million more votes, mostly from urban centre but also in rural and exurban counties across the Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Mountain regions. Harris received 226 Electoral College votes, the worst performance for a Democratic ticket since Michael Dukakis in 1988. Trump won 312 electoral votes, carrying 31 states. This election marked the second in the 21st century where a candidate won fewer than 20 states, the other being John Kerry’s 19-state win in 2004.

 The global risk implications of the US election and Trump’s presidency

 A wild card for business

At the start of 2024, Control Risks forecasted that the U.S. election would be the most important geopolitical event in the year, with far-reaching implications. The U.S. holds a significant position globally, so its election outcome impacts international trade, financial markets, and geopolitics. The result can cause changes in trade policies and economic strategies that affect supply chains and market stability. Changes in U.S. foreign policy may also change international security risks and diplomatic relations. In addition, the elections are considered to be representative of the larger trends in governance and populism, which may determine the political stability of other nations. the first term of Donald Trump was characterized by significant changes in policies and a unique leadership style that transformed both domestic and international perspectives. His government adhered to “America First” policy, prioritizing the interests of the United States in matters such as trade, immigration, and foreign affairs. This approach often resulted in confrontational rhetoric, particularly towards established allies and international institutions. In terms of global diplomacy, Trump’s approach was unconventional. He pursued personal connections with authoritarian leaders, such as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Decisions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and Iran nuclear deal highlighted willingness to cast aside multilateral agreements, which generated uncertainty over international cooperation.

This time: Stock market volatility and economic instability

Whereas many expect Trump to now resort to a more measured campaign strategy in his second White House campaign, he may indeed come harder with reforms as this most likely proves to be his final presidential term due to America’s presidential term limits.  Whereas economic changes were experienced with the beginning of his tenure, there is a big likelihood that his return shall present similar economic instability to what his first term represented with all his unorthodox economical strategies. Trump’s unpredictable style, through which he often makes social media announcements of policy changes, is likely to trigger immediate market reactions, further increasing investor anxiety and possibly causing market volatility. His “America First” trade policies, including tariffs and trade barriers, especially against China, may revive protectionist measures, which will disrupt global supply chains and change market dynamics.

A second Trump presidency may also increase geopolitical tensions. His confrontational foreign policy, especially towards China and Russia, could reshape global alliances and cause friction between nations. Trump’s preference for unilateral actions over multilateral agreements raised concerns about international diplomacy during his first term, and countries may need to adjust their foreign policies in anticipation of his return. For instance, in an October 15 interview, Trump suggested that South Korea, which currently pays for the presence of 28,500 U.S. troops as a deterrent against North Korea, should pay the U.S. $10 billion a year, describing the country as a “money machine.” This transactional approach to foreign policy could have huge global security implications as both allies and adversaries measure how to respond.

Trump’s policies have already had a significant impact on global supply chains, and his return may pose new challenges to businesses relying on international networks. The threat of tariffs and trade restrictions may force companies to adjust their sourcing strategies, which will increase costs and cause operational disruptions. A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit expects Trump to actually implement his threat to impose a 10% flat tariff on U.S. imports, with additional measures on politically sensitive imports, such as steel. Businesses should consider diversifying their supply chains to reduce risks and engage with local suppliers or explore alternative markets to buffer against potential trade barriers. Legislative updates would also be important in helping companies that have to be concerned with the Trump policy on supply chain disruptions.

Geopolitical tensions and global relations

A second Trump presidency could heighten existing geopolitical tensions, especially with China and Russia, and reshape alliances and create friction among nations. During his first term, Trump favoured unilateral actions over multilateral agreements, which raises concerns about the future of international diplomacy. Countries that have relied on U.S. support in regional conflicts may have to adapt to a more unpredictable foreign policy landscape under Trump. For instance, during an October 15 appearance at the Economic Club of Chicago and Bloomberg News, Trump talked about South Korea, where there are 28,500 U.S. troops deployed to deter North Korea. This transactional approach to foreign policy would have far-reaching implications for global security as allies and adversaries weigh how to respond to a more isolationist U.S. policy.

By: Meghna Dasgupta, Research Analyst, GSDN

The emerging China-Russian relations is one of the most worrisome trends in the current global order, especially for the traditional Western powers. This partnership is a testimony of two powerful players that have sought to challenge the Western domination. However, this partnership also poses profound threats to creating a more stable world, redrawing the map of international security, economy, and politics. The consequences of this partnership also go far beyond the West, impacting key players such as India and changing the balance of power in significant regions of conflict such as Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

China and Russia: A Strategic Partnership Rooted in Pragmatism

The primary motivation behind the China-Russian relationship is cooperative strategic objectives. Both Russia and China view the United States and its allies as adversaries seeking to undermine their regional influence and sovereignty. Their relations have become stronger in the past few years, especially after the crisis that erupted in March 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea, leading to Russia’s economic isolation by the West. Russia, looking for economic and military partnership, has shifted more towards China due to it facing economic isolationism. At the same time, China is leveraging its close cooperation with Russia to increase its role in the global arena and counteract the West.

Energy trade remains one of the critical components of Sino-Russian relations. Russia, for instance, has turned out to be one of China’s most vital suppliers of natural gas and oil to aid China’s economic growth. The expanding economic cooperation is exemplified by the Power of Siberia pipeline, which further enhances interdependence. However, this emerging relationship is not without its challenges. Russia’s reliance on China as a primary market for energy exports creates an economic imbalance, leaving Moscow strategically vulnerable to Beijing’s demands.

Security cooperation between the two countries has also fostered increased cooperation, particularly through military training, arms exports, and defence cooperation. Advanced equipment such as Russia’s S-400 missile defence system has been exported to China, bolstering Beijing’s military capabilities. These developments are indicators of strategic alignments that are targeted at countering the USA’s military presence in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific. These actions seek to destabilise the West’s alliances, such as NATO.

Due to the effect of the Western imposition of economic sanctions against Russia, China and Russia are shifting from the use of the U.S. dollar in their bilateral trade. Their decision to use national currencies in transactions is an indication of their willingness to undermine the western-dominated financial order. While these efforts are still in their infancy, they pose significant threats to the current global economic order by undermining the dollar’s supremacy and weakening the effectiveness of Western sanctions.

Western Concerns: A Strategic Challenge

Sino-Russian relations directly threaten the post-WWII liberal global order and have serious implications for NATO, the Indo-Pacific, and the world economy.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has put pressure on NATO’s financial capabilities since the alliance has been mainly focused on containing Russia in Eastern Europe. Although Russia has become closer to China, the synchronised threat of Russia in Europe and China in the Indo-Pacific region is emerging. Joint military drills and cooperation in the development of strategic plans by both Moscow and Beijing may cause potential simultaneous crises for NATO, being unable to react to both adequately.

China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region, such as China’s militarisation of the South China Sea, align with Russia’s broader goal of countering U.S. influence. Their cooperation may prompt China to adopt even more assertive actions in disputed zones, which will highly threaten the interests of American allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Western powers are especially concerned with the emerging strategic convergence between China and Russia as the rise of this new threat challenges the balance of power in Indo-Pacific security architecture.

The growing economic cooperation between China and Russia, specifically in energy and trade, weakens the impact of the western sanctions on Moscow. The economic support China offers Russia helps it keep up its confrontational approach even if the rest of the world turns against it. For the western economies, partnership also threatens to disrupt global trade systems, particularly if China and Russia succeed in weakening the U.S. dollar’s dominance.

The China-Russian cooperation extends to technology and cybersecurity spheres as well, which causes concern in the West. Russia and China alike have advanced capabilities for cyber warfare, with Russia’s expertise in cyberattacks complementing China’s artificial intelligence and 5G technology capabilities. This partnership presents a great danger to global cybersecurity, with the potential for coordinated cyber operations against Western infrastructure. Western powers must address this challenge by enhancing their cyber defences and fostering technological innovation to maintain a competitive edge. The growing use of cyber operations as a tool of statecraft by China and Russia underscores the importance of international collaboration to mitigate these threats.

India’s Role: A Balancing Act

India is in a precarious position here, navigating this multifaceted relationship with Russia and China as well as forging deeper ties with the western alliance in order to counter the emerging Chinese influence. In the past, India has depended on Russia for defence equipment and supply of energy. However, the emerging strategic partnership between Russia and China has also caused considerable concern to New Delhi.

Russia continues to be India’s key defence partner, with advanced weaponry such as the S-400 missile system playing a crucial role in the Indian military’s preparedness. Even though India remains neutral with regards to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Indian side is keen to preserve this strategic relationship. Nonetheless, New Delhi is acutely aware of the consequences of a Sino-Russian partnership, especially if it weakens Russia’s capacity to act independently in its dealings with India.

The primary concern for India stems from the sour relations it shares with China, marked by border disputes and increasing rivalry in the Indian Ocean region. These worries are magnified by the prospect of a deeper Sino-Russian relationship, which might move the regional equilibrium even more in China’s favour. To offset this, India has been forging closer relations with the U.S., Japan, and Australia through groupings such as the Quad to achieve strategic autonomy while fostering ‘stability in the region.’.

Despite the challenges, there are certain advantages due to India’s geopolitical significance. Its strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific region makes it an important partner for both Russia and the West. While Russia looks for India’s support to continue dominating Asia, the western powers regard India as an essential partner for countering China’s influence. Leveraging this position, India aims to balance its relations and navigate the complexities of the China-Russia-West triangle.

Conclusion: A Fragmenting Global Order

The emerging partnership between China and Russia signifies a major shift in the global order, challenging the traditional dominance of the U.S. and its allies. In this capacity, the military, economic, and technology cooperation between the two in international politics threatens to complicate global security and stability. For Western powers, the China-Russia alliance underscores the urgency of strengthening alliances, adapting strategies, and addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by this partnership.

India’s role as a key player in this evolving dynamic highlights the intricacies of modern geopolitics. As the world becomes increasingly multipolar, these new partnerships and alliances will set the trajectory of international relations for years to come. The current global order is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the deepening China-Russia partnership is a force that cannot be ignored.

By: Pragathi Kowndinya, Research Analyst, GSDN

“Orientalism is a powerful ideological apparatus that operates through a network of interconnected institutions, practices and discourses, shaping not only how the Orient is represented and perceived, but also how western subjects understand themselves in relation to the other”, says the 20^th century scholar Edward Said, in his renowned work ‘Orientalism’.

A pioneer in the post-colonial studies, Edward Said exclaims how the western domination and narratives has imprinted an inferior notion about the nations of the east in the form of neo-colonialism. Similarly, the ‘dependency school of thought’, narrates how the countries on the ‘periphery’ are locked in a state of dependency, by being the mere exporters of raw materials to the ‘core’ nations who comprise the wealthy nations of the west.

The philosophy of the global south, thus, emerged as an antithesis to the post-colonial hegemonic ambitions, ascribing the structural inequality of the world to the ideological, institutional and socio-economic attributes of the post-world war era.

Global South: The origin of a geopolitical reality

Carl Oglesby, an American political activist, is said to have coined the term ‘Global South’, to denote the group of countries who were victims of political and economic domination of the global north. Today, global south includes the nations of the then third world countries such as India, China and other Asian, African and Latin American nations who were the subjects of not just western imperialism but also persistently bearing the brunt of neo-colonialism in the form of globalization, economic sanctions, climate change catastrophes etc. which are the tyrannical realities of the 21^st century. Thus, ‘Global South’ is not a geographical entity, but a geopolitical reality encompassing the nations of both the northern and southern hemisphere.

The ‘global south’ nations began to speak for themselves from the cold war days. In the era of decolonization, the newly independent nations began to vent out their developmental ambitions through new alliances and groupings against the hegemonic ambitions of the west. For example, India, Indonesia, Egypt and other newly decolonized nations championed the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM), in 1950s that resonated the cause of the developing nations and reiterated their urge to take an independent position based on their respective national interest, irrespective of the cold war bipolarity.

The G-77, a coalition of developing countries, also advocated the collective socio-economic interests of the low and middle-income countries. This grouping, established at the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964, seeks to ensure south-south cooperation and acts as a platform for the nations of the global south to navigate a cohorted action across the geopolitical crossroads.

Rescripting the global balance of power

Today, global south nations embark on a journey that marks a structural shift in geopolitical gravity.  In the aftermath of the cold war and the disintegration of the USSR, the world witnessed unipolarity under the hegemony of the U.S.A. for a brief duration. But, a series of events such as the rise of China as a strong economic force, the 2009 global economic crisis, consolidation of parallel geopolitical groupings such as BRICS, ASEAN etc. decoupled the unipolarity of the U.S. and paved way for the emergence of a new world order which is multipolar!

Global South is a pivotal pillar of the multipolar world and the geopolitical dynamics encircling the global south is a testimony for the mammoth importance the world is giving to these nations in the era of multipolarity!

Global South, comprising the largest economies of the world such as China, India, Japan, its total share in the world GDP is 42% and the region houses 85% of the global population. The region has the world’s most oil rich countries such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. that accounts for 20% of the world’s fossil fuel production.

The nations are also rich reservoirs of critical and strategic minerals. For example, Brazil holds US$ 21.8 trillion worth of gold, iron, oil and uranium. China has a monopoly in the supply of 78% of world’s rare earth metals such as lithium, cobalt, gallium, tungsten etc. which are of strategic importance for the manufacturing of automobiles, EVs, semiconductor chips and other state-of-the art innovations which in turn decides the frontrunner of the 4^th industrial revolution.

Further, the global south has 70% of the world’s renewable energy potential and the crucial environmental spaces such as the Amazon rainforest that acts as the lungs of the earth and ensures ecological balance, a boon against alarming climate catastrophes of the current decade. The region also encompasses key maritime trade routes such as Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Malacca Strait which is responsible for more than 20% of global transshipment. Even the oceans of the region are a vast repository of vital mineral resources. For example, Indian Ocean Region is a treasure of polymetallic nodules; South China Sea is a treasure-house of hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas etc.

The massive demography, colossal amount of resource richness and geographical position of the emerging economies, make the global south an attractive strategic destination to fulfill the hegemonic ambitions in the geopolitical spectrum. This shift in geopolitical gravity from trans-Atlantic to Indo-Pacific is making the nations of the region to be more vigilant. Thus, to encapsulate a strong counter-weight against this neo-colonial wave, the nations of the global south are seeking to champion a strategy, thus, aiming to redefine the global balance of power. 

Struggle for Supremacy

The growing urge among nations to dominate over the global south has turned the region into a contentious zone. The spiraling diplomatic conflicts, trade battles and proxy wars have led to a geopolitical gridlock among the nations. Are the self-centered ambitions of the global powers drifting the region of global south away from the path of sustainable and equitable growth once again in the post-colonial era, is a question at stake that needs to be interrogated!

The U.S.A.’s strategic interests across the global south are growing day by day. The rate at which multilateral institutions such as BRICS, ASEAN, GCC etc. are accelerating their strong voice in the global south has made the U.S. rethink its foreign policy priorities in the region. To drive its hegemonic interests, the U.S.A. has anchored numerous initiatives. From strengthening QUAD to a summit level forum with key emerging economies of the region such as Japan and India to mediating peace between Israel, UAE and Bahrain through Abraham accords, the U.S.A. ensures that it remains as a vital strategic player in the global south.

Washington even hosted the United States-Africa Leaders’ Summit in 2022. The summit echoed the agenda to strengthen ties with African partners based on the principles of mutual respect, shared interests and values. The U.S. promised to foster health and food security, address the climate crisis and vulnerable communities’ needs in the African nations.

But, Washington’s preoccupation in Europe in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war has thwarted its attention away from the global south. Also, its unhindered support to Israel in the ongoing Israel-Hamas turbulence has questioned the credibility of the U.S. as a trustworthy partner in the region who can address the humanitarian and developmental concerns of the global south. These loopholes in the U.S.’s foreign policy have paved the way for the rise of China as a vital strategic stakeholder in the region.

China’s footprint as a geopolitical bulwark is steadfastly rising in the global south. With its flagship Belt and Road initiative (BRI), China’s expansionism is spearheading across Asia and Africa. From key infrastructure initiatives such as railways, ports, power projects to Chinese companies owning mineral hotspots of Africa, China has huge investments in the global south. For example, 12% of Africa’s industrial production is owned by Chinese companies.

Recently, the Chinese President also proposed the Global Development Initiative (GDI), Global Security Initiative (GSI) and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). This foreign policy paradigm further fuels China’s thrust to be a global hegemon. Even the nations of South Asia are riddled in the geopolitical puzzle of China. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives are pawns in China’s ‘debt-trap diplomacy’. Huge grants that flow under the banner of developmental aids make the nations inevitably tilt towards China.

To check the incursion of China and its allies in the Indo-pacific and global south at large and also to achieve their strategic goals the American and European interests are also rising in the region. For example, the Global Gateway initiative of the European Union, aims at connecting with the developing nations in climate, energy, transport, health, education and digital domains. Thus, the global south is gearing as an engine to harbour the global power dynamics. But, to what extent these ambitious visions of the nations translate into a developmental reality and leverage the growth momentum is a serious criterion that the global south has to introspect.

India: Articulating an inclusive global south

India is an ardent advocate of the voice of the global south. It has vocalized the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the developing world since Independence.  As a founding member of the NAM, India has firmly refuted the cold war bipolarity and defended the development of the newly decolonized nations.

Even in the aftermath of 1991 economic reforms, when India was exposed to the wave of globalization and liberalization, it didn’t ally or tilt towards any particular nation. Its foreign policy perspective has steadily stood for multilateral approach that serves its national security and strategic motives.

In the current decade, India has anchored a series of initiatives to materialize south-south cooperation. The G-20 summit, 2023, hosted by India propagated the philosophy of ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’, emphasizing the importance of a united action for sustainable global growth. The inclusion of the African Union into the G-20 at the New Delhi Summit is a landmark step to strengthen the voice of the developing nation. Also, by shaping the India-Middle East Economic Corridor (IMEC), India aspires to establish a credible bridge between South Asia and the west, in order to realize its socio-economic goals, thereby countering the disproportionate hegemonic ambitions of its counterparts.

New Delhi also hosts ‘Global South Summit’, to envision an inclusive and united global south. In the recently hosted 3^rd Voice of the Global South Summit, with the overarching theme of ‘An empowered Global South for a sustainable future’, India conceptualized the ‘Global Development Compact’(GDI). The GDI, encompass 4 pillars, which are trade for development, capacity building for sustainable growth, technology sharing and project specific concessional finance and grants

India always acknowledges the spirit of inclusive and sustainable global south that ultimately leads to a secure and peaceful world. In this direction, India as a member of G-4(Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) urges for the UNSC reforms, in such a way that it represents the current global order and geopolitical bonhomie. India, is also a key stakeholder in diverse range of multilateral platforms, from BRICS to ASEAN and from G-20 to IBSA, BIMSTEC and Colombo Security Conclave, New Delhi always seeks to furnish the principles collectivism, strategic multilateralism and a positive balance of power which ultimately unleashes a high-octane position for the developing world while scripting the new world order.

Unwinding the potential amidst spiking challenges

Currently, the world is embroiled with challenges from multiple fronts and the developing world is the major victim of it. For Example, the West Asian crisis is derailing the growth momentum of global south in terms of supply chain disruption, cross border terrorism, inflation, illegal migration, piracy threat, human trafficking etc. that is majorly impacting the labourers, marginalized communities of Asia and Africa.

Similarly, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) of the European Union that imposes a surplus tax on the carbon intensive commodities harms the export potential of the developing countries. This climate mitigation effort of the EU, poses an additional burden on those nations who are not historically responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions and climate catastrophes.

On the other hand, the inertia of the developed nations, to act rigorously in order to aid the developing countries for climate mitigation and adaptation measures is a testament for how the global south is hanging between a double-edged sword. For example, the recently concluded UNFCCC COP29 shows how realizing the vision of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR-RC) is a herculean task. The equity in climate finance, time frame and the sources of funds are still a puzzle. The U.S. $100billion annual climate finance pledged by the developed nations in 2009 is still a distant dream. The oil rich nations are resistant to compromise on their economic goals. Thus, the ambitious pledges and proposals are in no sight of translating into a reality. But the victims are the small-island nations, labour intensive nations of the global south who are most vulnerable to climate hazards.

As the Nigerian writer, Chimamanda Ngozi exclaims, “the real tragedy of our postcolonial world is not that the majority of people had no say in whether or not they wanted this new world; rather, it is that the majority have not been given the tools to negotiate this new world”. Thus, to proclaim and navigate the needs of the global south, the tools of power should lie in the hands of those respective nations. In this direction, the nations of the global south should unitedly urge for the UNSC reforms, a hallmark step in crafting an inclusive and developed global south.

Further, nations of the global south should ensure that democracy and human security thrives against military coups and proxy wars. With more than 60% of the global youth coming from the low- and middle-income countries of Africa and Asia, the nations have to nourish each other’s demographic potential with adequate aid towards education, health, skill empowerment and employment. The nations should be prudent in spending their resources. Rather than fueling towards endless wars and conflicts, resources should be channelized towards meeting the developmental goals.

This era, which operates on the realist principles, the lesson for the global south is to intensify interactions among member nations, increase trade, investment and currency exchange, diversify production and manufacturing network, indulge in global supply chain, invent and transfer critical & strategic technology, boost digital public infrastructure etc. and coherently counter the indifferent hegemonic aspirations. Implementing these lessons will make the strategic zone of the global south stable, independent and sovereign in the neo-colonial geopolitical game, thus, propelling its growth trajectory. As the current geopolitical chessboard is a positive sum game, if you war with your partners, you are under a geopolitical trap and you lose many things, instead if you revolutionize an inclusive and united action, you gain even more, that ultimately champions the global good and unleashes the potential to achieve the strategic victory of historically suffered nations and define a balanced global order. So, the decision is on the Global South, regarding which way to opt! 

By: Gayathri Pramod, Research Analyst, GSDN

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Morocco marks a significant moment in the evolving geopolitical landscape. Landed at Casablanca on November 21, 2024 Moroccan Prince Malay EL Hassen welcomed the Chinese delegates signalling growing ties between China and Morocco. This visit emphasizes their commitment to deepening their partnership and highlights their mutual aspirations to expand their influence and foster robust economic cooperation. The visit highlights Beijing’s growing strategic commitment for expanding its influence across North Africa, as this region serves as the gateway to Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

During the visit, the discussion centred around deepening economic cooperation, particularly in areas like renewable energy and infrastructure projects, such as Morocco’s first electric vehicle gigafactory (EV), which is taking centre stage. Moreover, this growing partnership is of global strategic importance regarding China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative and the utilization of Morocco as a strategic hub for the Chinese army to stretch its footprint across and beyond the region.   At the same time, Morocco’s strategic importance as a global trade hub and the ever-intensifying competition between China and the United States also play a significant role. So, through this paper, I will unpack the dynamics shaping this relationship and what it means for global power, spanning from the geopolitics of infrastructure to the geographic positioning of Morocco and trade and investment and analyze Xi Jinping’s visit and investments in Morocco and future implications.

Geopolitical Implications and Competitions in Africa

Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Morocco underscores China’s expanding influence in Africa, which has become a battleground for global power competition. Africa’s vast natural resources and emerging markets are critical aspects which make this region more pivotal for the strategic goals of big powers. Until now, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has become one of the significant geostrategic initiatives, marking the cutting edge initiative of China to inject billions of dollars into infrastructural developments across the continent, especially the construction of ports.

This has positioned Beijing as a dominant player in Africa’s economic landscape, and BRI impact is evident in the large-scale projects like the Mambasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya to the Doraleh Multipurpose Port in Djibouti; Beijing’s massive investments have modernized key infrastructure across the continent, connecting previously isolated regions to the global markets. Morocco became the first North African country to formalize its Belt and Road Initiative. This partnership has attracted significant Chinese investments, such as the US$ 1.3 billion electric vehicle battery gigafactory being built in Kenitra, a project set to make Morocco a leader in the global renewable energy supply chain.

All these investments and projects cement China’s long-term influence over the region. However, China’s approach has drawn criticism, and many scholars have accused it of fostering debt-trap diplomacy, where developing nations are burdened with unsustainable loans tied to Chinese firms and interests, just like how Kenya struggles with the repayment of its Chinese-funded railway exemplifies these concerns.

On the other hand, the United States has approached Africa through initiatives like Power Africa and Prosper Africa, emphasizing sustainable trade and partnerships governance reforms; unlike China’s infrastructure-heavy strategy, US efforts focus on capacity building and fostering private sector engagements. However, these initiatives have often been criticized for needing to be more visible than China’s tangible large-scale projects. Xi Jinping’s visit to Morocco places the country firmly within the more considerable geopolitical competition as a relatively stable and economically progressive nation in North Africa. Morocco has become a focal point for both Chinese and American engagement.

For Beijing, Morocco is a key partner in extending the BRI to North Africa and leveraging the country’s geographic and economic advantages. By strengthening economic ties with Morocco, China is poised to facilitate smoother trade routes and enhance its regional economic influence, paving the way for increased collaboration in various sectors, including infrastructure, energy, and technology. The implications of this partnership extend beyond mere economics; they also carry substantial geopolitical weight. As China seeks to expand its reach and influence on the global stage, cultivating relationships with key partners like Morocco becomes increasingly important. This partnership reflects a broader strategy of diversifying China’s economic and diplomatic relationships, reducing dependency on any single region, and strengthening its stance as a dominant player in global affairs.

Moreover, the collaboration between China and Morocco is a model for developing nations to engage with larger economies to promote mutual growth. As Morocco continues modernizing its infrastructure attract foreign investment, China’s involvement could accelerate these processes, benefiting both nations. This synergy supports Morocco’s economical developmental aims and aligns with China’s broader objectives under the BRI initiative, paving the way for a more interconnected world. Morocco remains a critical ally for Washington, particularly in counter-terrorism and trade as a bull against China’s growing regional influence. Along with the geopolitical implications, the strategic position of Morocco makes the region more vital not just for China but also for many other countries, mainly the USA.

China’s FDI share in Morocco is 3 per cent and has continued to increase gradually over recent years. However, Morocco has not cut off its relations with the European Union and the United States; instead, it has emphasized the investments. Since the early 2000s, China has invested nearly US$ 1.26 billion in Morocco’s Transport, Communication and Energy. Morocco’s participation in China’s BRI has significantly benefited its economy. This has led to accelerated industrialization, development, and a renewed drive to attract Foreign Direct Investments. Chinese investments, particularly in tourism, have also hugely boosted Morocco’s economy. Chinese firms have entered into hotels and resorts, spas, and amusement parks where visa applications have increased dramatically by 3500% from China to Morocco, significantly improving Chinese tourists to Morocco. Despite being relatively new, Sino-Morocco relations contrast with other North African countries’ trading partnerships. However, Morocco is gradually growing deeper in China’s debt book policy; the North African nation now owe China US$ 1030.55 million. This development is bringing the country nearer to the Asian behemoth China.

Geostrategic Significance

The geographic position of Morocco makes it a strategic lynch for global trade and geopolitics. Situated at the crossroads of Africa, Morocco act as a gateway for trade and investment to Europe and the Middle East. Its proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar is one of the world’s busiest transit points for trade between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Morocco’s Free Trade Agreement with the European Union and the United States provides unparalleled access to major global markets. For China, investing in Morocco is a strategic move to secure a foothold in a region that connects three continents.

Key points illustrate how Beijing is leveraging Morocco’s location to strengthen its global trade networks is mainly through the investments in the Electric Vehicle battery Gigafactory in Kenitra, which Chinese firms announced as a tech-planned investment of US$ 1.3 billion. This facility is poised to make Morocco a hub for green energy supply chains. Trying the country to Europe’s growing demand for EV components, the factory’s initial capacity of 20 GWH, expandable to 100 GWH, will place Morocco at the centre of a burgeoning renewable energy market. China has also widely expressed interest in Morocco’s rail infrastructures, particularly the proposed Maresh-Agader high-speed rail line. This project will enhance domestic connectivity and bolster Morocco’s position as a regional logistic hub. This complements China’s broader strategy of developing African transportation networks into seamless trade corridors that connect African nations to global markets through Chinese-built infrastructures.

Morocco’s strategic location plays a vital role in Europe, particularly for the European Union, as it seeks to diversify its energy sources and reduce its reliance on Russian energy. By establishing Morocco as a renewable energy hub, China is indirectly positioning itself as a critical partner in Europe’s Green Transition. This significant alignment with Europe prioritizes enhancing influences in Africa and Europe for the United States. The strategic importance of Morocco must be considered as a focal point of research. Where Morocco remains a key ally in the region for bolstering military exercises like African Lion, which simultaneously serves as a platform for the US diplomatic and economic initiatives in Africa.

However, as China deepens its economic ties with Morocco, there is growing concern in Washington about the potential erosion of US influence. In order to counterbalance China, the US needs to increase its investments in Moroccan infrastructures, technology and clean energy sectors, aligning its strategy with Morocco’s development goals. China’s stretching of its strategic footprint has broader implications for global trade and geopolitical alignment, which will likely be discussed. China’s investment in Morocco is part of its larger strategy to reshape global trade and power dynamics. By integrating Morocco into its belt and road framework, China has not only strengthened its ties with North Africa but also gained indirect access to European and Middle Eastern markets.

This interconnected strategy enables China to expand its economic and geopolitics influences far beyond Africa. However, this deepening relationship comes with risk for Morocco. One of the main challenges Morocco will be facing is an over-reliance on China’s economic vulnerability and dependence on China. Chinese loans often come with conditions that benefit Chinese companies and may limit the economic sovereignty of the recipient nations. Morocco’s alignment with China for the United States presents challenges and opportunities. While there is a risk of losing strategic influence in North Africa, there is also an opening for collaboration by focusing on complementary investments such as clean energy technology and trade facilitation.

Morocco thus entered the competition for manufacturing value chains to become the geopolitical gatekeeper of North Africa. Morocco has already overtaken Spain and is on its way to becoming a leading maritime nation in the western Mediterranean. In his interview, Dong Liu, an economist for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that Morocco presents a favourable setting for labour-intensive industrial manufacturing, which could create an excellent transfer opportunity for production from China to Morocco. While it is clear that China and Morocco’s bilateral cooperation and partnership involve more than cooperation and partnership business, the partnership has strategic dimensions for the two countries involved. On the other hand, Chinese enterprises may encounter challenges firmly tied up with French industries because Chinese and French relations are rare, and any hostility between the two countries may be bad news for Chinese business ventures.

Close relations with the countries of North Africa are critical for China due to the significant investments China has made in these countries. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has aimed at some key Mediterranean ports, raising alarm about possible confrontations that may endanger Western interests. Morocco is strategically placed, which has led China and the Western world to focus on this area, though China’s interoperation has adverse effects on Western dominance in Africa. This means a growing political impact through the business front, such as BRI, can bring more Chinese presence in fields like land, sea, air, and cyberspace. The Chinese threat of building or joint construction of a military base in the Maghreb region may alter the balance of naval forces in an important world region. He said that China’s increasing influence in Morocco, an important and strategic country in North Africa, may cause tension with American and European allies, affecting their interests. The Western powers must consider China’s actions in the North African region to protect its interests.

Conclusion

Xi Jinping’s visit to Morocco symbolizes pivotal bilateral relations in a landscape where international partnerships are crucial for sustained growth and influence. It underscores the significance of collaboration in today’s interconnected global economy, fostering an environment ripe for future developments that could reshape trade dynamics and geopolitical landscapes in the years to come. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), formerly the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative, is designed to establish comprehensive land and maritime trade routes connecting China with Europe. This ambitious project seeks to stimulate economic growth and development across the vast expanse of Eurasia, fostering closer cooperation among nations and creating new opportunities for trade and investment. Morocco plays a vital role in this vision due to its strategic geographic position at the intersection of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The country is a crucial link that can enhance connectivity and trade flow between these continents. By strengthening economic partnerships with Morocco, China can streamline its trade routes and expand its influence in the region. The collaboration between China and Morocco goes beyond mere trade facilitation. Both nations can create more efficient logistics networks by investing in infrastructure projects like ports, railways, and roadways. This will benefit these two countries and neighbouring regions, opening new pathways for goods and services.

Moreover, Morocco’s rich cultural heritage and growing economy provide a favourable environment for Chinese businesses seeking to invest and establish a presence in North Africa. As both countries work together, they can drive mutual growth and development, enhancing Morocco’s role as a key hub in the broader context of the Belt and Road Initiative. This partnership symbolizes a new era of symbolizes and economic collaboration, promising to unlock significant potential for both nations and contribute to the overall economic landscape of the region.

The US can strengthen its partnership with Morocco while offering an alternative to Chinese financing. Xi Jinping’s visit to Morocco clearly signals Beijing’s long-term commitment to expanding its influence in Africa and beyond. Morocco’s strategic location and economic potential also make it a valuable partner in the China Belt and Road Initiative. However, they also place it at the centre of a growing rivalry between China and the US. The outcome of this competition will shape Morocco’s future and influence the balance of power across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. For Beijing and Washington, Morocco represents an opportunity to assert global leadership in an increasingly interconnected world.