By: Aishwarya Dutta

“Diplomacy is like Jazz: Endless variations on a theme.” The recent SCO summit proves how much truth this statement by Richard Holbrooke holds.     

The 24th summit of the Council of heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on July 4, 2024 adopted the Astana Declaration approving 25 strategic documents covering energy, security, trade, finance and information security. The SCO is an Eurasian intergovernmental organization which came into formation on 15 June, 2001 in Shanghai, China. Currently the SCO has ten members namely, Republic of Kazakhstan, People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Belarus. The SCO undertakes policies based on the principles of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and mutual consultations, respect for cultural diversity, and a desire for common development with an aim to maintain and safeguard peace, security and stability in the region.

The summit titled “Strengthening Multilateral Dialogue – Striving Towards a Sustainable Peace and Prosperity” saw several bilateral as well as multilateral meetings among the heads of states of the member states. However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence has been speculated as a purposive stance on India’s part to put pressure on China to reconsider their encroaching activities at the Indo-China border. On behalf of Modi, the External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar represented India and urged global action against terror-harboring nations; thus, taking an indirect dig at China and Pakistan. What caught the attention however was the brewing Sino-Russian as well as Russia-Pakistan ties. These growing bilateral relationships could be a matter of apprehension for India. We shall explore these variations in the paradigms of the relationships between the major powers within the SCO in this article.

Sino-Russian ties

Putin and Xi held bilateral meetings on the SCO sidelines. They met on July 3, 2024 making it the second meeting in two months and emphasized on the strengthening of partnership to counter Western influence. Putin underscored that Sino-Russian relations are going through their ‘best’ phase, highlighting their role as a stabilizing force globally. He also emphasized SCO’s growing significance in shaping a “fair multipolar order.” China has offered crucial support to Russia’s economy amid severe sanctions while the two nations have also strengthened military cooperation.

After several years of apparently unbeatable distrust and bilateral crises, the post-Cold War era has observed an extraordinary regeneration and strengthening of the relationship between Russia and China. In the 1950s, after a primary influence of the stated socialist ‘brotherhood’ and deep political and financial assistance, Moscow and Beijing quickly went into an aggressive tactical hostility. In 1969, things went to the point of nuclear dangers. The relations were finally normalized in 1989 and the two countries developed a close association. Since 1991, the major powers of the world have experienced intense modifications in status: China, prospered in military and economic transformations, appeared as a rising power on the global arena; Russia, extremely involved in political and economic changes, lost the status of super power; and the U.S got converted to the only remaining international superpower after it had vanished its Cold War opponent. The theoretical basis for strategic partnership between China and Russia refers to the system of contrasting a unipolar world and sponsoring a multipolar system in the world. In the mid-1990s, leaders of China, Jiang Zemin, and of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, decided to make a ‘strategic partnership’ between the both states. Russia and China signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 2001.

Russia-Pakistan bilateral ties

In the recent SCO summit, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif proposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to consider barter trade as a means to outmaneuver Western financial sanctions hindering economic cooperation. Sharif recalled how Pakistan and Russia engaged in barter trade (of machinery, textiles, leather and other products) during the Soviet period. According to Sharif, resuming the barter system would greatly benefit Pakistan and help overcome many other challenges.

Pakistan and Russia have witnessed a fluctuation of relations during the cold war and the post-cold war era. The worst period of their relationship lasted a decade from 1979 to 1989 when Pakistan helped launch the US sponsored guerrilla war of the Mujahideen against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This bitter phase ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. But another source of tension arose in the later part of 1990s on account of Pakistan’s support to the Taliban in the Afghan civil war and its ultimate recognition of their government which the Soviets believed was harmful for the entire region. However, despite this history of tense relations, both countries from time to time made moves to improve their relations. Nawaz Sharif, as Prime Minister of Pakistan, visited Russia in 1999 and signed quite a few trade and industry related agreements. This visit greatly helped in breaking the ice and opening a new chapter of bilateral relations.  The visit was termed by the Russian President Boris Yeltsin as a “new chapter in relations between the two countries oriented into the 21st century.” There onwards exchange of visits by representatives of both countries became a regular feature. In 2011, Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin publicly supported Pakistan’s desire to attain full membership of SCO. He further stated that in South Asia and the Muslim world, Pakistan was a very important partner for Russia.

While Pakistan needs Russian investment for reviving its economy due to dwindling American aid (post the 9/11 tragedy), Russia also eyes Pakistan as a good destination for its investments and trade, with India getting closer to the US and Europe in its place. It is in this light that the recent progress in Pak-Russian relations is being seen. Many scholars, leaders and diplomats believe that Pakistan-Russia relations would grow more even in face of Indo-US tacit opposition.

Implications for India

Modi’s vision of a ‘secure’ SCO seems to be a far-fetched dream. ‘Secure’ is an acronym for security, economic cooperation, connectivity, unity, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and environmental protection. The growing Sino-Russian and Russia-Pakistan relations within the context of the SCO might prove to be a serious hurdle for India’s secure strategy. While PM Modi decided to skip the summit, Sharif and Xi saw it as a great opportunity to strengthen their ties with Russia which is also one of the most important allies of India. While India balances out between Russia and the USA to counter Chinese hegemonic influence in Asia, China’s closer relations with Russia might prove to be troubling India’s stronghold in Asia as well.

However, the friendship between India and Russia is still very strong. The former Soviet Union was the main supplier of defense equipment to India for many decades. Their geopolitical ties have become stronger since the 2011 ‘Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.’ The Russian Government has supported India’s efforts for becoming a permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with full veto power and also backed India’s full membership of SCO. Both countries have been cooperating in energy and space programs also. India and Russia have taken some major steps to promote trade and economic cooperation as well. However, in view of India’s growing relations with the US and interest in purchasing its military hardware, Russia has been going closer to Pakistan. Russia’s logic is that since it has accepted India’s agreement of strategic partnership with the US, India should also not object to Russia’s evolving friendship with Pakistan.

Another point to note is that Pakistan and China are also very close friends with strategic cooperation in many micro and macro level economic projects and military related fields. China has been steadfast in supporting Pakistan’s role in the ‘war on terror’. It has firmly supported Pakistan in all matters in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and also not to forget the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China even aided Pakistan in developing the Gwadar Port in Baluchistan.

Conclusion

Having explored all these facets, India seems to linger outside a triangular camaraderie which exists among China, Russia and Pakistan especially after the recent SCO summit. The forum might become a little less attractive for India to further its cause. Being an ally of only one of the countries i.e. Russia would put India in a tight position in the future. However, we are yet to witness how things unfold for India.

By: Mahima Sharma, Research Analyst, GSDN

The European Union’s relationship with Hungary has reached a critical juncture, marked by persistent violations of rule of law principles and a deepening divide over core values. Despite Hungary’s significant economic ties with the EU, the country’s authoritarian government, led by Viktor Orbán, has systematically undermined democratic institutions and human rights, leading to a standoff that has frozen over €30 billion in EU funds. This standoff not only highlights the challenges to EU cohesion but also raises fundamental questions about how the bloc should deal with a member state that rejects its foundational principles. As Hungary assumes the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, these tensions are set to intensify, posing a significant headache for the EU’s future and its ability to uphold its values.

Violations of Rule of Law and Democracy

The European Union has been grappling with persistent violations of rule of law principles in Hungary for years. In response, the EU has deployed a range of instruments and procedures to address these concerns.

One of the key actions taken by the EU is the initiation of infringement proceedings against Hungary. The European Commission has launched numerous infringement cases, accusing the Hungarian government of breaching EU law in areas such as the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, and data protection.  These proceedings can ultimately lead to Hungary being brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union and facing potential fines or other sanctions.

Additionally, the EU has taken the unprecedented step of activating Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union against Hungary. This procedure, often referred to as the “nuclear option,” is designed to address serious and persistent breaches of the EU’s core values, including the rule of law.  The activation of Article 7 has placed Hungary under heightened scrutiny and could potentially result in the suspension of its voting rights within the EU.

The consequences of these rule of law violations have been significant for Hungary. Over the past three years, the country has had more than €30 billion in EU funds frozen due to these serious deficits.  This is a staggering amount, equivalent to nearly 5% of Hungary’s GDP, and has put significant economic pressure on the government. Furthermore, Hungary has become the first and only member state against which the EU’s new conditionality mechanism has been applied, further tightening the financial constraints.

These actions by the EU demonstrate the gravity of the situation and the bloc’s determination to uphold its foundational values of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. The ongoing tensions between Hungary and the European Union over these issues pose a significant challenge for the EU, with the potential to undermine its cohesion and credibility if left unresolved.

Economic and Political Pressure

The blocking of EU funds for Hungary is a significant economic and political pressure point, amounting to almost 5% of its GDP between 2024 and 2026. This has put the government under immense financial strain due to the high cost of borrowing on financial markets. The economic impact is substantial, as Hungary relies heavily on EU funds for its economic development and stability.

Additionally, Hungary is facing increasing political pressure within the EU. The loss of its ally Poland, which has been a key supporter of Hungary’s stance on EU issues, has left Hungary more isolated. The possibility of Article 7 proceedings being initiated against Hungary, which could lead to the suspension of its voting rights, further exacerbates the political pressure. This could potentially isolate Hungary within the EU and undermine its ability to influence EU decisions.

The economic and political pressures on Hungary are intertwined and have far-reaching implications. The loss of EU funds and the threat of further sanctions can lead to economic instability and political uncertainty, which can, in turn, exacerbate the political tensions within the EU. The ongoing standoff highlights the challenges the EU faces in maintaining cohesion and upholding its values in the face of persistent rule of law and democracy violations by a member state.

Challenges to EU Values and Institutions

The Hungarian government is accused of deliberately and systematically undermining the EU’s founding values, including through the recently adopted “national sovereignty protection” package.  This legislation has been compared to Russia’s “foreign agents” law, raising concerns that it could be used to unjustly target government critics and dissidents.

The EU has responded by initiating legal proceedings against Hungary, arguing that the law breaches multiple EU regulations and threatens democratic principles, voting rights, and fundamental freedoms.  This action signifies the latest clash in the ongoing conflict between Brussels and Budapest over the rule of law and democratic backsliding in Hungary.

Beyond the legal challenges, there are also concerns about Hungary’s ability to fulfil its duties during its upcoming Presidency of the Council of the EU in the second half of 2024.  There are calls for the Council to find proper solutions to mitigate the risks posed by a Hungarian Presidency, and for reforms to the Council’s decision-making process to prevent the abuse of the right of veto and blackmail.

These tensions highlight the broader challenges the EU faces in upholding its core values and institutions in the face of a member state that appears determined to undermine them. The standoff with Hungary poses a significant headache for the EU, with the potential to further erode its cohesion and credibility if left unresolved.

Diverging Paths and Missed Opportunities

While Hungary remains deeply linked with the European Union economically, support for EU membership is declining as sanctions from Brussels intensify. This decline is partly due to the economic pressure resulting from the blocking of EU funds, which has significant macroeconomic implications. The amount of EU funds blocked for Hungary is substantial, amounting to almost 5% of its GDP between 2024 and 2026, and has forced the government to tighten fiscal policy to compensate for the lack of these funds. The high cost of borrowing on financial markets, with interest rates for Hungarian government bonds standing at 6.16% in December 2023, further exacerbates the economic strain.

Hungary has also fallen behind its Central European peers in terms of economic convergence. The country has seen slow progress in areas such as GDP per capita, wages, and productivity growth. This stagnation is particularly notable given that Hungary has historically been a net recipient of EU structural assistance, receiving significant funds for infrastructure, ecology, climate protection, energy transition, and civil society projects. However, the withdrawal of these funds due to rule of law issues has hindered Hungary’s economic development and convergence with other EU member states.

The Orbán government’s policies, such as further centralization, strong state intervention, and a focus on reindustrialization, have been criticized as misinterpreting the needs of the 21st century economy. These policies have led to a significant budget deficit and fiscal consolidation challenges. The government’s reliance on Russian gas and oil supplies, despite the geopolitical tensions, also highlights its strategic and economic dependencies

Conclusion

The ongoing tensions between Hungary and the European Union have reached a critical juncture, posing significant challenges for the bloc’s cohesion, values, and institutions. The Hungarian government’s persistent violations of rule of law principles and its systematic undermining of democratic institutions have led to a standoff with the EU, resulting in the freezing of over €30 billion in EU funds and the activation of Article 7 proceedings.

While Hungary remains deeply linked with the EU economically, support for EU membership is declining as sanctions intensify. Hungary has fallen behind its Central European peers in terms of economic convergence, with slow progress in areas like GDP per capita, wages, and productivity growth. The Orbán government’s policies, such as further centralization and a focus on reindustrialization, have been criticized as misinterpreting the needs of the 21st century economy.

The bloc must find a way to uphold its values while maintaining unity and cohesion. This will require a delicate balance of diplomacy, economic incentives, and a commitment to the rule of law. Failure to resolve these issues could have significant consequences for the EU’s future and its ability to project its values on the global stage.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

The realist school of thought in international relations (IR) considers the international system to be anarchic, where there is an absence of hierarchy and any central authority. As opposed to the realists, there is a liberal school of IR that emphasises the role of order in the international system. One of the liberal theories, liberal institutionalism, believes that cooperation between states by means of institutions is feasible, sustainable, and reduces the potential for conflict between those states.

Such theoretical underpinnings led to the building of numerous alliances across the world, especially after World War II, with the aim of cooperation on multiple issues. Global political cooperation by means of the United Nations in addition to other organisations was at least a norm, if not an established standard. At the economic level, it made lots of sense for countries to collaborate on issues of convergence to remove existing trade issues. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established by European states, was a great example of how nations can collaborate in order to maximise their economic output.

The Genesis and Objectives of SAARC

Recognising the importance of such a cooperation at the regional level, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was founded in 1985 with the aim of promoting economic and regional integration. Its member states include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. SAARC’s primary objectives include the promotion of welfare economics, collective self-reliance, and accelerated socio-economic growth within the South Asian region.

SAARC was envisioned as a platform to foster mutual understanding and collaboration among the South Asian nations, many of which share historical, cultural, and economic ties. The primary idea was to create a regional bloc that could leverage its collective strengths to address common challenges such as poverty, illiteracy, and underdevelopment, thereby uplifting the overall standard of living in the region. However, despite its noble objectives and initial promise, SAARC has largely been perceived as a failure in achieving its intended goals.

Key Factors Behind SAARC’s Ineffectiveness

One of the primary reasons for SAARC’s ineffectiveness is the deep-seated political tensions and rivalries among its member states, particularly between India and Pakistan. The contentious relationship between these two nuclear-armed neighbours has often overshadowed the organisation’s agenda, leading to a stalemate on several initiatives. The Kashmir conflict, cross-border terrorism, and historical animosities have consistently hindered any meaningful progress within SAARC. This bilateral tension has frequently resulted in the derailment of summits and the postponement of key decisions. Further, Pakistan’s support of non-state terrorist actors was one of the key reasons while its activities were being opposed by the member states

There also exists a lack of political will among SAARC member states to prioritise regional cooperation. Many member countries have been more focused on pursuing their own domestic agendas and bilateral relations with powerful external actors rather than investing in regional cooperation. Pakistan’s invocation of the Kashmir dispute at each and every multilateral forum, including SAARC is one such example. This lack of commitment has led to a situation where SAARC’s initiatives are often underfunded and poorly implemented.

SAARC’s organisational structure and institutional mechanisms have also contributed to its ineffectiveness. Decision-making within SAARC is based on the principle of unanimity, which means that any member state can veto a proposal. This has often resulted in a paralysis of decision-making, as member states with conflicting interests fail to reach a consensus. Furthermore, SAARC’s secretariat, which is responsible for coordinating and implementing its activities, has been criticised for being understaffed and lacking the necessary resources and authority to drive the organisation’s agenda.

The South Asian region is characterised by significant economic disparities among its member states. India, being the largest and most economically advanced member, has often found it challenging to align its economic priorities with those of its smaller and less developed neighbours. This has resulted in a mismatch of expectations and priorities, further complicating efforts to achieve regional integration. Additionally, divergent economic policies and protectionist measures adopted by some member states have hindered the establishment of a cohesive regional economic framework.

Impact of SAARC’s Failure on India

India, being the largest and most influential member of SAARC, has much at stake in the organisation’s success or failure. The failure of SAARC has several implications for India, ranging from economic and strategic concerns to geopolitical challenges.

For starters, SAARC’s failure to achieve economic integration has limited India’s ability to capitalise on regional trade opportunities. Intra-regional trade within SAARC remains abysmally low compared to other regional blocs such as ASEAN or the European Union. This has prevented India from fully leveraging its economic potential within the South Asian market. Additionally, the absence of a robust regional trade framework has resulted in increased reliance on extra-regional trade partners, such as China, thereby limiting the scope for regional economic synergies.

The failure of SAARC to foster regional cooperation has also impacted India’s strategic and security interests. The lack of a unified regional approach to addressing common security challenges, such as terrorism, has made it difficult for India to build a cohesive security architecture in South Asia. This has allowed external actors to exploit regional divisions and influence the strategic dynamics of the region. Moreover, the persistent political tensions within SAARC have hindered efforts to build confidence and trust among member states, thereby perpetuating a cycle of insecurity and instability.

Further, there are some geopolitical implications of SAARC’s failure that are particularly concerning for India. The inability of SAARC to function effectively has provided an opportunity for China to expand its influence in South Asia through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Several SAARC member states, facing economic challenges and limited regional cooperation, have increasingly turned to China for economic and infrastructural assistance. This growing Chinese presence in India’s immediate neighbourhood has strategic implications, as it could potentially undermine India’s influence and leverage in the region.

India’s Strategic Response

In response to the challenges posed by SAARC’s ineffectiveness, India has adopted a multi-faceted strategy to safeguard its interests and promote regional cooperation. Recognizing the limitations of SAARC, India has increasingly focused on strengthening bilateral relations with individual SAARC member states. This approach has allowed India to pursue its strategic and economic interests without being constrained by the collective decision-making process of SAARC. Additionally, India has actively promoted sub-regional initiatives such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) initiative. These platforms provide an alternative framework for regional cooperation and have shown more promise in achieving tangible outcomes.

India has also prioritised enhancing connectivity and infrastructure development within the South Asian region. Projects such as the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and the development of regional energy grids aim to improve regional connectivity and facilitate economic integration. By investing in infrastructure development, India seeks to create a conducive environment for regional trade and cooperation, thereby offsetting the limitations of SAARC.

In addition to its regional initiatives, India has sought to leverage its partnerships with other regional and global players to promote its strategic interests. Engagement with organisations such as ASEAN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) allows India to pursue regional cooperation on a broader platform. Moreover, India’s strategic partnerships with countries like the United States, Japan, and Australia provide additional avenues for promoting regional stability and addressing security challenges.

Conclusion

The failure of SAARC to achieve its intended goals of regional cooperation and integration is a cause of concern for India. The political tensions, lack of political will, structural challenges, and economic disparities within SAARC have significantly impeded its effectiveness. This has resulted in economic limitations, strategic vulnerabilities, and geopolitical challenges for India. However, India has recognised one point that terror and trade cannot go hand in hand and responded to these challenges by adopting a multi-faceted strategy that includes strengthening bilateral and sub-regional initiatives, enhancing regional connectivity, and leveraging regional and global partnerships. While SAARC’s future remains uncertain, India’s proactive approach provides a pathway for addressing the challenges and promoting regional cooperation in South Asia.

By: Kashif Anwar. Research Analyst, GSDN

Keeping in mind the development taking place across the globe whether it’s the Russia-Ukraine conflict, ongoing situation in the Middle East region, China in the Indo-Pacific region and the West vs Russia in Africa have become a concern for the West and group like G7. In this regard, the 2024 G7 Summit was 50^th summit which was held in the city of Borgo Egnazia in Apulia, Italy between 13^th and 15^th June to address their concern and issue through six working session. The G7 summit aimed to demonstrate group member’s strong determination and will power to uphold the international order based on rule of law, and to strengthen their engagement with developing nations. As summit witnessed leaders from 12 nations like India and 5 international organisations like the EU and African Union attended and took part in the four working sessions during the summit. The G7 communique re-affirmed their commitment to a Free and Open Indo-Pacific to be based on the rule of law and strengthened initiatives like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Initiative, India-Middle East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and Italy’s Mattei Plan for Africa to address illegal immigration issue emerging from Africa.

The backdrop of the G7 2024 Summit

The 2024 G7 Summit in Italy is taking place in a different geo-political environment which is in contrast when compared to 2023. As in the last few months Israel intensifying incursion in Gaza or Russia intensifying position in Ukraine or West forces withdrawing and being replaced by the Russian forces in many African nations have become concerning for many G7 members. However, as France being the most vocal one to strongly deter Russia in Ukraine, on the other hand, calculated the move by the UK and Germany and Italy’s complete opposition to use of NATO forces against Russia have put G7 members against one another in recent months. With France and the US experiencing a major strategic blow – a military retrieval – in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad the latest addition, highlight Africa is favouring the Russian military presence. On the other hand, the US and France gave Ukraine permission to use their weapons – within a limit – inside Russia like in Belgorod, has deteriorated France and the US ties with Russia.

Within such surroundings, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban accusation of West supporting Ukraine, who sees its wealth as a gold mine for the West who wants to ‘acquire and divide’ Kyiv’s wealth and exchange it with their arms aid and assistance. As the 2024 summit was held under such a backdrop, the G7 members saw the summit as a means to address their concerns and difference among the group and project a unified stand. This is happening at the time when Russia-China no-limit partnership has strengthened and actions and response from Russia, China and many Middle East and African countries, often contradict the West’s approach and have impacted G7 influence in many countries in Africa and region like Middle East.

The 2024 G7 Summit

Among various concerning issues like development, Africa, Climate and Artificial Intelligence are being discussed during the G7 summit. The Israel-Gaza conflict and Ukraine-Russia War being discussed and addressed by the G7 members during the summit are being closely watched globally. As the steps and plans adopted by the members before and during the summit highlight a distant away from addressing such concerning issues to ensure global order.

In the case of Israel-Gaza conflict, an unwavering the US support to Israel has further delayed the two-state solution as they promoted the normalisation of Arab nations relations with Israel at the cost of ensuring peace process between Palestine and Israel and in the Middle East region. Such aspects were well reflected in G7 members’ statement at the time when tension is brewing on the Lebanon-Israel border between Israeli forces and Hezbollah, which could result in the emergence of regional war in the coming times. In such a situation, a strong G7 stand is needed with the US willingness/position to resolve the situation. As G7’s half-hearted and ill-conceived approach to address the situation in the Middle East region will keep the region on a boiling point and could see another October 7 attack in the future.

Concerning the Russia-Ukraine War, to ensure Ukraine achieves a victory against Russia, the summit saw the signing of the 10-year security deal between the US and Ukraine. Such a deal includes providing Ukraine with US$ 75 billion aid of which US$ 46 billion will be military support and to provide squadrons of fighter jets like F-16s. On the other hand, G7 will use US$ 50 billion earned from the Russian frozen assets worth US$ 300 billion and provide it as a loan to Ukraine. G7 members argues such move will be a signal to Russia that they cannot win a war, and it will be wrong for Russia to be hopeful and wait for the Ukrainian resources to deplete. G7 move saw a strong response from Russia and vows to respond with a reciprocal move and emphasised they will find their move a risky affair for themselves in coming years.

Apart from such updates and decision took during the summit, the meeting saw Pope Francis being the first Pontiff to address a G7 summit stating concerns growing around the development of Artificial Intelligence. On the other hand, the G7 took a pledge to tackle their economy from China’s harmful business practices and the economic clout caused by its electric vehicles, steel and renewable energy practices, namely. However, in their communiqué they emphasised that such move isn’t intent to harm China or cause hurdle in its economic development path rather such move was to protect their business from unfair practices and ensure there is a level playing field for everyone, and not controlled by a few.

With host nation Italy project the G7 summit as a prominent global summit, the Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni rejected the narrative of ‘West against the Rest’ and projected the G7 as not an exclusive club. Meanwhile, the absence of Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from the submit has impacted group’s Middle East policy like the IMEC which is jolted by the Israel-Hamas conflict. Furthermore, expansion of BRICS and statement coming from the group in the recent times have shown it is becoming more relevant to global politics than the G7. Addition of more nations in BRICS like from the Global South and their voice is supported by BRICS. In the coming times in BRICS vs G7, BRICS will take a huge lead and become a focal of global geopolitics.

Conclusion

Considering the global geo-political developments and environment globally, the world watched the G7 summit closely, as how concerning issues like the Russia-Ukraine War, situation in the Middle East and immigration issue have been addressed during the summit. As G7 members emphasised to inflict further cost on Russia causing rift between the West and Russia and also expressed their full commitment, support and solidarity with Israel in their joint statement. The summit didn’t address the concerns of Global South to the development taking place in the Middle East region which was a contrast compared to BRICS Foreign Ministers joint statement released on June 10, 2024 in Russia, which accused Israel for blatant disregard of international law in Gaza. On a brighter side, unlike the earlier G7 summits, the immigration issue was discussed for the first time and seen as a sign of progress and a productive move by the group. However, the development and events taking place in the coming times, will further test the will-power and capacity of the G7 as how they address the voice and concern of the World or BRICS will take the lead becoming the prominent one.

By: Sourishree Ghosh, Research Analyst, GSDN

A new scramble for Africa is looming over the horizon. Africa remains a crucial source of critical minerals, gold, diamonds, Uranium and oil including critical inputs for alternative energies and advanced technologies.  The African Region is a vital region for global security. This region has been one of the regions for leveraging world power by the global powers. Russia’s growing footprint in the African continent has reflected upon its ambitions in the Global South. The US has been rapidly losing its soft power edge in Africa, while on the other hand, the popularity of Russia and China is growing.  Some call it a cold war type of competition in the continent. Russia has become the preferred security partner for a number of African nations while China’s investments have been largely focused on the minerals key to the global energy transition. In the latest developments, the US troops will be exiting Niger by September 15, 2024 wherein the Pentagon had previously enjoyed a long-standing security partnership. This also portrays a stark backlash against the Western military presence in the Sahel region.  

The US-South Africa ties have also been coming under tensions after the latter brought Israel to the ICJ over its Gaza war. The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict and South Africa’s stance over the issue also demonstrates its changing relations with the West. Russia has gone in to fill in the advanced air defence systems. Washington’s leverage in the African continent has declined considerably. The US policy in Africa has been one of counterterrorism solely which has also overlooked the stability and development factors in its diplomatic engagement with Africa. In the last two decades, China has become the largest trading partner of all African nations and has replaced the US. The decline of US influence in the African continent has been one of the major reasons for the rise of China and Russia. In this article, we will explore the factors that are affecting Africa’s stance towards Russia and China and the limits of their relations in the long term.

Explaining Africa’s Tilt Towards China

Africa is crucial for China to secure its inputs for its manufacturing sector such as copper, cobalt, oil resources, crude oil and access to the African markets. The Chinese investments are mainly for greater political and security returns from the continent. Chinese sense of urgency of development in the African continent is of much greater importance than that of the western nations as China’s largest source of crude imports is Africa (mainly Republic of Congo and South Sudan) after West Asia. China’s BRI in Africa is towards a realisation of its dream of a Sino-centric world order. Africa has the largest number of countries that have friendly relations with China and this is a potential asset for China for its support in international institutions. Moreover, Africa is also described by the Chinese strategists as a possible and potential “exterior line” which China can use to deter the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy. So, Beijing’s investments in the African ports would come handy for naval deployments in the event of a war with the US.

China has its own PMCs for securing access to the critical minerals.  There is a common ideological linkage between the CCP and the rulers of states like Ethiopia. China has also expanded its defence attaches in Africa and the defence sales which experienced 55% growth between 2012 and 2017. The China-Angola relations have been strengthened during the country’s 30-year-old civil war. During this crucial period, the West was distracted by its “war on terror” in Afghanistan and Iraq. China is Africa’s largest trading partner and biggest source of foreign direct investment. Their ties date back to history when the African nations gave recognition to the PRC over Taiwan. China since the mid-1990s has officially heralded the policy of non-interference in the African governmental affairs and provision of loans with no strings attached. It has also been argued that many African nations have seen China’s no-strings attached approach more attractive than loans from US based financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

China’s BRI has been influencing African domestic affairs and foreign policy making as well. Some 150 countries among whom many of them are in Africa have signed on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. For example, in Kenya, the Standard Gauge Railway has been hailed as one of the biggest and most successful infrastructure projects till date. Kenya had also borrowed some $5 billion from China for building railways for connecting the port city of Mombasa to Nairobi and Nairobi to Naivasha. These are a part of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy. These include key telecommunication projects, global infrastructure and trade for connectivity from Kenya to Uganda, Rwanda and South Sudan. However, these projects are also opening up the scope of corruption and massive debt. The railway project cuts through the Nairobi National Park which has raised environmental and sustainability concerns. Ethiopia and Zambia have green flagged massive Chinese built infrastructure.    

China’s commercial diplomacy is unmatched as Beijing forges for expansion of trade and diversification of investment in various sectors, signing of investment deals on fire quest official visits to the resource rich regions of the country (like Angola), unparalleled ability to provide low-cost financing and source of cheap labour for the infrastructure projects. These diplomatic and commercial endeavours of China have made Africa tilt towards China in its foreign policy. China’s security interests lay in the region due to the killing of the Chinese peacekeepers in Mali and Sudan. China’s stance has been challenged in Sudan, a major oil exporter to China, where the ongoing conflict has spurred changes in the Chinese policy. Beijing has also increased its commitment to the UN and African Union peace missions and establishment of its first overseas military outpost in Djibouti. China has also pledged $100 million of military aid to the African Union as it supports the country’s capability initiatives in defence and counterterrorism, for example, China has supported counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. These also shows that the

Thus, trade, investments and loans of China have tilted the African nations towards China. These Chinese activities for bolstering economic growth of Africa are not just mere goodwill investments and might potentially be a stockpiling of international support for contentious political issues in the UN. This has been researched and proven by experts from Aid Data, research lab at College of William and Mary, who reported a link between Chinese assistance and the alignment of the recipient countries with Beijing’s voting in the UN and garnering active support for its One China Principle.  An instance is when the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, published a long-awaited report which has condemned China’s repressive policies in the Xinjiang province against the Uighur minority. Muslim countries in the African continent remained silent on the issue and this also led to the failure of the adoption of the resolution at the UN. These also reflect upon China’s soft power and economic diplomacy in the Global South. This can be seen as a conflict between the choice to be on the side of the authoritarian governments on the human rights issues at multilateral forums.  However, such a support is also quasi-systematic as in another case, 25 African nations voted against a motion which condemned China’s national security law in June 2020. The bilateral trade between China and Africa reached $187 billion in 2020 despite China’s zero-Covid policy. Thes tight economic ties with China has led to dependence on China. China is today Africa’s biggest bilateral creditor, with countries such as Kenya owing China around 72% of its bilateral trade. The African countries have refused to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine war as China has implicitly stated that it will scale back its overseas investment drive on default of the debt issued by Chinese banks. It also must be noted that the African nations are refraining from any kind of military and security alliance.  China has also adopted a long term and comprehensive strategy including investments in the civilian and government infrastructure with several African nations including Ethiopia, Zambia and Angola.

Explaining Africa’s Tilt Towards Russia

Africa is crucial for Russia on account of the latest discoveries of natural resources from the region of Senegal to Mozambique for Europe’s supply chain issues.  Russia has been relying on memory diplomacy to tap into the anti-colonial sentiments of the African nations and also employing the disinformation campaign for discrediting the pro-western forces to present itself as a better partner than the West. The tilt of the African nations towards Russia dates back to history when the Soviet policy aligned with the sympathetic socialist countries across Africa, examples include close relationship of Moscow with South Africa’s anti-apartheid African National Congress and sending aid in the civil wars in Angola and Congo. In Moscow’s formal diplomatic efforts, Moscow has also signed military cooperation agreements with around nineteen countries since 2014 which signifies cooperation on sensitive issues such as defence cooperation. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has also given a boost to Russia’s attempts at band wagoning Africa. It has extended diplomatic support to Ethiopia and Uganda, both countries who face criticism over human rights issues. Russia has backed the military regimes in Mali and Burkina Faso. It has also forged closer ties with Egypt for influencing the Libyan conflict to secure its access to the North African and Mediterranean oil reserves. One of the most notable bonding of Russia and Africa is the BRICS group, and BRICS has played a crucial role in building diplomatic institutions alternative to the western led institutions. Kremlin has also launched the Russia-Africa Summit in 2019, which has been a yearly event since then. The Russo-African Summit in Sochi, Russia in October 2019 reflects the fact that Russia has made significant inroads in the African continent. The Summit ended successfully with the signing of the 21 military agreements. In March 2022, only 28 African states condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which meant that almost half of the continent avoided making any stand against Russia directly. In the domain of security, The Russian economies have been struggling economically due to the slow post covid recovery and the global ripple effect of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. For example, Russian fossil fuel exports to Africa in 2023 had skyrocketed to fourteen times as compared to the pre-war period.

Russian paramilitaries and mercenaries are operating in Mali, Congo, the Central African Republic and other states. Russia has also heavily expanded its military footprint in Africa through its Afrika Korps. This has also enhanced Russia’s hard power and influence in the region. The African nations also want greater agency in the management of their foreign affairs as various African nations have rebuffed the Western pressure of picking sides in the conflict. This western pressure has been counterproductive which has paradoxically enough furthered their anti-western sentiments. Moreover, Russia has not joined the western sanctions regime against Russia in the light of the Russia-Ukraine war. This also explains the successful international support Russia has garnered from Africa.

In the aftermath of 9/11 attacks, the United States had deployed troops and military aid to West Africa in order to deter the spread of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and the result today is the failure of the West’s policy to counter regional as well as international terrorism. The United States had withdrawn 1000 military personnel from Niger and shuttered a $110 million air base while the extremist insurgency continues to seep into the South of the continent. Some analysts point out that the revamped US approach should be a combination of well-financed initiatives weaving together security, governance and development rather than a permanent military presence. The French and the European troops in Barkahne, Tabuka and Sabre have been ousted by the new military rulers of Bamako and Ouagadougou.

Wagner had played a crucial role in the region for securing Russia’s access to the lucrative access to the mining assets. As Russia’s private military, Wagner’s actions first began in Sudan (2017) and rapidly expanded to Madagascar (2018) and Mozambique (2019). In the Libyan civil war, the Wagner group played a crucial role in securing Russia’s access to Libyan oil. However, the interests of these private armies do not always necessarily align with the Kremlin as the recent attempted coup in Russia was staged by this private military group.  Through the infamous group, Russia has also been indulging itself in the countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso wherein the western diplomacy had failed considerably due to the failures of the international and local actors to address the regional instability in the continent. The relationship between Paris and Bamako had declined considerably post the military coups in Mali in 2021 and 2022. France and the United States have alleged that the governments they have been working with have been perceived as corrupt and partly responsible for the insecurity. The Flintlock Counter-terrorism exercise is mostly focused on urban terrorism and rescue of hostages which are not really aligned with the reality of terrorism in the Sahel region. The Biden Administration in a bid for revival has offered the Global Fragility Act, a 10-year plan for deterring the spread of terrorism in the coastal west African nations. France had to withdraw its forces from Mali in 2022, after a decade of failed anti-terror and stabilisation efforts. The Biden administration had also suspended the countries’ free trading rights to the US. The issues of widespread human rights abuses in the region have also led to laws which prohibit the U.S military assistance to the countries of concern. Russia had taken advantage of the prevailing instability and security vacuum in the continent. For example, Russia brokered an exemption to the UNSC embargo on the supply of arms to the Central African Republic in 2017, this move had broken through France’s strong political and military influence for decades and presented Russia as a new security interlocutor.

Africa’s discontentment with the slow progress of UN reforms has been one of the major reasons for its tilt towards Russia and China. There has been increasingly an anti-western sentiment due to the West’s lacklustre Covid-19 vaccine distribution that had been a major setback for Africa’s public health system. The African Union has also called for the “complete exclusion of mercenaries from the African continent” and the lack of reform in the multilateral institutions have been the sore point of the Africa-US relations. Moscow is increasingly tapping into this anti-western sentiment for bolstering influence in the continent in the midst of the geopolitical competition between Russia and the West. This is happening also because of the African nations’ long-standing frustration over the lack of representation in the international multilateral bodies and institutions. Many analysts have pointed out that the Western nations should seek to build more equal partnership with Africa. Russia’s interest in the vast resources of the continent is important for Russia as some of these technologies at the centre include the push for a clean energy future. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has nevertheless created food security challenges for Africa. Russia’s ties with Africa are mainly focused on the weapons trade but the former is currently expanding its operational footprint which includes signing of new military bases such as the establishment of a naval port in Sudan. On a diplomatic front, Russia’s goal is that of a multipolar world order. At the United Nations, it has also lobbied the African allies for favourable vote on the Ukraine conflict. On the economic front based on the data from the Congressional Research Service, Russia is not as powerful as its counterparts namely China and the United States.

Limits

African leaders have presented a peace proposal plan for the Russia-Ukraine conflict which Putin has acknowledged that the plan could be a basis of peace. Africa had also sent a clear signal to Putin about the need for peace in the successful conclusion of the grain deal. The latest Russia-African Summit in 2023 has failed to deliver any concrete results. Firstly, out of the 49 African countries that sent delegations to St. Petersburg for the second Russia-Africa Summit in July, only 17 heads of state attended which is much lower than the number of leaders who attended the December 2022 US-Africa Summit. The West has claimed that the involvement of the Russian private military companies is driving the conflict, along with worsening human rights abuses and a growing militarization of the administration in Africa. There had been a recent allegation by the United States that Pretoria was supplying arms to Moscow has also been the cause of a diplomatic dilemma between US and Africa. Africa had also previously taken an initiative for a ten-point peace plan in the Russia-Ukraine conflict which has failed to make the cut diplomatically. We must also note that the attendance at the Russia-Africa Summit has also dropped significantly as compared to the previous one. Moreover, some analysts have also pointed out that the competition over Africa’s resources can also become a fault line between Beijing and Moscow. Africa’s support and neutrality over the Ukraine war has been fragmented in nature. The continent has been in a geopolitical divide.

In return for favourable Chinese deals, China has boosted the African oil and mining sector. Beijing’s complex relationship with the continent has also challenged its “non-interference” policy in the continent. Secondly, China’s debt trap diplomacy in the continent has come into view. Zambia was the first country to default on its Chinese debt during the pandemic. A recent Boston University study reported that the lending to Africa by China has dropped to its lowest level in two decades and Beijing is preferably moving towards smaller investments. Some of the African nations view the Chinese investment in a favourable light however some of the countries have criticised Beijing for ignoring the environmental standards which have violated local laws and indulged in various other forms of corruption. It also needs to be understood that many African nations attach low priority to environmental standards. The environment factor is being ranked the least important in the prevalent dangers in Africa. Thirdly, China’s peace brokering in the conflicts has its own limitations. Zambia has also experienced civil strife due to the influx of Chinese companies in the region. The Chinese non-interference principle is being tested given the shifting geopolitics in the region. Chinese investments in the region peaked around 2016 and since then the Chinese loans to the African governments declined significantly, falling from US$ 28.4 billion in 2016 to US$ 1.9 billion in 2020. This is because of changing priorities of China for its domestic reasons and due to the high defaults of the African nations to pay the debts back to China. The African nations have characterised the Chinese loans as a mutually beneficial cooperation between the developing countries and China’s policy of non-interference. China has also far surpassed the US as an economic player in the African continent.

Another limitation in the long run is that the US is reinventing and rethinking its Africa policy. The US has also been trying to regain its hold and influence over the continent as understood from its efforts such as the US strategy towards sub-Saharan Africa with focus on pandemic recovery and just energy transition, hosting of the US-Africa Summit pledging to providing the continent with US$ 55 billion in aid and investments in 2022-25. The security situation in Mali and Burkina Faso has been in the flux due to a deteriorating security situation and a looming humanitarian crisis. The instability in the continent is itself a great challenge for normal and stable ties for all the nations involved in the scramble. 

The Chinese approach in the African continent has its own limitations, for instance, during the Sudanese civil war, China had to deal with the representations of various groups that opposed the government for maintaining the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline, which is operated by the China National Petroleum Corporations. In the past, China has aggressively pursued its repayment of debts from Africa which has to some extent affected China as the champion of the developing nations. China’s conflict resolution stance in diplomacy in Africa remains unclear. Beijing did appoint a special envoy to the Horn of Africa however it has not been playing any significant role in the devastating civil war in the country despite its heavy investments in Ethiopia. The African Union has taken the diplomatic lead in this regard. African leaders are also aware that Africa has become aground for power rivalry and proxy wars in Africa. This has also made Africa view China as a positive development model. American businesses in Africa are slowing their engagement given the high risk and power infrastructure and this vacuum is being filled by the Chinese companies. With regard to China, there is a greater concern for transparency in its dealings as for example, in Kenya, the parliamentarians also pressed for public scrutiny of the US$ 5 billion loan agreement Kenya made with the EXIM bank of China for the Mombasa-Nairobi railway.

To conclude, major powers of the world are competing for influence and the great scramble for Africa is a reality in world affairs today. Besides Russia and China, the Gulf nations especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have extensively invested in the ports, military bases, and agricultural sector besides their robust diplomatic ties with the continent.  For example, Qatar has the longest standing involvement in peacekeeping efforts in the Horn of Africa which has been playing the role of a peace broker between the Sudanese government and rebels in Darfur. In the war-torn conflicted area of Libya, the UAE along with Russia and Egypt supported the Khalifa Haftar forces. Moreover, the African Union has also been playing a significant role in the promotion of economic, political and social integration in the continent, despite facing institutional, political and financial challenges. Thus, the shifting sands of geopolitics in the African continent has made the African gamble a complicated and complex affair wherein many powers are involved. It can also be inferred that Africa has been finely balancing and treading its diplomacy and tight-rope walking in dealing with the external affairs while also dealing with its internal conflicting circumstances. Africa is indeed facing a geopolitical divide across the continent. To conclude, these factors would determine the future of African relations with China and Russia in Africa’s foreign policy making.