Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

Despite growing defence and economic ties, the Iran-Israel conflict reveals the limits of Russia-Iran relations and Moscow’s regional balancing act. The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, exacerbated by the air strikes conducted by the United States (US) on Iranian nuclear sites, has significantly escalated tensions in the Middle East. Russia has condemned both Israel and the US for ‘violating international law and the United Nations Charter’. However, beyond rhetoric, Russia could not do much in this conflict. Given its own involvement in the war with Ukraine, ongoing talks to normalise relations with the US, and close economic and people-to-people ties with Israel, Russia has been compelled to restrict its support for Iran to the diplomatic realm. Even on this level, Moscow’s proposal to mediate between Iran and Israel was rejected by US President Donald Trump. The Israel-Iran conflict has exposed limitations in the Moscow-Tehran strategic partnership and jeopardised Russia’s efforts to maintain regional equilibrium. Understanding the historical complexities of Russia-Iran ties The Middle East has always been a focal point in Moscow’s foreign policy, transcending its energy interests and the need to access the Western Indian Ocean. The region’s proximity to Russia, combined with its great power competition with the US, has driven Moscow to vie for regional influence. Iran and the erstwhile Soviet Union’s relations were complex, marked by instances of cooperation, yet peppered with deep distrust. This hindered Moscow from fully solidifying its ties with Tehran. Although the Soviet Union was the first major power to establish diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, its invasion of Afghanistan was perceived as an intervention in Tehran’s sphere of influence. This provoked a negative view of the USSR among the Iranian leadership and undermined the scope for cooperation. The death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the dissolution of the USSR created an opening in the relationship. Even though Moscow was largely looking to the US in its decision-making, Russia started assisting Tehran with its civil nuclear programme. Despite US proliferation concerns, Russia entered into a contract in 1995 to build a light-water reactor for the Bushehr nuclear power plant (NPP). The agreement also included training Iranian engineers and scientists at Russian nuclear research centres. That July, however, under US pressure and in a significant policy reversal, Moscow agreed to halt sales of conventional weapons to Iran. Throughout the 2000s, Tehran blamed Russia for adopting a transactional approach, often acting according to its own convenience and at times using Iran as a bargaining chip in its dealings with the US. During the same period, Moscow did not veto additional United Nations (UN)-sponsored restrictions imposed against Iran and limited the nuclear partnership by delaying the construction of the Bushehr NPP reactors. In the 2010s, Russia suspended the deal to supply Iran with S-300 air defence systems, following the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1929, which was supported by all the E3+3 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the US). The resolution banned Tehran from receiving any heavy conventional weapons, including missiles or missile systems. During the Syrian civil war, Russia worked in tandem with pro-Assad forces and Iran-backed ground forces in an attempt to eliminate the Islamic State. Even though this improved the bilateral relations with Iran, the lack of trustpersisted. A vivid example was the decision to revoke the permission for Russian fighter jets to use the Hamadan airbase for conducting raids over Syria, a week after granting the access—a move forced by a wave of protests in Iranian parliament and media. Russia has consistently upheld a non-proliferation stance on Iran, playing a crucial role in establishing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which imposed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Only after the JCPOA was signed did Moscow unlock the S-300 contract with Tehran. Russia was critical of Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018. Three years later, when Joseph Biden came to power in the US, Moscow supported an updated version of the JCPOA and expressed frustration with Iran’s obduracy. Russia-Iran engagement post-Ukraine Cooperation has gained momentum since the Ukraine conflict began in early 2022. Iran did not condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine but reiterated that war was not a solution. Defence relations strengthened as Iran exported Shahed-136 and the Mohajer drones to Russia and has reportedly exported ammunition, mortars, and other military equipment. In return, Iran has purportedly secured a deal to acquire Su-35 fighter jets from Russia. Although the contract’s details are obscure, as is the case with most Russia-Iran defence dealings, reports suggest Moscow supplied an unspecified number of jets to Tehran in late 2024. Even so, it is clear that whatever Iran obtained from Moscow did not help during the recent war with Israel, in which the latter established complete control of the Iranian airspace. Mutual economic interests span several sectors. Russia is the largest investor in the Iranian economy. In 2022–23, investments were estimated at US$2.76 billion. Although both countries compete with each other in the oil and gas sector, Moscow has pursued several projects with Tehran, planning to invest around US$8 billion in this sphere. The two sides have promoted a proposal to supply gas to Iran via Azerbaijan, with the first phase expected to start by the end of 2025. Both countries are eager to improve connectivity through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Russia has pledged a state loan of 1.3 billion euros for constructing the Astara-Rasht railway link that could bridge the remaining gap in the Iranian section of the INSTC. The two countries are working closely to integrate their payment systems. The Russian Mir App is already operational at Iranian point-of-sale terminals, and the full interoperability between the Mir and Shetab payment networks is anticipated soon. Although Tehran concluded a free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union in 2023, its impact has been marginal, with bilateral trade hovering around US$5 billion over the past three years. Facing mounting international pressure, Russia and Iran have been compelled to align more closely. In January 2025, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Masoud Pezeshkian signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty covering a wide range of cooperation areas. Putin described it as a “real breakthrough, creating conditions for the stable and sustainable development of Russia, Iran and the entire region,” while Pezeshkian called it “a new chapter of strategic relations.” While the treaty obliges the sides “not to offer any military or any other aid to an aggressor attacking another party,” it stops short of a mutual security guarantee clause, such as the one Russia signed with North Korea. Tehran was reportedly reluctant to commit to military obligations, likely to avoid entanglement in Russia’s war with Ukraine. For Russia, maintaining equidistance between Middle Eastern powers without firmly siding with Iran is consistent with its traditional regional policy. The view that Russia was unable to support Tehran due to being bogged down in Ukraine is arguably reductive and not the primary reason for Russia’s fence-sitting in the Israel-Iran war. It would be unwise for Russia to antagonise Tel Aviv, which has adopted a restrained position regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite political tensions, Moscow appreciates that Israel has not joined Western sanctions against the Russian economy or sent any defence equipment to Kyiv. Additionally, the gradual reset of diplomatic contacts with Washington—furthered by the Trump administration's conciliatory stance towards Russia’s interests in Ukraine—has narrowed Russia’s regional manoeuvring space. Escalatory rhetoric or military involvement could cost Russia its hard-earned diplomatic positioning and risk renewed US support for Ukraine. In 2023–24, Iran formally joined non-Western multilateral organisations and groups such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which is expected to bring Russia and Iran closer together in their interaction on Eurasian affairs and in their visions on ‘an emerging world order’. However, there are nuances to Moscow’s and Tehran’s approaches, which are not immediately apparent. While both capitals are seemingly sharing the anti-US sentiments, a significant section of their elites still seeks to restore ties with the West. This means that the Russia-Iran connection hangs on the external factor of their respective dialogues with the West. The more isolated they are, the more likely they are to gravitate towards each other; alternatively, both Moscow and Tehran would see little incentive in investing much political and financial capital in the bilateral relationship. This suggests that Russia and Iran are unlikely to become allies, and that their future partnership will factor in the US calculations.

Abstract The international system is currently undergoing a process of reconfiguration that is having an impact on all areas of global development. In this process of reordering power relations, there is a tendency to move towards multipolarity, leaving behind the unipolar coalition established after the Second World War. In this context, several emerging powers are gaining increasing international power, which has led to changes in the hierarchy of power on the international geopolitical chessboard. Such is the case of the People's Republic of China, which has established itself not only as a power of great impact and relevance in the Asian region, but also in the entire international system. Namely, the management of the government and the Party in terms of innovation, industrialization, informatization, productivity, expansion and internationalization of its economic model, positions this country as the most dynamic center of the international economy. Evidencing that alternative models to the capitalist system are possible and viable, which strengthens the trend towards a systemic transition and multipolarity in the International System Introduction In the last two decades, a set of geopolitical and geoeconomic tensions and conflicts have become evident, with significant implications extending throughout the International System. As a result, we are currently experiencing a convulsion of the established order, giving way to a process of new global reconfigurations. In this context, several researchers and academics such as Jorge Casals, Leyde Rodríguez, Juan Sebastián Schulz, among others, have noted that these conditions have led to a crisis and hegemonic transition process, with a trend toward multipolarity in which the Asia-Pacific region is gaining increasing relevance. This article, titled "The International Reconfiguration’s Process Towards Multipolarity: The Role of China as an Emerging Power," is dedicated to analyzing the position of this country within the current international reconfiguration of power. Accordingly, the first section will systematize some essential guidelines to understand the current crisis and the decline of the hegemonic order established in the post-World War II period. The second section will address China's positioning amid the international reconfiguration of power. In this regard, it is important to note that China's rapid rise highlights how development management aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals can lead to a shift in the paradigm of international relations, as well as power reconfigurations that challenge the current balance of forces. Thus, it can be affirmed that China's rise constitutes a decisive element within the current trend toward multipolarity. DevelopmentNew International Order: Approaches to the Multipolar Reconfiguration of the International System The current international context is marked by a process of crisis. This crisis reflects the fact that the world order no longer aligns with the correlation of forces that gave rise to it during the post-World War II period. It is not a circumstantial crisis, but rather the interlinking of various interconnected crises that span across all sectors of life. That is to say, the effects of one crisis often become the causes of another, involving economic, political, social, cultural, ethical, moral, technological, commercial, and environmental components. In other words, it is a structural and systemic crisis—one that cannot be resolved unless a similarly systemic transformation occurs. To gain greater clarity, it is important to consider that the consolidation of the capitalist system brought about the process of globalization. This, in turn, introduced large-scale production and technological development capable of increasing output. This process, along with other characteristics of the system, has exponentially accelerated social inequalities between developed and developing countries. It has also led to strategic tensions over the control of resources, raw materials, and inputs, resulting in geopolitical conflicts. Furthermore, the capitalist system has imposed an extremely high environmental cost, demonstrating that it is exceeding both its own limits and those of the planet. Specifically, in its constant pursuit of profit and maximization of gains, negative environmental impacts are not factored into cost-benefit analyses, leading to widespread environmental degradation. Among other harms caused by the system, we observe a decline in investment rates, an increase in public debt, loss of autonomy in monetary policy, rising unemployment levels, reductions in real wages, and growing inequality, among others. In short, capitalism has become an unsustainable system whose primary concern is profit generation—something that is currently entirely incompatible with environmental preservation and the responsible use of natural resources. Therefore, it can be affirmed that some of its most alarming effects include: vast amounts of currency without backing, increasingly concentrated in fewer hands; acceleration of capital concentration in the West; rising military expenditures; and environmental pollution and destruction (Casals, J., 2023). On the other hand, it is necessary to clarify that, for a particular state to be considered hegemonic, it must not only exert its influence predominantly within the system of international relations; its hegemonic role must also be linked to the founding and establishment of a universally accepted concept of world order. That is, the majority of other states must recognize it as such and identify with the model promoted by the hegemon. Therefore, it is not merely a matter of a hierarchical order among states, but rather the adoption of a dominant model of production that involves those states. As a result, certain mechanisms or general rules of conduct are established for the participating states. For this reason, a hegemonic crisis involving the dominant actor in the system of international relations leads to a crisis in the social, economic, political, and institutional structures upon which that actor’s dominance was built. In light of these elements, we currently observe a set of powers within the International System that are vying to establish a new distribution of power—one that moves away from the unipolar coalition led by the United States following World War II. From this perspective, Juan Sebastián Schulz asserts: “A hegemonic crisis occurs when the existing hegemonic state lacks either the means or the will to continue steering the interstate system in a direction broadly perceived as favorable—not only for its own power, but also for the collective power of the dominant groups within the system.” (Schulz, J. S., 2022) As a result, strategic alliances have been formed and new power groups have emerged that influence international relations.These blocs are precisely what the new polarity is forming around, increasingly reinforcing the trend toward multipolarity. This is a system in which hegemonic influence is not determined by a single power, but by two, three, or more. In this regard, Juan Sebastián Schulz further notes that a process of insubordination is becoming evident, particularly in the Western peripheries. As a consequence, several countries have begun to criticize the configuration of the contemporary world order, initiating efforts to organize and propose alternative models (Schulz, J. S., 2022). This reveals the emergence of a new kind of power hierarchy, generating a global order in which a diversity of forces and actors prevails. In this context, China has experienced rapid growth, thereby contributing to the trend toward multipolarity. While this does not imply that the United States will cease to be one of the central powers in the system of international relations—given its considerable global influence—it is evident that there is a noticeable decline in the dominance it held during the unipolar era that emerged after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. This process of intersystemic transition unfolds in various phases. First, there is an observable economic transition marked by a shift in the center of gravity of the global economy toward emerging and developing economies. This shift is accompanied by a necessary technological transition, characterized by a new struggle—this time to lead the technological revolution. These changes, in turn, must be supported by a political transition. Currently, countries from the Global South have gained increasing prominence on the international stage [1]. From this foundation, a geopolitical transition is also underway, where the center of gravity and decision-making—once concentrated in the Anglo-Saxon West—is shifting toward the Asia-Pacific region. Finally, a cultural or civilizational transition is taking place, wherein the previously dominant value system is giving way to the rise of a new worldview. Based on this, the phases of the transition process can be outlined as follows: Existence of a stable order that brings together the majority of nation-states in the International System. - A crisis of legitimacy begins to affect the established global order. - A deconcentration and delegitimization of power emerges, impacting the hegemonic power. - An arms race and formation of alliances ensue in an attempt to preserve the hierarchical order by any means. This leads to a widespread crisis and the rise and emergence of new actors. - A necessary resolution of the international crisis. - Renewal of the system. (Schulz, J. S., 2022) In light of the above, it can be stated that a “new international order” is taking shape. Its manifestations are multifaceted, such as: - The rise of movements and associations of states that serve as alternatives to the neoliberal order. - Emerging powers like China and Russia are gaining strength in various sectors of the international geopolitical arena. - Russia's confrontation with NATO in the context of the conflict with Ukraine. - Sanctions imposed by the United States on various NATO and European Union countries have strengthened the BRICS nations. - The incorporation of new members into BRICS can be seen as an attempt to counterbalance the economic and political dominance of the United States and the European Union. - The expansion of anti-imperialist and anti-neoliberal integration mechanisms that promote South-South cooperation, such as the G-77 + China group. - The financial sanctions imposed by the West on Russia in the context of the Ukraine conflict have sparked a debate about the viability of the international monetary system and the role of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. - China and Russia conduct transactions in yuan and sell oil in this currency to Iran, Venezuela, and Gulf countries. China has increased its economic and political influence in the world, which can be seen as a challenge to U.S. hegemony. Its leadership within BRICS and its growing role in the global economy may be indicators of a shift in the balance of power. All these developments reflect a growing awareness within the International System of States regarding the importance of international cooperation to address global challenges such as the climate crisis, pandemics, and food security. They also serve as indicators that a transformation is underway in the way countries interact with each other, resulting in a shift in the economic, political, and strategic center of gravity. In this context, the United States has unleashed a global hybrid war as a desperate attempt to defend and maintain its hegemonic position, which once appeared unshakable in the postwar world. To this end, it has targeted China, as the latter represents its main threat in the economic and scientific-technological order. From this perspective, tensions between the United States and China have significantly deteriorated since the Republican administration of President Donald Trump. Beginning in 2017, his policy took on an aggressive stance toward China, manifesting through a trade war and economic attacks aimed at preserving U.S. global hegemony. This demonstrates that, in response to a process of decline already underway, nationalist and protectionist efforts intensified in the U.S., with policies targeting some of the emerging pillars of the crisis-ridden world order—China being a primary example. Under the administration of Joseph Biden, the focus shifted toward competition, emphasizing the commitment to protect U.S. sovereignty from potential Chinese threats. A significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Taiwan became evident with the approval of arms sales to Taiwan in August 2023, which escalated tensions in the region (Collective of Authors). Furthermore, in recent years, the United States has increasingly worked to generate geopolitical and geoeconomic motivations aimed at fostering tensions between China and Russia, potentially sparking conflict between the two. It has strengthened alliances with neighboring countries of these powers—most notably Taiwan and Ukraine—which has triggered concerns and tensions in both nations. A containment policy has also been deployed, including the imposition of trade barriers and tariffs on Chinese products; restricting Chinese companies’ access to U.S. technology and markets; and promoting the diversification of supply chains to reduce dependence on China. Nevertheless, the ongoing sanctions and restrictions have only served to reaffirm the shared survival interests of both powers, strengthening corporate ties and relations between them. These actions also reflect the growing concern among U.S. power groups over the decline of their hegemonic dominance. The Emergence of China and Its Role in the Transition Toward Multipolarity In a previous article titled "The Synergy Between Economy and Environment in China Through the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals," (‘La sinergia entre economía y medio ambiente en China mediante la consecución de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible’) the process of socioeconomic transformations experienced in the People's Republic of China over the past decade was discussed. These transformations have been primarily aimed at revitalizing the nation in preparation for its centenary in 2049. This strategy is rooted in aligning the Centenary Goals with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set for 2030, under the leadership of the Communist Party and the momentum driven by President Xi Jinping. The results of this strategy have had an impact not only on the Asian Giant itself—now a decisive actor in the Asian region—but also on the international order as a whole. As a result, China has emerged as a powerful rising power, with promising prospects for further elevating its development standards. This is backed by sustained GDP growth, averaging between 6% and 8% annually, indicating a robust economy. In addition, China holds vast foreign exchange reserves, granting it economic stability and the capacity to withstand potential external shocks. It also invests heavily in modern infrastructure and cutting-edge sectors such as artificial intelligence, 5G technology, and renewable energy—all of which enhance its competitiveness and lay the groundwork for long-term sustainable growth (Lagarde, CH). Nonetheless, China has also had to confront significant challenges in its gradual and progressive approach to the desired development model. Among these is the environmental cost associated with its rapid economic growth. For instance, China still experiences high levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, along with air, water, and soil pollution. In response, measures have been implemented such as the establishment of a national monitoring network and the replacement of coal heating systems in Beijing. Efforts have also been made to purify water resources polluted by industrial processes, and imports of solid waste have been reduced to help decontaminate soils affected by industrial and agricultural activities (González, R., 2023). In general, the development of renewable energy and a circular economy model is being promoted to enable a gradual transition toward a green economy, grounded in the concept of an ecological civilization. For this reason, China’s new era is committed to scientific and technological innovation as a means of driving economic growth that is both sustainable and capable of ensuring a higher quality of life for its population. This, in turn, leads gradually toward a new model of political leadership and economic management. In this regard, Jin Keyu, Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), has stated that “trillions of dollars of investment are needed for the global green transition, and China is going to play an essential role in that transformation” (Feingold, S., 2024). Based on the aforementioned elements, various authors such as Dr. C. Charles Pennaforte, Dr. C. Juan Sebastián Schulz, Dr. C. Eduardo Regalado Florido, among others, have indicated that the millenary nation represents a threat to the hegemony held by the United States since World War II. Consequently, it is recognized that a process of hegemonic crisis and transition is currently underway, with the Asia-Pacific region emerging as the center of gravity of the global power, thereby contributing to the multipolar transformation of the International System. The authors of “Is China Changing the World?” argue that “market socialism with “Chinese characteristics” must gradually and more clearly diverge from capitalism if it is to embody a genuinely alternative path for all of humanity.” In pursuit of this goal, China bases its policy of peaceful coexistence on five fundamental principles:Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, regardless of a country's size, power, or wealth. Mutual non-aggression Non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, acknowledging that each nation has the right to freely choose its own social system and path of development. Equality and mutual benefit Peaceful coexistence. (Herrera, R.; Long, Z.; and Andréani, T., 2023) The rise of China as a major international power under these principles has been consolidating since 2012 under the leadership of Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China (CPC), gaining particular momentum from 2020 to the present. Thus, China has not only become the leading power within the Asian regional balance but has also expanded its presence across Europe, Africa, and Latin America—primarily through loans, investments, and multilateral cooperation initiatives such as the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Africa and the China-CELAC Forum in Latin America. In addition, China has positioned itself as a leader in several sectors, and it is projected that its economy may surpass that of the United States, increasing its Gross Domestic Product (Rodríguez, L., 2022). It has also undergone a process of opening up, energizing both its international trade and its overall foreign relations, all under the control of the Government and the Party. This, combined with its rise and development initiatives, has made China a focal point of interest for many countries within the International System seeking to jointly advance projects based on cooperation, the principle of shared advantage, and multilateralism. In this regard, the white paper "China and the World in the New Era," published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 2019, states: “The world is moving rapidly toward multipolarity, diverse models of modern development, and collaboration in global governance. It is now impossible for a single country or bloc of countries to dominate world affairs. Stability, peace, and development have become the common aspirations of the international community.” (People’s Republic of China, 2019. Quoted in Schulz, J. S., 2022) Undoubtedly, this rise has become a source of concern for U.S. power groups, which have increasingly applied geostrategic pressure. Notably, the United States has strengthened military alliances with India, Japan, and Australia in an effort to encircle China and attempt to control or obstruct its maritime routes—this also being a manifestation of the intensification of the imperialist arms race. Nonetheless, China has maintained its development strategy and, as part of it, has strengthened its diplomatic network and its relations with multiple countries across all world regions. For all these reasons, China has become the most dynamic center of the global economy. Notably, it went from representing 4% of global GDP in 1960 to 16% in 2020—undeniable evidence of rapid economic growth. Moreover, it has become the world’s largest exporter of goods and also the leading importer, establishing itself as a major industrial power. In this regard, United Nations data reveal that China leads global industrial production, accounting for 30% of the total. This figure surpasses other industrial powers such as the United States (16%), Japan (7%), Germany (5.7%), and South Korea (3.2%) (Schulz, J. S., 2022). In addition, China has remained the world’s leading manufacturing power for approximately 15 consecutive years, according to statements from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology at the beginning of this year. This sector alone has contributed over 40% to overall growth. Likewise, in 2024, China experienced a significant increase in foreign investment, reflecting its interest in strengthening international cooperation for development. Efforts are also underway for urban renewal in 2024, with around 60,000 projects being implemented across various cities. These initiatives are primarily aimed at transforming underdeveloped neighborhoods and creating smarter urban areas (Embassy of the Republic of Cuba in the People's Republic of China, 2025). In this regard, the following graphs illustrate the value of China’s international trade during the 2016–2024 period, highlighting a strong presence of exports compared to imports. A second chart shows China's global export share, where it holds a dominant position.   Thus, China has risen as a center of power in the international system, with leadership not only in the economic domain but also in science and technology. At the same time, it has promoted a series of investments and a process of internationalizing its national currency. Accordingly, the Asian Giant offers an alternative model of development—one that is more comprehensive and sustainable—allowing it to propel the new phase of Chinese development. This phase aims not only to fulfill the dream of national rejuvenation but also to ensure the survival of its unique political, economic, and social model. Nevertheless, the significant challenges of sustaining growth cannot be overlooked. From this perspective, experts believe that new avenues of growth will be necessary for China to maintain the trajectory it has been experiencing. Specifically, the country must continue expanding its industrial sector while strengthening areas such as artificial intelligence, digital financial services, and green technologies (Feingold, S., 2024). It is also important to highlight the projected continuity and leadership of the Chinese government, with Xi Jinping identified as a key figure in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in China, in conjunction with the socioeconomic transformation strategy toward the 2049 centenary. This has been pursued through the defense of multilateralism, economic openness, and international integration and cooperation in support of global development. Conclusions In light of the above, a decline in U.S. hegemony can be observed, even though this process is not linear—nor is it certain whether any single power or coalition has come to occupy a hegemonic position. What is clear, however, is the existence of a trend toward multipolarity, driven by emerging powers and the strategic ties they are establishing. This is giving rise to a non-hegemonic reconfiguration of power blocs, which are building a multilateral and multipolar institutional framework. It can also be affirmed that China has become the most dynamic center of the global economy. This has been supported by its growth strategy focused on industrialization, digitalization, innovation, productivity, expansion, and internationalization of its development model—while maintaining a strong emphasis on environmental sustainability. A range of key initiatives and development projects have been implemented to support the country's rise, consolidating its role in the multipolar reconfiguration of the International System. All of this has been essential in driving China’s new phase of development and contributing to the broader process of multipolar transformation. Undoubtedly, China’s rapid ascent represents a significant challenge to the International System, as it reflects a shift in international relations and a transformation in the distribution and hierarchy of global power. Notes [1] It is important to clarify that the so-called Global South should not be equated with the Third World, as the distinction between the First and Third Worlds is primarily based on economic and technological differences, which do not align with the current circumstances of the International System of States. In contrast, the term Global South emerges from a new geopolitical perspective that arose in the post–Cold War context, driven by the need to promote South-South cooperation. Moreover, it does not refer to a geographically defined region, as it includes nations from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific.Revista Política Internacional | Volumen VII Nro. 2 abril-junio de 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15103898This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). The opinions and contents of the published documents are solely the responsibility of their authors.ReferencesCasals, J. (2023). “El Nuevo orden global: amenazas y oportunidades”. Cuadernos de Nuestra América. Nueva época. No.5. RNPS: 2529.Colectivo de autores. “Crisis de hegemonía y ascenso de China. Seis tendencias para una transición”. Tricontinental. Instituto Tricontinental de Investigacion social. Buenoos Aires. Libro digital, PDF, Archivo Digital: descarga y online.Embajada de la República de Cuba en la República Popular China. (2025). Boletín informativo China-22 de enero de 2025. Oficina de Información y Análisis. Embajada de Cuba en República Popular China. Redacción y envío desde info3@embacuba.cn.Feingold, S. (2024). "¿Hacia dónde va la economía china?". World Economic Forum. Recuperado de: https://es.weforum.org/stories/2024/07/hacia-dondeva-la-economia-de-china/García-Herrero, A. (2024). "10 puntos y 18 gráficos sobre la política económica de Xi Jinping tras el tercer pleno". El Grand Continent. Recuperado de: https:// legrandcontinent.eu/es/2024/09/19/esta-china-estancada-10-puntos-y-18-graficos-sobre-la-politicaeconomica-de-xi-jinping-tras-el-tercer-pleno/González, R. (2023). " Medio ambiente en China: Impactos y respuestas del Partido y el Gobierno". CIPI. Recuperado de: www.cipi.cu/medio-ambiente- en-china-impactos-y-respuestas-del-partido-y-gobierno/Lagarde, CH. "Impulsar el crecimiento económico y adaptarse al cambio". Fondo Monetario Internacional. Discursos. Recuperado de: https://www.imf.org/ es/News/Articles/2016/09/27/AM16-SP09282016- Boosting-Growth-Adjusting-to-ChangePereira, CM (2022): “La reemergencia de China frente a la globalización neoliberal y el desafío de la conformación de un mundo multipolar”. Cuadernos de Nuestra America. Nueva Época. No. 05. RNPS: 2529.Schulz, J S. (2022). “Crisis sistémica del orden mundial, transición hegemónica y nuevos actores en el escenario global”. Cuadernos de Nuestra América. Nueva Época. No.03. RNPS: 2529. Bibliografía consultadaAmbrós, I. (2021). “ El Partido Comunista y los desafíos internos de China en el siglo XX”. Recuperado de: https://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/cuadernos/ CE_212/Cap_1_El_Partido_C omunista_y_los_desafios_internos.pdfBanco Mundial (BM). (2023). Recuperado de: https:// datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP. KD?locations=CNBBC News Mundo. (2021). "Cómo consiguió China erradicar la pobreza extrema (y las dudas que despierta ese triunfal anuncio del gobierno de Xi". Recuperado de: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-56205219Boy, M. (2020). “ Crisis económica y medio ambiente: ¿cómo promover un desarrollo sustentable?”. Recuperado de: https://culturacolectiva.com/opinion/crisis-economica-y-medio-ambiente- mariana-boy-columna-opinion/García, A. (2021). “La globalización neoliberal en crisis”. Recuperado de http://www.cubadebate.cu/opinion/2021/08/30/la-globalizacion-neoliberal-en- crisisGonzález, R. (2020). “El Quinto Pleno del XIX Comité Central del Partido Comunista abre una nueva etapa para China” en “Transiciones del Siglo XXI y China: China y perspectivas post pandemia II”. Libro digital.Herrera, R; Long, Z y Andréani, T. (2023). “¿Está China transformando el mundo?”. Revista Política Internacional. Volumen V. Nro. 1 enero-marzo de 2023.ISSN 2707-7330.Liu, X. y González G. (2021) “El XIV Plan Quinquenal 2021- 2025: reto para el nuevo modelo de desarrollo económico de China”. México y la Cuenca del Pacífico. Vol 10, núm. 30. Recuperado de https://www.scielo.org. mx/pdf/mcp/v10n30/2007-5308-mcp-10-30-57.pdfOtero, M (2022). “La prosperidad común y la circulación dual: el nuevo modelo de desarrollo de China”. Recuperado de: https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/analisis/la-prosperidad-comun-y-lacirculacion-dual-el-nuevo-modelo-de-desarrollo-de-china/Regalado, E. y Molina, E. (Coord.) (2021). “China y sus relaciones internacionales”. Asociación Venezolana de Estudios sobre China (AVECH) / CEAA / ULA – Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional (CIPI, Cuba), Libro digital.Rodríguez, L. (2022). “Configuración multipolar del sistema internacional del siglo XXI”. Revista Política Internacional. Volumen IV Nro. 1 enero-marzo de 2022. ISSN 2707-7330.Weiss, A. (2024). "La frágil fortaleza económica de Estados Unidos". The Economist. Recuperado de: https:// www.lavanguardia.com/dinero/20240212/9516764/ economia-eeuu- fortaleza-fragil-ia-bolsa-mercados. htmlYang, W. (2015). "La Planificación y Recomendaciones del XIII Plan Quinquenal". Recuperado de: https:// politica-china.org/wp- content/uploads/6sei-yangweimin-ES.pdf .

Recent news from Ukraine has generally been bad. Since the end of May, ever larger Russian air strikes have been documented against Ukrainian cities with devastating consequences for civilians, including in the country’s capital, Kyiv. Amid small and costly but steady gains along the almost 1,000km long frontline, Russia reportedly took full control of the Ukrainian region of Luhansk, part of which it had already occupied before the beginning of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. And according to Dutch and German intelligence reports, some of Russia’s gains on the battlefield are enabled by the widespread use of chemical weapons. It was therefore something of a relief that Nato’s summit in The Hague produced a short joint declaration on June 25 in which Russia was clearly named as a “long-term threat … to Euro-Atlantic security”. Member states restated “their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine”. While the summit declaration made no mention of future Nato membership for Ukraine, the fact that US president Donald Trump agreed to these two statements was widely seen as a success. Yet, within a week of the summit, Washington paused the delivery of critical weapons to Ukraine, including Patriot air defence missiles and long-range precision-strike rockets. The move was ostensibly in response to depleting US stockpiles. This despite the Pentagon’s own analysis, which suggested that the shipment – authorised by the former US president Joe Biden last year – posed no risk to US ammunition supplies. This was bad news for Ukraine. The halt in supplies weakens Kyiv’s ability to protect its large population centres and critical infrastructure against intensifying Russian airstrikes. It also puts limits on Ukraine’s ability to target Russian supply lines and logistics hubs behind the frontlines that have been enabling ground advances. Despite protests from Ukraine and an offer from Germany to buy Patriot missiles from the US for Ukraine, Trump has been in no rush to reverse the decision by the Pentagon.   Another phone call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on July 3, failed to change Trump’s mind, even though he acknowledged his disappointment with the clear lack of willingness by the Kremlin to stop the fighting. What’s more, within hours of the call between the two presidents, Moscow launched the largest drone attack of the war against Kyiv. A day later, Trump spoke with Zelensky. And while the call between them was apparently productive, neither side gave any indication that US weapons shipments to Ukraine would resume quickly. Trump previously paused arms shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, 2025 after his acrimonious encounter with Zelensky in the Oval Office. But the US president reversed course after certain concessions had been agreed – whether that was an agreement by Ukraine to an unconditional ceasefire or a deal on the country’s minerals. It is not clear with the current disruption whether Trump is after yet more concessions from Ukraine. The timing is ominous, coming after what had appeared to be a productive Nato summit with a unified stance on Russia’s war of aggression. And it preceded Trump’s call with Putin. This could be read as a signal that Trump was still keen to accommodate at least some of the Russian president’s demands in exchange for the necessary concessions from the Kremlin to agree, finally, the ceasefire that Trump had once envisaged he could achieve in 24 hours. If this is indeed the case, the fact that Trump continues to misread the Russian position is deeply worrying. The Kremlin has clearly drawn its red lines on what it is after in any peace deal with Ukraine. These demands – virtually unchanged since the beginning of the war – include a lifting of sanctions against Russia and no Nato membership for Ukraine, while also insisting that Kyiv must accept limits on its future military forces and recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four regions on the Ukrainian mainland. This will not change as a result of US concessions to Russia but only through pressure on Putin. And Trump has so far been unwilling to apply pressure in a concrete and meaningful way beyond the occasional hints to the press or on social media. Coalition of the willing It is equally clear that Russia’s maximalist demands are unacceptable to Ukraine and its European allies. With little doubt that the US can no longer be relied upon to back the European and Ukrainian position, Kyiv and Europe need to accelerate their own defence efforts. A European coalition of the willing to do just that is slowly taking shape. It straddles the once more rigid boundaries of EU and Nato membership and non-membership, involving countries such as Moldova, Norway and the UK. and including non-European allies including Canada, Japan and South Korea. The European commission’s white paper on European defence is an obvious indication that the threat from Russia and the needs of Ukraine are being taken seriously and, crucially, acted upon. It mobilises some €800 billion (£690 billion) in defence spending and will enable deeper integration of the Ukrainian defence sector with that of the European Union. At the national level, key European allies, in particular Germany, have also committed to increased defence spending and stepped up their forward deployment of forces closer to the borders with Russia. US equivocation will not mean that Ukraine is now on the brink of losing the war against Russia. Nor will Europe discovering its spine on defence put Kyiv immediately in a position to defeat Moscow’s aggression. After decades of relying on the US and neglecting their own defence capabilities, these recent European efforts are a first step in the right direction. They will not turn Europe into a military heavyweight overnight. But they will buy time to do so.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Brexit has had numerous consequences, many of which were scarcely discussed in the lead-up to the 2016 referendum. The British Overseas Territories (BOTs) were not exempt from the repercussions following the decision to leave the European Union (EU). All BOTs maintained a formal relationship with the EU through the 2013 Overseas Association Decision, which provided a range of benefits—including economic and environmental cooperation, development assistance, policy dialogue, and the free movement of goods, services, and people. For Gibraltar, the end of free movement raised concerns about the future of its open border with Spain. Interim measures were introduced to maintain a ‘fluid’ border when the UK formally exited the EU in 2020. However, without a comprehensive agreement, there remained a real risk that the border would become much harder—especially with the EU’s upcoming implementation of the new Entry/Exit System (EES). Indeed, there were signs that managing the border was becoming increasingly difficult. For instance, Spanish authorities began to intensify checks on people crossing the border, resulting in long delays and queues. Approximately 15,000 people commute daily from Spain to Gibraltar for work, comprising over half of Gibraltar’s workforce. Additionally, waste disposal in Gibraltar was becoming more problematic, as much of it is transported across the border. Many older Gibraltarians recall the border closure between 1969 and 1982, a decision made by General Franco. Although Gibraltarians demonstrated flexibility and resilience in adapting to the closure, it caused significant short- to medium-term economic hardship and separated families and friends. Spanish workers also suffered during this period. The desire to protect the economies of both Gibraltar and Spain was therefore a key factor in the push to secure a post-Brexit agreement. Negotiations that began under the UK Conservative Government were protracted, with key obstacles including the precise role of Spanish officials conducting Schengen checks in Gibraltar and the status of Gibraltar Airport, which also serves as an RAF base. However, on 11 June 2025, an agreement was reached on the core aspects of a future treaty. The overarching goal is to enhance prosperity across the Gibraltar–Spain region by removing physical barriers and checks on people and goods, while safeguarding the Schengen Area, the EU Single Market, and the Customs Union. The hope is that the deal will provide legal certainty, stimulate economic growth, and strengthen cooperation between Gibraltar and Spain. More specifically, the agreement includes the following commitments: First, joint border checks at Gibraltar’s port and airport will replace controls at the Gibraltar–La Línea crossing, easing daily travel. Spain will conduct Schengen checks, while Gibraltar will maintain UK checks. One outcome of this will be that UK nationals visiting Gibraltar will be counted as part of the time-limited allowance (90 days) for short stays in the Schengen area. Second, a customs union between Gibraltar and the EU will eliminate goods checks and ensure tax alignment—particularly on tobacco—to prevent market distortions and support regional development. Third, guarantees on fair competition in areas such as labour, the environment, anti-money laundering, transport, and social security. The agreement also establishes a financial mechanism to support training, employment, and regional cohesion. On announcing the agreement, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “Alongside the Government of Gibraltar, we have a reached an agreement which protects British sovereignty, supports Gibraltar’s economy and allows businesses to plan for the long-term once again”. He also took a swipe at the previous Conservative government: “This government inherited a situation from the last government which put Gibraltar’s economy and way of life under threat. Today’s breakthrough delivers a practical solution after years of uncertainty”. Gibraltar’s Chief Minister, Fabio Picardo, who played a central role in the negotiations, also welcomed the deal. While José Manuel Albares, the Spanish foreign affairs minister, said it would bring down “the last wall” on the continent. To her credit, Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, Priti Patel, did not dismiss the deal, but reserved judgement until full details were available. However, others on the right went to their usual default position. Former Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: “We are absolutely furious about this deal. It’s another unbelievable and unimaginable betrayal”. Reform UK described the agreement as a “total surrender”, while Conservative Armed Forces spokesperson Mark Francois declared: “First Chagos, now Gibraltar—and next, probably the Falklands. Labour used to sing The Red Flag—now they just wave a big white one instead”. Previously, I have argued that this narrative—linking decisions about one BOT to others—is misleading and overlooks the important differences between them. Many Brexiteers’ opposition to this deal is a classic case of wanting to ‘have their cake and eat it.’ They voted for Brexit (which Gibraltar strongly opposed), demanded a hard Brexit, yet seem either unable or unwilling to acknowledge and address the problems it has caused. Without a pragmatic border deal, Gibraltar’s political and economic position—which the right claims to staunchly defend—would almost certainly have been hurt longer term. Right-wing voices in Spain are also opposed to the agreement, but they feel it concedes too much to the UK and Gibraltar. Interestingly, this is not the first instance in which a complex border issue has been successfully addressed between the UK and an EU member state. The Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, located on the southern coast of Cyprus, form a single BOT. These areas were retained by the UK following Cyprus’ independence and are home to a non-permanent British population as well as a permanent Cypriot community. Prior to Brexit, the border between the SBAs and the Republic of Cyprus was entirely open. Given the unique characteristics of the territory, it was essential to maintain this openness. To preserve the status quo, a specific Protocol was included in the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. This Protocol ensures the continued application of EU law in key areas such as taxation, goods, agriculture, and fisheries within the SBAs, with enforcement carried out by the Republic of Cyprus. Although Gibraltar has been described as “the last piece of the EU exit jigsaw,” several Brexit-related issues concerning the BOTs remain unresolved and, hopefully, will soon be addressed. Perhaps the most pressing of these involves the Falkland Islands and its fisheries exports to the EU. At the time of Brexit, none of the BOTs were included in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While only a few BOTs engage in trade with the EU, the Falklands is a notable exception—particularly in its trade with Spain. Over the years, the Falklands has developed strong ties with Spanish fishing fleets and importers. As a result, more than 90% of the fish caught in its waters—primarily Loligo squid and various finfish—are exported to Spain. This industry is vital to the Falklands’ economy, contributing around 40% of the government’s annual revenue. It is also significant for Spain, which sources over 30% of its imported calamari from the Falklands. Before Brexit, Falklands fisheries exports entered the EU tariff-free. Now, they are subject to the EU’s common external tariff, which ranges from 6 to 18%, amounting to approximately €15 million annually—a substantial burden for a small economy. There is hope that, as part of a broader reset in UK-EU relations, the trade status of the BOTs can be improved. In a recent parliamentary response, David Lammy stated, “we are always seeking to reduce tariff burdens for our overseas territories, and we are in ongoing discussions with the European Union in particular”. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском On 30 May 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore – Asia’s premier security summit – and his comments were unusually blunt. He warned that the West – Europe and the US – risk losing credibility over the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and unless these conflicts are resolved with integrity and consistency, the broader rules-based international order and Europe’s place in it will unravel. Macron’s concern wasn’t just about the tactical consequences of geopolitical instability, but something deeper: the symbolic and normative weight Europe claims to carry in global affairs. His comments mark a turning point, one that exposes the crisis of coherence at the heart of the European Union’s foreign policy – and the growing tension between the EU’s aspirational identity as a “normative power” and the harsh realities of a world governed by realpolitik. For over two decades, the EU has presented itself as a values-based actor, using diplomacy, development aid, legal harmonisation and multilateralism rather than coercion to wield influence. The concept of the EU as a “normative power” – famously coined by Ian Manners – is based on the idea that Europe seeks to shape global affairs by promoting norms such as human rights, democracy and international law. But the simultaneous occurrence of two deeply symbolic and contested wars – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza – makes it increasingly hard for the EU to maintain this self-image without being accused of hypocrisy and selective morality. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the gap between Europe’s response to Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine, the EU has mounted one of the largest and most united responses in its history: military aid, sanctions, diplomatic isolation of Russia and open arms for Ukrainian refugees. In Gaza, the response has been fragmented, inconsistent and – by many accounts – morally ambiguous. Some European states like Ireland and Spain have called for recognition of Palestinian statehood and condemned Israeli actions, others have hesitated or doubled down on support for Israel in the name of counterterrorism and alliance politics. This has not gone unnoticed in the Global South, where Europe’s normative claims are increasingly seen as hollow, if not ridiculous. Macron’s talk of credibility reflects an elite awareness that Europe’s legitimacy is no longer taken for granted outside its borders. The credibility crisis he describes is not just about diplomacy – it’s about identity. If the EU says territorial integrity is sacred in Ukraine, how can it do nothing when the same principles are being flouted elsewhere? If the Union says human rights are universal, can it be silent – or ambiguous – on the civilian casualties in Gaza? These are not questions asked by foreign policy analysts; they are asked in international forums, in Asian capitals courted by Brussels and in the protests that fill European streets. The more the EU fails to match its words with its actions, the more its normative brand erodes. But there’s another layer to Macron’s intervention that needs to be looked at. His comments on “strategic autonomy” and not being caught in the crossfire of the US-China rivalry suggest Europe is dealing with more than just a credibility crisis. It’s facing a strategic choice that will redefine its global role: whether to double down on the postwar transatlantic compact or to chart a more independent course that allows it to mediate between blocs in a multipolar world. Macron’s consistent advocacy of strategic autonomy (however controversial) means he recognises the EU can’t outsource its geopolitical relevance to Washington indefinitely, especially with the return of Donald Trump to the White House. This dilemma is made worse by the structural weaknesses within the EU itself. The Union’s foreign policy is crippled by institutional fragmentation, national interests and a consensus-based decision-making process that often leads to lowest-common-denominator positions. While the EU was impressive in its initial unity on Ukraine, the Gaza crisis has shown the limits of that unity when values collide with political alliances or domestic political considerations. This is not just a crisis of perception but of capacity. Can the EU actually be a geopolitical player when its member states can’t even agree on what is legitimate force, occupation or humanitarian necessity? The illusion of normative power, then, is not just an external branding problem – it is an internal governance challenge. For Europe to maintain credibility abroad, it must first reconcile its internal contradictions. That means rethinking the balance between values and interests, between ideals and strategic imperatives. It may also require a degree of institutional boldness: deeper integration in foreign and security policy, a greater role for the High Representative, or a shift toward qualified majority voting in foreign affairs. At the same time, Europe must also acknowledge the changing global landscape in which it seeks to operate. In a world no longer dominated by Western hegemony, the EU’s normative influence depends not only on its coherence but on its ability to listen and engage with actors in Asia, Africa, and Latin America as equals rather than as recipients of European lectures. Macron’s call for a “positive new alliance” between Europe and Asia, one that resists domination by any superpower, hints at a potential path forward. But such an alliance will only be credible if Europe demonstrates that it is willing to apply its principles even when inconvenient—especially when those principles are tested not just by adversaries but by allies. In the end, Macron’s speech serves as a mirror held up to the European project itself. It reflects both its aspirations and its anxieties, its potential and its paradoxes. Whether Europe can move beyond this moment of crisis to forge a foreign policy that is both principled and strategic remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that credibility cannot be commanded—it must be earned. And in an era of increasing global scrutiny, that will require more than rhetoric. It will require resolve. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском On September 24, 2024, speaking from the gargantuan Kazan International Exhibition Centre during the BRICS Summit in Russia, Chinese President Xi Jinping emphatically extolled the “collective rise of the Global South [as] a distinctive feature of the great transformation across the world.” While celebrating “Global South countries marching together toward modernization [as] monumental in world history and unprecedented in human civilization,” the Chinese leader hastened to add that China was not quite a part of but at the Global South’s “forefront”; that “will always keep the Global South in [their] heart, and maintain [their]roots in the Global South. As emerging powers in the BRICS+ grouping thronged Kazan in a clear sign to the West that they would not unwittingly entrench Vladimir Putin’s full-scale diplomatic isolation, China’s message was clear: as a great power, they would not ignore or undermine the interests of the Global South.  The rise of the Global South as a central voice in world politics concurs with the emergence of cyber diplomacy as a diplomatic field. This is not a coincidence, as they are both intimately related to broader changes in the international order, away from a US-led liberal international order, toward a post-liberal one, whose contours are still being defined, but where informal groupings, such as the BRICS+ play a key role. One could even argue that it is this transition to a new order that has pushed states to engage diplomatically on issues around cyberspace. What was once the purview of the Global North, and particularly the US, is now a contested domain of international activity. In this text we explore how the Global South has entered this contestation, and how it articulates its ever-growing presence in shaping the agenda of this domain. However, as cyber diplomacy is mainstreamed across the Global South, it is unclear whether it will continue to be a relevant collective force in forging the rules and norms that govern cyberspace, or whether the tendency will be for each country to trace their own path in service of their independent national interests. The evolution of cyber diplomacy in a post-liberal world Cyber diplomacy is very recent. One could argue that its practice only really started in the late 1990s, with Russia’s proposal of an international treaty to ban electronic and information weapons. Cyber diplomacy, as “the use of diplomatic resources and the performance of diplomatic functions to secure national interests with regard to the cyberspace” (or more simply, to the “the application of diplomacy to cyberspace”  is even more recent, with the first few writings on the topic emerging only in the last 15 years.   To be sure, the internet was born at the zenith of the US-led liberal international order and was viewed as an ideal tool to promote based on liberalism, free trade and information exchange with limited government intervention and democratic ideals. Cyber libertarians extolled the virtues of an independent cyberspace, free from state control and western governments, particularly the US, did not disagree. They viewed the internet as the perfect tool for promoting US global power and maintaining liberal hegemony -“ruling the airwaves as Great Britain once ruled the seas.” The internet was ensconced in the relatively uncontested unipolar geopolitical moment. As the pipe dreams of a liberal cyberspace began to unravel with China and Russia pushing for an alternate state-centric vision of cyberspace, cyber diplomacy began to emerge both as a “response to and continuing factor in the continuing battle in and over cyberspace.” Explicitly, we can pin down its origin to two factors. First, is the perception that cyberspace was becoming an increasingly intertwined with geopolitics and geo-economics, with states starting to better understand its threats, but also its opportunities. Moonlight Maze, the 2007 attacks against Estonia or even Stuxnet were all cases that helped focus the mind of policymakers around the world. Second, the broader context of underlying changes in the international order necessitated cyber diplomacy as a bridge-building activity both to mitigate great power rivalry and to preserve the stability of cyberspace and the digital economy. Private companies, till then the beneficiaries of an open and de-regulated internet, also had to step in to ensure that their own interests and profit motives were safeguarded. These two intertwined factors dominated the discussions around cyber diplomacy for most of the 2000s. Initially, the predominant focus was arms control, reflected in the composition of the first few Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) iterations, the forum created by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to discuss the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in international security. And although experts appointed by countries from the Global South were present since the first meeting in July 2004 the debate was very much framed as a discussion among great powers. As discussions progressed, and the GGE became a process in itself, some states outside the permanent members’ group started to engage more actively. This also coincided with the progressive creation of cyber diplomacy posts and offices in foreign ministries around the world. The field was becoming more professional, as more states started to realise that these were discussions that mattered beyond the restrictive group of power politics. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, or Kenya started to push for the discussion of issues that affected a larger group of states, with a particular focus on cyber capacity building not just at the UN-GGE but also at other multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes and conferences including the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The creation of a new Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) at the UN First Committee (after an acrimonious diplomatic process) had an important effect in the diversification and democratisation of the discussions, as these were now open to the whole UN membership, and non-state actors were given the opportunity to observe and participate in these sessions. Further, in 2022, the UN set up an Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) to negotiate a cybercrime convention (adopted by consensus by UNGA members in December 2024) that also enabled all UN members to participate in the negotiations. The opening up of these processes exposed many states, particularly in the Global South, to the field, and it forced them to actively engage in discussions that until recently were seen as the dominion of great powers. The African Group and the G77 were now able to actively participate in the discussions, with frequent statements and contributions. Conceptualising the Global South in cyber diplomacy As cyber diplomacy progressed, policy-maker and academics alike understood global cyber governance to be divided along three main blocs of states. The status quo defenders were led by the US and (mostly Western) like-minded states, focused on the promotion of liberal values and non-binding norms shaped by a multi-stakeholder approach and adherence to existing tenets of international law but resisted significant changes in the governance of cyberspace. A revisionist group, led by Russia and China, advocated for a new binding international treaty and multilateral governance with the objective of guaranteeing security and order rather than necessarily promoting liberal values. Given this impasse, the role and influence of a group of states termed ‘swing states’ or ‘digital deciders’ has been recognized as critical to determining the future of cyberspace, most prominently in a detailed 2018 report by the Washington DC-based think-tank New America . This grouping that largely includes emerging powers from the Global South including India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, are understood as countries that are yet to “gravitate towards either end of the spectrum, some undecided and others seeking a third path.” Given these groupings, it is worth considering how the Global South fits in with present conceptualisations of cyber diplomacy, or whether it is a grouping at all. The term ‘Global South’ has come in for some criticism given the heterogeneity of countries it describes and its geographical inaccuracy (many Global South countries are not quite in the geographical South.) To be fair, the term never aspired for terminological accuracy and was instead coined to conceptually represent a group of countries during the Vietnam dissatisfied with the political and economic exploitation from the Global North. In that regard, Global South is a “mood,” a metaphor for developing countries aiming to find their way in an increasingly contested world. The war in Ukraine only augmented these fissures as the West were confounded by the Global South’s refusal to take a stand against brazen Russian aggression in Europe. The developing world saw it differently though: in an international order long-built on racism and inequality, expecting these countries to take a stand in their “petty squabbles” while they had also carried out “similarly violent, unjust, and undemocratic interventions—from Vietnam to Iraq” was a bridge too far. The Ukraine war helped clarify the combination of behaviours that countries within the Global South exhibit to attain this strategic goal: ideological agnosticism or neutrality; selective engagement with norms and rules; and finally, multi-pronged bilateral and minilateral groupings, with equidistance from the major powers. These three approaches helped illuminate the multiple different forms of agency that each developing country exercises vis-à-vis the international order based on their own interests and quest for strategic autonomy. However, what became evident as Russians bombs started to fall on the street of Kyiv, was already visible in these states’ interactions in cyber diplomacy. First, much of the Global South has refused to take an explicit stand on the controversial fissures that the leading powers have spent much of their time debating, including whether cyberspace governance should be state-centric or driven by new rules or existing international law.  Throughout the negotiating processes at the UN OEWG and AHC, as Russia and China clashed with the United States and its allies on the text of several controversial proposals, most developing countries took an agnostic approach, neither explicitly endorsing or opposing any of these potential treaty provisions. (There are naturally some exceptions: an analysis of voting patterns suggests that Iran and North Korea have firmly pegged themselves to the Russian and Chinese side of the aisle whereas some smaller developing countries have gravitated towards the US side of the aisle.) Second, there has been selective engagement when security or developmental interests are directly impacted. For example, in its joint submission to the UN’s Global Digital Compact (GDC), the G77+China asserted the need for equitable cross-border data flows that maximize development gains. The GDC is the UN’s first comprehensive framework for global digital cooperation. Long concerned about the misuse of the multi-stakeholder model by private actors for profit at the expense of developmental interests, the G77 also highlighted the need for “multilateral and transparent approaches to digital governance to facilitate a more just, equitable and effective governance system.” Finally, countries in  the Global South have entered into multiple technology partnerships across political and ideological divides. US efforts at restricting the encroachment of Chinese hardware providers like Huawei and ZTE into the core technological periphery of several Global South countries using allegations of surveillance were sometimes rebuked, given the Five Eyes’ proclivity and reputation for also conducting similar surveillance, including on top officials. By being agnostic on controversial ideological issues, countries in the Global South have been able to maintain ties with great powers on all sides of the political spectrum and foster pragmatic technological partnerships. Will the Global South rise? The Global South’s rise as a potent force in cyber diplomacy will, however, depend on three factors. Can it maintain ideological consistency on developmental and rights concerns, including on how the internet is governed at home? Can they continue to work with multiple partners without succumbing to pressure either from Washington or Beijing? Will emerging powers in the Global South (like India, Brazil and Indonesia) bat for the interests of the larger developing world, rather than simply orchestrating global governance to service their own interests or that of the regime in power? Given that cyber diplomacy emerged and developed as the playground of great powers, analysing it through the perspective of the Global South enables us to focus on cyber governance as an issue that goes beyond (cyber)security concerns – including economic development and identity (cutting across issues of race, gender, and colonialism) – and to see the world from a perspective that goes beyond the dynamics of great power competition. Analytically, it is useful to understand how these states position themselves and justify their actions on behalf of the whole. When looking inside the box, we see some collective movement but also a desire on part of the great powers, including China to incentivise the developing world to see the world as they do. The Global South remains relevant as a construct that captures the mood of the developing world on the geopolitics of technology of cyber issues. Its “great strength” will emerge not from swinging between Washington and Beijing or being orchestrated through New Delhi or Brasilia. It will instead come through standing their ground, in service of their own security and developmental interests in cyberspace. And as they progress, it remains to be seen whether the “Global South” retains its relevance as an analytical construct or whether it will give way to other denominations that better capture the developing world’s nuances and differences vis-à-vis the international cyber order. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Serbia’s future hinges on how it navigates its competing loyalties. Its path forward depends on whether it chooses to lean into its nostalgic ties or align more closely with its economic interests. A romanticised view of Russia, particularly its cultural heartlands, is common among Serbs with no firsthand experience of Soviet rule. Serbia, as part of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, occupied a unique position in the post-World War II geopolitical order. Under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslavia decisively rejected Soviet dominance in 1948, leading to its expulsion from the Cominform. This was a bold move, famously marked by Tito’s defiant “nyet” to Stalin. Following this split, Yugoslavia pursued a non-aligned foreign policy, establishing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) alongside other decolonising nations. This allowed it to maintain a delicate balance between the East and the West. State-sponsored construction companies were active in Asia and Africa, while guest workers were exported to Western Europe to bolster the domestic economy. Serbia, as a successor state, maintains engagement with the NAM to this day, continuing its long-standing tradition of non-alignment. A dual pillar of sentiment and strategy Serbia’s current diplomatic relationship with Russia reflects a mixture of historical sentiment and pragmatic strategy. The bond is sustained through Orthodox Christian faith, Slavic linguistic familiarity, and a shared narrative of past solidarity. These factors bolster Russia’s influence in Serbia, most visibly through extensive media penetration and strong political support for Serbia’s territorial integrity, especially concerning Kosovo. One of Russia’s most powerful diplomatic tools remains its veto power in the United Nations Security Council. Moscow has consistently used this privilege to block Kosovo’s accession to international institutions, a gesture widely appreciated in Serbia. This support reinforces Russia’s image as a loyal ally among much of the Serbian public. Meanwhile, Russia has secured a prominent role in Serbia’s economic landscape. Bilateral trade between the two nations is estimated at US$3 billion annually. Gazprom owns a majority stake in Serbia’s oil and gas company, NIS, and Serbia remains tied into Russia’s TurkStream gas pipeline. As of May 2025, Serbia extended its gas import contract with Russia until the end of September, locking in prices and guaranteeing supply ahead of winter. Additionally, the Russian tech company Yandex has relocated a significant portion of its operations to Serbia. The firm employs thousands of local staff in transportation, delivery, and IT services. Since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, over 300,000 Russian nationals and approximately 20,000 Ukrainians are estimated to have settled in Serbia fleeing war, with many employed in these sectors and obtaining Serbian residency. This follows a historical pattern; for instance, more than 1,500 prominent Russian families sought refuge in Serbia after the Russian Civil War (1917–1918). Many Serbs still travel to Russia, including for business, holiday, or professional exchanges. While Western pop culture dominates in Serbia, many Russian artists still perform there regularly, especially in classical arts. Pragmatic neutrality President Aleksandar Vučić has carefully walked the tightrope of maintaining Serbia’s candidacy for European Union membership while resisting pressure to join Western sanctions against Russia. This diplomatic balancing act reflects both domestic political realities and a long-standing foreign policy of strategic neutrality. In early May 2025, Vučić attended Russia’s Victory Day parade alongside President Vladimir Putin. While EU officials strongly criticised his decision, Vučić defended his actions as a matter of honouring “traditional friendships.” He reiterated Serbia’s support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity yet refrained from imposing sanctions on Moscow. This ambiguous stance continues to frustrate Western diplomats, who see Serbia as needing to “choose a side.” However, choosing a side would be contrary to the Serbian government’s worldview of needing to remain strategically neutral, which is a tradition in Serbia’s foreign policy dating back to the 13th century. However, some Russian officials have recently questioned Serbia’s neutrality as reports emerged about Serbian defence companies exporting weapons to Ukraine through third party companies located in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Bulgaria. Serbia’s official refusal to impose sanctions against Russia has preserved its access to Russian markets, energy, and political backing. However, it also risks alienating its most significant trading partners. In 2024, Serbia exported goods worth US$959.1 million to Russia—just three percent of its total exports. In comparison, exports to the European Union totalled US$19.3 billion, accounting for over 60 percent of total trade. Imports reflect a similar pattern, with only 3.3 percent coming from Russia compared to 56.3 percent from the EU. This stark contrast suggests that while Russia may provide strategic and emotional support, Serbia’s economic lifeline lies firmly in the West. The energy factor Energy remains the linchpin in Russia-Serbia relations. Serbia is heavily dependent on Russian gas, with existing contracts offering favourable terms that are hard to replicate elsewhere. Although Serbia is making efforts to diversify its energy mix—including exploring Azerbaijani gas, LNG imports via Greece and Croatia, and domestic renewables—these transitions take time. A new strategic plan for wind and solar development is underway, and Serbia is also preparing to auction renewable energy projects. In parallel, the EU and Serbia signed a strategic raw materials partnership in July 2024, targeting Serbia’s lithium reserves. These are critical to the EU’s push to reduce dependency on Chinese supply chains. Yet, public protests against lithium mining in Serbia have stalled the project, revealing the complex interplay between geopolitics and local opposition. Serbia’s role in a shifting world Despite being a small country, Serbia plays an outsized role in the geopolitics of Southeast Europe. With the war in Ukraine dragging on and Moscow becoming increasingly isolated, Serbia remains a key outpost for Russian diplomacy and influence in Europe. At the same time, the country is also investing in deeper partnerships with China, which is fast becoming a major investor in Serbian infrastructure, technology, and mining. While Serbia’s historical and cultural ties with Russia are enduring, they are not immutable. The Serbian public is increasingly aware of the limitations of relying solely on Moscow for diplomatic and economic support. Younger generations are more outward-looking and inclined toward European integration. This generational shift, combined with economic imperatives, could eventually reshape Serbia’s foreign policy priorities. Serbia between a rock and a hard place Serbia’s future hinges on how it navigates its competing loyalties. Russia remains a potent symbol of shared heritage and a geopolitical partner on issues like Kosovo. But economically and institutionally, Serbia is deeply embedded in European systems. Its path forward depends on whether it chooses to lean into its nostalgic ties or align more closely with its economic interests. In today’s multipolar world, Serbia is attempting to preserve its tradition of non-alignment while adapting to a new era of global fragmentation. Whether it succeeds in maintaining this delicate balance, or is ultimately forced to choose, will have profound implications not only for its own trajectory but for the entire Western Balkans. The romanticism of Russia still appeals to many Serbs and people from the Balkans generally, especially older, Yugo-nostalgic generations. Yet the reality of economic interdependence with the West and the shifting sands of global diplomacy may compel Belgrade to make harder decisions in the years to come. Romance or pragmatism? It is always a mix of both in Serbia’s case. Dr Nina Markovic Khaze (PhD Pol. Sc., ANU) is a sessional academic at Macquarie University, political analyst for SBS radio and Director of Communications at Solve Law, Manly. She was previously Vice-President of the AIIA’s ACT Branch, and senior parliamentary researcher for Europe and Middle East. This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском As Israel’s devastating war in Gaza has ground on, the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was thought to be “dead”. Now, it is showing signs of life again. French President Emmanuel Macron is reportedly pressing other European nations to jointly recognise a Palestinian state at a UN conference in mid-June, focused on achieving a two-state solution. Macron called such recognition a “political necessity”. Countries outside Europe are feeling the pressure, too. Australia has reaffirmed its view that recognition of Palestine should be a “way of building momentum towards a two-state solution”. During Macron’s visit to Indonesia in late May, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto made a surprising pledge to recognise Israel if it allowed for a Palestinian state. Indonesia is one of about 28 nations that don’t currently recognise Israel. France, Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea are among the approximately 46 nations that don’t recognise a Palestinian state.   The UN conference on June 17–20, co-sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, wants to go “beyond reaffirming principles” and “achieve concrete results” towards a two-state solution. Most countries, including the US, have supported the two-state solution in principle for decades. However, the political will from all parties has faded in recent years. So, why is the policy gaining traction again now? And does it have a greater chance of success? What is the two-state solution? Put simply, the two-state solution is a proposed peace plan that would create a sovereign Palestinian state alongside the Israeli state. There have been several failed attempts to enact the policy over recent decades, the most famous of which was the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s. In recent years, the two-state solution was looking less likely by the day. The Trump administration’s decision in 2017 to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy there signalled the US was moving away from its role as mediator. Then, several Arab states agreed to normalise relations with Israel in the the Abraham Accords, without Israeli promises to move towards a two-state solution. The Hamas attacks on Israel – and subsequent Israeli war on Gaza – have had a somewhat contradictory effect on the overarching debate. On the one hand, the brutality of Hamas’ actions substantially set back the legitimacy of the Palestinian self-determination movement in some quarters on the world stage. On the other, it’s also become clear the status quo – the continued Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank following the end of a brutal war – is not tenable for either Israeli security or Palestinian human rights. And the breakdown of the most recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the return of heavy Israeli ground operations in May and reports of mass Palestinian starvation have only served to further isolate the Israeli government in the eyes of its peers. Once-steadfast supporters of Israel’s actions have become increasingly frustrated by a lack of clear strategic goals in Gaza. And many now seem prepared to ignore Israeli wishes and pursue Palestinian recognition. For these governments, the hope is recognition of a Palestinian state would rebuild political will – both globally and in the Middle East – towards a two-state solution. Huge obstacles remain But how likely is this in reality? There is certainly more political will than there was before, but also several important roadblocks. First and foremost is the war in Gaza. It’s obvious this will need to end, with both sides agreeing to an enduring ceasefire. Beyond that, the political authority in both Gaza and Israel remains an issue. The countries now considering Palestinian recognition, such France and Australia, have expressly said Hamas cannot play any role in governing a future Palestinian state. Though anti-Hamas sentiment is becoming more vocal among residents in Gaza, Hamas has been violently cracking down on this dissent and is attempting to consolidate its power. However, polling shows the popularity of Fatah – the party leading the Palestinian National Authority – is even lower than Hamas at an average of 21%. Less than half of Gazans support the enclave returning to Palestinian Authority control. This means a future Palestinian state would likely require new leadership. There is almost no political will in Israel for a two-state solution, either. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not been shy about his opposition to a Palestinian state. His cabinet members have mostly been on the same page. This has also been reflected in policy action. In early May, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved a plan for Israel to indefinitely occupy parts of Gaza. The government also just approved its largest expansion of settlements in the West Bank in decades. These settlements remain a major problem for a two-state solution. The total population of Israeli settlers is more than 700,000 in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And it’s been increasing at a faster rate since the election of the right-wing, pro-settler Netanyahu government in 2022. Settlement is enshrined in Israeli Basic Law, with the state defining it as “national value” and actively encouraging its “establishment and consolidation”. The more settlement that occurs, the more complicated the boundaries of a future Palestinian state become. Then there’s the problem of public support. Recent polling shows neither Israelis nor Palestinians view the two-state solution favourably. Just 40% of Palestinians support it, while only 26% of Israelis believe a Palestinian state can “coexist peacefully” alongside Israel. However, none of these challenges makes the policy impossible. The unpopularity of the two-state solution locally is more a reflection of previous failures than it is of future negotiations. A power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland was similarly unpopular in the 1990s, but peace was achieved through bold political leadership involving the US and European Union. In other words, we won’t know what’s possible until negotiations begin. Red lines will need to be drawn and compromises made. It’s not clear what effect growing external pressure will have, but the international community does appear to be reaching a political tipping point on the two-state solution. Momentum could start building again.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском This paper was earlier published as Issue & Policy Briefs on May, 16th 2025 on the Website of The Institute for Security & Developement Policy. The April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack marks a significant moment in South Asia’s evolving security matrix. While the India–Pakistan binary continues to dominate discourse, China’s ambiguous posture following India’s Operation Sindoor warrants deeper scrutiny. This issue brief assesses Beijing’s silence, the implications for China-India ties, and China’s alignment with Pakistan’s strategic calculus. Drawing on past crises like Pulwama, Balakot, and Uri, it interrogates China’s selective neutrality, its shielding of Pakistan, and the erosion of its credibility as a regional stabilizer. By weaving in Chinese media narratives and official statements, the analysis critically evaluates whether Beijing is prepared—or even interested—in playing a constructive role in South Asian stability. The brief concludes that unless India recalibrates its strategic assumptions and narrative posture, China will continue to manipulate the region’s instability through plausible deniability and transactional diplomacy. The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025,1 which killed 25 Indians and 1 Nepali and injured dozens more, is the latest chapter in South Asia’s long-running saga of cross-border militancy. Yet it would be a mistake to frame it solely within the India–Pakistan binary. As India launched Operation Sindoor in response— targeting terrorist infrastructure across the Line of Control (LoC)—the silence and subsequent posture of China signaled deeper tremors in the broader regional architecture. Kashmir has long served as a crucible of IndiaPakistan hostility, but the Pahalgam attack— attributed to the Pakistan-backed group The Resistance Front (TRF),2 which is a front for the UN-proscribed Pakistani terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba—has unfolded in a regional context far more complex than previous crises. India’s swift military response via Operation Sindoor, while reminiscent of the 2019 Balakot precedent, came in a more layered geopolitical moment, where any Indian action reverberates beyond Islamabad to Beijing. Despite issuing a generic statement of terming India’s Operation Sindoor “regrettable,”3 Beijing offered no commentary on the Pakistan-backed terror attack itself. By sidestepping the central provocation—the targeting of Indian civilians by a known Pakistani terror outfit—China has raised fundamental questions about the strategic calculus guiding its relations with both Islamabad and New Delhi.  New Delhi’s official narrative continued to underscore its commitment post Operation Sindoor to “commitment to non-escalation, provided it is respected by the Pakistan military”.4 However, during May 8-9, Pakistan responded with a drone offensive targeting Indian military sites,5 prompting countermeasures. By May 10, Pakistan had a name for its retaliatory escalation: Operation Bunyan Marsoos,6 which came to an abrupt halt when a ceasefire was agreed upon between India and Pakistan later in the day.7 Despite ceasefire violations by Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, the agreement seems to be holding currently.  Yet what stood out amid this tit-for-tat dynamic was China’s conspicuous silence and strategic responses. Post Pakistan’s escalation on May 9, the topic of India-Pakistan conflict was completely absent from the pre-approved questions of the regular press briefing by the Chinese Ministry.8 Even in response to the news of the ceasefire, China’s statement has been guarded, stating it hopes India and Pakistan will “consolidate and extend” the same.9 As China distances itself from India’s narrative but attempts to show semblances of neutrality, it raises doubts over the credibility of Sino-Indian normalization. While the two countries may engage in tactical military disengagements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the Pahalgam episode demonstrates that deep strategic distrust remains. India’s engagement with counterterrorism in the region has often required it to navigate a diplomatic minefield, particularly when the international community does not uniformly support its security concerns. The post-Balakot moment saw similar divisions, with China refusing to back India’s actions at multilateral fora while amplifying Pakistan’s grievances. Such flashpoints, unpacked later in this brief, underscore a consistent Chinese pattern—a trend that has deepened in the aftermath of Pahalgam. What differentiates this latest incident, however, is the broader geopolitical backdrop.  The Pahalgam incident hence emerges as a compelling prism through which to examine the strategic entanglements involving China in South Asian geopolitics. China’s posture following Operation Sindoor calls to question its regional credibility10 and the future of the still recovering India-China bilateral post the 2020 Galwan clash. In essence, the Pahalgam incident is a microcosm through which to assess whether Beijing is capable of playing a stabilizing role in South Asia or if it remains tethered to old geopolitical loyalties that undermine its normative credibility.11 China’s Calculated Ambiguity and Strategic Hedging  At first glance, China’s reaction to the Pahalgam attack appeared predictably neutral,12 reiterating a standard line against terrorism in all forms albeit without naming Pakistan-based groups, which then evolved into calling for an “impartial probe” into the attack.13 Beijing’s ambiguous position is hardly new. It has long shielded Pakistan from international pressure on terrorism-related matters. In 2023, for instance, China blocked a UN Security Council listing of Sajid Mir—a Lashkar-e-Taiba commander with ties to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.14 Such acts are not isolated; they are part of a broader calculus in which Pakistan is Beijing’s irreplaceable partner in South Asia. This alignment is driven by both geopolitical and geo-economic considerations. Pakistan is China’s all-weather partner (全天候伙伴关系 or quántiānhòu huǒbàn guānxì),15 crucial not just for counterbalancing India but also for securing the western front of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). CPEC is a flagship component of BRI and runs through an unstable Gilgit-Baltistan and, despite India’s vehement opposition, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Stability in these zones is key to China’s western frontier strategy, giving it a vested interest in maintaining the status quo—even if that includes cross-border terrorism targeting India.  Further compounding the issue is the unspoken quid pro quo between Beijing and Islamabad: Pakistan remains silent on China’s domestic repression of Uyghurs,16 while China refrains from condemning Pakistani-linked Islamist militant groups. This transactional compact allows both states to shield each other on their respective internal and external security issues, forming a mutually reinforcing axis of silence.  In times of crisis, this axis manifests through diplomatic choreography. For example, during the Galwan Valley clashes in 2020, Pakistan was among the few countries to openly17 support China’s position, even as the rest of the world urged de-escalation.18 Conversely, during moments of India-Pakistan tension, Beijing reliably leans toward a neutral but structurally pro-Pakistan position. During the 2016 Uri attack, Beijing maintained a studied silence while subtly encouraging bilateral restraint. In 2019, when India moved to revoke Article 370 granting Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, China supported Pakistan’s “legitimate rights and interests” in Kashmir.19  Furthermore, post the 2019 Pulwama attack, China refused to list Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad chief as a global terrorist under UNSC Resolution 1267.20 This narrative strategy appears to serve a dual function: first, to construct a regional imaginary in which India is framed as a destabilizing actor across multiple contested peripheries; and second, to subtly align with Pakistan’s security perceptions without overt endorsement as seen during Balakot as well with Chinese state media closely relaying Pakistan’s perspectives.21 Such framing enables Beijing to reinforce an adversarial posture vis-à-vis India while maintaining formal neutrality. More critically, it delegitimizes India’s counterterrorism imperatives by projecting them as part of a broader pattern of assertiveness rather than as legitimate responses to asymmetric threats. The aftermath of Pahalgam has reinforced this pattern. Structural Limits of Sino-Indian Normalization –and the idea of China as a stabilizer Although India and China have made some progress in military disengagement following the 2020 Galwan Valley clash and the October 2024 border agreement, the Pahalgam episode reveals the limitations of this tactical thaw. China’s refusal to acknowledge Pakistani provocations— or even address the cross-border violence in its Operation Sindoor press briefings—shows that Beijing’s strategic alignment with Pakistan remains intact. This persistent ambiguity damages the credibility of any “reset” in India-China relations. It also underscores a recurring pattern in Chinese state discourse, where India’s actions across both the LoC and Line of Actual Control (LAC) are presented as signs of regional destabilization.22 The result is a rhetorical sleight of hand: India’s counterterrorism efforts are rebranded as adventurism, while China claims neutrality.  India for its part has walked a delicate line on China’s own internal security policies.23 India’s cautious approach is also seen on the Uyghur issue, where it has stopped short of criticizing China. India’s intent is to prevent further escalation with China, particularly amid the tensions along the Himalayan border.24 Ironically, this caution has earned India neither Chinese neutrality on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism nor any softening of China’s positions on Kashmir. India must prepare for the possibility of a more overt China-Pakistan strategic alignment in the Himalayan theatre—as seen briefly with the short-lived Himalayan Quad.25 A major point of pride in Chinese social media and state-media news circulating currently is the alleged downing of Indian aircrafts, “three Rafale f ighter jets, one MIG-29 fighter aircraft, one Su30 fighter jet, and one Heron drone”26 by the Pakistani air force. India has not confirmed these losses. China has emerged as Pakistan’s principal defense partner, supplying approximately 81 percent of its arms imports between 2020 and 2024.27 This strategic partnership was evident during the recent military exchanges with India, where Pakistan deployed Chinese-made J-10C f ighter jets and PL-15 air-to-air missiles.28 The J-10C, a 4.5-generation aircraft equipped with advanced avionics and radar systems, played a pivotal role in Pakistan’s aerial defense, which the Chinese social media is celebrating in disc. China’s support extends to artillery systems, such as the SH-15 155mm truck-mounted howitzer, and advanced radar installations along the LoC.29 China’s participation in February 2025 in Pakistan’s multinational naval exercise AMAN further consolidates the partnership’s expansion into the Indian Ocean.30 This deepening military collaboration underscores China’s commitment to bolstering Pakistan’s defense capabilities, thereby influencing the strategic balance in South Asia. Concurrently, on May 9, as Pakistan responded to Operation Sindoor,31 China conducted a live-fire military exercise in Tibet involving truck-mounted artillery and long-range rockets. Although conducted within Chinese territory, the exercise’s temporal proximity to the crisis raised red flags within Indian security circles. Of particular concern was increased PLA logistical activity along the G219 highway—an artery critical for mobilization across Tibet and Xinjiang. Such maneuvers are not incidental; rather, they reflect deliberate strategic signaling. Given the history of the China-India border standoff from April 2020 to October 2024, this latest development underscores Beijing’s continued use of military exercises as coercive diplomacy (胁迫性外交 xiébò xìng wàijiāo). The drill’s timing suggests that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is not merely observing the India-Pakistan escalation, but actively inserting pressure on India’s northern front to exploit its two-front dilemma. At the same time, China’s approach to international order is selective. It supports rules when they are advantageous and obstructs them when they threaten. This raises an important question for policymakers: can Beijing ever be a partner in building a rule-based regional order when its strategic habits are so conditional? The Pahalgam silence is not simply an oversight; it reflects a broader unwillingness by China to apply consistent normative standards when its interests are at stake. India, therefore, faces not just a tactical silence, but a strategic contradiction—one that complicates regional security architecture. This difference also further highlights China’s inability to be a stabilizing regional actor or mediator—a niche it is building for itself in West Asia—in South Asia owing to its national interest driven biased approach to regional conflicts.32 China increasingly brands itself as a mediator in global hotspots—from IranSaudi rapprochement to ceasefire proposals in Ukraine. Yet in South Asia, this “stabilizer” identity appears performative. Its refusal to challenge Pakistan undercuts its credibility as a neutral actor. The narrative of “community of shared future” (人类命运共同体 rénlèi mìngyùn gòngtóngtǐ) rings hollow when Beijing prioritizes geopolitical returns over regional peace. In this regard, it is also critical to note that India’s claim to great power status hinges not only on its material capabilities but also on its willingness to shape global norms on terrorism. To do so, a post-Pahalgam India may need to deepen its engagement with global norm entrepreneurs—from middle powers in Europe and Asia to civil society actors and multilateral institutions. Additionally, it must better leverage its leadership in forums like the G20 and BRICS to reframe regional security debates. If China wishes to be seen as a responsible stakeholder, it must be challenged to behave like one. In forums like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which have been focused on regional non-traditional security, China’s bias becomes more evident—obstructing Indian efforts to spotlight Pakistan’s terror links33 while promoting counterterrorism cooperation that suits its agenda.34 The SCO’s regional antiterrorism structure (RATS) has increasingly focused on threats aligned with Beijing’s internal definitions, particularly extremism related to Xinjiang, while sidelining India’s concerns about transnational Islamist militancy based in Pakistan.  However, Beijing’s notion of “Asia for Asians” appears hypocritical when it shelters Pakistan but obstructs regional counterterrorism consensus—especially in RATS under the SCO umbrella. Beyond multilateral diplomacy, China’s reluctance to endorse Indian perspectives has extended to informal channels. While India and Pakistan engage in kinetic and symbolic war over territory and identity, China operates in the background as both facilitator and firewall for Pakistan. Backchannel discussions have repeatedly seen Chinese interlocutors urge restraint on both India and Pakistan—without distinguishing between a state defending its civilians and one enabling non-state actors. This false equivalence erodes India’s trust and limits the scope for genuine regional cooperation. From Response to Strategy:  How Should India Read into Beijing’s Silence? India’s recent history is littered with crises where tactical victories often came at the cost of longterm ambiguity. In the aftermath of the 1999 Kargil War, for instance, India successfully reestablished control over its territory but failed to push for international accountability on Pakistan.35 Similarly, the 2017 Doklam standoff with China ended with a disengagement, but left the broader strategic questions unresolved. Even the 2020 Galwan clashes, despite their tragic costs, did not lead to sustained support or narrative building. What unites these episodes is a recurring pattern: India seeks resolution through calibrated responses while both adversaries exploit the absence of sustained international pressure. The Pahalgam attack threatens to repeat that pattern unless India broadens the strategic scope of its response—not merely in military terms but in diplomatic signaling, normative positioning, and alliance formation. India’s challenge is not just the asymmetry of violence with Pakistan—it is the asymmetry of narrative and support in multilateral spaces. Despite India’s restraint on Chinese internal matters, such as its silence on Xinjiang in UN forums, China has shown no reciprocal flexibility on Kashmir or Pakistan-based terrorism. This lack of strategic reciprocity is widening the gap between tactical cooperation and strategic mistrust. It also casts doubt on China’s repeated offers to play the role of a regional stabilizer. Beijing is unlikely to act as an honest broker in India-Pakistan disputes because it is structurally invested in Pakistan’s strategic and territorial claims, especially those in Kashmir. Moreover, the geo-economic dimension complicates the landscape further. China’s massive infrastructure projects through Pakistan-administered territories give it a direct stake in the political and security status quo in Kashmir. Any Indian attempt to assert sovereignty over the entire region threatens not just Pakistan’s territorial claims but China’s physical investments. It is for this reason that Chinese diplomats have avoided endorsing even moderate Indian positions on Kashmir. Even in backchannel diplomacy, Chinese officials urge restraint from both sides but refrain from applying pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terrorist networks—a selective neutrality that undermines India’s trust in Beijing’s intentions. Going forward, Indian policymakers may consider more assertive linkages between China’s Kashmir positions and India’s stance on Tibet and Xinjiang. While such rhetorical escalation risks deepening the rift, it may serve as a deterrent to Beijing’s selective neutrality. More broadly, India must prepare for a strategic environment in which a China–Pakistan alignment in the Himalayas becomes less tactical and more entrenched. If China continues to describe Jammu & Kashmir as “disputed territory,” Indian policymakers may feel justified in elevating the discourse on Chinese internal colonialism in places like Tibet and Xinjiang.36 While such a shift would risk further alienation, it could also serve as a deterrent against China’s one-sided narratives in multilateral spaces. Forecasting China’s future position on Jammu and Kashmir suggests continuity rather than change. As long as CPEC remains central to China’s regional vision, Beijing will oppose any Indian attempt to alter the territorial status quo in ways that threaten Pakistan’s legal or strategic control over its administered areas. Even if the Pahalgam incident spurs limited backchannel diplomacy, it is unlikely to alter China’s fundamental incentives in the region. The question, then, is whether the Pahalgam attack has merely revealed existing patterns in China’s South Asia policy or whether it marks a turning point. In one sense, it reaffirms an uncomfortable reality: Beijing’s anti-terrorism policy is primarily inward-looking and defined by the logic of state sovereignty, not regional peacebuilding. Terrorism that originates in Xinjiang is treated as an existential threat to the Chinese state, meriting mass surveillance, reeducation camps, and transnational intelligence cooperation. But terrorism that originates in Pakistan and targets India is diplomatically bracketed, treated as either a bilateral problem between New Delhi and Islamabad or, more insidiously, as a counterweight to Indian assertiveness. In the wake of Pahalgam, Indian policymakers face a difficult but necessary recalibration. While India has long pursued strategic autonomy, this doctrine cannot translate into strategic silence in the face of double standards. New Delhi must continue to assert its case in global forums— not only in terms of territorial integrity but also normative consistency. A longer-term Indian strategy may also involve diversifying its diplomatic partnerships in ways that offset Chinese influence. This includes expanding cooperation with regional and extra-regional actors who share India’s concerns about crossborder terrorism and authoritarian influence in multilateral institutions. The elevation of minilateral forums such as the Quad and closer coordination with Europe and Southeast Asian partners could enable India to construct new coalitions that constrain Chinese room for maneuverability as Beijing’s current incentives give it little reason to alter course. As long as CPEC remains a geostrategic and economic priority, and Pakistan serves as both a buffer and a partner, China will continue to downplay Islamabad’s transgressions. Any backchannel diplomacy following Pahalgam is unlikely to produce meaningful rebalancing unless India reshapes the cost-benefit calculations driving China’s current Sout​h Asia posture. The Pahalgam terrorist attack is not merely an India-Pakistan crisis. It is a regional flashpoint that pulls China out of the shadows and into the foreground of South Asian security dynamics. Beijing’s silence—strategic, deliberate, and revealing—shows that China is not yet ready to play the role of a stabilizing power in the region. Instead, it continues to hedge its bets, uphold transactional alliances, and avoid normative positions on terrorism that might alienate Pakistan. For India, the path forward involves more than military preparedness. It demands a recalibration of strategic assumptions about China’s role in regional crises. The Pahalgam attack may not shift China’s behavior immediately, but it sharpens the contours of a regional order where Beijing is less bystander and more stakeholder— one whose interests often run counter to India’s pursuit of stability and security. In this landscape, India must think beyond Pakistan and confront the deeper structural dynamics of the Pakistan-China bonhomie. About ISDP  The Institute for Security and Development Policy is a Stockholm-based independent and non-profit research and policy institute. The Institute is dedicated to expanding understanding of international affairs, particularly the interrelationship between the issue areas of conflict, security and development. The Institute’s primary areas of geographic focus are Asia and Europe’s neighborhood. Endnotes  1. Esha Mitra, Mukhtar Ahmad, Aishwarya S Iyer, Kara Fox and Jessie Yeung, “Dozens killed as gunmen massacre tourists in Kashmir beauty spot,” CNN, April 23, 2025, https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-firejammu-kashmir-intl. 2. “Statement by Foreign Secretary: OPERATION SINDOOR,” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, May 7, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/39473; see also, M. Sudhir Selvaraj, “A Primer on The Resistance Front, the Group Behind the Pahalgam Attack,” The Diplomat, April 30, 2025, https://thediplomat. com/2025/04/a-primer-on-the-resistance-front-the-group-behind-the-pahalgam-attack/. 3. “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on the Ongoing Situation Between India and Pakistan,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, May 7, 2025, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/fyrbt/202505/ t20250507_11616523.html. 4. “Transcript of Special briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 08, 2025),” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, May 8, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39479/Transcript_of_Special_ briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_08_2025. 5. “Special briefing on Operation Sindoor (May 09, 2025),” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, May 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSEo4RpICoY&t=491s. 6. Abid Hussain, “Pakistan launches Operation Bunyan Marsoos: What we know so far,” Al Jazeera, May 10, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/10/pakistan-launches-operation-bunyan-marsoos-what-we-know-so-far. 7. “India-Pakistan ceasefire updates: Pakistan violates ceasefire understanding along Jammu border,” The Hindu, May 11, 2025, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/operation-sindoor-pahalgam-attack-india-pakistan-live-updatesmay-10-2025/article69559875.ece. 8. “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on May 9, 2025,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, May 9, 2025, https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/lxjzh/202505/t20250509_11618305. html. 9. “China calls on India, Pakistan to consolidate ceasefire momentum: FM spokesperson,” Xinhuanet, May 12, 2025, https://english.news.cn/20250512/3024d6c69d154eb7ac23968925bdca2b/c.html. 10. Eerishika Pankaj and Omkar Bhole, “China’s Thinking on Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor: Impact on its Regional Credibility,” Organisation for Research on China and Asia, May 7, 2025, https://orcasia.org/article/1165/chinasthinking-on-pahalgam-and-operation-sindoor. 11. Hayley Wong and Seong Hyeon Choi, “Why China may find it hard to play peacemaker in India-Pakistan conflict,” South China Morning Post, May 8, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3309452/why-chinamay-find-it-hard-play-peacemaker-india-pakistan-conflict. 12. “China condemns Pahalgam terror attack that resulted in multiple casualties: FM,” Global Times, April 23, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202504/1332699.shtml. 13. Suhasini Haidar, “China calls for ‘impartial probe’ into Pahalgam,” The Hindu, April 28, 2025, https://www.thehindu. com/news/international/china-calls-for-swift-and-fair-investigation-into-pahalgam-terror-attack/article69499929.ece. 14. PTI, “India slams China at UN for blocking move to designate 26/11 accused Sajid Mir as ‘global terrorist’,” The Hindu, June 21, 2023, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-slams-china-at-un-for-blocking-move-todesignate-2611-accused-sajid-mir-as-global-terrorist/article66993043.ece. 15. “中华人民共和国和巴基斯坦伊斯兰共和国联合声明（全文）,” FMPRC, February 6, 2025, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ web/ziliao_674904/1179_674909/202502/t20250206_11550130.shtml; see also, “Wang Yi: Develop China-Pakistan All-Weather Strategic Cooperative Partnership with “Four Commitments”,”Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of India, May 15, 2024, in.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202405/t20240516_11305420.htm. 16. Ben Westcott, “Pakistan PM Imran Khan refuses to condemn China’s Xinjiang crackdown,” CNN, June 22, 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/22/asia/imran-khan-xinjiang-axios-intl-hnk. 17. “Interview: ‘India wants to quell domestic dissent after China clash by diverting attention’,” Dawn, June 26, 2020, https://www.dawn.com/news/1565331.18. Muhammad Akbar Notezai, “What Does the China-India Standoff in Ladakh Mean for Pakistan?” The Diplomat, June 24, 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/what-does-the-china-india-standoff-in-ladakh-mean-for-pakistan/. 19. Keegan Elmer, “China says it will support Pakistan ‘upholding its rights’ in Kashmir row with India,” South China Morning Post, August 10, 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3022254/china-says-it-willsupport-pakistan-upholding-its-rights. 20. “Pulwama attack: What about Wuhan spirit, Shashi Tharoor condemns China’s protection to Jaish-e-Mohammad,” India Today, February 15, 2019, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pulwama-attack-wuhan-spirit-shashi-tharoorcondemns-china-protection-jaish-e-mohammad-1456963-2019-02-15. 21. “Pakistan condemns India’s ‘blatant aggression,’ says it brings ‘two nuclear-armed states closer to major conflict’,” Global Times, May 7, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333486.shtml#:~:text=,said%20the%20 statement; Xinhua, “Pakistan army says Indian aircraft cross LoC,” China Daily, February 26, 2019, https://www. chinadaily.com.cn/a/201902/26/WS5c74eebba3106c65c34eb81d.html#:~:text=,minister%20told%20the%20state%20 TV. 22. “India can change course for the better with China,” Global Times, July 8, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/ content/1193819.shtml#:~:text=India%27s%20relations%20with%20many%20of,even%20adventurous%2C%20 recent%20foreign%20strategies. 23. “Human rights must be respected: India after Xinjiang vote,” The Times of India, October 8, 2022, https://timesofindia. indiatimes.com/india/human-rights-must-be-respected-india-after-skipping-xinjiang-vote/articleshow/94713915.cms. 24. “Thin Ice in the Himalayas: Handling the India-China Border Dispute,” International Crisis Group, November 14, 2023, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/india-china/334-thin-ice-himalayas-handling-india-china-borderdispute; Arkoprabho Hazra, “Why Is India Silent on China’s Human Rights Record at the UN?” The Diplomat, October 27, 2020,  https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/why-is-india-silent-on-chinas-human-rights-record-at-the-un/; see also  Raj Verma, “Domestic Political Drivers and Chinese Diplomacy: Xinjiang and Counter-Terrorism in South Asia,” Asian Perspective 44, no. 4 (2020), https://muse.jhu.edu/article/766324. 25. Jagannath Panda, “The Trans-Himalayan ‘Quad,’ Beijing’s Territorialism, and India,” China Brief 20 (20), November 12, 2020, https://jamestown.org/program/the-trans-himalayan-quad-beijings-territorialism-and-india/. 26. Feng Fan, “Pakistani PM vows to avenge ‘our innocent martyrs’; India FM warns any attacks will be met with ‘firm response’: media,” Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333630.shtml. 27. Hayley Wong, “China supplied 81% of Pakistan’s arms imports in the past 5 years, SIPRI says,” South China Morning Post, March 16, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3302515/china-supplied-81-pakistans-armsimports-past-5-years-sipri-says. 28. Seong Hyeon Choi, “Kashmir conflict: the Chinese warplanes and weapons used by Pakistan,” South China Morning Post, May 14, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3310172/kashmir-conflict-chinese-warplanesand-weapons-used-pakistan. 29. “Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along India Border: New Long-Range Artillery Threat Emerges,” Video, Defence Security Asia, April 30, 2025, https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/pakistan-deploys-chinese-sh-15-howitzersalong-india-border-new-long-range-artillery-threat-emerges/. 30. Liu Xuanzun, “PLA Navy to join multinational drill in Pakistan, eye maritime security boost,” Global Times, February 6, 2025, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202502/1327941.shtml. 31. Ajay Banerjee, “China holds military drills in areas adjoining Ladakh,” The Tribune, May 9, 2025, https://www. tribuneindia.com/news/india/china-holds-military-drills-in-areas-adjoining-ladakh/. 32. Tushar Shetty, “The Dragon-Elephant Dance: China and India’s Battle for South Asia,” The Diplomat, April 22, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/the-dragon-elephant-dance-china-and-indias-battle-for-south-asia/. 33. “India delivers strong message to Pakistan at SCO; Jaishankar condemns terrorism,” The Economic Times, October 17, 2024, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-delivers-strong-message-to-pakistan-at-sco-jaishankarcondemns-terrorism/articleshow/114274767.cms?from=mdr. 34. Linda Maduz, “Flexibility by design: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the future of Eurasian cooperation,” Center for Security Studies, May 2018, https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securitiesstudies/pdfs/Maduz-080618-ShanghaiCooperation.pdf; see also  Gunjan Singh, “Terrorism casts its shadow over SCO meet, China-Pakistan ties,” Deccan Herald, October 14, 2024, https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/terrorism-castsits-shadow-over-sco-meet-china-pakistan-ties-3231147. 35. Pravin Sawhney, “Bottomline - Kargil Legacy,” Force, https://forceindia.net/bottomline/kargil-legacy/. 36. “Kashmir issue proves India unqualified for UN Security Council seat,” Global Times, September 8, 2019, https://www. globaltimes.cn/content/1161229.shtml.

A new chapter in the EU-UK partnership Almost ten years ago, Prime Minister David Cameron called the Brexit referendum. In June 2016, a narrow majority (51.9%) of the British population voted to leave the EU. Cameron's resignation was followed by five prime ministers who had to deal with the consequences of this historic vote. On Monday, May 19, 2025, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, together with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Council President Antonio Costa, finally hosted the first official EU-UK summit after Brexit to announce a new strategic partnership between the UK and the EU. A "win-win" Starmer had already declared rapprochement with the EU to be a foreign policy priority when he took office. Now he has presented concrete results: After months of preparation, the EU and the UK signed a "Joint Declaration", a "Security and Defense Partnership" and a "Declaration of Intent on a Renewed Agenda for the UK and the EU". The scope of the agreement is indeed considerable. The depth of the agreements reached is currently the subject of debate in political and economic circles. For some, the cooperation goes too far, for others the results are too superficial. For Prime Minister Starmer, the result is clear: a "win-win" that puts the UK back on the world stage. In addition to defense policy cooperation, agreements were reached in the areas of veterinary standards, fishing rights, youth mobility and energy cooperation. The fact that a breakthrough was possible at all was not a matter of course: a number of points of contention that had strained relations between London and Brussels for years had to be resolved in advance. Despite ongoing differences - for example on fishing rights, the dynamic harmonization of standards and the free movement of young people - there was consensus on both sides on the need for close cooperation on defence policy. The core of the deal: defense cooperation At the heart of the new cooperation is the UK's participation in the EU's rearmament programs and initiatives. In the face of Russian aggression and growing transatlantic insecurity, the integration of the UK's military capabilities into European security and defense structures is a strategic necessity. The agreements enshrined in the new security and defense partnership include biannual foreign and security policy dialogues between the EU High Representative and UK Foreign and Defense Ministers. In addition, the High Representative will be able to invite the UK to high-level EU meetings, including the Council. An annual security and defense dialogue will accompany and further develop the implementation of the agreement. An important motivation on the part of London is undoubtedly its participation in the 159-billion-euro SAFE initiative, with which the EU aims to promote investment in the European Defense, Technology, and Industrial Base (EDTIB). Defense companies from third countries may cover a maximum of 35 percent of the contract value - unless their home country concludes a bilateral defense agreement with the EU as well as a separate technical agreement. The UK therefore needed the deal to take the first step towards overcoming these restrictions. Negotiations on the additional technical agreement are still ongoing, but according to Commission President von der Leyen, they should be concluded in just a few weeks. In return, London will accept a "pay-to-play" regulation. In addition to participation in SAFE, the signed security partnership also includes agreements on closer cooperation to improve military mobility, as well as the possibility of British troops participating in EU missions - particularly relevant should the USA withdraw from NATO initiatives. In view of the existential challenges facing the UK and the EU internationally, the defense agreement was indeed a clear "win-win". However, its conclusion was complicated by a number of unrelated issues in which conflicts of interest between EU member states and the UK at times even appeared to put the defense agreement at risk. Agricultural and food trade: obstacle and growth opportunity Prime Minister Starmer is under internal economic pressure. The consumer confidence index is at an all-time low, while inflation rose to 3.6% in April according to ONS forecasts - the highest level for two and a half years. The government expects a trade agreement with the EU in the area of agricultural and food products to lead to a noticeable reduction in food prices in British supermarkets and an increase in exports to the continent. However, PM Starmer ruled out a return to the single market or the customs union from the outset. He also wanted to avoid the impression that his "Brexit reset" could undermine the Brexit referendum vote. A sectoral deal in the area of veterinary standards, which relates to food safety, animal health and plant health regulations, was therefore a key objective for London. Specifically, the agreement aims to reduce bureaucratic hurdles for British agricultural and fisheries exports. Experts expect an increase in exports of up to 20 %. In return, the UK agreed to dynamic alignment with relevant EU regulations and promised contribution payments to co-finance work on the corresponding standardization. However, in order to make this veterinary deal possible, agreement had to be reached on the issue of fishing rights for European fishermen in British waters. Fishing rights: a risky compromise Some EU states, led by France, had made an extension of the current regulation, which grants European fishing boats access to British waters and would have expired next year, a condition for the unhindered access of British agricultural products to the European market. The EU wanted to prevent London from permanently benefiting from market facilitation without at the same time securing access for European fishermen. In the end, a compromise was reached: in return for an indefinite easing of British food exports, the UK would extend the existing fisheries regulation by twelve years. Although there is no temporal symmetry between the market facilitation for the British and the fishing rights of the Europeans, the current fishing regulation has been extended for significantly longer than the four years originally sought by London. Youth Mobility: postponed movement One particularly controversial point was the European desire for a comprehensive "Youth Mobility Scheme". Germany in particular pushed for a regulation that would make it easier for young people to live and work in the EU or the UK. A reduction in tuition fees for EU students at British universities was also under discussion. However, given the domestic political pressure from Reform UK, it would have been extremely risky for Prime Minister Keir Starmer to initiate even a partial return to European freedom of movement. In addition, the Prime Minister had only recently made an abrupt U-turn towards a more restrictive migration policy. It can be assumed that the negotiators did not include the term "youth mobility" in the final document, partly out of consideration for the Prime Minister's sensitive domestic political situation. Instead, the vaguely formulated will to work together towards a "balanced Youth Experience Scheme" with upper limits and a time limit was recorded. The domestic debate: the spirit of Brexit lives on While the powerful representatives of the British industry welcomed the agreements and arrangements between the UK and the EU in principle and refrained from making either euphoric or critical statements, the British fishing industry came out with particularly harsh criticism. Although the fishing industry's annual turnover is comparatively small - equivalent to that of the London department store Harrods - the issue of fishing rights in the UK has taken on totemic significance since the Brexit referendum and is intricately linked to the issue of national sovereignty. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation described the deal as "a horror show" and Scotland's First Minister, John Swinney, claimed that the UK government had abandoned the fishing industry with the deal. Nevertheless, even though these stakeholders are aware that the new agreement extends the current status quo, the UK government is providing additional funding to coastal towns and fishery products will now have easier access to the European market. For the opposition, the rapprochement with the EU is still a red rag. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservatives, the architects of Brexit, railed that Keir Starmer saw nothing historic about the deal. "We want to talk about the future - but this agreement takes us back to the past. That's why we call it a capitulation." The United Kingdom was in danger of becoming a mere "rule recipient". The criticism from Brexit fanatic Nigel Farage was even harsher. The Reform UK leader described the compromise as a "betrayal" and a "sell-out of British interests". Both the Tories and Reform UK announced their intention to reverse the deal, which is not binding under international law if they win the next general election. After all, Nigel Farage had made a name for himself as a Brexit campaigner and the Tories had implemented a "hard" Brexit. Under Starmer's Conservative predecessors, the UK had broken away from the EU and laid claim to forging new partnerships worldwide. The slogan "Global Britain" was coined as a deliberate contrast to the old integration into the EU but fell short of the announcements and expectations in terms of implementation. Between Brexit reset and Global Britain Instead, it is Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer who is approaching this ambition and vision with concrete results. Since taking office, the PM has quickly finalized trade agreements that his predecessors were denied - with India, with the Trump administration and now with the EU. What others promised, he implemented. The latest agreement with the EU is his greatest foreign policy success to date. Europe and the UK share common values and security interests, and the EU remains the UK's most important trading partner. Whether the "win-win" deal will contribute to economic recovery in the short term remains to be seen. However, the domestic political urgency of tangible successes is undisputed. The door for a further deepening of cooperation has only just been opened with the agreements sealed in Lancaster House: the far-reaching "renewed agenda" will have to be filled with life in the coming months and years through further negotiations. Differences remain on key issues such as the internal market and the role of the Strasbourg Court of Justice. Although the successes of this summit mark the beginning of a new chapter, its text will not be written in itself. With the Brexit reset, Starmer is taking a calculated risk - he is betting that the path to Global Britain will lead via a "Brexit reset" of relations with the EU. Whether this approach will lead him to re-election as the first prime minister since David Cameron will depend on whether the reset also takes effect domestically.