By: Nabhjyot Arora, Research Analyst, GSDN

The government of the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom reached a historic agreement on October 03, 2024, on transferring the sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, to Port Louis. The United Kingdom will retain the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, which the United States exercises as a military base for the navy ships and long-range bomber aircrafts. The treaty will end diplomatic isolation of Britain, over its claim to the British Indian Ocean Territory, which will be ceded as the ‘last colony in Africa’. A financial support package will be provided to Mauritius, including annual payments and infrastructure investment, while securing a long-term relationship with Mauritius, a close Commonwealth Partner.

Strategic Importance of Chagos Islands

The Chagos Islands – an archipelago of more than 60 islands in the Indian Ocean, lies east of Mauritius in Southern Africa and is located at a distance of 2191 kilometres from it. The islands remain critical to global security operations in the Indian Ocean, connecting the Middle East, South Asia, and East Africa.

The United States accessed the base to conduct military operations during the wars in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The development of Diego Garcia as a military base involved the eviction of 2,000 residents to Mauritius and the Seychelles, while others were displaced to the United Kingdom.

Migrant Issues

The agreement states that relocating displaced Chagossians back to the Chagos Islands, other than Diego Garcia, will be provided with a resettlement fund from the United Kingdom. A trust fund will be provided for the descendants of the 1,500 Chagossians who were forcefully evicted from the islands between the 1960s and 1970s, which the Human Rights Watch described as ‘crimes against humanity committed by a colonial power against an Indigenous people’.

The displaced complain of ill-treatment and low salaries in their adopted countries, and state that they have never been made a part of the negotiations. The Conservative Government in the United Kingdom refused the ‘right to return’, which the agreement reversed to maintain the pathway for Chagossians to obtain British Citizenship and return to an island, other than Diego Garcia. The migrant issue also deals with the Sri Lankan Tamils who have been held in a fenced camp on the island, stranded for more than two years in a makeshift camp on Diego Garcia.

Economic & Environmental Development

The agreement will enable infrastructure development and partnership, backed by the United Kingdom grant funding to deliver strategic projects. Mauritius and the United Kingdom will as well collaborate on projects on environmental protection, maritime security, and crime prevention, in addition to combating drug and human trafficking, as well as, illegal fishing in the Chagos Archipelago.

The region is rich in biodiversity and hosts over 200 species of coral and over 800 species of fish, thereby protection is enabled by the establishment of the Mauritian Marine Protected Area, enabling environmental cooperation between Mauritius and the United Kingdom.

Commercial fishing and tourism development could enable island restoration and economic revival. Cooperation between Seychelles and Mauritius to establish a joint management area of the underwater extended continental shelf to enable protection of the marine ecosystems threatened by climate change.

Inhabitation of islands might potentially result in increased levels of heat and pollution, thereby potentially damaging the islands. Except for the US military base on Diego Garcia at the southern tip of the archipelago, the islands have been uninhabited since 1973.

Security Implications & Foreign Policy

There remains contention regarding the handling of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, especially with the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, apprehending close relations between China and Mauritius, as the latter could provide access to the strategic territory, resulting in a potential security threat to the military base of Diego Garcia.

The apprehension remains over the infrastructural development taken up by China, in addition to the Sino-Minitians tracing their ancestry back to Beijing, which can jeopardize the ties between the United Kingdom and the United States.

The base remains the key logistical center for navy ships, long-range bombers, and intelligence operations in the Indian Ocean Region (IOCR), especially with the expansion of Iran and Lebanon’s military expansion and attacks in the region, a stronghold of the United States is crucial to maintain international security, in addition to the escalation of China-Taiwan conflict and Beijing militarization of the South China Sea.

Political Implications

The territorial dispute has raised internal conflicts, with the Labour Party under scrutiny for potentially ceding away the remaining 13 British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Argentina could potentially reclaim authority over the Falkland Islands, however, Bermuda, Dhekelia in Cyprus, Gibraltar Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri, Caribbean, Pitcairn, and St. Helena are not contested so far.

The migrant issue can be a cause of concern for Gibraltar, with an open land border policy, in addition to a potential claim by Spain. Countries in the European Union (EU) and the African subcontinent remain less supportive of the United Kingdom, while the agreement with Mauritius could provide some leverage against diplomatic isolation especially with the United States Presidential Elections turning in favour of Donald Trump.

The Role of New Delhi

The extension of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region supports balancing ties with Beijing, in addition to increasing its deterrence ability to secure the maritime frontiers. The United States of America and the Republic of India have granted support to secure the national interests of Mauritius in the Global South. Back-channel diplomacy aimed at securing peace and rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific highlights the statement made at the Shangri La Dialogue in 2018 by the Indian Prime Minister respecting international law and negotiations to resolve border disputes.

By: Gayathri Pramod Panamoottil, Research Analyst, GSDN

The rise of BRICS in 2009 with the initial four countries –Brazil, Russia, India, and China- aimed to create a platform for cooperation among emerging economies. South Africa officially joined in 2010 completing the grouping. These nations represent a diverse mix of regional powers, large populations, and significant natural resources giving them collective weight on the global stage and presenting a significant challenge to the traditional dominance of the G7 countries – the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Canada. However, in a world on the edge of a geopolitical shift, a seismic shift has taken place. As Western nations scramble to maintain their powers a new alliance has arisen. From October 22-24, 2024 Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted a historic summit by uniting the founding members of the BRICS with five new powerhouses Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.  The transition of BRICS from five to BRICS Plus in 2024 (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia signalizes the waning nature of Western dominance and challenging the rule-based order of G7 in many ways.  So, through this paper, I will analyze the possible way how BRICS can pose challenges to G7.

The rise of BRICS

The BRICS nations have emerged as major players in the global economy over the past few decades. One of the key reasons for the rise of the BRICS nations is their rapid economic growth. With their rapid growth and increasing influence, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa sought to establish a platform where they could coordinate their positions on key economic and political issues. By coming together, BRICS countries aimed to enhance their bargaining power in international negotiations and promote a more equitable and inclusive global economic order.  Traditionally speaking BRICS was considered a geopolitical counterweight to the West birthed from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis. BRICS acted as a voice of the global south in the international domain.  Another important aspect that contributed to the formation of BRICS was the desire to challenge the dominance of Western powers in global institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions have traditionally been dominated by Western countries, which has led to a perceived lack of representation and voice for emerging economies. By forming BRICS, the member countries sought to create alternative institutions such as the New Development Bank to address the financing needs of developing countries and promote a more balanced and fair global economic system. 

Moreover, BRICS countries also recognized the benefits of closer economic cooperation and integration. By leveraging their collective strengths and resources, the member countries could explore new avenues for trade and investment, expand market access, and foster greater economic development. Through initiatives such as the BRICS Business Council and the BRICS Trade Fair, the organization aims to facilitate business partnerships and enhance economic ties among its members. Furthermore, the geopolitical dimension also played a significant role in the establishment of BRICS. The member countries share common concerns about issues such as global security, terrorism, and regional stability. By working together, BRICS countries can coordinate their efforts to address these challenges and promote peace and stability in their respective regions and beyond. The organization has also emerged as a platform for dialogue and cooperation on a wide range of global issues, including climate change, sustainable development, and governance reform.  The origins of BRICS can be attributed to a combination of economic, political, and strategic considerations. The organization represents a unique grouping of emerging economies with shared interests and goals, seeking to enhance their influence on the global stage and promote a more inclusive and equitable international order. As BRICS continues to evolve and deepen its cooperation, it has the potential to become a key player in shaping the future of global governance and economic development.

Challenges to G-7

Overall, the rise of the BRICS nations presents a significant challenge to the traditional dominance of the G7 countries. There was a golden time when G7 ruled the global economic stage with 45.5% of Global GDP in 1992 and BRICS was a mere 16.7%. Today there has been a momentous shift as BRICS nations account for 37.4% of Global GDP which indicates the dwarfing nature of the GDP of G7% up to 29.3%.  As BRICS expands it is challenging the established G7 along with G20 presenting a united front of nations determined to re-write the rules of International Governance. The expansion of BRICS signals a dramatic power shift on the world stage with the recent inclusion of energy-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. BRICS Plus stands poised to wield unprecedented influences over global energy markets.  Together these nations account for 43% of crude oil production and 32 % of natural gas output.  The BRICS nations have emerged as major players in the global economy, challenging the G7’s dominance in international trade, investment, and governance.

One of the key aims of BRICS is to create an independent payment system that utilizes the currencies of its member states to facilitate de-dollarization, thereby reducing the effects of Western sanctions that are intended to protect sovereignty, freedoms, and human rights. The initial phase of this initiative involves targeting essential international markets to enhance economic influence. A notable example of this strategy is BRICS’s engagement in the energy sector, where the organization seeks to establish a collaborative energy partnership among its members. With the recent addition of energy-rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates, BRICS has the potential to exert a level of influence in the global energy market that rivals that of OPEC, thereby reshaping the landscape by controlling a substantial share of the world’s oil and gas resources. They have also formed a political and economic bloc, presenting a united front on key global issues. This has challenged the G7’s ability to act unilaterally and dictate the terms of global governance. As the BRICS nations continue to rise in prominence, they are likely to present an ongoing challenge to the dominance of the G7 countries in the years to come.

Similar to various global organizations, BRICS has acknowledged that artificial intelligence represents a pivotal advancement in technology, possessing the capacity to boost productivity, protect national and domestic security interests, influence public discourse, and heighten competitive dynamics. During the recent BRICS summit held in South Africa in August 2023, Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled plans for the formation of an AI study group aimed at “developing AI governance frameworks and standards through broad-based consensus.” This group is charged with the responsibility of coordinating AI-related initiatives, promoting interdisciplinary research, and examining the ethical, social, and economic ramifications of AI technologies. Given China’s practices regarding AI, this initiative poses significant risks to the international order; the nation is known for its extensive surveillance and regulation of citizens via the social credit score system, its efforts to create deepfakes for propaganda purposes, and its influence over the development of international AI standards that prioritize state control over transparent governance.

Additionally, BRICS is focusing on the agricultural market, with the primary goal of developing an independent grain trading system proposed by Russia. Given that BRICS members represent 42 percent of global grain production annually, this initiative would enhance the group’s bargaining power regarding grain prices and counteract sanctions imposed by the United States and its G7 allies. Among the BRICS nations, China, Russia, and Iran have been particularly proactive in forming a security partnership, often referred to as the new triple axis. Since 2018, these three countries have conducted annual joint military maritime exercises to bolster regional security, promote multilateral collaboration, and demonstrate to the G7 that BRICS is consolidating its stance against Western military and political influence. The latest exercise took place in March 2024 in the Gulf of Oman, a crucial waterway for oil transportation in the Middle East and the sole maritime passage from the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea into the Persian Gulf. This naval drill involved over twenty warships and included training in search and rescue operations, special joint tactical manoeuvres, and aerial exercises.

Strategies to mitigate the influence of BRICS

Three policy approaches are suggested to counter the initiatives of BRICS and protect the established international order from potential disruptions. The first approach emphasizes the creation of substantial economic trade agreements designed to deter actions that could undermine the current economic system. This can be accomplished by offering BRICS nations a trade agreement that includes significant financial incentives, thereby fostering closer ties with the United States and its G7 allies. Such a strategy would help reduce these countries’ alignment with the objectives of Russia and China.  South Africa is particularly well-suited for this agreement due to its neutral stance on BRICS issues and the growing importance of Africa as a focal point of economic interest and competition among global powers. The existing African Growth and Opportunity Act could be expanded into a more formal trade agreement, strengthening political and economic ties with Western nations. This would not only enhance trade relations but also create a platform for dialogue on shared values such as democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.  While South Africa is a prime candidate, similar agreements could also be pursued with other BRICS members like India or Egypt, which may be receptive to increased economic collaboration. India, with its burgeoning economy and strategic geopolitical position, could benefit from enhanced trade ties with the West, particularly in the technology and defense sectors. Egypt, on the other hand, could leverage its strategic location and historical ties to attract investment and support from Western nations, thereby reducing its reliance on BRICS partnerships.

The second policy recommendation emphasizes the importance of establishing a Western-led AI governance framework that garners global acceptance. This initiative is essential to undertake before China and BRICS make significant progress in this area. The pursuit of this framework has been ongoing since the G7 summit held in Hiroshima, Japan, in May 2023, where Prime Minister Fumio Kishida launched the Hiroshima AI Process. This initiative seeks to create a guidebook that upholds international norms, forming the basis for a G7 AI governance framework. A notable outcome of this effort was the introduction of the Hiroshima AI Process Comprehensive Policy Framework in December 2023. However, despite these advancements, the framework has not yet engaged with the global community. The subsequent vital step involves ensuring the interoperability of regulations within advanced AI systems, which will enable the G7 to uphold the rule of law, human rights, and democratic values.

This can be accomplished through the establishment of risk management protocols, governance guidelines, ethical frameworks, and consistent terminology and definitions. It is even strengthening multilateral institutions and frameworks that promote a rules-based international order. By reinforcing organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. and its allies can ensure that global economic governance remains transparent, equitable, and responsive to the needs of all nations. This could include advocating for reforms within these institutions to represent the interests of developing countries better, thereby countering the narrative that BRICS nations are the sole champions of the Global South. Additionally, the U.S. could lead initiatives to create new coalitions or partnerships that focus on shared challenges such as climate change, public health, and cyber security. By positioning itself as a leader in addressing these global issues, the U.S. can attract countries that may feel marginalized by BRICS initiatives, thereby fostering a sense of collective responsibility and cooperation among like-minded nations.

The third policy recommendation highlights the necessity of enhancing military collaboration to tackle regional security challenges. The G7 must fortify security alliances with China’s principal military partners to diminish their collective operational effectiveness. A strategic emphasis should be placed on strengthening military ties with India, which, as of 2024, is recognized as the fourth most formidable military globally, following the United States, Russia, and China. The United States is already engaged in cooperative efforts with India through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which includes Japan and Australia. Additionally, India’s intricate relationship with China, particularly following the 2020 border conflict that resulted in casualties on both sides, highlights the urgency for closer military collaboration. To enhance India’s operational capabilities, the G7 and the United States should consider initiating joint military exercises that cater to India’s unique requirements, such as mountain warfare training and the provision of specialized equipment to effectively address potential border incidents. This strengthened military partnership would not only improve India’s defense preparedness but also play a vital role in promoting regional security and stability. While fostering security partnerships with other BRICS nations like Saudi Arabia or Brazil may offer advantages, a more robust relationship with India through joint military exercises would be especially effective in countering the military influence of Russia and China.

Forecast

The implications of BRICS extend beyond economies. They reach into very fabrics of global governance. The G20 has long served as a platform for addressing global issues. But BRICS Plus threatens to divide it further with countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa holding membership in both groups, while BRICS Plus creates a unified block and it has the potential for fragmentation and increased tensions within G20 countries – having multifaceted and overlapping interests and identities.  Moreover, BRICS countries are playing tremendous roles in global security as they come together their collective influence extends beyond economies to address international security concerns through Joint Military Exercises and collaborative efforts to combat terrorism.

BRICS Plus is positioning itself as a vital player in the global security landscape. Further solidifying its relevance on the world stage BRICS is not just a club of emerging economies it challenges the status quo with initiatives like independent payment systems and AI governance frameworks.  BRICS Plus aims to reshape the landscape of international relations as they push for de-dollarization. Under such circumstances, the relevance of G7 is highly significant and worth addressing as we stand on the precipice of this new era of BRICS plus. There exists a huge shift in the power structure not only in the economic landscape but also as a whole. The current development in West Asia and the spike in oil and petroleum products is worth understanding. The new grouping can potentially act as a catalyst for managing the price hike through their creative bilateral dialogues and engagements. 

Conclusion                  

The BRICS coalition, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is increasingly positioning itself as a formidable counterweight to the traditional dominance of the United States and its allies within the G7. This coalition, particularly under the leadership of China and Russia, is not merely a collection of emerging economies; it represents a concerted effort to challenge and potentially redefine the established rules-based international order that has been in place since the end of World War II. One of the primary strategies employed by BRICS is the creation of an autonomous economic system that operates independently of Western influence. This includes initiatives such as the New Development Bank, which aims to provide funding for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in member countries and beyond, thereby reducing reliance on Western financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

By fostering economic cooperation among its members and promoting trade in local currencies, BRICS seeks to diminish the dollar’s dominance in global trade, which has been a cornerstone of US economic power. In addition to economic initiatives, BRICS is advocating for a governance framework for artificial intelligence (AI) that could disrupt existing global standards. As AI technology continues to evolve and permeate various sectors, the establishment of a BRICS-led framework could challenge the norms set by Western countries, particularly in areas such as data privacy, ethical AI use, and regulatory oversight. This shift could lead to a fragmented global landscape where different standards coexist, complicating international cooperation and potentially leading to a race to the bottom in terms of regulatory practices.

Moreover, BRICS is actively building military alliances and enhancing defense cooperation among its member states. This includes joint military exercises, arms trade, and strategic partnerships that could alter the balance of power in various regions, particularly in Asia and Africa. The military collaboration among BRICS nations not only serves to bolster their collective security but also sends a clear signal to the West that they are prepared to defend their interests and assert their influence on the global stage. In light of these developments, the United States and its allies face a critical juncture. To effectively counter the challenge posed by BRICS, they must undertake a series of proactive measures. Establishing strategic trade agreements that enhance economic ties among like-minded nations can help to counterbalance the economic initiatives of BRICS. These agreements should focus on fostering innovation, ensuring fair trade practices, and promoting sustainable development. Additionally, the formulation of a universally recognized AI governance framework is essential. In response to this challenge, the United States and its allies must undertake proactive measures, such as establishing strategic trade agreements, formulating a universally recognized AI governance framework, and enhancing security collaborations with the key BRICS nations. Neglecting these actions could lead to a reduction in US influence and threaten the stability of the international order that has historically upheld global peace. The US and its allies should lead efforts to create standards that prioritize ethical considerations, transparency, and accountability.

By: Meghna Dasgupta, Research Analyst, GSDN

The recent appointment of Mark Rutte, the ex-Dutch prime minister as the 14^th Secretary-General of NATO on October 01, 2024 is the addition of a highly skilled political figure to one of the most complex organisations in global politics. Rutte will face a complex set of challenges as he takes on this new responsibility. He is known to be strong supporter of Ukraine, and is known to have a legacy of successful consensus-building. Of course, the main strategic task of NATO, collective defense is under significant pressure from various geopolitical processes internal disagreements within the member states. From Donald Trump’s coming back to power in America to Europe’s negligence on defence expenditure; much will rely on Rutte’s leadership to cement the future stability of NATO.

One of the major tests ahead of Rutte is going to be his dealings with Donald Trump as the 47^th President of USA. Donal Trump has previously questioned NATO’s relevance to American interests, and he has openly said that he is sceptical of the organisation. Past criticisms of NATO from Trump have been that the US provided more than other member countries, with hints of discouraging the US from being part of NATO. This could bring several immediate questions for Rutte, such as further backing for Ukraine, the future enlargement of NATO, and the USA’s attitude to European security.

Of course, Trump’s policy towards Ukraine can become a threat to the North Atlantic Alliance and harm the long-term goals for attaining a stable, unified, and peaceful Europe. He has also suggested during the campaign that he will reduce the USA’s aid to Ukraine, which will be inoperative for NATO, while it is trying to enlist Ukraine and support Ukraine’s sovereignty. The United States is the largest donor in Ukraine’s fight against Russia, supplying critical arms and assistance that other NATO partner cannot supply at this time. If this support weakens it could harm Ukraine’s defense and discourage other NATO members to contribute their resources thus create a division in NATO alliance.

With the arrival of another harsh winter, Russia is continuing its brutal attacks on Ukraine, particularly its energy infrastructure. This plan that was also used during the winter of 2022-2023 targets to decrease Ukraine’s capability by paralyzing the electricity and other critical services. NATO, therefore, under leadership of Rutte will be focusing on strengthening the air defense systems that can help repel targets on Ukrainian infrastructure. The previous secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, had emphasized the importance of air defence in protecting Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, Europe has a small stockpile of such air defence currently, and a few NATO supporters that are relatively close to Russia are not generous in handing over their defense due to increasing threats.

This challenge highlights that there is an immediate need for NATO to reinforce and improve its defense inventory. Even the U.S., one of the most active members of support, experiences delays when it comes to Congress allocating more money and arms for Ukraine. Rutte will need to make sure that NATO partners join force to get the job done and to provide all the required support that Ukraine needs in terms of help for reconstruction of the damaged infrastructure. A significant challenge for Rutte will be money. For many years, he was considered to be leader of the ‘frugal’ faction. Thus, it will be a challenge for him to argue that countries have to increase their defence expenditure.

NATO’s collective defence framework is based on equitable contributions, that NATO members are expected to contribute, 2% of GDP on defense. However, even today, several significant NATO members do not meet this specified level. 23 out of the 32 countries are contributing 2% of their GDP on defence. Other countries that spend below the target are those in the Southern Europe such as Italy, Spain and Portugal. Another NATO member not to meet the threshold is the founding member Canada, who has spent 1.37% of its GDP for defense.

The paradox in defence spending poses several risks to democracies and more importantly challenges the stability of NATO. Some members cannot or will not pay their fair share and, this has been a point of conflict between the member states, particularly those in Eastern Europe who feel threatened by Russia’s ongoing aggression. It also provides NATO-critics, like POTUS-elect Trump, with a valid point to demand American spending cuts on the alliance.

For Rutte, this will be a question that requires gentle persistence on the one hand and some essentialist understanding on the other. Encouraging underperforming countries to increase their defence expenditure, will need diplomatic pressure, while being sensitive to their economic concerns.

One of the longstanding problems within NATO has been the complaint of Eastern European member states of their limited representation at the leadership roles of NATO. Though these countries, especially those bordering Russia has been very vocal against the Russian aggression, these countries feel that they do not contribute much in the organization’s decision-making system. To make matters worse, the Eastern flank was further disappointed when Rutte, a Western European was appointed as the Secretary-General.

This tension demonstrates a dichotomy between some of NATO’s western members who prefer stability and dialogue, while the Eastern countries who, feeling threatened by Russia, prefer a more assertive approach. This division is not only rhetorical since it impacts the allocation of resources, deployment strategies, and the prioritization of NATO’s security objectives.

Rutte will also soon have to appoint a deputy secretary-general. Picking a member from an Eastern European state could therefore go a long way towards addressing some of the dissatisfaction and show that NATO is serious about a broader representation of leadership. Moreover, deepening cooperation with the Eastern European partners will become crucial for Rutte as these states have a clear interest in enhancing the NATO’s defence capabilities against Russia.

In addition to transatlantic conflicts, NATO has internal threats because of growing authoritarian nationalism throughout Europe. In Europe, Pro-Russian and Anti-NATO sentiments have become quite prominent in the recent years. For instance, in France the far-right National Rally party has seen a positive change, in Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orban has openly shown his support to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

These parties challenge the stability and integrity of NATO because of their narrative, which might provoke criticism of the alliance and questions NATO’s stance towards Russia. Rutte himself is no stranger to this phenomenon, as he has seen the rise of Geert Wilders Party for Freedom in Netherlands which has shown admiration for both Trump and Putin. This political reality poses a specific difficulty for Rutte, because, on the one hand, he will have to balance the interests of NATO member countries, and on the other, take a clear stance against authoritarian regimes.

Some of the difficulties that Rutte will encounter are; Rutte will have to help NATO regains its strategic direction amid the influence of the far-right political parties. This might involve advocating for greater transparency, ensuring that NATO policies are communicated effectively to the public, and working closely with governments to address domestic concerns without compromising the alliance’s core values.

Conclusion

The Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is NATO Secretary-General at a time when the organisation is challenged by complex external threats and internal discord. The return of Trump may weaken US support, which in turn undermines NATO, especially when Russia’s aggression against Ukraine demands NATO support and coordination Internally, the disagreement between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe, and the rise NATO-sceptic political parties may disturb the unity of the alliance.

To overcome these challenges, Rutte has to use his skills, namely, the ability to reach consensus and commitment to NATO’s charter. This will be critical in strengthening the unity of NATO, reminding members to make equitable contributions and solve security concerns of allies in Eastern front. As NATO faces a period of uncertainty, Rutte’s strategic decisions and diplomatic acumen will play a vital role in ensuring the alliance remains a robust force for peace and stability in an increasingly polarized world.

By: Ankit Kumar

Donald Trump’s return to the White House marks a significant political shift in the U.S. and beyond, ushering in a new phase of U.S. policy both domestically and internationally. Following the victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s second term is set to bring policies aligned with his “America First” agenda, potentially reshaping the U.S. approach to trade, immigration, and global security.

Domestic And International Impact of Trump’s Policies

Trump’s 2024 campaign reiterated his core themes from his previous term: stricter immigration policies, protectionist economic measures, and conservative social stances. Backed by a Republican-controlled Senate, Trump has the momentum to advance these policies more decisively than in his previous term. Key policy areas include immigration reform, trade policies, and a reduction in U.S. involvement in international organisations.

Immigration Policies

In his campaign, Trump stressed the importance of stronger borders and proposed sweeping immigration reforms. His plans include terminating birthright citizenship and implementing stricter visa policies, which could significantly impact H-1B visa holders, many of whom are Indian nationals working in technology and engineering fields.

This stance could disrupt the lives of Indian professionals in the U.S. and raise challenges for aspiring immigrants. Trump’s rhetoric of reducing legal immigration pathways may lead to increased scrutiny of visa applications and make the immigration process more stringent for Indian families and professionals.

Economic Ramifications: “America First” And Its Effect on Trade with India

A hallmark of Trump’s agenda has been economic nationalism, with a focus on reducing trade deficits and bringing manufacturing jobs back to America. This “America First” approach could affect India-U.S. trade relations by imposing higher tariffs on imports, a strategy that could impact Indian exports to the U.S. and affect sectors such as IT services, pharmaceuticals, and textiles.

For the Indian economy, these trade restrictions may prompt concerns over a narrower U.S. market. Trump has hinted at renegotiating trade deals that he perceives as unfavourable to U.S. interests, and this may include agreements with India. However, some analysts suggest that Trump’s strong stance against China could open avenues for India to emerge as a strategic alternative partner, leveraging tensions to deepen economic ties.

Foreign Policy and Strategic Alliances: Potential Gains For India?

Trump’s renewed focus on a U.S.-led coalition against China could benefit India, particularly as tensions between India and China remain heightened. Analysts foresee a Trump administration continuing to encourage India’s role as a counterbalance to China in Asia. Trump’s past administration saw the U.S.-India defence relationship strengthen, with multiple defence agreements signed, and this trend may continue with India positioned as a key regional ally.

However, Trump’s scepticism toward NATO and other traditional alliances could signal a more unpredictable U.S. presence in global security frameworks. This unpredictability could lead India to recalibrate its foreign policy, seeking stronger ties with European and Asian powers to offset potential volatility in its relationship with the U.S.

Stock Markets and Economic Stability

Trump’s win had an immediate effect on financial markets worldwide, with investors reacting to potential policy changes that could impact global stability. Indian markets, sensitive to U.S. economic policy shifts, initially responded with a dip amid concerns over Trump’s trade policies and their impact on emerging economies like India. Analysts predict that if Trump implements tariff increases and limits on tech and services sectors, India’s stock markets could experience further volatility. However, India may benefit if Trump’s policies indirectly encourage Indian investment or redirect capital flows toward Asia amid U.S.-China tensions.

Environmental Policies and Climate Change

During his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, and although the U.S. later rejoined under Biden, Trump’s re-election raises questions about the future of U.S. climate commitments. Trump’s emphasis on deregulation and prioritisation of American energy independence may lead to reduced U.S. involvement in global climate initiatives. This could put pressure on India, which is balancing its own energy needs with ambitious climate goals. A divergence on climate policy could impact collaborative efforts in renewable energy and emissions reduction.

What Lies Ahead

Trump’s leadership style and policy priorities could reshape not only U.S.-India relations but also the broader global political landscape. His focus on a transactional approach may redefine traditional alliances and lead to a more bilateral approach in international relations. For India, this means both challenges and opportunities. As Trump prioritises U.S. economic interests, India may need to navigate a more complex diplomatic landscape, positioning itself as a reliable ally while advancing its own strategic interests.

India’s strategic value as a regional counterbalance to China is likely to remain a significant factor in its relationship with the U.S. under Trump. However, India’s policymakers may need to adapt quickly to changes in U.S. trade policies, visa regulations, and geopolitical strategies, all of which could impact the Indian economy and its global partnerships.

By: Aishwarya Dutta

On the sidelines of the 16th BRICS Summit, 2024 Indian Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi held a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kazan. In their first formal bilateral meeting after half a decade, Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping on October 23, 2024 accepted the agreement for a resolution of the military stand-off at the Line of Actual Control in their joint initiative to bring Sino-Indian relations to normalcy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the importance of properly handling the differences, disputes and disagreements between the two countries. Besides, the leaders also decided to restart dialogue mechanisms between Foreign Ministers and other officials of the two countries in order to stabilize and rebuild bilateral relations that have been virtually suspended on most of the issues.

A brief overview of the BRICS and its achievements

In its two decades of existence, the BRICS (comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) group has achieved policy coordination among five very disparate countries and has started posing a serious challenge to the status quo in global governance. With the addition of five new members – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, it is now collaborating on many policy issues and delegating authority to a range of newer BRICS organizations. Throughout its first decade, BRICS has advanced new policy initiatives in the field of global economic governance. At the 2014 BRICS Summit in Brazil, the New Development Bank (NDB), and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) was launched. Since then, the NDB has approved billions of dollars in infrastructure and renewable energy financing projects in BRICS countries and received excellent long-term issuer credit ratings from respected agencies. The CRA has become an important financial stability mechanism designed to assist countries with balance of payments crises. The new institutions have stepped up to provide financial stability and respond to the needs of COVID-19. In addition, BRICS countries have also made some progress in the ‘old’ international financial institutions. For example, they negotiated a reform of the IMF quota system, which now includes Brazil, Russia, India, and China among the top ten largest shareholders. These accomplishments have demonstrated that BRICS countries’ domestic differences in political structures, development models and values can be overcome in pursuit of common, well-defined international agendas.

But BRICS lacks common organizational features such as a permanent international secretariat or a formal treaty. The presidency of BRICS usually rotates and so do the summits.  The India–China rivalry has also cast a dark shadow over the group and has been a bottleneck for BRICS institutionalization.

The trajectory of India-China relationship in the context of BRICS:

India and China’s rivalry stemmed from their national aspirations of becoming global powers. The two countries have competed in various spheres since their independence, especially for influence in the third world. China is not supportive of India’s aspirations to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has been against India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). In 1962, both the countries fought a war which has been the main reason for a more aggravated and antagonistic relation. In addition to border disputes, the two countries have also clashed over the Tibet issue and the Dalai Lama, as well as over influence and strategic space in South Asia, East Asia, and the Indian Ocean. In addition to that, China’s ‘all-weather’ strategic partnership with Pakistan has been a constant worry for India, which sees China using Pakistan as a ‘cat’s paw’ to keep India enmeshed in South Asian affairs, inhibit India’s ability to channel its energies to challenge China’s aspirations to become the pre-eminent power in the Asia-Pacific, and curtail India’s rise as a global power.

In a similar way, China did not receive India’s support for its most important international project – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China resented India’s unwillingness not only to join BRI but also to endorse it. In its defense, India claims that its principal objection is the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), BRI’s flagship project, which passes through Kashmir and impinges on India’s territorial sovereignty. Moreover, other concerns include China’s ‘String of Pearls Strategy’ (network of commercial and military facilities extending along the sea lanes of communication in Asia and Africa) and its increasing forays in the Indian Ocean. To counter China’s rising ascendancy, India has launched initiatives such as The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) and Project Mausam.

Sino-Indian bilateral ties suffered a huge setback in 2017 during the 73-day standoff between troops from two countries in Doklam, at China–Bhutan–Indian trijunction. The standoff led to increased tensions with a potential to escalate into a nuclear war, but both India and China agreed to withdraw troops from the area. However, the incident increased mistrust between the two countries and damaged bilateral ties.

To improve bilateral ties, in 2018, Modi and Xi met informally in Wuhan, China. In the ten-hour meeting known as the Wuhan Summit, both countries agreed to improve communication and further strengthen the existing confidence building measures. The bilateral relationship received a jolt when the Modi government amended Article 370 of the Indian constitution in August 2019 and divided the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh – to be administered directly by the central/federal government in New Delhi. However, the ‘Chennai Connect’, an informal meeting between Modi and Xi in October 2019 in Mamallapuram, restored and enhanced bilateral relations. ‘Chennai Connect’ led to the formation of a high-level mechanism on trade and investment. The chief aim was to increase Chinese investments in India and bilateral trade with China, finding ways and means to increase Indian exports and market access for Indian companies in China to mitigate the trade deficit – a major Indian concern. In 2020, Xi proposed to further strengthen the bilateral relationship, including cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties to mark 70 years of the establishment of diplomatic cooperation between the two countries. Modi hailed the ‘Chennai Connect’ as ‘a new era of cooperation between the two countries and Xi invited Modi for a third summit in China in 2020. ‘Chennai Connect’ emitted the belief that increasing economic and cultural ties will strengthen bilateral ties and ease the differences from becoming disputes.

Current position of the two countries

Tensions between the two countries arose again in June 2020 because of the clashes in Galwan, which further escalated into a military standoff. Although Modi and Xi had brief encounters at the Group of 20 meeting in Bali in 2022 and again in Johannesburg in 2023, the 16th BRICS Summit marks a significant renewal of dialogue. Both the leaders emphasized on the fact that stable, predictable, and cordial bilateral relations between India and China, as two neighbors and the two largest nations on earth, will have a positive impact on regional and global peace and prosperity. Besides that, it will also contribute to a multi-polar Asia and a multi-polar world.

By: Shivangee Bhattacharya, Research Analyst, GSDN

In order to showcase special interest in the Artic, 2024’s Artic Security Conference became the platform to discuss and findings related to the security of that region. In the arising tension between Russia and Ukraine, the atomic security factors are becoming a point of discussion. The tension got escalated after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The high north is observing major dialogues related to the increased military activities and instances of sabotage and provocation. The increased heat in the region is often the subject of nuanced research and policies related to it. In order to understand the situation, first it’s important to understand what the conference was about.

The conference took place at Litteraturhuset in Oslo on September 12-13, 2024. It was a two-day event referring to the agenda related to the security challenges in the region. The conference was delighted to have a series of speakers, which included the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the head of the U.S. Coast Guard of Alaska, and also the head of Canada’s defence in the Arctic. The region is being governed under the Artic Council, which is an intergovernmental forum inculcating 8 countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S.) with the given uprising tension in the half of the world, which does comprise the economics, military, and environmental aspects that are at stake for both Artic and non-Artic nations.

The major dialogue was on the increased militarization in the region. With the depletion of ice in the Artic, both Artic and non-Artic nations created their bases of military strength in that part. The discussion majorly focused on Russia’s interest in the region and its bases of military for its benefits. Russia has both economic and defence interests; this became evident after the investment done by Russia on military outposts and nuclear-powered submarines.

At the conference, the concern was shown by the Western countries over the ambitions of Moscow over the region. NATO and the state of the U.S. stated the importance of vigilance over the region. The US came up with strategies for the Arctic allied countries, previously introduced in 2023, which focused on the increased presence of military patrols and exercises, majorly with Norway and Canada. The US’s Admiral of the Navy emphasized multilateral naval presence to counter the ambitions of Russia and its footprint. China not being part of the Artic circle but do have interest in it, and it also showcased its interest through naming it “near Artic State.” With growing cooperation with Russia, China’s interest in the region is becoming suspicious and also creating tension among the Artic power states.

The conference also inculcated the environment and climate issues related to the region. With the growing pace of global warming, the region is warming twice its actual environment. In the reports given by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, the ice extent has reached its lowest in the year 2023. The loss of ice is affecting the ecosystem, the environmental components, and, most importantly, the lives of indigenous living beings. The conference discussed the preservation of the natural resources and risks, including oil spills and gas exploration. Countries like Canada and Greenland came forward to safeguard the traditional ways of life and also emphasized the importance of indigenous governance in the region.

Next panel of discussion consisted of the economic aspects, the factor of exploitation of natural resources in Artic region did become major factor in geopolitical dynamics. Russia regressive extraction of resources became point of debate whereas countries like Canada and Norway pushed for a sustainable development. During the discussion Russia’s Yamal Gas project came in and became the cornerstone Artic strategy. Russia’s plan to export gases to global markets will help in solidification of its position in energy supplier. Along with Russia, China became the point of contention as through Russia’s plan of extraction of gases China is planning its plan for its energy development. The BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) of China has reached the Artic region as well through its investment in the infrastructure, mining and telecommunication in the region majorly in the part of Greenland. The final draft of the conference did acknowledge the benefits of investments in the area but also poses challenges to the sustainability and environmental aspects.

The conclusion of the conference did mention of the need for enhanced governance structures to maintain and manage the Artic region. UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and the present Artic Council emphasised on cooperation and need of body for the monitoring the rapid changes. The key concerns came out as there is a lack of mandate upon the security issues by the Artic council.

Members like Finland and Sweden and also the Artic nations and non-Artic nations called for the structuring of new body which will work for the prevention of conflict and competition. Artic Security Forum was also being proposed by the members for the easier management of security and military presence in the Artic region and to have transparency as well.

The conference did showcase the growing importance of the region in the global arena. Through the dialogues between nations, it became clear that the issue is multifaceted which asks for the cooperation between Artic as well as non-Artic nations. Also, the important factor was the management of resources and preserving the region for the future generation by adopting sustainable development. The event did mention about the rights and life of the indigenous communities present in the region; the region does consist of indigenous people who are living in a traditional lifestyle. With growing global warming, the breakage ice and melting create tension for the climate. The region is more than just a region for the geopolitical competition. It requires cooperation and assistance from all over the world leaders in order to save the Artic. The region does provide commerce, resources to the leaders but the extent of exploitation can lead to the deterioration of the region. With all environment degradation in the region its poses both opportunities as well as challenges for the world leaders, the challenge is for the leaders is to manage the challenges effectively.

By: Pragathi Kowndinya, Research Analyst, GSDN

‘Pax Americana’, an idea crafted by the U.S., envisioned the post-war world. Its core mandate envisages the motto of establishing ‘peace and tranquility’ in the West and beyond, as the world nations had witnessed the brutality and ruckus due to the outbreak of World War II in 1945.

In the post-war era, the U.S., a victorious allied power, began to aid nations that were entangled in political and economic crises. Initiatives such as Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were not just rehabilitation and rebuilding plans for revamping Europe and Asia but they became U.S.’s strategic and soft power tools.

Post 1945, the era of decolonization across Asia and Africa, parellely witnessed the rise of U.S. across Atlantic and Asia-Pacific. When nations were jeopardised in political and economic turmoil, the U.S. manipulated the geopolitical game to its advantage. From unfurling the principles of liberalism, capitalism to dollarization and democracy the world watched U.S. scripting the geopolitical realities of those days.

In this voyage to exercise relative strategic relevance and superpower beyond continents and oceans, a major pawn for the U.S. is the ‘Middle East’ or what we call as ‘West Asia’. Yes, U.S.’s geopolitical footprint in the region is a 360-degree approach from trade, infrastructure development to military presence and intervention in domestic and regional politics.

Seven decades have passed since World War II. Does the journey of the U.S. in the Middle East, given innumerable ups and downs, stand for the goal of ‘peace and tranquility’ (Pax Americana) even today? Is the U.S. losing control over the region in the era of multipolarity? How is U.S. and Middle East’s domestic politics affecting the larger goal of peace and regional growth? Are U.S. initiatives scaling only conflicts and fuelling its strategic and hegemonic interests? Let us decode.

U.S.-Middle East ties: tracing through history

The earliest traces of the relations between the U.S. and the Middle East dates back to the 18th century. Soon after independence, the U.S. began to sign treaties with the non-western nations to ensure safe passage of its vessels through the Mediterranean Sea, for the sake of trade prosperity. Later, in the 19th century American missionaries landed in West Asia and established educational institutions in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Palestine etc. 

Until the outbreak of world wars, the U.S. had no geopolitical interests in the region, as it was an era of British monopoly. Even the oil mines were monopolized by the British. Thereby, the Middle East nations too had a cordial view towards the U.S. as they had no imperialistic ambitions.

Infact, in the aftermath of World War 1, when U.S. President Woodrow Wilson gave the ’14 points formula’ for global peace. Middle East nations looked up to the U.S. for defending & protecting them against European imperialism and world war atrocities.

However, the situation took a rampant shift in the inter-war period and in the post-war era. When the British and French powers began to weaken, U.S.’s strategic interests strengthened in the region. Further, the U.S.’s urge to tackle the Soviet Union and its growing influence in Syria, Iran, Turkey, deemed ‘Middle East’ as a trump card in the political and ideological conflict of the cold war era.

Why ‘Middle East’ Matters

The Middle East can be perceived as the heart of the geopolitical map. Not just the U.S., but every nation aspires to have a strategic fist in the region. For example, India considers the Middle East as an ‘Extended Neighbourhood’. What makes Middle East so vital in geopolitics are the following factors –

1.  Geographical location

The region is at the epicentre of three continents-Asia, Europe and Africa making it a pivotal zone for trade, transit and infrastructure development. Middle East nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel border the Mediterranean Sea that is crucial for world trade, which sustains 20% of world trade especially oil, petroleum and other strategic resources, through Suez Canal and other routes.

• Resource Richness

The Middle East houses 2/3^rd of the world’s petroleum reserves in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and UAE etc. The Gulf Cooperation Council together fulfills 60% of the world’s oil needs. Thus, restoring influence across the Middle East is a synonym to having strategic control over world’s crucial resources and a route to climb the ladder of global hegemony, because this is the era, where ‘oil’ is the engine of global growth.

U.S.’s strategic interests in the region grew by leaps and bounds especially to thwart the influence of the U.S.S.R. during the cold war. In its quest to create a unipolar hegemony, as a part of Truman Doctrine, U.S. deployed military bases to Saudi Arabia, mainly to deter the Soviets. Infact, the U.S. also had fruitful relations with Iran until the 1979 Iranian revolution.

But, the maiden large scale military operation of the U.S. in the Middle East was in 1953. The U.S. and British jointly overthrew the democratically elected regime in Tehran, as the later tried to nationalise the oil industry. Thereby, reimposition of the autocratic rule in Iran began the era of U.S. influx into domestic politics of the region in order to nourish its strategic and economic interests and as a master stroke against U.S.S.R.

But, in the path of ensuring benefit for U.S. oil companies and the path of hegemonic aspirations of the U.S. also began to fuel the geopolitical turbines of the Middle East. It led to the eruption of internal conflicts and instability in the region.

U.S.-Israel Axis: Unfolding of a new chapter 

With the creation of a Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Peninsula in 1948, embarked on a new saga for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. It truly turned around the pages of diplomacy and geopolitics that acts as the root cause for the majority of the turbulence that the Middle East faces today.

In 1922 and 1944 U.S. Congress acknowledged the Balfour Declaration that reflected the spirit of creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. But initial days marked minimal relations as U.S. was not happy with Israel launching Suez War. President John Kennedy also expressed dissatisfaction regarding Israel’s secret nuclear programme.

However, the Six Day war of 1967 made the entire scenario to flip, for the mutual advantage of both Israel and U.S. when Israel defeated Jordan, Syria, Egypt single handedly in a short span of 6 days and captured few swaths of  territories, U.S. began to consider Israel as its perfect partner in a strategically vital zone to defeat Soviet interests.

Thus, began the chapter of U.S.-Israel alliance that is unhindered and continuing for ages. This relation is a catalyst for current chaos in the Middle East.

Israel: An ally amidst the Arab Axis

Today the U.S. has more than 19 military bases in the Middle East, Qatar being the largest with 10,000 troops and Saudi Arabia with 2,700 troops. Also, the U.S. has approximately US$ 80.53 billion direct investment in the region across manufacturing, mining and service sectors. Yet, the panorama of U.S. geopolitics in the Middle East is predominantly derived by the Israeli factor, an ‘all weather ally’ for the U.S. especially after the break away of the U.S. from Iran due to the 1979 revolution.

For example, in the latest Israel-Hamas conflict since October 7, 2023 that has killed more than 40,000 people, injured lakhs and displaced the complete 2.3 million population of the narrow strip of Gaza, U.S. has unequivocally supported Israel.

Ofcourse, the U.S. has voiced humanitarian needs, dialogue, diplomacy and a ceasefire. But, the aid to Israel is flowing relentlessly. The ever spiraling war, with no sign of de-escalation and dialogue, is stretching its arms even to Lebanon, Iran etc. triggering a caution towards the outbreak of a larger regional war, and the U.S. role cannot be understated.

According to data, the U.S. has spent US$ 17.9 billion on military assistance to Israel since October 7. Even, the U.S. never criticizes Israel for it being an undeclared nuclear power. Israel has received a bilateral aid of US$ 158 billion from the U.S. since the end of the Second World War. 16% of Israel’s military budget is funded by the U.S. Another hallmark of the U.S.-Israel alliance is since past 5 decades, the U.S. has vetoed nearly 53 UNSC resolutions that were critical of Israel.

This unwavering shield of the U.S. to Israel against global accusations, just in the name of defending Israel’s sovereignty and integrity, irks other Arab nations, in spite of there being testimonial humanitarian atrocities in Gaza.

Arab states consider that the detrimental support of the U.S. to Israel, is deferring the solution for the Palestinian question. Though, U.S. initiated Middle East Peace Plans through the Oslo Accords to arrive at a solution for Palestinian question and the Abraham Accords as a normalization effort between Gulf states of UAE, Bahrain and Israel, they are still purely theoretical and there is a long way to go, to it to materialize, given the current volatile situation.

On the other hand, U.S. defense and financial assistance keeps flowing into Israel. Backing Israeli actions in global platforms, seeking to backlash Iran are a testimony for Arabs to feel that the U.S. is portraying double standards in the region. The stand of the U.S. with respect to the Iraq invasion in 2003 and dismantling the Saddam Hussein regime, nuclear tests of Israel, questions of human rights and democracy in Palestine is leading to rift between the U.S. and the Arab world for a decade now.

China facet to U.S. Policy in Middle East

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) making inroads into the Middle East is definitely leaving the U.S. at the crossroads in the region. Though 50% of U.S. overseas military assistance goes to the Middle East the situation isn’t the same as it was a decade ago.

U.S. interests for hegemony and power are at stake in this age of multipolarity and rising Chinese dominance. The Middle East is crucial for China as much as it is for the U.S. to seek hegemony in global trade and development.

China has cordial relations with Saudi Arabia, a partner of U.S. and also with Iran, the conflict of U.S. Also, China has a great economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain etc. to cater to the oil needs of China’s mammoth manufacturing sector. For example, China completed the construction of one of the world’s largest offshore oil and gas platforms in Saudi Arabia.

Through its flagship Belt and Road Initiative, China has ventured into telecommunication, housing, mining, road, railway and other transit construction across the Middle East. For example, Vision 2030 with respect to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt etc. The plan is to revamp the maritime silk route connecting the South China Sea to the Mediterranean, giving it a strategic edge in the region.

With Iran being inducted into SCO and Sino-Iran relations celebrating 50 years of cooperation, China is definitely a step ahead of the U.S. by partnering with all Middle East states beyond ideologies.

China acting as a mediator between Iran and Saudi Arabia, thereby facilitating for peace and diplomacy is a masterstroke of China against the U.S.’s libertarian goals in the Middle East and acts as a strategic deterrence for U.S. operations in the region.

As the Minister of External Affairs of India, Dr. S. Jaishankar says, “For the last 20 years, the U.S.  has been fighting but not winning in the Middle East, and China has been winning but not fighting in the region”. Thus, despite numerous aids and peace plans, Middle East dreams for the U.S. are in doldrums, in an era where the region is more important to Washington D.C. than ever before, to tackle Beijing’s interests. Of course, the U.S. ‘s tilt towards Israel sometimes makes the Arab world tilt towards China more, inevitably!

U.S. domestic politics: Catalyst for Chasm

The main chasm for smooth foreign policy of U.S. in the Middle East is Israel factor. The reason for U.S.’s unhindered support to Israel is beyond mere strategic goals. Irrespective of the party and leader in power in the U.S., the aid for Israel is spiking tremendously over the decades.  One of the narratives that explain the U.S. ‘s position towards Israel is that the U.S.’s electoral politics is funded by the Jewish capitalists.

American Jews and elite Christians who are pro-Israel are politically active citizens. Be it Democrats or Republicans, they are invariably influenced by pro-Israel lobby, which in turn influences U.S. policy towards Israel and decisions taken on Israeli soil definitely spills across Middle East. For example, pro-Israel groups contributed over US$ 30 billion to the U.S. elections. Thus, for anyone contesting U.S. presidential elections Israel is a double-edged sword. If you consider it, you will lose hold in West Asia, if you ignore it you will probably lose your president cap and homeland victory, where the latter is a greater loss than the former!

Thus, U.S. domestic politics defining its Middle East policy is empirical evidence for how capitalism navigates political decisions in the era of realist politics of 21st century.

The Era of Realism: But not at humanitarian Cost

Mounting geopolitical goals, humanitarian concerns are backsliding in the Middle East. The terrors emanating from Gaza is a testimony for how humanity is at stake to fulfill hegemonic and expansionist ambitions. Neither Israel nor Hamas, Hezbollah and other non-state actors or of course U.S. can distance themselves from being accountable for the atrocities caused that are costing innocent lives.

Unwinding political scenarios doesn’t guarantee unipolarity in the region, as this is the era of multipolarity where national interests are a key priority for every stakeholder. That doesn’t mean any nation has a right to kill innocent lives, harm the environment and cause pollution due to massive use of chemical induced weapons.

Of course, the U.S. hasn’t completely lost prominence in the region. Even, the Middle East needs the U.S. for its economic, military and strategic interests and to ensure balance of power across trans-Atlantic to Indo-Pacific.

With U.S. Presidential elections over, the world has to wait and watch how the policy towards the Middle East unfolds under the President-elect Donald Trump. The Biden administration is unable to de-escalate and initiate a ceasefire between the warring parties in the current Israeli-Hamas conflict and strike a balance of power in larger West Asia. Infact, Israel and Iran’s direct confrontation are hinting the chances of a regional war, there is no aspiration for peace.

Thus, the current challenge for the U.S. is to navigate a responsible foreign policy that considers all stakeholders into account, involves in a consistent and constructive dialogue and negotiations, mediating peace treaties with not just Iran, Israel and other state actors, but also with non-state actors of the region.

Rather than mere checkmating China, Iran or Russia, the U.S. should ensure a sustainable partnership and development along with restoring its strategic interests. It should accept only limited defensive practices and not the acts that trigger proxy wars.  The U.S. should not act as a catalyst for chaos and conflict, but should be a kingpin for cooperation and collaboration in the Middle East or anywhere else. Because, in this era of global warming and climate change, wars should not add to global burden. Only these actions can save the U.S. from a global backlash and give it the fame of a true global frontrunner or leader, a position that it always aspires for!

By: Dr Gerald Walker

India and Israel have a good relationship, and the two countries are on course to achieve even greater ties in the future. Today, India is Israel’s second-largest trading partner in Asia. Though bilateral merchandise trade is dominated mainly by diamonds, petroleum products and chemicals, recent years have witnessed an increase in trade in areas such as electronic machinery and high-tech products; communications systems; medical equipment, according to India’s Embassy in Israel.

But it is these ties that have come under intense scrutiny, especially after the Hamas attack on October 7 of last year that saw 1,200 Israelis killed and 250 kidnapped into Gaza.

Lebanese Ambassador to India Rabie Narsh said Lebanon acknowledges India’s principled support for Palestinian rights, and said he believes that India, as a global leader, can play a decisive role in advocating for an end to Israeli occupation and oppression.

“We call on India to leverage its influence to urge Israel to respect international law and UN resolutions,” he said. “India’s support for a just and peaceful resolution is especially vital in these times, where Israel’s aggression threatens regional stability.”

India and Israel’s diplomatic relationship formally began in 1992 when India established full diplomatic ties with Israel. Before that, India’s support for the Palestinian cause and alignment with the Non-Aligned Movement had kept the two countries apart diplomatically, despite quiet economic and military connections.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, India’s major ally, and evolving global geopolitics in the 1990s led India to reassess its foreign policy, including toward Israel.

Formal relations opened up avenues for cooperation in defense, agriculture, technology, and counter-terrorism. Since then, the partnership has steadily grown, with both nations now considering each other strategic allies.

After the October 7 attack by Hamas against Israel, India has quietly remained supportive of Israel, even though it does not always support it in public. As an example, the cargo vessel Borkum in May 2024 carried explosives and ammunition destined for Israel.

Information obtained by the Solidarity Network Against the Palestinian Occupation (RESCOP), suggested the Borkum contained 20 tons of rocket engines, 12.5 tons of rockets with explosive charges, 1,500kg (3,300 pounds) of explosive substances and 740 kg (1,630 pounds) of charges and propellants for cannons, according to an Al Jazeera report.

Because of this and other incidents that infuriated pro-Palestinian activists and lawmakers, several prominent individuals have tried to put a stop to India’s aid to Israel. In September 2024, India’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to suspend military exports from India following a plea from human rights activists and scholars to minimize India’s complicity in potential Israeli war crimes in Gaza, as noted by the Middle East Eye.

The court said jurisdiction fell under the authority of the Union Government under Article 162 of the Indian constitution. The top court also observed that intervening would amount to a judicial injunction for breach of contracts that the Indian companies may have entered into with international entities.

“The fallout of such breaches cannot be appropriately assessed by this court and would lay open Indian companies which have firm commitments into proceedings which may affect their own financial viability,” the court said.

In June this year, right-wing political commentator Anand Ranganathan went viral when he called for an “Israel-like” solution in Kashmir, telling a podcast host: “Israel has catered for its people who were hard done by. We haven’t; it’s as simple as that. Despite that, yes, there may never be a solution because of the ideology of the people who hate Israelis, and the ideology of the people who hate Hindus.” Many people decried the remarks as a clear call for genocide against Muslims in Kashmir.

Ranganathan replied on X that he was not calling for genocide, but rather to prevent another genocide by “rehabilitating the victims, making settlements, fighting terror, securing borders.” Ranganathan’s comments have been criticized by many in India’s liberal left who oppose the US-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and certainly do not want India to be compared with Israel.

Many have also sought to differentiate the struggles in Kashmir and Palestine. “Those who liken Kashmir to Palestine, mostly the hard right and Islamists, understand neither the Kashmir dispute nor the Palestine question,” an editor for The Hindu, wrote on X.

The reason the relationship between India and Israel is so important to each country is because they share similar visions and rely on each other for military and diplomatic assistance. India’s membership in BRICS is also potentially beneficial to Israel which could use another diplomatic pathway to reach nations it does not have relations with.

Leaders of the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – just met in Kazan, Russia from October 22-24 for the 16th BRICS Summit where the organization welcomed its five new members – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

As BRICS expands and looks to become a more influential player in world affairs, India faces the increasingly complicated task of continuing to deepen ties with the United States and play a leading role in Russian and Chinese-dominant global forums, like BRICS.

India’s BRICS connection gives Israel that diplomatic pathway it needs to some of those countries, while Israel provides India with an added pathway to the United States.

This mutually beneficial relationship is important, and each nation can and should continue to find ways to build on their common interests and needs. In the decades ahead, India and Israel can grow their partnership and benefit each other in several ways, including militarily, diplomatically and economically.

Indeed, the future is bright for India-Israel ties.