What Does Allowing Ukraine To Hit Russian Territory With US Missiles Tell Us?

By

-

November 19, 2024

Late last week, President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use US missiles against targets in Russia. This was reported by The New York Times, creating a tsunami of questions around the world, including: Isn’t this a step towards a sharp escalation of the war and the involvement of other countries, that is a step towards World War III? Details play an important role in this issue. So, let’s analyze them step by step.

What Does This Authorization Cover? Is The Entire Territory Of Russia Accessible For strikes?

No, it is only a permission to use US missiles against targets in the Kursk region, where the Russian and North Korean troops are trying to push the Ukrainian military out of fortified positions.

The specter of President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House and pledged cutoffs of US aid to Ukraine belatedly prodded Biden towards decisive action, said Samuael Ramani.

Ukraine’s use of ATACMs in Kursk will provide immediate benefits for its increasingly bleak frontline position. Russia’s deployment of 10,000 North Korean troops to Kursk Oblast is widely believed to be an asymmetric retaliation for Ukraine receiving permission to use NATO-class weaponry against Russian targets, stated Ramani.

Thus, the US decision to deploy long-range missiles looks like an asymmetrical response to the appearance of North Korean military personnel in the Kursk region of Russia. At the same time, this weapon is not capable of radically changing the course of events in the war – its main task is to carry out preventive strikes on places of equipment accumulation and airfields in the Kursk region where soldiers from North Korea are involved. This raises the question of the use of these US missiles in other Russian territories adjacent to Ukraine. According to the statements, Washington has not granted Kyiv such permission, so there is no question of a turning point in the course of the war.

Also read: People Or Territories: The Question That Ukraine Is Facing

This thesis is supported by The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) which reported that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia will not have the desired effect. After all, if the West allows Ukraine to use its long-range weapons only against military facilities in the Kursk region, many more positions of the Russian army on Russian territory will remain out of range. Therefore, the restrictions should be lifted for all Russian territories. Washington is not yet comfortable with such statements.

Moreover, “It remains unclear whether the US will allow Ukraine to use ATACMS against Russian targets that lie further away from the frontlines. While Russia has pre-emptively moved 90 per cent of the aircraft that it uses in glide bomb strikes away from the range of ATACMs, 17 airbases and at least 250 major military objects lie within their radius”.

What Is Washington’s Main Goal?

This decision of the United States is a hint to Russia not to involve its allies in the war, thus forming an alliance, the expansion of which to include other countries or even more soldiers from North Korea could significantly limit the West’s space for geopolitical maneuvering in terms of further ending the war through diplomatic means. In this case, the West will either be forced to withdraw from the war in Ukraine or enter it with its military forces.

Also read: The Moral Imperative Of The Collective West And The Ukraine War

Such a decision by the United States is more of a signal to Russia than a military threat in the literal sense of the word. Another detail worth mentioning here is that the information about this US authorization came not through official channels, but through The New York Times, which has long been used by the White House to leak information about decisions that are only under consideration. And if the response of the opponents – Russia – is appropriate, that is, without further involvement of North Korea in the conflict, the scope of the decision will be minimized or the authorization itself will be postponed. Therefore, it is worth waiting for Russia’s response on further involvement of North Korean soldiers.

Very likely, given the form of this statement, its limited context, and the goal stated through the media, it is unlikely to be considered a reason for further escalation of the war. This is probably Washington’s move in a broader game in which Russia is an actor.

Why Did This Statement Appear Now?

The time before the UN General Assembly or G20 group meetings is very convenient for such statements. It should be noted that the statement came a day before the start of the G20 summit in Brazil. The summit, where Erdogan is proposing a plan to freeze the war, and the summit participants do not hide fears that Russia may involve significantly more North Korean soldiers – up to 100 thousand – in the war in Ukraine.

At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was present at the summit, and Ukrainian President Zelensky did not participate in the event, even as an invited party, although he attended the gathering in 2022.

And it is also very important to note the fact that the participants at the summit had considerable difficulty in preparing the final communiqué. The search for consensus was complicated by both the preceding massive strike on Ukraine’s infrastructure and Washington’s announcement via The New York Times of its decision to grant Ukraine permission to strike Russian territory with US ATACMS missiles. This is very much like a session of a geopolitical game, with mutual moves by the players to form a more favorable position for some kind of negotiations, not a military one.

Smog In Pakistan: A Crisis Of Neglect, Denial And Missed Opportunities

By

Saima William

-

November 19, 2024

0

In the heart of winter, the skies of Lahore and other major cities in Pakistan are shrouded in a thick, toxic haze. It’s smog season, and this has become an annual tragedy. The irony? This isn’t just a crisis born from neglect; it’s a glaring indictment of decades of systemic failure, lack of accountability, and a refusal to take meaningful action.

Pakistan’s smog problem has reached alarming proportions, with cities like Lahore, Faisalabad, and Gujranwala routinely ranking among the world’s most polluted. But let’s be honest — this isn’t about rankings. It’s about lives. It’s about the children who grow up wheezing, the elderly whose lungs fail them, and the workers who struggle to breathe as they carry out their daily routines. Yet, despite this health catastrophe, our response to air pollution has been pitiful, driven more by shame over global rankings than genuine concern for public health.

A History Of Lip Service:

The seeds of our environmental crisis were sown long ago. Since the promulgation of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance in 1983, successive governments have failed to prioritize environmental wellbeing. Commitments have been made on paper, policies drafted, and programs initiated, only to be abandoned or left toothless due to lack of funding, political will, or expertise.

In 2007, we even had a countrywide Clean Air Program, facilitated by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). It was a hopeful moment — a chance to address the root causes of air pollution systematically. But what came of it? Repeated failures led to the formation of commissions and committees, each more ineffective than the last.

Fast forward to 2023, and we have a Clean Air Policy. Will it succeed where its predecessors failed? History tells us not to hold our breath — though that’s becoming increasingly difficult in our smog-laden cities. If the Clean Air Policy of 2023 falters, we can rest assured that the Pakistan Clean Air Initiative for 2030 is already being drafted.

A Culture Of Denial And Misdirection:

Rather than facing the crisis head-on, our authorities have mastered the art of denial and scapegoating. For years, Environmental Protection Departments (EPDs) have published manipulated air quality numbers to downplay the severity of the issue. Citizens who use personal air quality monitoring devices to reveal the truth have faced harassment and bullying.

And when the data becomes undeniable, the blame is conveniently shifted elsewhere — most notably to India. We’ve heard it before: the smog is caused by stubble burning across the border, and we are mere victims of our neighbor’s agricultural practices. While stubble burning does contribute to the problem, the carbon emissions from such activities are minuscule compared to the unchecked burning of hydrocarbons right here in Pakistan.

Factories and furnaces in areas like Sheikhupura and Saggian Road run on rubber tires and old shoes after dark, spewing toxic smoke into the air. The government and EPA officials conveniently turn a blind eye, aided by bribes that reportedly amount to Rs25,000 or more per furnace per day. Farmers, meanwhile, are an easy scapegoat, blamed for a problem they did not create.

The absurdity of this blame game is evident when we consider the geographical realities. Lahore, a city that is not surrounded by rice-growing areas, suffers some of the worst smog. If stubble burning were the primary cause, rural areas like Narowal, Sialkot, and Gujranwala would choke long before Lahore does.

Smog: A Health Crisis Larger Than COVID-19:

The health impacts of smog are catastrophic, dwarfing even the devastating toll of COVID-19. While the pandemic was a temporary crisis with clear solutions like vaccines, air pollution is a permanent fixture in our lives. It is a silent killer, linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths annually.

Research after the Great London Smog of 1952 revealed the long-term consequences of air pollution, particularly on children. Expectant mothers exposed to polluted air were more likely to have children predisposed to asthma and other respiratory diseases. Imagine the impact of Pakistan’s air quality on the generations growing up in Lahore, Faisalabad, and Karachi.

But it doesn’t stop at respiratory issues. Unsafe drinking water and other environmental hazards compound the problem, creating a vicious cycle of illness and poverty. This isn’t just negligence; it’s criminal.

Misguided Solutions:

In the face of this crisis, the government’s proposed solutions have ranged from impractical to downright laughable. Wet road washing, artificial rain, and smog towers have been paraded as answers, but these measures are mere distractions. They don’t address the root causes of air pollution and do little to alleviate the suffering of millions.

Instead of investing in effective solutions like clean energy transitions, stricter industrial regulations, and urban planning reforms, we are content with quick fixes and empty promises. Meanwhile, non-specialists and laypersons are entrusted with critical environmental decision-making, further exacerbating the problem.

A Call to Action:

The smog crisis is not an insurmountable challenge. Countries like China and India have shown that significant improvements in air quality are possible with the right policies and enforcement. Pakistan must prioritize the following:

Regulation and Accountability: Enforce strict penalties for factories and industries that violate emissions standards. Root out corruption in regulatory bodies to ensure compliance.
Clean Energy Transition: Invest in renewable energy sources and phase out fossil fuels. Incentivize the adoption of cleaner technologies in industries and transportation.
Public Awareness and Advocacy: Educate citizens about the dangers of air pollution and involve them in grassroots initiatives to demand change.
Urban Planning and Public Transport: Develop efficient public transport systems to reduce reliance on private vehicles, a major source of urban air pollution.
Sustainable Agriculture: Support farmers with subsidies and training to adopt sustainable practices, reducing the need for stubble burning.

The time for complacency is over. Smog is not just an environmental issue; it is a public health emergency that demands urgent and sustained action. If we fail to act now, we are condemning future generations to a lifetime of suffering, all for the sake of short-term convenience and profit.

Let us not wait for another commission, another policy, or another crisis. The air we breathe—and the lives it sustains—depend on the choices we make today.

Citizen Journalism: A Double-Edged Sword

By

Dr Shama Junejo

-

November 19, 2024

1

Citizen Journalism — In Musk's worldview, editorial checks are viewed as barriers to the "truth." Yet, these checks are precisely what distinguishes journalism from propaganda. Without them, platforms like X have become echo chambers, amplifying biases rather than challenging them. This is especially dangerous in countries like Pakistan, where political parties like PTI have weaponized social media to propagate false narratives.

Yesterday, I shared a global study on X (Twitter), highlighting that India leads the world in propagating fake news, with the United States and Pakistan ranking between fourth and sixth and England standing at twelfth. But it was not just the study that concerned me; it was the broader reality of how citizen journalism, once heralded as a democratic breakthrough, has become a potent weapon in the arsenal of misinformation and manipulation in Musk’s era of digital media.

The Arab Spring, often dubbed the “Twitter Revolution,” showed us how individuals armed with smartphones could shake oppressive regimes.

Citizen journalism is where ordinary individuals, rather than professional journalists, gather, report, and share news through blogs, social media, or other digital platforms, often bypassing traditional editorial oversight. It is rooted in democratizing information but operates without the checks and balances of conventional journalism. Citizen journalism, in its ideal form, is a powerful tool for societal accountability. The Arab Spring, often dubbed the “Twitter Revolution,” showed us how individuals armed with smartphones could shake oppressive regimes. Whether exposing police brutality in the United States or highlighting environmental destruction in the Amazon, ordinary people with extraordinary courage have changed the course of history. Yet, alongside these triumphs lies an undeniable truth — this unregulated medium has opened the floodgates to a torrent of fake news, deliberate distortions, and dangerously polarized narratives.

Take, for instance, the far-right riots in Southport, England, this August. What began as a baseless rumor on social media — that a Muslim man had stabbed children in a dance class — escalated into days of unrest. The actual suspect, a mentally unstable African boy, had no ties to the fabricated narrative that fueled hate-filled protests. The damage was done even after the authorities released his photograph and made multiple clarifications. It took the intervention of Keir Starmer’s government and swift legal action to quell the unrest, but the underlying tensions remained, simmering like embers waiting for the next spark.

In Pakistan, the dangers of unchecked false propaganda have taken on a uniquely chaotic form more often. A recent incident in Lahore saw students pouring onto the streets in violent protests over a fabricated story of a college girl’s rape and subsequent death. Despite the Punjab government’s timely approach, led by Maryam Nawaz, the narrative had already spiraled out of control. By the time the fake news was debunked, the trust deficit between the state and the people had only widened. Add to this the bizarre actions of the clergy, who issued fatwas declaring VPN usage haram when the state blocked X to counter the spread of misinformation.

In Pakistan, the dangers of unchecked false propaganda have taken on a uniquely chaotic form more often.

It is essential to clarify a distinction that has confused decision-makers in Pakistan. Fake news and false propaganda are not exclusively the domain of citizen journalists, such as TikTokers or users of platforms like X (formerly Twitter). As my senior colleague and former Information Minister Murtaza Solangi rightly explained on a Pakistani TV channel, the government is targeting illegal VPNs while encouraging the use of registered VPNs to track cyber criminals and terrorists. This approach is logical. I rely on a registered VPN to access UK-based websites in Tajikistan, and that is where the government needs to voice the logical reasoning for why they are banning the illegal use of VPNs. Instead, the bizarre fatwa is causing embarrassment.

Solangi also highlighted another critical issue — the unethical practices of electronic media channels on social media platforms like YouTube, which use sensationalist and completely fabricated news thumbnails to attract views and grow their audience. This is where the boundaries blur between genuine citizen journalism and the outright dissemination of fake news propaganda in Pakistan, a problem that the Pakistani government must address and tackle adequately with urgency. To differentiate between false propaganda and genuine citizen journalism, it is crucial to evaluate the source’s credibility, verify the information against multiple authentic sources, and hold those spreading malicious content accountable.

In the UK, courts swiftly convicted the culprits for a misleading tweet during recent far-right riots. In contrast, in Pakistan, courts, often backed by PTI-leaning judges, appear to grant impunity to such propagators. A YouTuber behind the fake Lahore rape case was immediately released by the court, with the judge even dismissing the case altogether. The issue is that TikTok and YouTube vlogs have become tools for fake news and live propaganda videos beyond citizen journalism. Still, the government is instead taking a grudge against X by blocking it while all the ministers, including the Prime Minister, use the identical X through VPNs. Such absurd measures highlight a lack of strategy and an unwillingness to address the root causes of digital anarchy.

Also read: Freedom of Inciting Violence: Billionaires Shaping The World

Coming back to the actual point of this article, Elon Musk, co-chief of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), has made citizen journalism a cornerstone of his vision. Musk seeks to bypass traditional media gatekeepers by promoting this concept on X, empowering individuals to report news directly.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1852807779863691389

But in doing so, he has inadvertently dismantled the pivotal layers of editorial oversight and fact-checking that professional journalism relies upon. The consequences are glaring. When a platform becomes an unfiltered megaphone for misinformation, the line between truth and falsehood blurs, leaving people overwhelmed and disoriented by a relentless flood of misleading narratives, outright falsehoods, half-truths, and lies.

Platforms like X must implement stricter content moderation policies, employing AI and human oversight to flag and remove misinformation.

As someone with a PhD in Ethics, I find the ethical implications profound and deeply troubling. citizen journalists, often untrained and anonymous, operate without accountability. Their “scoops” can lead to real-world consequences, from wrongful arrests to communal violence. During the Arab Spring, many citizen journalists risked their lives to document state oppression, but what happens when such documentation is misused? As noted by the London School of Economics study, photographs and videos intended to expose injustices have sometimes been weaponized by authoritarian regimes to prosecute dissenters. The lack of safeguards makes citizen journalism precarious, particularly in illiberal democracies and autocratic states.

Moreover, the rise of citizen journalism has led to the erosion of traditional media’s credibility, which has recently been witnessed in the US elections. In Musk’s worldview, editorial checks are viewed as barriers to the “truth.” Yet, these checks are precisely what distinguishes journalism from propaganda. Without them, platforms like X have become echo chambers, amplifying biases rather than challenging them. This is especially dangerous in countries like Pakistan, where political parties like PTI have weaponized social media to propagate false narratives. Their digital brigades flood timelines with doctored videos and inflammatory rhetoric, creating an alternate reality that stokes division and distrust.

But it would be disingenuous to dismiss citizen journalism outright. There are moments when it shines as a force for good. In the absence of professional reporters, citizens have exposed rapes, murders, and systemic corruption. The footage of George Floyd’s murder, recorded by a bystander, sparked a global movement for racial justice. However, these instances are exceptions rather than the rule. For every truth unearthed, countless lies are spread, each chipping away at the fabric of societal trust.

The question, then, is how to reconcile citizen journalism’s benefits with its glaring pitfalls. The answer lies in regulation and education. Platforms like X must implement stricter content moderation policies, employing AI and human oversight to flag and remove misinformation. Simultaneously, digital literacy campaigns are essential to equip users with the tools to discern credible information from falsehoods. Therefore, the Pakistani government, too, must play their part by enacting laws that hold platforms accountable without stifling freedom of expression.

The onus also falls on us — the consumers of news. We must approach every sensational tweet, video, or blog post with skepticism, verifying sources before accepting anything as fact. Citizen journalism, for all its flaws, is here to stay. But unless we address its ethical, social, and political implications, it will continue eroding the democratic ideals it was meant to uphold. And in a world where truth is already a casualty, that is a risk we cannot afford to take.

BRICS And The Quest For Financial Independence

By

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Munir

-

November 18, 2024

0

The countries that make up the BRICS association, for the most part, joined it at the beginning of the 2000s with the basic goal of advancing economic integration, and to counteract the US and European hegemony in the financial sphere. What started with coordination without formal structure has over the years developed into a large trading and investment bloc, in terms of share of the total world trade and investments.

The US dollar has been the world’s reference model acting as the international reserve currency and a barometer for the global export market. This position of monopoly, however, is gradually being threatened especially with the rise of the BRICS’ emerging economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS members, jointly accounting for more than two/thirds of the global population and approximately 1/4 of world GDP, are insisting on diversifying the world processes. Concomitantly, changes in the global economy means the shift from the dollar-centered to a more pluralistic and polycentric financial system and the emerging of BRICS.

Since the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, the US dollar became the international currency. It was established because it fixed the dollar at gold and made other currencies to be always fixed on the dollar. Indeed, after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 when United States of America dropped the ‘gold standard’, the dollar still held the upper hand. The reasons were multifaceted: the current strength of the American economy, dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and its role in oil business called the petrodollar system.

This led to the US enjoying some important privileges since the dollar dominated. The hegemony of the dollar gave the US such an added advantage. It allows the country to borrow at cheaper rate because demand for assets in foreign currency particularly the US Treasury bonds was still high. Furthermore, it also gave the US the leverage to fundamentally control most institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. However, the existence of a unipolar structure of the financial world was accompanied by criticism for the organization’s weaknesses and for the political use of the seven-figure status.

The countries that make up the BRICS association, for the most part, joined it at the beginning of the 2000s with the basic goal of advancing economic integration, and to counteract the US and European hegemony in the financial sphere. What started with coordination without formal structure has over the years developed into a large trading and investment bloc, in terms of share of the total world trade and investments. BRICS countries possess diverse economic strengths: China is a manufacturing giant, Brazil is endowed with natural resources, Russia is an energy supplying nation and South Africa is a key country in Africa.

The BRICS nations are, thus, deliberately moving away from the dollar dominated world. Multiple factors have triggered this shift: political rivalries, economic sanctions imposed by the US, and quest for more operational control on the banking sector.

Another main reason the BRICS has formed this alliance is since most of them rely mostly on the US dollar. Some of these nations, the most affected being China and Russia, have at one time or the other faced the effects of economic sanctions. As a result, the actions of the BRICS group have been focused on searching for methods to curtail the role of the dollar and work out functions that may enable to organize the exchange in local currencies.

In the recent years, the BRICS nations are, thus, deliberately moving away from the dollar dominated world. Multiple factors have triggered this shift: political rivalries, economic sanctions imposed by the US, and quest for more operational control on the banking sector. The highlight of it was being established in the year 2014 with the New Development Bank (NDB). H5 Founded in 2015, the NDB is based in Shanghai. Their main goals were to offer development financing solutions in local currencies to member states instead of dollar-dominated systems of Western counterpart institutions.

Also read: US-China Trade War in New Trump Era

The twin economies of China and Russia have been very aggressive in the push towards de-dollarization which is evident by the increase in the volume of their bilateral trade that is now more settled in yuan and ruble. India has also expressed an increasing desire to utilize the rupee for overseas purchases, especially from Russia in form of oil. When engaging in trade with members of this group, they hope to achieve use of local currencies to dodge the dollar-based system, eliminate high costs of doing business and also work to eliminate the volatility of the foreign exchange market.

The twin economies of China and Russia have been very aggressive in the push towards de-dollarization which is evident by the increase in the volume of their bilateral trade that is now more settled in yuan and ruble.

In addition, the idea of BRICS common currency was raised for consideration. Though it is at this stage still in its early stages, the concept stems from the group’s strategic thinking about the creation of a new, post-crisis architecture of global finance. Three potential actions remain: muting of the US dollar can be complimented by shared currency or even closer financial architecture in BRICS countries.

The fact that BRICS countries started to diversify from dollar means that this process will have a very important impact of trade and finance globally. As more countries look for avenues of diversifying their foreign reserves and look at the option of moving away from accumulating the greenback, the use of dollar is likely to come down.

A more favorable position for the emerging economies is associated with moving to local currencies within the conduct of trade relations, which can protect against excessive dollar risk observed during the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes. Most developing countries have been subjected to capital flight and inflationary forces when the dollar rises since their debt is normally dollar linked.

Holding dollars by the BRICS countries exposes these nations foreign accounts to the volatility of the dollar thus it is easier for them to diversify to improve on their economic stability. Moreover, the diversification of global finance can promote a relatively equitable global distribution of power resources. The US has in the past applied its manipulated control over the dollar-based international financial system as a way of negotiating with other countries putting sanctions on those countries which it does not approve of.

US-China Trade War in New Trump Era

By

Shahzad Masood Roomi

-

November 18, 2024

0

US-China Trade War — More than Chinese and US businesses, such a conflict will affect the entire global trade and supply chain networks which are still healing from the impact of COVID. Trump’s trade war is a bad omen and must be discouraged.

What will Donald Trump’s tenure usher for global politics and trade? This question has been asked frequently since the announcement of the US presidential election results. Now, the debate over a second round of tariff war between world’s largest trading partners has gained new traction and it’s not without reasons. President-elect Trump has a well-known position about the revival of American industry and minimizing Chinese influence in the US market. He took some serous steps in this direction during his previous term as the US president from 2016-20, which triggered the US-China trade war.

He believes that the China’s inclusion in WTO at the beginning of 21st century has allowed Beijing to manipulate the WTO terms to bypass free market practices.

Thought out in his election campaign, Trump has promised to “Make America Great Again” through his political vision in which the US must manufacture goods within the country instead of China. He promised to take measures to incentivize local industry, put heavy tariffs on Chinese products, and reduce reliance on imports overall. He believes that the China’s inclusion in WTO at the beginning of 21st century has allowed Beijing to manipulate the WTO terms to bypass free market practices and Chinese industries have been given state protection to gain competitive edge in trade with the US.

Although there are strong arguments against this stance, Trump is back in the White House and he will fulfill his political vision. As many US brands have their manufacturing facilities in China, any tariff war will harm these businesses who have supply chain network across the world. Hence, any trade war between China and the US is not merely a bilateral issue, and demands close examination of possible outcome of such eventuality in near future.

Trump’s aggressive “America First” policy can lead to increased tariffs which will trigger a reciprocal response from China, leading to a renewed trade war which in turn will result higher consumer costs for the same goods which are now available at lower prices. Any such outcome of Trump’s likely actions will certainly disrupt the global supply chains and impact various industries, including technology, automobile, industrial manufacturing, consumer goods, and agriculture. For example, if Trump imposes a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and 20% tariff on all imports, as he promised to do many a time during his election campaign, several key industries in China would be significantly affected.

Most important sector where the US and China are competing is the tech sector particularly semiconductor design and manufacturing, electronics, and related systems. Already Taiwan, under the US demands, has announced to drop China off from potential customers of its AI-enabled microchips, even though China remained Taiwan’s largest chip buyer for decades. Increased tariffs on China-made electronic devices will increase the cost of business for Chinese manufacturers and consumers of these items in the US both.

The automobile industry, which is deeply integrated into the global supply chain, is another sector that would face increased costs. Not only Chinese EV sector but the US-based automakers like Tesla, which depend on Chinese parts, will see higher prices and potential disruptions.

More than Chinese and US businesses, such a conflict will affect the entire global trade and supply chain networks which are still healing from the impact of COVID.

Similarly, ripples of Trump’s trade war with China will also be felt by large scale engineering and manufacturing sectors. This includes steel, non-ferrous metals, and fertilizers. These industries are already sensitive to global trade dynamics and would likely see reduced output and increased costs. Such measures will affect the US consumers of the Chinese goods who have now become accustom to cheaper imported many consumer goods, from clothing to electronics, which are mainly produced in China. Higher tariffs will lead to increased prices for these products, affecting both Chinese manufacturers and global consumers. So, in the end, Trump will be affecting own people more than Chinese who also have the entire world as open market.

Trump’s trade war will put US brands being manufactured in China in the most challenging position as they had to take some drastic measures in very short span of time to mitigate or minimize the impact of this trade war.

Some of these steps are mentioned below. Not all the businesses can take each step, but few of these will have to take in order to survive in the competitive market where Chinese local brands are eager to replace these US based brands.

The most obvious step which even Trump wants US brands to take is the relocation i.e. moving operations to countries with lower tariffs like India or ideally back to the US. Brining back manufacturing to the US has been Trump’s political slogan since his first tenure. Second option which large scale brands can afford is absorbing higher costs to maintain pricing strategies and passing on increased costs to consumers.

At the same time, trade war is going to affect the US brands that are not even located within China by disrupting the supply chain networks where many components of their plants and machines comes from China at very low cost. Such businesses will have to readjust the sourcing of components by seeking different suppliers than China. Some businesses may have to redesign their products with fewer components subject to tariffs increases. Finally, US brands may have to diversify revenue streams so that they can absorb the impact of increased tariffs without passing them on to consumers and losing competitiveness in the market.

Trump believes that his tariff strategy could potentially benefit local US businesses and manufacturing by boosting domestic production and by encouraging consumers to buy American-made products. He says that his actions will trigger increased capital investment in domestic production facilities and consequently triggering supply chain reshoring – bringing supply chains back to the US. Trump is confident that his strategy will enhance innovation and competitiveness in the US industry by pushing businesses to invest more in research and development to improve products.

Trade war is going to affect the US brands that are not even located within China by disrupting the supply chain networks where many components of their plants and machines comes from China at very low cost.

Trump’s trade war with China cannot be discussed without analyzing the China’s potential responses. Beijing may impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods. China can also impose stricter regulations and customs delays which is a form of non-tariff barrier. Currency devaluation is another weapon China may employ which will make Chinese exports cheaper and more competitive. US already blames China for doing it to penetrate European and American markets. But most strategic weapons China hold in big tech sector is to restrict rare earth exports to the US which will disrupt the critical supply chain of the US. Entire US weapon manufacturing sector depends on it.

These measures may lead to increased tensions and further disruptions in global trade and even geopolitics. Already China and the US are at odds with each other on the issue of Taiwan. Trade war will only exacerbate these issues. More than Chinese and US businesses, such a conflict will affect the entire global trade and supply chain networks which are still healing from the impact of COVID. Trumps trade war is a bad omen and must be discouraged.

Trump Returns: Three Key Challenges For US Foreign Policy

By

Ali Abbas

-

November 17, 2024

0

US Department of State — A businessman at heart yet rash and unforgiving make up for a highly unpredictable personality. Yet Trump has proved, notwithstanding other factors, that he is decisive. America will not be in an ambiguous state, as was the case during the Biden administration.

Donald Trump has been elected as the 47th President of the United States. It must not be too surprising, however, as the policies adopted by the Democrats in the last four years haven’t served the US well diplomatically, militarily and economically. Today, the US finds itself relatively weaker than how Trump left it in 2020.

On the foreign policy front, the Trump administration will continue to face three immediate challenges. The raging conflict in the Middle East involving Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Israel as well as the Russia-Ukraine war and the perceived increase in global influence of China.

American presidents have historically complied with Israeli demands. The Israeli lobby, as highlighted by Prof Mearsheimer in his book “The Israeli Lobby & The US Foreign Policy,” exerts unparalleled influence over the American policy circles. This circle includes the branches of the government, civil society, think tanks, academia, and the military industrial complex. The American deep state is well funded and taken care of by the Israeli lobby.

Structural factors aside, President-elect Trump’s temperament and his term as president from 2016-20 show he has been an ardent supporter of the Israeli cause, arguably more than any other president in modern US history. His endorsement of Jerusalem as Israeli capital, his support for the peace deal between a few Arab nations and Israel, which provided Israel with much-needed diplomatic space and support, and his approval of direct military actions against Israel’s adversaries in the Middle East region — particularly the assassination of Qasem Suleimani in January 2020. These are some of the instances one must consider before putting forth optimistic estimations about peace prevailing in the Middle East region.

Also read: A Looming Storm: Trump’s Far-Right Cabinet And The Fragile World Order

Netanyahu, sensing an imminent Trump victory, found it convenient to dismiss his defense minister Yoav Gallant just one day before the results of the US elections. This indicates Israeli optimism towards a shift in American policies in the coming weeks and months. It must be noted that Gallant was less hawkish than most of the Israeli war cabinet members and harbored serious reservations against Netanyahu on his postwar strategy.

Another factor to bear in mind is the deep role political and campaign financers play in shaping American foreign policy. Miriam Adelson, a Jew and billionaire, has been one of the strongest supporters and financiers of Trump’s recent campaign. It is likely that Trump’s policy on the Middle East and Israel will be influenced by her and the interests she represents. Lastly, Trump’s cabinet can be labeled an “aerie of hawks.” Following on this precedence, Trump has named Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State who is an ardent supporter of Israel and staunch opponent of Iran. His hawkish views on Russia, however, may as well be overridden by Trump and he is unlikely to take a harsh stance against Russia if he leads as a ‘peace-envoy’ to Ukraine.

Another nomination, Mike Waltz, a Republican representative, who is also a critic of China has been nominated for the position of National Security Adviser. Elise Stefanik has been nominated for the position of the United States’ ambassador to the UN – she too has been pro-Israel and an ardent supporter of the Zionist cause. These indicators suggest that Israel’s actions will receive increased support in its genocidal war against civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

These are possibilities that will obviously come at a cost, which will most likely be paid by Ukraine. Donald Trump, unlike his support for Israel, has been in flagrant opposition to the NATO expansion in the Eastern Europe. Trump has reservations about NATO’s overdependence on the US finances and military support; he sees little or no value in NATO expansion, especially when it irks Russia. Trump has had a relatively mellow relationship with Vladimir Putin, whom he does not see as a threat, unlike the Democrats. Given the likelihood of further escalation into a potential nuclear war and Trump’s dismissal of Russia as an existential threat to the US, a reduction in support for Ukraine and NATO against Russia will be on the cards, which may result in a ceasefire sooner or later.

Unfortunately, Trump does not share a similar view about Iran and China. Trump considers them threats to the United States’ Middle East and Asia-Pacific strategies, respectively. Building on his previous policies, Trump will likely increase American and Western pressure on Iran, focusing on its nuclear program and ballistic missile program – which was the precise reason why Trump shelved the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. These two agendas possess existential importance for the US and Israel. Highly suspicious of Iranian intentions, Trump will take relatively more proactive measures to contain Iran and protect Israel’s interests in the Middle East. In his recent campaign, Trump categorically opposed Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The US under Trump will pose serious challenges to China in the realms of diplomacy, trade, war, and military, and most importantly, its bid for economic expansion and cooperation in Asia and other regions of the world. With some estimates that China may surpass the US in economic power by the end of this decade, Trump’s 2024–28 regime will have to fight an existential contest with the rising dragon. It must be noted that Trump started a trade war with China when he was the president (2016-20) and sought to limit China’s growing upper hand vis-à-vis the US.

America’s China policy undoubtedly has effects on America’s policy towards Pakistan and India. It is unlikely that Trump will appease Pakistan, provide it with diplomatic support, or resume the military aid that he himself suspended during his last tenure. All this stems from the fact that the US sees Pakistan as an indispensable ally of China and the key state in China’s BRI initiative. CPEC’s operationalization means China’s reduced dependency on maritime trade and resultantly reduced vulnerability to US maritime blackmail. Currently, terrorism and insurgency and a struggling economy are the greatest hurdles to CPEC in Pakistan. As such, US support for Pakistan in counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and military support appears to be unlikely, and relations are expected to remain cold.

On the other hand, India, which is ‘the frontline state’ in America’s ‘War on China,’ will likely enjoy an increased American support diplomatically, financially, and militarily. The alliances and agreements, such as the QUAD, which had been out of the limelight since the Biden administration came to power, will be back on the headlines again. The Republican presidents have historically been supportive of India, especially as a hedge against China. The nuclear deal, the NSG waiver, the COMCASA, the ISA, the BECA, and numerous other defense and strategic agreements have bolstered India. These agreements were reached whenever a Republican president was in the White House, and there will be one for the next four years.

In conclusion, America’s three-pronged strategy will test Donald Trump’s political maneuverability and his competence. A businessman at heart yet rash and unforgiving make up for a highly unpredictable personality. Yet Trump has proved, notwithstanding other factors, that he is decisive. America will not be in an ambiguous state, as was the case during the Biden administration. Trump will take sides and be decisive in his policies. It is possible that the Russia-Ukraine war will be resolved after Trump takes office and it will spell the end of NATO’s expansion.

Regarding China and Iran, the Trump administration will pursue aggressive policies in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific primarily aiming to contain both threats. This will be marked by the increased assistance to Israel and India. Pakistan on the other hand owing to its strategic importance to China and India’s growing importance against China, may not expect any significant improvement in its relations with the US in the short run.

A Circle Of faithful: What Plans Do Top Trump Cabinet Members have?

By

Muhammad Hussain Baqeri

-

November 16, 2024

0

With Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election, the Republican president will make his choices for the cabinet. Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, Pete Hegsett for Secretary of Defense, John Ratcliffe for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, and Mike Waltz for National Security Advisor have been Trump’s final picks so far. The question is how do each of these members think about America’s current issues in the world.

America First And National Conservatism:

If Trump had a conflict with traditional neoconservatives and evangelicals during his first term, he can now go ahead with his plans more easily. Therefore, the world will witness a “one-voice cabinet”.

The foreign policy team members have all declared their loyalty to Trump’s ideas. None of them believe that America will resort to costly alliances or military interventions to spread its values. The most important example of not believing in the non-partisan strategy of liberal hegemony can be seen in Trump and his new cabinet’s view of the Ukraine war. All the new members are against the military aid to Ukraine and are in favor of improving relations with Russia.

China, The Most Important Threat To America:

Four years ago, Ratcliffe stated in a note in the Wall Street Journal that China is the number 1 threat to the United States, whose goal is military, economic and technological dominance over the United States and the whole world. The confrontation of the current generation of Americans with China is similar to the confrontation with German fascism and the Soviet Iron Wall.

Also read: A Looming Storm: Trump’s Far-Right Cabinet And The Fragile World Order

Although prioritizing the emerging power of China among the ruling elites in America is trans-partisan, it cannot be denied that the approach of the future American government is different from that of looking at China as a competitor. The views of people like Ratcliffe should be seen alongside the options of the Treasury Department, who want a more intense trade war with China. Of course, it is unclear how much the American government will be able to fight a trade war with China.

Deterrence Against Iran:

As much as the Trumpists want to reduce America’s involvement in the world and focus on China, the issue of the Middle East is completely different. Trump’s foreign policy team is strongly anti-Iran. This team believes that if the resistance axis targets America’s interests in the region, a strong military response should be given to maintain America’s deterrence. They believe that experience has proven that if Iran and the axis of resistance are dealt a strong military blow, they will retreat to preserve the system.

This dangerous perception becomes more important when it is accompanied by sensitivity about Iran’s nuclear program. Waltz recently stated that a ceasefire in Gaza is not the final solution and that Israel should focus on Iran.

Hexett also said in an interview that “I don’t want occupation, I don’t want endless war. But Iran has been in an endless war with us for 40 years. Either we stop it now or we wait, come back to the [negotiating] table and let them continue to develop their capabilities.” He said earlier that “we should allow Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities”. Maybe in the long run, America will return to the approach of maximum pressure instead of military confrontation; But from the point of view of the Trump team, the current war in the region has opened this window for America to solve the nuclear issue of Iran forever.

America And Israel:

Trump distancing himself from neoconservatives and evangelicals does not mean Trump distancing himself from Israel. Looking at Trump’s campaign financiers, as well as some members of the foreign policy team (Rubio and Waltz), one can understand the extent to which the Israel lobby has influence in the cabinet.

The Trump administration will continue to fully support Israel and not exert pressure, especially in a war that will determine the future security order of the region. America and Israel agree on the continuation of the war until achieving a strategic victory against the axis of resistance. Almost all the members of the national security team believe that America should leave Israel’s hand free to attack Iran and the axis of resistance.

On the one hand, the unanimity of views in Trump’s cabinet and the members following the president means that he is more predictable than in 2016, which is a positive point for Iran. However, on the other hand, it makes Trump’s foreign policy less volatile. It Trump wants to make dangerous decisions, then it is unlikely that those around him will be able to restrain him like in the first term. This is not good news for America which is in a much more challenging and critical world than 2016.

Cybersecurity: How Ethics Can Make Or Break Digital Safety?

By

Prof. Andrea Francioni

-

November 15, 2024

0

Cybersecurity — A mechanism must be in place in case something goes wrong with an AI decision; this is why there needs to be an assignee of responsibility.

Over the recent past, artificial intelligence (AI) has been evolving rapidly, transforming a central pillar of current technological advancement. The field of cybersecurity is one of the most that demonstrate the presence of AI is undeniable.

As data and digital content expands at an exponential rate and as new and more complex cyber threats continue to arise, AI has become a critical strategy in identifying, remediating, and managing cyber threats. Still, given that the interaction between AI and cybersecurity is opportune in numerous ways, it is important to determine that it also poses numerous ethical challenges. The subject of ethical implementation of AI in cybersecurity is not just a hegemonic choice since it should be used responsibly to prevent the destruction of privacy, a fair procedure, and transparency during the use of technology in cybersecurity.

AI brings great benefits in changing the cybersecurity environment since it automates the process, reduces time in threat identification, and improves the reaction to threats. Most of the contemporary antimalware solutions, like firewalls or antivirus applications, work in a recognizable pattern paradigm. On the other hand, the AI-based systems are capable to identify the anomalous situations, utilize the large data pattern analysis, and the use of capabilities without specific programming on threats. Machine learning, one of the AI subcategories, excels at identifying previously unidentified risks because these formulae are familiar with previously undisclosed weaknesses and how attackers plan to exploit them.

A successful embedding of ethical AI in the context of cybersecurity calls for the openness of AI models.

Furthermore, through processing huge volume of data in real time, it becomes easier to analyze threats. It is this capability which is especially important as cyber threats have evolved and quite often utilize automation and artificial intelligence. Automated incident response systems, use of predictive analytics and intelligent firewalls assist the cybersecurity teams to lessen the potential effects of the breach. Nonetheless, the need to integrate AI in cybersecurity has its pros that come with it bearing some ethical dilemmas that must be solved to assure the safe side moral usage.

Some of the main ethical problems that have been reported with regards to artificial intelligence include bias. Models are based on data, and when data is inaccurate or represents a particular outlook then the machine models reflect same. In the context of cybersecurity, bias in AI is a huge problem of unfair discrimination as the AI system labels specific user activities as suspicious based on historical data that could be distorted. For instance, if a cybersecurity AI is trained on certain source data from a certain geographic area or a certain population, the model will lean on that and may ignore other equally pertinent threats or behaviors.

As a result, bias can be almost completely avoided when organizations take enough measures to approve the datasets on which the AI systems are trained. Also, regular inspections and reviews of the AI algorithms are required to detect such bias that can appear in the course of time. Ensuring the fairness in AI models not only helps to minimize the threat of ethical misconduct, but also improves the effectiveness of cybersecurity action plans.

The technological capability of the AI analyses large datasets in real-time and interferes with the fundamental right to data privacy. In cybersecurity, AI systems may need vast data from users to look for patterns, and consequently, out of norm events. Despite this access, it could have some adversely affects such as the harvesting of personal information without prior permission from the user. For example, using a program to monitor network traffic to identify anticipated breaches can compromise user communications and information.

In the context of cybersecurity, bias in AI is a huge problem of unfair discrimination as the AI system labels specific user activities as suspicious based on historical data that could be distorted.

Extremely, the development of AI in cybersecurity requires the use of privacy first principle. This involves applying measures such as obfuscation and code masking of the user’s data. More so, it is important for the users to be notified on what aspects of their identity are being sought and in what manner and to what measures their identities are protected. Other recommendations suggested how following data protection laws such as the GDPR also enable making sure that AI-based cybersecurity respects users’ privacy.

AI algorithms are complex enough and what is worse, they act as rather ‘black boxes,’ often even the creators of the algorithms themselves cannot easily deconstruct the decision-making process that is going on in the background. In cybersecurity, this opacity can be undesirable, particularly where an AI system incorrectly categorizes a legit action as an attack, or it does not identify an attack at all. As a result, when there is no transparency, it is hard to understand why the AI did what it did, which then creates problems of culpability.

A successful embedding of ethical AI in the context of cybersecurity calls for the openness of AI models. The results should be obtained from using AI should be explainable by the underlying factors used to arrive at such decisions. This can be done by methods such as building transparency and improving simplicity and the use of new, clear algorithms if necessary. Furthermore, there’s the issue of the organizational responsibility that must be set to handle mistakes or negligence associated with AI-enforced cybersecurity processes. A mechanism must be in place in case something goes wrong with an AI decision; this is why there needs to be an assignee of responsibility.

Unravelling South China Sea Disputes

By

Dr. Zukun Lyu

-

November 15, 2024

0

The South China Sea region attracts global attention because of its strategic significance, economic importance though the rich deposits of oil and gas, and especially due to sovereignty issues. Several nations including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have been claiming parts of the sea for decades, resulting in rising conflicts over the years. South China Sea is not only the route of more than one-third of world maritime trade but also contain huge deposit of oil, natural gas and fish stock which has provided more importance to the countries involved.

Nevertheless, over militarization of the territories as well as the competing sovereignty claims to them have increased the chances of conflicts. Against this background of a multiplicity of conflicts, diplomacy is the only effective means for reducing tensions and achieving accommodation.

Over militarization of the territories as well as the competing sovereignty claims to them have increased the chances of conflicts.

The South China Sea is an important sea way of the world since it links the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. It also plays a function of a transport channel through which commodities to the tune of trillions of dollars are moved. Apart from this, the region is endowed with other forms of resources such as the undiscovered oil and natural gas which makes the region very important in energy security. In addition, the South China Sea supports a range of fishes and other creatures who directly contribute to the livelihoods of the peoples of the Southeast Asian countries by supplying food for their growing population. Such valuable objectives as trade routes together with valuable natural resources and ecological riches have made the South China Sea an area of intense geopolitical activity.

Also read: Trump 2024: Implications for ASEAN, AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific Strategy

The main cause of frictions in the South China Sea is the aspect of sovereignty. China has claimed rights over nearly the whole of the South China Sea based on its so-called ‘nine-dash line’ map. This claim is, however, in dispute by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei, which have its own overlapping claims, particularly, under the UNCLOS (United Nation Convention on Law of Sea). The Philippines took China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration back in 2013, which ruled in favor of the Philippines in 2016. But China rejected the said decision.

This has resulted in militarization, with China constructing artificial structures and stationing military equipment’s in the disputed waters. In response, other countries have built up their own military power and are attempting to establish close collaboration with their ally with the United States. The US has performed ‘freedom of navigation operation’ often in the South China Sea to assert what it considers as unlawful Chinese claims. The interference of outside powers has made it even more contentious, transforming the South China Sea into playground for great power confrontation.

Militarization and aggressive boasts have elevated the probability for conflict; diplomacy provides an opportunity for conflict resolution. A top component of the diplomacy embraced in the region has been the CoC (Code of Conduct) diplomacy between China and ASEAN. As mentioned, the CoC is to stipulate the desired behavioral norms in the waters of the South China Sea, avoid conflict situations, and implement measures for strengthening confidence. While diplomacy has been quite sluggish, the CoC marks a major taken forward to lowering the acrimony and ensuring that nonbinding misunderstandings that may result in armed conflict do not occur.

However, multilateral organizations, including but not limited to the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the East Asia Summit (EAS), are useful in creating dialogue for the parties involved. These forums provide the countries with a platform to express their concern, to put forward a solution and embrace measures that promote confidence building. For example, under the ARF, countries talk about maritime security, and the forum has played the role of helping to reduce tensions between the U.S and China on the issue of South China Sea.

CBMs are particularly important to avoid accidental formation of a conflict to improve relationships between the disputing countries. Such steps may include naval maneuvers, intelligence exchange, and setting up of military-to-military communication chains to handle events at the maritime domain. In 2018 presidents of China and members of ASEAN agreed to hold the first joint naval exercise showing readiness to perform cooperative actions and exclude the probability of occurrence of the military conflict.

CBMs are particularly important to avoid accidental formation of a conflict to improve relationships between the disputing countries.

Another way of reducing tension is through the JDAs (Joint Development Agreements) for exploiting the resources. As the South China Sea is endowed with enormous resources, the belligerent parties could share the resources, jointly explore the area, split the revenue and leave the question of sovereignty to be solved in another instance in another way. Both the Philippines and China work on the discussions regarding the cooperation on the possible exploration of the oil and gas resources, which show the cooperation in the practical level. It is such initiatives that can encourage cooperation and transfer the South China Sea from the area of conflict to the area of cooperation.

Managing the situations in the South China Sea is a complex job due to the conflicting self-interests of the countries involved. However, the target can be achieved by ensuring compliance with the norms of international law. There must be negotiations in this sphere that would mean an understanding of equal worth, and a desire to avoid violence. For China learning to compromise would also benefit the country’s image in the region for being seen as a power that is not aggressive while expanding its power and influence. For the smaller claimant nations which are part of ASEAN, the ability to keep ASEAN united and garner support from outside actors in the ASEAN region can setup the claimant nations in good stead to negotiate.

India’s Engagement with Global South

By

Shah Meer

-

November 14, 2024

0

The rise of China and the resurgence of great power competition has created a new strategic environment where, unlike the Cold War era where rigid alliances prevailed, post-Cold War politics has opened more inclusive relations where partnerships took precedence over alliances. Marked by historical neglect and resource-rich trajectory, the countries of Global South – mainly located in economically less developed and historically marginalized Latin America, Africa, Oceania and Asia – are now getting greater attention. Major powers are now rushing to these nations to widen their sphere of influence and global presence. India, a relatively new competitor in the race, intends to expand its global presence while engaging with Global South as a part of its grand strategy to wield more influence across the developing regions to strengthen its diplomatic bargain for demanding more say in international affairs. This marks a pivotal moment in New Delhi’s aspirations for a greater role on the global stage.

India’s engagement with Global South is significantly increasing. Under the presidency of India, New Delhi convened and hosted three Voice for Global South Summits (VGSS) and assured 125 attending countries that their profound challenges will be made central to G20 summits. New Delhi has introduced several initiatives for Global South ranging from solar alliances to South-South Trade, from the formation of BRICS to convening VGSS, and from pharmaceuticals and vaccine sharing to infrastructure development.

Particularly with Africa, New Delhi declares it “India’s top priority”. It is widely believed that due to Indian lobbying, the African Union was included as a full member of G20.

It has unveiled a new conceptual framework for South-South engagement by the name of ‘Development Compact’ where it intends to offer an alternative path of development primarily focusing on technology sharing, capacity building, trade for development, grants and concessional finance. India is also among the countries offering quota-free and duty-free access to least developed countries to its markets.

Particularly with Africa, New Delhi declares it “India’s top priority”. It is widely believed that due to Indian lobbying, the African Union was included as a full member of G20 in September 2023. The India-Africa trade volume has grown 18 percent annually since 2003, reaching the benchmark of $103 in 2023. India’s engagement with Central American countries has also gained much attention. The policy community in New Delhi believes that it has long ignored and neglected this region. They also strongly believe that to emerge as a global power, India has to exhibit an international presence in such regions. In the past two years, Jai Shankar has visited eight Latin American countries, marking a burst of Indian diplomatic activities in the region.

Arguably, India’s engagement with developing countries is part of its broader grand strategy primarily set to achieve three strategic objectives. First. New Delhi aims to play a more influential role in the emerging multilateral order. Through such partnerships, New Delhi aims to increase its say in global institutions. India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar vocally speaks that New Delhi’s engagement with GS can strengthen its position in international governance and multilateral institutions, and it could also help it forge new strategic alliances with powerful nations like the US and Europe.

New Delhi sees the Global South as a massive export market that will help it consolidate its “Made in India” initiative.

Second, India also aspires to replace China in the Global South. Beijing is said to be the legitimate leader of the developing world, as legitimated by the Bandung Conference in 1955 and later by its efforts to transform the Global South through investment in the context of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). India since then, has tried to be prominent through Non-Aligned Movement. Presently, in the ongoing power transition from the Western Hemisphere to the Eastern, India aims to balance the influence of China in the Global South. India criticizes China for promoting projects that do not meet international quality and transparency standards and propagates to offer more fair practices in political and economic relations.

Third, New Delhi sees the Global South as a massive export market that will help it consolidate its “Made in India” initiative. The resource-rich nations of the developing world not only boost exports of India but also supply resources that help develop indigenous industry. In 2022 alone, India imported 1.672 billion barrels of oil and 29.116 billion cubic meters of natural gas, while exporting $10.3 billion worth of telecom equipment and $18 billion worth of pharmaceuticals to the Global South.

Finally, India’s engagement with the Global South is in its infancy stage and is dwarfed by China’s substantial investments. Its financial constraints, inefficient bureaucracy and slow-moving government will definitely hinder its aspirations. So far, the US has supported India’s endeavors in the Global South as counter-balancing strategy to outweigh China’s influence which it has established through historical ties and massive investments through BRI. However, India will not serve the American interests as expected and would demand strategic autonomy. The US must realize that the ongoing tug of war in the Global South is not bilateral but trilateral. India will pursue its own ambitions that is to leverage American support to oust China and compete with the US where possible.

Write For Us!

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.

StratheiaPolicy Journal

A Global Digital Think-Tank on Policy Discourse.

The Arab Spring, often dubbed the “Twitter Revolution,” showed us how individuals armed with smartphones could shake oppressive regimes.

In Pakistan, the dangers of unchecked false propaganda have taken on a uniquely chaotic form more often.

Platforms like X must implement stricter content moderation policies, employing AI and human oversight to flag and remove misinformation.

The BRICS nations are, thus, deliberately moving away from the dollar dominated world. Multiple factors have triggered this shift: political rivalries, economic sanctions imposed by the US, and quest for more operational control on the banking sector.

The twin economies of China and Russia have been very aggressive in the push towards de-dollarization which is evident by the increase in the volume of their bilateral trade that is now more settled in yuan and ruble.

He believes that the China’s inclusion in WTO at the beginning of 21st century has allowed Beijing to manipulate the WTO terms to bypass free market practices.

More than Chinese and US businesses, such a conflict will affect the entire global trade and supply chain networks which are still healing from the impact of COVID.

Trade war is going to affect the US brands that are not even located within China by disrupting the supply chain networks where many components of their plants and machines comes from China at very low cost.

A successful embedding of ethical AI in the context of cybersecurity calls for the openness of AI models.

In the context of cybersecurity, bias in AI is a huge problem of unfair discrimination as the AI system labels specific user activities as suspicious based on historical data that could be distorted.

Over militarization of the territories as well as the competing sovereignty claims to them have increased the chances of conflicts.

CBMs are particularly important to avoid accidental formation of a conflict to improve relationships between the disputing countries.

Particularly with Africa, New Delhi declares it “India’s top priority”. It is widely believed that due to Indian lobbying, the African Union was included as a full member of G20.

New Delhi sees the Global South as a massive export market that will help it consolidate its “Made in India” initiative.

Share with Us

Opinions, Analysis, and Rebuttals.