By: Kashif Anwar, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

Growing India and China competition which was brewing for last few years, the development of India Out Campaign and victory of Mohammed Muizzu in the Maldives Presidential election highlights increased China’s role and influence in the country. The way China is changing the South Asia’s geo-political order, China’s reach and means to undermine India position in the region has become a concern for the India. The recent political upheaval happened due to a social media post has created a rift in India-Maldives relationship and allow President Muizzu to get closer to China. With Maldives getting closer to China under President Muizzu leadership, in coming years the gap and difference between India and Maldives will widen and cause more challenge to India to keep order and stability in South Asia and secure its geopolitical and national interest in the region vis-à-vis the Chinese threat in South Asia.

India-Maldives relationship: An Overview

Considering the current bilateral relationship between India and Maldives, the beginning of the relationship was warming as India became the first nation to recognise Maldives after it gained its independence in 1965 and establish diplomatic relationship. Establishing a healthy bilateral relationship and a closest maritime ally on many occasion Maldives supported India on various multilateral for like the UN, Commonwealth, NAM and SAARC, India supported and assisted the island country financially, militarily and diplomatically over the years. India also executed various projects like the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Engineering Technology, provided tsunami aid and gave credit-line to address foreign exchange crisis, water crisis and construct houses.

As the Indian investment and Maldives support to India were mutual, a downfall to India-Maldives relations began during former President Abdulla Yameen (2013-2018) as the island nation started to shift towards China. Such a development and growing resentment towards India in Maldives were exploited by opposition parties in October 2020 under ‘India Out’ campaign which continued and became visible in the 2023 Maldives Presidential elections with Muizzu using the campaign to its advantage, thereby causing a rift in the India-Maldives relationship. Mud-slinging on X (formerly Twitter) become a watershed moment in the India-Maldives bilateral relationship and developments in the last few months are a fall-out of Maldives closeness to China and the continued impact of India Out campaign.

The Chinese Factor and Implication on the India-Maldives relationship

Posts on the social media caused a rise of hyper-nationalism on both sides, which was already under stress due to Muizzu becoming President in November 2023 and his closeness and focus on China has alarmed the Indian Government. As damage control measures failed to address the situation, at the time when Indian started to compared Lakshadweep to Maldives as an alternative tourist destination and Maldives counter response further worsened the situation. Since the incident, the reality around the India-Maldives relationship isn’t on a good term, as Maldives has removed the Indian Army personnel from the country. The number of Indian tourists arriving to the island nation fell from first to fifth position within few weeks after an uproar on X.

With a gap in the India-Maldives relations, China emerged as beneficiary in the diplomatic stand-off. Xiang Yang Hong 03, a Chinese surveying ship vital for anti-submarine warfare capabilities docked briefly in Maldives. Such Chinese manoeuvre in the Indian Ocean region has cautioned India. In return Indian Coast Guard Ship Samundra Paheredar visited Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei in April 2024. Later, the Indian Navy concluded an operational deployment in the South China Sea when three naval ship destroyer Delhi, fleet tanker Shakti and anti-submarine corvette Kiltan made port call which started with Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei on May 26, 2024.

The situation in India-Maldives relationship emerged due to Maldives President Muizzu calls to defend national security and interests and restrict any foreign power interference in country’s internal matters. Although, social media post and response has impacted the relations between India and Maldives,  incidents like scrapping of India-Maldives hydrography agreement reflects that the year ahead is bleak for India and Maldives. Once India occupied the top spot in foreign visitors visiting Maldives and currently it has witnessed a fall of 54% between March 2023-24 as only 8,322 Indian tourist visited Maldives. Witnessing such a fall in tourist and its impact on Maldives economy, Ibrahim Faisal, Tourism Minister of Maldives on May 06, 2024 called upon the Indian tourists to return.

With the Muizzu government working to break free from his country’s dependence on India, withdrawal of Indian hydrographic ships from Maldives, welcoming Chinese ship and joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative will compel India to further strengthen its Indian Ocean region strategy. As China presence has increased in Maldives, India can’t afford to ignore and should ensure they remain strong and steadfast in their ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy and undermine new Chinese adventure in the Indian Ocean region. However, Maldives alignment with China can be seen as the Muizzu government’s means to address challenges emerged due to strained relationship with India, knowing such an alignment comes with an inherent risk.

The recent, outreach by the Maldives Tourism ministry illustrate nation is grappling with a debt of US$ 1.3 billion which today constitute 20% of nation’s total debt. On the other hand, India proposed reduction of its financial aid by 22% to Maldives for the financial year 2024-25 has worried the Muizzu government. Getting closer to China has caused criticism from opposition and public unrest towards the Maldives government, on the other hand, they’ve ensured relation with India didn’t deteriorate further and get into a Chinese debt trap and faced a financial crisis situation as witnessed in Sri Lanka in 2019.

As the challenge posed by distancing itself from India isn’t economic in nature, the statement made by Maldives Defence Minister Ghassan Maumoon on May 12, 2024 that the  inability of Maldives pilots to fly three Dornier aircrafts due to unspecified reason have become a concern for the Muizzu government, which were flew by Indian personnel till May 10, 2024. With Maldives grappling with economic and military problem, Maldives President Muizzu vision and inclination toward China has caused trouble for the country.

Conclusion

However, seeing Maldives President Mohammed Muizzu step to ask Indian army personnel from the country to stop any interference from any foreign power in their internal affairs should come as a sort of relief for the Indian government. As the Indian government approval of extending a budget support of US$ 50 million to Maldives has been hailed by Maldives Foreign Minister Moosa Zameer as a true gesture of goodwill which signifies and strengthens the longstanding friendship between India and Maldives during his visit to India in May this year.

The visit of the Maldives President Muizzu for the swearing-in ceremony of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his third consecutive term on June 04, 2024 has raised hopes of the return of normalcy in relations between India and Maldives.

By: Nabhjyot Arora, Research Analyst, GSDN

The AUKUS accord signed in September 2021 created ripples in the Indo-Pacific, potentially enabling Canberra to acquire nuclear powered submarines by the 2030s. The tripartite pact signed by the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (USA) and Australia aim at containing the expansionist tendencies of Beijing, as stated by the US President Joe Biden regarding ‘investing in our greatest source of strength, our alliances’.

Pillar I of the AUKUS Pact enables Canberra to acquire and develop nuclear submarine technology by the 2030s, which will be shared in the core group inclusive of the UK, the US, and Australia. The US will sell three second hand submarines to Canberra, before any new vessels could be commissioned.

Pillar II of the pact include Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and South Korea as potential members enabling cooperation in the development of military technologies such as quantum technology, artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, undersea capabilities, electronic warfare systems, and advanced cybersecurity.

The expansion of the pact has been, however, criticised by the Foreign Minister of China, stating that the alliance could destabilize the region due to potential nuclear proliferation in the South-Pacific. The US Department of State, on the other hand, has reduced export restrictions enabling military and technology transfer to Britain and Canberra under the AUKUS Pact.

Nuclear Proliferation and International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

The US International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restricts transfer of technology critical to the national security, military and intelligence; however, the US State Department’s Directorate of Défense Trade Controls (DDTC) is no longer required to license or approve defense articles, enabling the industries to operate in licence-free environment. Australia, UK, and Canada are the countries exempted from the ITAR, which prevents the US defense technology from illegal usage and obliges corporates to access the US military technology after qualifying the licensing requirements. Approvals would still be required for items included in the ‘excluded list’ governed by an international arms control agreement called the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

The alliance can operate in sync with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Five Eyes Intelligence, with Australia, UK, Canada, and New Zealand already a part of the alliance, where changes to the ITAR would enable private companies to safeguard the technology. It has been reported that the defense companies will no longer be required to seek approval from the State Department prior to any export, re-export, re-transfer, or temporary import of defense articles from the US, thereby only a secret level clearance would be required to mitigate the risks involved.

US lawmakers remain sceptical of the exemptions introduced, due to an increase in espionage activity affecting Australian defense industry. Challenges remain due to workforce protests and delays in establishing maintenance facilities in Western Australia. New Zealand, meanwhile seeks to revoke the anti-nuclear stand, to join the Pillar II of the AUKUS Pact; it has been engaged in displaying solidarity for freedom of navigation and shipping in the Red Sea Region, amidst the ongoing Israel-Palestinian War.

New Zealand and UK remain affected by cyberattacks sponsored by Beijing, though the latter maintains diplomatic relations with Beijing. UK undertook arms exports to Israel, however, an escalation in offensive to Rafah, would result in a ban on British arms exports by the US, underscoring the alliance.

Canada aims to boost defense spending and seek procurement of equipment as the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines remains crucial for protecting the sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic; while the Pillar II can augment information security against cyberattacks in the Arctic.

Nuclear Proliferation in the Indo-Pacific

Nuclear proliferation in the Indo-Pacific, on the other hand, is regulated by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty which bans the manufacture, possession, stationing, and testing of nuclear explosive devices in the territories of signatories to the treaty. The treaty also bans dumping of radioactive waste at sea, an issue highlighted by the Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles that the government will not accept nuclear waste from partner countries under the AUKUS Legislation – which includes ‘managing, storing, and, disposing of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine’, where AUKUS submarine stands for an Australian or a UK/US owned submarine. Canberra will accept low-level of nuclear waste from the UK and the US as a part of the deal, however, concerns have been raised against the disposal, wherein, the Defense Minister would be allowed to designate any area as a nuclear waste facility, however, there could be protests from local communities against the threat of emissions.

The SPNFZ Treaty also bans the use of nuclear explosive device against parties to the treaties or protocol parties’ territories and the testing of nuclear explosive device within the zone. There have been apprehensions regarding the operational control of Canberra over the submarines, after the architect of AUKUS and the Deputy US Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell issued a statement that the submarines would be an extension of US naval capabilities, deployed by a close allied force.

The statement thereby, seems to pose a threat to sovereignty of Canberra, due to dependence on the US for the development of nuclear propulsion technology. Further, a wide discrepancy in funding could lead the latter to exert military and strategic dominance, though the pact seeks to maintain balance of power, with the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterating that the deployment of military assets in the event of conflict will be made as a sovereign nation. Australian defense companies have also expressed concern over Canberra’s efforts to replicate a U.S.-style export control regime, worrying that it could inhibit their ability to do business with non-AUKUS countries.

Manufacturing backlogs and supply chain disruptions in the submarine industry could hamper timely delivery of submarines; meanwhile, investment made by Canberra has been backing up production at the shipyards, which could be aided by the potential development of submarines designed by the UK. Canberra backing up funding to augment production capacity in the UK and the US, however, has drawn criticism back in the country. Easing of licensing requirements by the US Department of Commerce could enable exports within the AUKUS member countries.

AUKUS Pact could turn out crucial for the infrastructure development in South Australia and Western Australia, in addition to generating employment, with civilian and military personnel deployed to cooperate with manufacturing companies and navies in the US and the UK; in addition to delivering skill and training-based courses relevant to the nuclear-powered submarine plan in Adelaide, which would enable employment generation in Australia.

Multilateral Alliances and Arms Race – AUKUS Pillar II

Nuclear propulsion technology could enable Canberra to develop its own nuclear-powered submarines to be delivered by the early 2040s. The development remains crucial, with reports of an attack by a Chinese fighter jet, which eventually hit an Australian helicopter in the Yellow Sea, near western coast of South Korea.

Seoul and Tokyo proposed to join the alliance, where the technological capabilities could augment regional security. However, there have been apprehensions raised regarding the protection of sensitive information, as accusations regarding the stealing of military secrets could potentially disrupt participation in Pillar II. The political instability in addition to economic influence from Beijing, could in turn result in imposition of economic sanctions and boycott.

Tokyo diversifying the supply chains away from Beijing, could emerge as key defense partner, however, the security architecture remains vulnerable to cyber-attacks. The security clearance bill, thereby, remains critical to prevent any potential information leaks. Tokyo has been engaged in a territorial dispute with Beijing, over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea; which led Washington and Tokyo to upgrade defense industrial cooperation on advanced technology under the Pillar 2 of AUKUS.

The Prime Minister of Japan – Fumio Kishida, with reference to the geopolitical situation in Ukraine, stated that – ‘Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,’ calling for Beijing to peruse peaceful resolution with Taiwan. The US, meanwhile authorized a military aid package worth USD 12.5 billion for the submarine funding dedicated to the Indo-Pacific region, with Australia contributing USD 4.6 billion funding commitment to the submarine capability.

Strategic Deterrence – Asian NATO

The funding is open to the Indo-Pacific region and non-NATO allies, as Washington aims to move to the model of ‘lattice fence’ of multilateral alliances, against the ‘hub and spokes’ system of bilateral alliances, acting as strategic deterrence in the region. The US remains a non-signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), though, maintaining a collective international rule-based order might provide a strategic upper hand to the AUKUS alliance with the nuclear proliferation acting as a deterrent against the military expansion by China.

Beijing, meanwhile claims expansion of AUKUS to potentially spark a regional arms race in the region, however, the recent incidents of coercion and blocking the Coast Guard Vessels from delivering supplies to military outpost in Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) led countries in the Indo-Pacific including Japan, the US, and Philippines cooperate to secure the principle of freedom of navigation and uphold the UNCLOS.

Ayungin Shoal is a low tide elevation within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone, claimed by Beijing. The blockade preventing delivery of supplies to military outpost in the South China Sea invokes the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, which obliges the US to protect Manila in case of an attack by a foreign agent. Maritime tensions between Beijing and Manilla make the deployment of submarines in the Asia-Pacific critical for the protection of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs), with territorial disputes raised by Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan in the South China Sea. Beijing, however, raised apprehensions that, arming the countries with nuclear weapons could turn the alliance into ‘Asian NATO’.

The United States Presidential Elections in November 2024 could as well affect the expansion of the AUKUS Pact, as the country could divert funds to meet domestic manufacturing targets, transfer of military aid amidst ongoing Ukraine War and Israel-Palestinian Crisis. Elections in the UK and Australia by May 2025, with potential territorial claims by Beijing, amidst ongoing recessionary crisis would potentially decide the way for AUKUS to secure the maritime order.

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

South Asia is considered one of the nuclear flashpoint due to the three nuclear armed bordering countries, i.e., India, China, and Pakistan. Among these countries, only China has signed the ‘Non-Proliferation Treaty’, ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ and ‘No First Use Policy’. However, China is not the part of Indian Sub-Continent. Indian Sub-Continent includes India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. India only has ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ and ‘No First Use Policy’. Pakistan on the other hand has not signed any of these treaties. As the matter of fact, Pakistan have ‘First Use Policy’ to deter from India and China and also uses their nuclear power to threaten nuclear and non-nuclear states, increasing the danger in the Indian Sub-Continent.

Pakistan’s position on nuclear disarmament is that it will only give up nuclear weapons if India gives up its own nuclear arsenal. All the other states in the Indian Sub-Continent are Non-Nuclear States. Pakistan don’t  have any official nuclear doctrine. Even if there exists one, it has not been made public. This ambiguity has increased the concerns in the Indian Sub-Continent, since South-Asia is a home to three nuclear armed states.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Capabilities

Pakistan tries to keep just a little more than India, i.e. nearly 170 warheads and have enough material to make up to 200 warheads by 2025. Right now Pakistan is the 6^th largest nuclear power in the World, if they decide to increase the number they are estimated to be the 5^th largest by 2025. India has around 160 warheads with 7^th rank in the Nuclear arsenal after Pakistan. Although, India’s has nuclear capabilities is in all three domains i.e., land based, Aircrafts, and navel missiles. On the other hand, Pakistan’s nuclear is estimated to be mainly on land based missiles. However, they are considered to be capable of expanding their domain.

Pakistan is considered to have warheads in six deferent types of land based ballistic missile capable of nuclear payload. All of them are short range ballistic missiles. Pakistan has also tried to miniaturised nuclear missiles to make Multiple Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs). Pakistan also have naval nuclear capabilities. Babar-3, a Sea Launch Ballistic Missile (SLBM), has been tested twice under the water. However, the completion of the development of Babar-3 has not been confirmed yet. Pakistan approved the purchase of 8 submarines from China, considered to be capable of carrying Babar-3 missiles. The F-16, Mirage-3 and Mirage-5 aircrafts are considered to be capable of carrying nuclear missile. Pakistan is estimated to have nearly 12 Mirage aircrafts.

The Dangers in the Indian Sub-Continent

Pakistan has always rebel against any international sanctioned. They have built a runaway program that has benefited them to increase their own nuclear power. The US and Pakistan multiple bilateral relations right after the independence of Pakistan, which has benefited both countries on papers. However, the relation between these two countries has been proven to be one of the most ‘mutual vulnerable’, since they have both threated each other for political benefits from time to time.

After Pakistan become a nuclear state the possibility of threat of a nuclear weapon getting into the hands of terrorists has been discussed around the globe, India in particular. Pakistan has used its nuclear capabilities to threaten other countries, every time the leading global nuclear power had to intervene to handle the conflict for establishing peace. Launch ability of nuclear weapon from Pakistan the biggest hindrance. To perform a launch of a missile with a nuclear payload needs a proper sophisticated technology to do the precis attack on a specific area or it needs to be carried on the aircraft to be dropped, or a submarine to launch.

This precision technology is only available with the military. In it highly believed that terrorist might not have this sophisticated technology and even with nuclear missile in the hands of terrorist, they might use the nuclear weapon to only threated any state rather than actually using it. However, nothing can be said for sure, and the concern remains the same. Therefore, without a precision technology launch platform readiness or availability can only be accomplished if the state supports it, in that case, it would no longer be an act of terror. It would be an act of aggression by the state of Pakistan.

America has tried to impose sanctions on Pakistan multiple times. However, American sanctions have failed to prevent Pakistan from building a nuclear program. After 9/11, United States gave Pakistan an ultimatum that Pakistan should allow U.S. to take full control on their nuclear facilities or American authorities will try to take control by force with the help of India. However, after that Bush administration had also spent around $100 million to help Pakistan safeguard its nuclear arsenal, but not able to establish control over Pakistani nuclear weapon. General Pervez Musharraf appreciated and suggested continued Western support will help to keep the nuclear arsenal away from the extremist hand.

In 2011, America had ‘Snatch and Grab’ contingency plan for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, in case if they ever become a threat to United States or its interest. General Pervez Musharraf said Snatch-and-grab might lead to all-out-war by stating that “total confrontation by the whole nation against whoever comes in.” South-Asia plays a big role in global nuclear security, if they ever succumb to conflict, it could have a major impact on not only India-Pakistan but in all regions in Indian sub-continent. As the arsenal in South-Asia continues to grow, the risk of nuclear escalations also grows in the future conflicts.

America’s support for any country may fluctuate according to their interest and America has been seen to be bias in some conflicts. Just like America supporting Israel right now have raised concern of possible support to Pakistan against China or even India. America supported Pakistan during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan with the military aid. Although, America was not actually supporting Pakistan, they were just fighting against Russia. These crises have highlighted the third party influence to the nuclear escalation in the border of India and Pakistan. It is less likely to happen but not impossible.

The politics between India and Pakistan has also played a big role in escalation nuclear threat in the region. For instance, Prime Minister Narendra Modi for past decade has also used religion as key point to manipulate the civilians of India and win the election. Some researchers also believe that the Pulwama attacks was staged by the Indian government. Similarly, Pakistan has also used religion to use politics. All this religious politics form both the side has shown that the risk of nuclear threats is more under the leadership Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP).

It is considered that Pakistan has the nuclear power to use its own nuclear weapon in its own country in case of an invasion to kill the enemy force in the state along with killing of their own force. If Pakistan ever choses to use Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)  they are most likely to use a small scale nuclear warhead with minimum destruction. But both the bordering states have to deal with the fallout and radiation contamination, if it is used on the borders. Furthermore, even if the small scale low yield nuclear weapon is used, it could wipe out approximately 20 million people, depending on the population of the destroyed area and nearly 2 billion people will die, if the nuclear winter is triggered.

India don’t only have to deter from Pakistan but from China as well. India’s nuclear arsenal is lower than the Pakistan’s and China’s nuclear arsenal. India having nearly 165 nuclear warheads and have 700 Kg of weapon grad plutonium to make up to 213 warheads by 2033. Much more than India and Pakistan, China has about 500 nuclear warheads and they are developing the nuclear program much faster and it is estimated to be up to 1000 warheads by 2035. New Delhi worries about the continuing deep links between China and Pakistan. The links between Pakistan and China for the developments if the nuclear weapon has been found multiple times. For instance, in February 2020, India caught items being shipped by China to Pakistan. According to the DRDO, this item can be used for the manufacturing of rocket motors for ballistic missiles. This has further deteriorated the bilateral relationship between India with China and Pakistan.

Conclusion

Pakistan is a nation that has both nuclear weapons and a dangers of terrorism. Pakistani leaders have often been working surreptitiously with the terrorists to achieve common goals. Taliban secretly received political and military support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. That fear now includes the possibility that Jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home. Pakistan claims to have nuclear weapon to deter from India and India have nuclear weapon to deter from China that increases the concern in entire Indian Sub-Continent.

However, in all the military conflicts at Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani border, Nuclear missile have never been used but only conventional arms were used. All these possible scenarios have the potential to lead to nuclear flashpoint and start the nuclear war in the world or at least between the nuclear armed states. Until-unless, Pakistan gives control of its nuclear arsenal to America or at least confirms that they are not helping the Terrorist organisations and anyway, the threat of nuclear conflict cannot be fully avoided.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

“There’s also hatred here… They’d be the first to be dreadfully unhappy if Russia should somehow rebuild itself, even the way they want it, and should somehow become boundlessly rich and happy. Then there would be no one for them to hate, no one to spit on, nothing to make fun of! What we have here is nothing but a boundless animal hatred for Russia which has eaten into their organism,” were the words of not Vladimir Putin in 2022 but that of Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky in his novel Demons published in 1871–72. Though a work of fiction, Dostoevsky’s lines signal the persisting antagonism towards Russia in the European psyche, which has been enduring for many centuries.

Initially for cultural, later for religious, and now for ideological and geopolitical reasons, there exists this acrimony between Europe (including the West in general) and Russia. The existing conflict in eastern Europe can be attributed to this acrimony and antagonism. When Russia attacked Ukraine on February 24, 2024 one of the reasons it gave for invading Ukraine was the integration of Ukraine, which historically and politically was under Russian sphere of influence, into European and western security apparatus, most notably (potentially) in NATO.

April 4, 2024 marked 75 years since the Washington Treaty was signed in 1949 that conceptualised the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). This article aims to dissect the popular myths and opinions about the role of NATO and its relevance post-dissolution of the USSR. It further makes the case for NATO to pivot into the Indo-Pacific in order to counter the growing Chinese threat.

Genesis of NATO

The end of World War II resulted in the crumbling of the then-established international order, with new potential hegemons and ideological rivals reshaping the balance of power considerations in the world. The world was subsequently divided into two economic and ideological blocks, with the West led by America promoting capitalism and the Soviet Union and allied countries spreading communism. Apprehensive about the rise of the USSR and its implications, Winston Churchill famously remarked, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent,” further highlighting the need to protect western values. Amid such developments, on April 4, 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) came into being with the aim of providing “collective security against the Soviet Union.”

During the Cold War, NATO and its rival Warsaw Pact, which was established in 1955, indulged in multiple covert and overt operations in order to damage each other’s security framework. At the same time, with the advancements in precision technologies, the role of deterrence was redefined. The threat from the Soviet Union was at its zenith in the 1960s, when it actively made breakthroughs in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Eventually, NATO countries, along with their unabated nuclear posture, decided to strategically upgrade their conventional defence posture as well. One of the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed was because of the leverage that NATO had in military and technological terms. The USSR’s pursuit of the same leverage led to its exhaustion of resources and its ultimate dissolution.

End of the Cold War and NATO Expansion

December 26, 1991 marked the official disintegration of the mighty USSR and the birth of fifteen sovereign republics. From the era of bipolarity during the Cold War, the world was suddenly ushered into an age of unipolarity, and the US dominance of the international system with all the major competing ideologies losing legitimacy and support. American political scientist and International Relations scholar Francis Fukuyama called this a moment of “the end of history,” where human civilization had reached its ideological pinnacle.

Amid all the changes in the international system, the question of the continuation of NATO was of utmost importance. Few of the leaders and scholars believed that NATO had achieved its raison d’être with the culmination of the Cold War and should be dissolved, contrary to those who necessitated its existence in order to counter any future threats. Eventually expansionists prevailed over the realists, and not only would NATO continue to exist, but it would also be expanded despite its rival Warsaw Pact having been dissolved. George Kennan, one of the key architects of the USA’s containment policy during the Cold War, warned in 1998 against NATO expansion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war… I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else,” he said.

Political Scientist Ted Galen Carpenter writes in his book titled Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars which was published in 1994, “It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand NATO eastward without that action’s being viewed by Russia as unfriendly. Even the most modest schemes would bring the alliance to the borders of the old Soviet Union. Some of the more ambitious versions would have the alliance virtually surround the Russian Federation itself.” Even President Putin rattled during the 2007 Munich Security Conference, “It [the NATO expansion] represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: Against whom is this expansion intended?”

John Mearsheimer, a prominent political scientist who forwarded the theory of offensive realism, argued in March 2022 (one month after Russia’s attack on Ukraine) that the West, and especially America, was principally responsible for the crisis in Ukraine. He further warned that the conflict has “now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.”

On the other hand, leaders including Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and George H.W. Bush, inter alia, actively advocated NATO expansion in order to promote democratic freedom around the world and strengthen liberal international order. Further, leaders in the west today believe that it was the expansionist goals of Russia and President Putin that led to the catastrophe in Ukraine and not the security dilemmas associated with the apprehensions of Ukraine joining NATO.

Can NATO Pivot to Asia?

Whatever the arguments, the existence and expansion of NATO are realities, and one must accept that beyond strategic considerations. With eastern Europe and the Middle East being entangled in conflict, it gives Xi Jinping an opportunity to leverage the situation and achieve what it calls reunification of Taiwan with mainland China. Recently, Admiral John Aquilino, outgoing US Indo-Pacific commander, warned of the of the assertiveness of China in the region, citing examples of Chinese overreaction to Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022 and, most recently, Chinese aggressiveness against the Philippines, where China violated international and maritime law. “It’s getting more aggressive, they’re getting more bold, and it’s getting more dangerous,” he said further.

It is high time for NATO leaders to pivot to Asia with the aim of curbing the rising hegemon—China—that aims to destroy the very foundations of liberty, freedom, and human rights on which the West-led rule-based order is grounded. In 2022, after the NATO summit in Madrid, the final communiqué, officially known as the ‘NATO 2022 STRATEGIC CONCEPT,’ for the first time mentioned China as one of NATO’s strategic priorities, citing how China’s coercive policies challenge NATO’s interests, security, and values. It says, “The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security.”

Though NATO officially does not consider China an adversary, it has increased its engagement with allies and like-minded countries in the region, such as South Korea and Japan. Additionally, NATO Strategic Foresight Analysis (SFA) 2023 also talks about strengthening the organisation’s capabilities in space, information, and cyber domains, in which China vigorously pursues building military capabilities. This is evident with recent PLA reorganisation reforms, under which the PLA has established three independent branches: the Information Support Force (ISF), the Cyberspace Force, and the Aerospace Force, carved out of the erstwhile Strategic Support Force (SSF).

Rise of China, economically and militarily, requires all the security mechanisms and organisations to recalibrate their operational approaches to counter novel threats. The evolution of warfare and its transcendence to public life by means of grey zone warfare tactics, which are being employed by countries like China, predominantly require like-minded countries to collaborate on security matters, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

Conclusion

In the nineteenth century, Dostoevsky warned us about the inherent nature of antagonism between Russia and Europe. Under the current circumstances, in Ukraine, finding mutual conditions under which both countries—Russia and Ukraine—can agree for a permanent ceasefire and the secession of hostilities is paramount. If increasing collaboration between Russia and China is a cause of concern for NATO and the West, the overdependence of Russia on China is becoming worrisome for Russia as well due to fear of it becoming a vassal state of China. Changing conditions of the balance of power amid major geopolitical developments demand allies consolidate their power to deter rising adversaries in the Indo-Pacific.

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

In the annals of Pakistan’s tumultuous political history, May 9, 2023 stands out as a day of reckoning—a moment when the simmering discontent of the people erupted into a powerful wave of resistance against authoritarianism and injustice. The events of that fateful day, marked by the overturning of the PTI government and the imposition of false charges on its politicians, serve as a stark reminder of the entrenched power dynamics plaguing the country’s governance.

At the heart of the May 9 incident lies the Pakistan Army’s tightening grip on the levers of power, overshadowing democratic principles and stifling dissent. The army’s intervention in civilian affairs, culminating in the dismissal of the PTI government and the arbitrary arrest of its leaders, underscores the pervasive influence of the military establishment in shaping Pakistan’s political landscape.

The pretext for the army’s actions was ostensibly rooted in concerns over governance and stability. However, a closer examination reveals a deeper truth—the PTI government’s efforts to challenge the status quo threatened the entrenched interests of the military elite. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s crusade against corruption and injustice struck at the very core of the system perpetuated by the Pakistan Army—a system built on patronage, cronyism, and impunity.

Imran Khan’s pledge to clean the system of corruption and hold the powerful to account posed a direct challenge to the entrenched interests of the military establishment. As the PTI government sought to dismantle the structures of privilege and impunity, it incurred the wrath of those who benefit from the status quo. The events of May 9, therefore, must be understood within the broader context of a struggle for power and accountability—a struggle between the forces of democracy and those of authoritarianism.

The people’s anger on May 9 was not merely a reaction to the overturning of a government, but a manifestation of years of frustration and disillusionment with a system that prioritizes the interests of the few over the needs of the many. The imposition of false charges on PTI politicians served as a chilling reminder of the lengths to which the powerful will go to maintain their grip on power and privilege.

In the aftermath of the May 9 incident, Pakistan stands at a crossroads. The choice before its people is clear—whether to succumb to the forces of authoritarianism and oppression or to stand up and demand a return to democratic principles and the rule of law. The events of May 9 serve as a wake-up call—a call to action for all those who believe in the principles of justice, accountability, and freedom.

It is incumbent upon the people of Pakistan to hold their leaders accountable, to demand transparency and fairness in governance, and to resist attempts to undermine the foundations of democracy. The struggle against authoritarianism is not an easy one, but it is a fight worth waging—for the sake of future generations and the promise of a better, more just Pakistan. As long as there are those willing to speak out and stand up for what is right, there remains hope for a brighter tomorrow, free from the shadows of authoritarian rule.

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

Pakistan has a diverse population with numerous minority groups, including Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious and ethnic minorities. These communities face challenges, including discrimination, marginalization, and violence. The government has taken measures to promote social cohesion and address the concerns of minority groups, but there is still much work to be done. It’s important to note that minority communities in Pakistan are not homogeneous and have their unique cultural and linguistic identities. In Pakistan, the plight of minorities is a pressing concern that manifests through various forms of discrimination and mistreatment. This article delves into the multifaceted challenges faced by these communities, who are marginalized not only because of their religious and ethnic identities but also due to the systemic biases entrenched within the society. From the violent repercussions of blasphemy laws to the subtle yet pervasive socio-economic barriers, minorities in Pakistan navigate a landscape riddled with inequality. The article aims to shed light on the harsh realities of minorities in Pakistan, exploring the legal, social, and economic dimensions of discrimination that collectively undermine their fundamental rights and freedoms. As we examine the issues, we also consider the broader implications for Pakistan’s commitment to diversity and inclusion and the urgent need for reforms that ensure equal treatment for all citizens.

Profile of Minorities in Pakistan

In Pakistan, the mosaic of religious diversity tells a tale of struggles and challenges faced by minority communities. Despite comprising only a small fraction of the population, Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis, and other minorities endure significant hurdles in various facets of life. Statistics reveal a stark reality: Muslims dominate, constituting over 96% of the populace, while Christians and Hindus stand at 1.59% and 1.60%, respectively. These figures become even more poignant when we examine rural and urban divides. In rural areas, minority representation dwindles further, with Christians and Hindus making up a mere fraction of the population. The situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa reflects a particularly dire picture, where Muslims overwhelmingly dominate, leaving scant space for religious diversity. Despite these statistics, the contributions and voices of minorities are often marginalized, highlighting the urgent need for inclusive policies and societal attitudes that uphold the rights and dignity of all Pakistanis, regardless of faith.

Evolving threat scenario in Pakistan against minorities

The evolving threat scenario in Pakistan, particularly regarding blasphemy laws, continues to cast a shadow over the nation’s socio-political landscape. The tragic assassinations of Salman Taseer, the liberal Punjab governor, and Shahbaz Bhatti, a courageous Christian critic of these laws, underscore the perilous climate for those advocating for reform and tolerance. Taseer’s and Bhatti’s murders, just months apart in 2011, sent shockwaves through the country, revealing the deep-seated tensions between progressive voices and conservative elements. Even officials like Assistant Commissioner Jannat Hussain Nekokara faced backlash for supporting minority rights in 2019, highlighting the pervasive intolerance that extends to all levels of society. These incidents not only demonstrate the dangers faced by those challenging the status quo but also the broader implications for Pakistan’s minority communities. As blasphemy laws remain a contentious issue, the evolving threats against advocates for reform perpetuate an environment of fear and division, leaving little room for progress or safety for minority individuals.

Types of discrimination faced by Minorities

Mob violence   In Pakistan, blasphemy laws continue to affect numerous individuals, with 329 persons accused across 180 reported cases. Among them, 247 were Muslims, 65 Ahmadis, 11 Christians, and one Hindu, while the religious affiliation of five accused remained unknown.  Punjab saw the highest number of abuses in 2023, with 179 accused, followed by Sindh with 79, Azad Jammu and Kashmir with 37, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with 32, and single cases in Balochistan & Gilgit-Baltistan.

Forced Conversion/Abduction   The incidence of alleged abductions and forced conversions has surged to 136 cases, marking a new peak. Within this alarming figure, 110 Hindu girls were reportedly abducted in Sindh, while 26 Christian girls faced similar fates in Punjab. The majority of these distressing incidents unfolded in Sindh, with a staggering 77% of the victims being minors, under the age of 18. Amarnath Motual, former vice-chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, has highlighted a troubling trend, citing that at least 20 Hindu girls are abducted monthly in Pakistan. According to the CSJ report ‘Silence of the Lamb III’, which meticulously documented cases from 2013 to 2020, Hindu girls accounted for 88 (54%) of victims, Christians 72 (44%), Sikhs 1 (0.62%), and Kalash 1 (0.62%). The provincial breakdown reveals that Punjab witnessed 84 (51.85%) cases, Sindh 71 (43.83%), with Federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa each reporting 2 (1.23%) incidents, and Balochistan 1 (0.62%). Additionally, the CSJ data underscores that nearly half of the converted victims were minors. The CSJ, through meticulous examination of mainstream and social media, court orders, and police reports, verified 162 such incidents, uncovering a troubling trend: only 16.67% of victims were above 18, with nearly half being minors. Furthermore, the true ratio of underage victims may be higher, as the exact age of 37% of victims remained undisclosed in the report.

Hate Campaign   The hate campaign against minorities in Pakistan is a pressing issue that has led to violence, discrimination, and fear, impacting the lives of religious minority communities. Despite constitutional provisions allowing the practice of religion, the influence of Islamic doctrines has led to discrimination against religious minorities. The Pakistani state’s struggle to uphold international commitments further exacerbates this situation. Hate speech is prevalent in textbooks, mainstream media, and even within mosque sermons, contributing to a culture of animosity and inciting violent actions against minority groups. Instances of church burnings, the loss of lives, and brutal attacks against religious minorities have shocked the world, showcasing the dangerous effects of hate speech and incitement to violence. In daily life, individuals from religious minority backgrounds may experience heightened anxiety and insecurity due to the pervasive nature of hate speech. The use of derogatory slurs and labels like “kafir” and “wajib-ul-qatal” can lead to feelings of alienation and fear for their safety. Moreover, the distortion of historical facts and events in educational materials can perpetuate stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes against minorities, impacting their sense of identity and belonging in society. An analysis of responses to tweets concerning religious minorities in Pakistan revealed a significant surge in hate speech following Prime Minister Imran Khan’s supportive tweet in February 2020. Approximately 15,000 hate-filled responses were recorded in the week following the tweet.

Multidimensional Prosecution of minorities

Legal Discrimination           Blasphemy laws in Pakistan, despite their intended purpose of protecting religious sentiments, have disproportionately targeted minority communities, exacerbating religious discrimination and persecution. Minority groups, including Christians, Hindus, Ahmadi Muslims, and others, have been particularly vulnerable to false accusations of blasphemy, leading to arrests, violence, and even extrajudicial killings. Moreover, the mere accusation of blasphemy can result in societal ostracization, making minorities vulnerable to mob violence and vigilantism. The enforcement of blasphemy laws has created a climate of fear and insecurity among minority communities, impeding their ability to fully participate in society and enjoy their basic rights. Therefore, these laws not only violate principles of equality and justice but also perpetuate systemic discrimination against minorities in Pakistan. Shockingly, a significant portion of the victims were Muslims, with approximately 50% of them belonging to the Shia minority sect. Despite this, the socio-economic impact on religious minorities, especially Christians and Ahmadis, has been substantial, resulting in their social ostracization as highlighted in a report by HRCP.

Social-Economic Discrimination The socio-economic discrimination against minorities in Pakistan remains glaringly evident, perpetuating a cycle of marginalization and inequality. The disparity in literacy rates, as revealed by the 1998 census and further confirmed by the Punjab Commission on the Status of Women in 2017, highlights the systemic obstacles faced by minority communities, with Christians and Hindus lagging significantly behind the national average. The higher infant and child mortality rates among minorities underscore their economic marginalization, exacerbated by limited access to education due to exclusionary curriculum choices and religious discrimination in educational policies. Despite efforts such as the 2% quota for minority admissions at the university level, implementation remains inadequate, particularly due to the absence of affirmative measures at the school level. Furthermore, the failure of federal and provincial governments to approve syllabi for religious education in prisons denies minority prisoners their right to remission, perpetuating discriminatory practices. Additionally, the underrepresentation of minorities in government jobs, coupled with unequal pay and discriminatory hiring practices, further deepens their socio-economic disenfranchisement. Urgent action is needed to address these entrenched inequalities and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.

Political Discrimination   The discrimination against minorities in Pakistan is deeply ingrained within the political structure of the country, perpetuated by various mechanisms and institutions. The Constitution of Pakistan, while ostensibly guaranteeing freedom of religion, also enshrines Islam as the state religion, setting a framework that often marginalizes minority communities. Notably, key political positions such as the President and Prime Minister require adherence to Islam, effectively excluding non-Muslims from the highest offices of the state. This exclusionary policy reinforces a system where minority voices are sidelined in the political sphere, further exacerbated by the implementation of separate electorates. Introduced during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, this system diminishes the voting power of minorities, rendering their voices negligible in the political landscape. The resistance against such discriminatory practices, exemplified by figures like Sudham Chand, has often met with violence and suppression, sending a chilling message to those advocating for minority rights. Additionally, the Council of Islamic Ideology, established by Ayub Khan, serves as a barrier to progressive legislation by wielding its influence to block bills deemed ‘unIslamic,’ further consolidating religious authority over state affairs. This intersection of religion and politics not only undermines the democratic principles espoused by Pakistan’s constitution but also perpetuates systemic discrimination against minorities, denying them their rightful representation and amplifying their vulnerability within society.

Perpetrators of Discrimination       The perpetrators of minority discrimination in Pakistan stem from a complex interplay of societal, cultural, political and judicial factors. At the forefront are extremist groups and individuals who propagate intolerant ideologies, often under the guise of religious or nationalist fervour. These groups, such as the Taliban, Al-Qaida, and other militant factions, target minorities through violence, intimidation, and coercion, seeking to enforce their narrow interpretation of Islam and maintain power and control.  

Beyond extremist organizations, elements within the political establishment and bureaucracy have also been complicit in perpetuating discrimination against minorities. Politicians and officials who espouse divisive rhetoric or fail to address systemic inequalities contribute to an environment where minority rights are routinely disregarded.

Societal prejudices and biases against minorities are deeply entrenched, perpetuating discrimination in everyday interactions and opportunities. Discriminatory practices in education, employment, and housing further marginalize minority groups, limiting their access to socio-economic advancement and perpetuating cycles of inequality.

In Pakistan, the judiciary has played a significant role in perpetuating discrimination against minority communities, particularly through the enforcement of blasphemy laws and other discriminatory statutes. Despite the principles of justice and equality enshrined in the constitution, the judiciary has often failed to protect the rights of religious minorities, instead succumbing to pressure from extremist groups and conservative elements within society. Minority individuals often face bias and prejudice in both civil and criminal proceedings, with their testimonies and rights afforded lesser weight compared to those of the majority population. This systemic discrimination perpetuates a cycle of marginalization and oppression, further entrenching the unequal treatment of minorities within society. While there have been some efforts to address these issues, such as calls for judicial reforms and greater protection of minority rights, progress has been slow and often met with resistance from conservative quarters.

By: Muktha Prasannan, Research Analyst, GSDN

The United States’ foreign policy governs its relations with other countries and establishes guidelines for its institutions, businesses, and individual residents. To build and sustain a democratic, secure, and prosperous world in the interest of the American citizens and the international community is the official stated mission of the U.S. foreign policy, as well as the missions of all U.S. Department of State bureaus and offices. The three main objectives of US foreign policy are security, economic growth, and establishing a better global environment. Encouraging liberty and democracy while safeguarding human rights globally is fundamental to American foreign policy. The principles upon which the United States was established centuries ago are congruent with those included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with other international and regional agreements.

 The United States’ foreign policy in the post-Cold War period has undergone significant shifts and adaptations in response to the changing global landscape. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War marked a new era in international relations, characterized by the emergence of new challenges and opportunities. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the sole remaining superpower, leading to a period often referred to as the “unipolar moment.” During this time, the United States sought to shape the international order and advance its interests through economic, military, and diplomatic power. The United States emphasized promoting democratic values, free markets, and human rights as crucial components of its foreign policy. It aimed to spread liberal democracy globally, encouraging countries to embrace democratic governance and market-oriented economies.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expanded its membership to include former Soviet-bloc countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This move aimed to consolidate democratic values and enhance regional security while extending the influence of the United States and its Western allies. The September 11, 2001, attack shifted the focus of U.S. foreign policy toward counterterrorism efforts. The U.S. launched military interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) as part of its broader strategy to combat terrorism, dismantle extremist networks, and promote stability in the Middle East. The U.S. adopted a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, seeking to build stable and democratic institutions while simultaneously combating insurgency and terrorism. This approach emphasized a combination of military force, nation-building efforts, and engagement with local populations. The United States has generally pursued policies that promote economic liberalism and free trade, advocating for open markets and trade agreements. However, there have been instances of protectionist measures, such as the imposition of tariffs, particularly under the Trump administration.

The Constitution allows the President and Congress to participate in foreign policy. Each has been granted specific powers and has acquired more authority through precedent or by depending on other constitutional duties. As commander in chief of the armed forces, the President negotiates treaties and selects ambassadors to represent the country abroad. Presidents have circumvented constitutionally imposed restrictions on their authority to determine the course of American foreign policy by using their authority as commander in chief of the armed forces to engage the country in multiple foreign conflicts without Congress’s formal declaration of war throughout American history. Executive agreements negotiated with a head of state are not subject to Senate approval, even if they are only in effect for the period of president who made them.

The range of possible policy alternatives is limited by geopolitical competition and globalization; therefore, the decisions made by the US president have a significant impact on worldwide events. The executive’s influence has continued to rise, making these decisions more unrestricted. The President will shape the US-China relationship and the global economy, significantly impacting America’s allies. Policymakers in Europe are aware that the president significantly impacts the US’s dedication to its transatlantic allies. It’s possible that Donald Trump might try to pull the US out of NATO during his second term in office. The best course for maintaining regional peace in the Middle East and Eurasia will be dramatically different under a Trump or Biden presidency, will influence US policy in the areas of technology, global health, arms control, and climate change. will go into effect. The US has retreated from its position as the world’s leading liberal nation under Trump. By doing this, the US has frequently provoked its closest allies, particularly in Europe, while granting strongmen like the Philippines, North Korea, and Russia impunity about human rights violations. In particular, the administration has fulfilled President Trump’s pre-election pledge to cut back on US international commitments by pulling out the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It has officially announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which had been affected the day after the 2020 election.

The United States must envision a more fundamental reinvention of America’s place in the world to manage the unfolding complex shift. The devastation by the pandemic is all around us, with over half a million people lost their lives worldwide, the number of malnourished populations doubling, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression raging. US President Joe Biden spoke in his first foreign policy speech since assuming office, He presented it as a change of direction following four years of Donald Trump’s America First policy, promising to reinvest in diplomacy and partnerships while highlighting democratic principles.

Despite their differences in the role of the United States in the globe, Biden nevertheless prioritizes the interests of his fellow citizens. His representatives and he discuss a foreign policy that safeguards US workers’ earnings and jobs. According to Biden, there is no longer a clear distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. We must keep American working families in mind with every move we make when conducting ourselves overseas. It will have an impact on his trade strategies. As a result of Trump’s trade battle with China and his tense relations with America’s allies in Europe and Asia, as well as his increased hostilities with opponents like Iran and Venezuela, bilateral relations are at their lowest point in decades.

The multilateral order had to be restored, and Biden’s program was essentially based on rejecting Trump’s “America First” legacy. It was evident in his early actions to restore American climate diplomacy leadership and rejoin the World Health Organisation and the Paris Climate Accords. Additionally, Biden saw a chance to restore US leadership in the world and mend ties that had started to deteriorate under Trump in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic. However, Biden’s goals and Trump’s agenda have much in common. A more refined form of Trump’s emphasis on prioritizing American interests over its international obligations, his “foreign policy for the middle class” links American diplomacy to domestic peace, security, and prosperity. The disintegration of the Afghan government and the ensuing chaotic withdrawal came at a political cost for Biden, who also carried out Trump’s promise to leave Afghanistan without first discussing or coordinating with Washington’s NATO partners. On other matters, such as his stance on immigration and border security, Biden first showed no signs of adjusting anything immediately.

Beginning in 2024, US President Joe Biden will find himself in circumstances that any incumbent would envy. The economy is expanding steadily, the stock market is closing the year at all-time highs, unemployment is at a half-century low, inflation has decreased, and the president’s most likely opponent has charged with 91 felonies in four indictments. After taking office, the Biden administration promised to prioritize diplomacy in US foreign policy, but it has not accomplished much after more than two years in power. The “democracy vs. autocracy” narrative Biden and company have adopted is partially to blame. It does not help the US collaborate more successfully with the autocratic regimes that outnumber democracies worldwide and whose support could become increasingly valuable as rivalry between great powers grows. It exposes the US to hypocrisy charges and does not inspire Washington’s democratic friends significantly.

In stark contrast to the democracy vs. autocracy framework, European leaders travel to Beijing to protect their economic interests with the (autocratic) People’s Republic of China. Likewise, conversations wereheld between one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top national security advisors and Narendra Modi, the president of largely democratic India. There are still unresolved matters on the administration’s agenda in the interim.

When Biden assumed office, he declared he would carry out his predecessor’s decision to leave the nuclear agreement with Iran.Iran is becoming closer than it has ever been to having nuclear weapons, which increases the likelihood of a Middle East conflict that the world and the US administration do not need at this time.

Taiwan, where presidential elections are scheduled for mid-January could impact whether Biden has to deal with another significant crisis. One of the main objectives of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s term is the reunification of China and Taiwan. Although he acknowledged to Biden at their November meeting that there is no set timeframe for achieving this goal, he also stated that China reserves the right to use force if Taiwan opposes or delays unification. Beijing is unlikely to invade Lai in retaliation for her victory, but it might still cause significant hardship for the island nation. It might disrupt supply routes vital to Taiwan’s economy, meddle in military operations that violate Taiwan’s maritime and aerial sovereignty, and obstruct commercial vessels. Moreover, if any of these actions were taken, Washington would have to decide how to react.

Election politics and results in the United States are typically unaffected by foreign policy. Nevertheless, Biden’s electoral chances would be seriously hampered by just one of these crises, much less all three. Foreign policy is complex and constantly evolving in response to global events and challenges. Therefore, periodic reassessments and adjustments are a normal part of the process.