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

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 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.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском In 1995, World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin warned that whereas the conflicts of the previous 100 years had been over oil, “the wars of the next century will be fought over water.” Thirty years on, that prediction is being tested in one of the world’s most volatile regions: Kashmir. On April 24, 2025, the government of India announced that it would downgrade diplomatic ties with its neighbor Pakistan over an attack by militants in Kashmir that killed 26 tourists. As part of that cooling of relations, India said it would immediately suspend the Indus Waters Treaty – a decades-old agreement that allowed both countries to share water use from the rivers that flow from India into Pakistan. Pakistan has promised reciprocal moves and warned that any disruption to its water supply would be considered “an act of war.” The current flareup escalated quickly, but has a long history. At the Indus Basin Water Project at the Ohio State University, we are engaged in a multiyear project investigating the transboundary water dispute between Pakistan and India. I am currently in Pakistan conducting fieldwork in Kashmir and across the Indus Basin. Geopolitical tensions in the region, which have been worsened by the recent attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, do pose a major threat to the water treaty. So too does another factor that is helping escalate the tensions: climate change A fair solution to water disputes The Indus River has supported life for thousands of years since the Harappan civilization, which flourished around 2600 to 1900 B.C.E. in what is now Pakistan and northwest India. After the partition of India in 1947, control of the Indus River system became a major source of tension between the two nations that emerged from partition: India and Pakistan. Disputes arose almost immediately, particularly when India temporarily halted water flow to Pakistan in 1948, prompting fears over agricultural collapse. These early confrontations led to years of negotiations, culminating in the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960.   Brokered by the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty has long been hailed as one of the most successful transboundary water agreements. It divided the Indus Basin between the two countries, giving India control over the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – and Pakistan control over the western rivers: Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. At the time, this was seen as a fair solution. But the treaty was designed for a very different world. Back then, India and Pakistan were newly independent countries working to establish themselves amid a world divided by the Cold War. When it was signed, Pakistan’s population was 46 million, and India’s was 436 million. Today, those numbers have surged to over 240 million and 1.4 billion, respectively. Today, more than 300 million people rely on the Indus River Basin for their survival. This has put increased pressure on the precious source of water that sits between the two nuclear rivals. The effects of global warming, and the continued fighting over the disputed region of Kashmir, has only added to those tensions. Impact of melting glaciers Many of the problems of today are down to what wasn’t included in the treaty, rather than what was. At the time of signing, there was a lack of comprehensive studies on glacier mass balance. The assumption was that the Himalayan glaciers, which feed the Indus River system, were relatively stable. This lack of detailed measurements meant that future changes due to climate variability and glacial melt were not factored into the treaty’s design, nor were factors such as groundwater depletion, water pollution from pesticides, fertilizer use and industrial waste. Similarly, the potential for large-scale hydraulic development of the region through dams, reservoirs, canals and hydroelectricity were largely ignored in the treaty. Reflecting contemporary assumptions about the stability of glaciers, the negotiators assumed that hydrological patterns would remain persistent with the historic flows. Instead, the glaciers feeding the Indus Basin began to melt. In fact, they are now melting at record rates. The World Meteorological Organization reported that 2023 was globally the driest year in over three decades, with below-normal river flows disrupting agriculture and ecosystems. Global glaciers also saw their largest mass loss in 50 years, releasing over 600 gigatons of water into rivers and oceans. The Himalayan glaciers, which supply 60-70% of the Indus River’s summer flow, are shrinking rapidly. A 2019 study estimates they are losing 8 billion tons of ice annually. And a study by the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development found that Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayan glaciers melted 65% faster in 2011–2020 compared with the previous decade. The rate of glacier melt poses a significant challenge to the treaty’s long-term effectiveness to ensure essential water for all the people who rely on the Indus River Basin. While it may temporarily increase river flow, it threatens the long-term availability of water. Indeed, if this trend continues, water shortages will intensify, particularly for Pakistan, which depends heavily on the Indus during dry seasons. Another failing of the Indus Waters Treaty is that it only addresses surface water distribution and does not include provisions for managing groundwater extraction, which has become a significant issue in both India and Pakistan. In the Punjab region – often referred to as the breadbasket of both nations – heavy reliance on groundwater is leading to overexploitation and depletion. Groundwater now contributes a large portion – about 48% – of water withdrawals in the Indus Basin, particularly during dry seasons. Yet there is no transboundary framework to oversee the shared management of this resource as reported by the World Bank. A disputed region It wasn’t just climate change and groundwater that were ignored by the drafters of the Indus Waters Treaty. Indian and Pakistan negotiators also neglected the issue and status of Kashmir. Kashmir has been at the heart of India-Pakistan tensions since Partition in 1947. At the time of independence, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was given the option to accede to either India or Pakistan. Though the region had a Muslim majority, the Hindu ruler chose to accede to India, triggering the first India-Pakistan war. This led to a U.N.-mediated ceasefire in 1949 and the creation of the Line of Control, effectively dividing the territory between Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Since then, Kashmir has remained a disputed territory, claimed in full by both countries and serving as the flashpoint for two additional wars in 1965 and 1999, and numerous skirmishes. Despite being the primary source of water for the basin, Kashmiris have had no role in negotiations or decision-making under the treaty. The region’s agricultural and hydropower potential has been limited due to restrictions on the use of its water resources, with only 19.8% of hydropower potential utilized. This means that Kashmiris on both sides — despite living in a water-rich region — have been unable to fully benefit from the resources flowing through their land, as water infrastructure has primarily served downstream users and broader national interests rather than local development. Some scholars argue that the treaty intentionally facilitated hydraulic development in Jammu and Kashmir, but not necessarily in ways that served local interests. India’s hydropower projects in Kashmir — such as the Baglihar and Kishanganga dams — have been a major point of contention. Pakistan has repeatedly raised concerns that these projects could alter water flows, particularly during crucial agricultural seasons. However, the Indus Waters Treaty does not provide explicit mechanisms for resolving such regional disputes, leaving Kashmir’s hydrological and political concerns unaddressed. Tensions over hydropower projects in Kashmir were bringing India and Pakistan toward diplomatic deadlock long before the recent attack. The Kishanganga and Ratle dam disputes, now under arbitration in The Hague, exposed the treaty’s growing inability to manage transboundary water conflicts. Then in September 2024, India formally called for a review of the Indus Waters Treaty, citing demographic shifts, energy needs and security concerns over Kashmir. The treaty now exists in a state of limbo. While it technically remains in force, India’s formal notice for review has introduced uncertainty, halting key cooperative mechanisms and casting doubt on the treaty’s long-term durability. An equitable and sustainable treaty? Moving forward, I argue, any reform or renegotiation of the Indus Waters Treaty will, if it is to have lasting success, need to acknowledge the hydrological significance of Kashmir while engaging voices from across the region. Excluding Kashmir from future discussions – and neither India nor Pakistan has formally proposed including Kashmiri stakeholders – would only reinforce a long-standing pattern of marginalization, where decisions about its resources are made without considering the needs of its people. As debates on “climate-proofing” the treaty continue, ensuring Kashmiri perspectives are included will be critical for building a more equitable and sustainable transboundary water framework.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском In Brief Despite its increasingly repressive domestic rule, more countries than ever are engaging with Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers. India’s first official meeting with the Taliban in January 2025 encapsulates a broader global trend of once-reluctant countries now engaging with the Taliban. Credible terrorism concerns, worsening humanitarian conditions and geopolitical rivalries are pushing governments toward quasi-acceptance and recognition of Taliban rule. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021, the prevailing sentiment was that the regime would be an international pariah if it did not moderate its hardline positions. The Taliban’s violent past also made it inconceivable for some states to engage with it as the government of Afghanistan. Despite the Taliban’s repressive rule worsening considerably since it seized control in 2021, with restrictions on women taken to a new extreme and the reintroduction of brutal punishments for alleged moral crimes, the regime is overcoming its international isolation. More governments are prepared to look past the ethical dilemma of dealing with the Taliban and quasi-recognise it as the government of Afghanistan. India stepped up its outreach to the Taliban in January 2025, with India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi holding their first meeting. This is the highest level meeting between the two sides since India began small and indirect engagements with the Taliban after its return to power in 2021. For the Taliban, its meeting with India’s foreign secretary is a major diplomatic breakthrough given its tense and fractious relations with India since the 1990s. After this January 2025 meeting, the Taliban referred to India as a ‘significant regional and economic partner’. The sea change in relations likely stems from New Delhi not sensing any significant terrorist threats from the Taliban or groups allegedly linked to the Taliban. Worsening Taliban–Pakistan relations may have played a role in India’s outreach to the Taliban. Pakistan firmly backed the Taliban when it was mounting a comeback in Afghanistan. But since the Taliban’s return, border disputes and the rise of Pakistani Taliban militancy inside Pakistan have sent their relations into a downward spiral. The souring Pakistan–Afghanistan relations suggest New Delhi’s interests may not be as affected as feared when the Taliban took over in 2021. Despite India’s growing outreach, its relations with the Taliban are still very calibrated and limited — paling in comparison to China’s. Yet India’s outreach may be more diplomatically significant for the Taliban than China’s as it sets a precedent for Western democracies that also seek to strike a balance between not recognising the Taliban as the legitimate government, while engaging with it on necessary matters. Western governments, particularly the United States, were unfazed by some of India’s initial engagements, but now seem to recognise the necessity of limited engagements with the Taliban. It was revealed in January 2025 that the former Joe Biden administration negotiated with the Taliban to secure the release of two US prisoners in Afghanistan. In 2024, the Biden administration debated expanding direct engagements and cooperation with the Taliban to mount more effective counterterrorist activities. The return of US President Donald Trump is likely to change US–Taliban relations. Under Trump’s first administration, the United States pursued talks with the Taliban, culminating in the 2020 Doha Agreement that facilitated the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trump’s return increases the possibility of greater US engagements with the Taliban, though it has also created uncertainties. President Trump was critical of how the US departure from Afghanistan was handled under the Biden administration. In January 2025, Trump said that the Taliban needed to return US military equipment in Afghanistan as a precondition for future financial assistance. The Taliban have also said that they seek a ‘new chapter’ in their relations with the United States under the second Trump administration. The biggest roadblock for the West engaging with the Taliban has been its repressive policies and human rights violations. But there are now compelling reasons for the West to engage with the Taliban. Western sanctions, in addition to having no effect on the Taliban’s draconian governance, have worsened humanitarian conditions in Afghanistan. Despite the sanctions’ ineffectiveness, it is unclear whether the West would go as far as to lift the sanctions. Instead, Western countries might find ways to work with the regime on specific issues. Foremost among these issues is addressing the growing presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan — such as Al-Qaeda, a Taliban ally, and the reviving Islamic State–Khorasan Province. The growing Chinese influence in Afghanistan also has Western countries concerned that turning their backs on Afghanistan may work to China’s advantage. China perceives Afghanistan as a gateway for China’s Belt and Road Initiative projects in Central Asia and seeks to exploit the country’s vast and untapped natural reserves. Though more governments are now prepared to engage with the Taliban, the Taliban’s most strategic relationship will likely remain with China. China–Taliban relations are comprehensive and long-term, spanning economic, political and security cooperation. China does not recognise the Taliban but was the first to accept a Taliban envoy. China and the Taliban have inked several notable agreements, including China granting the Taliban tariff-free trade access in October 2024, which could provide an economic boost to the cash-strapped regime. But China’s relations with the Taliban are also not without problems. Some Afghanistan-based terrorist groups have China on their radar and pose security concerns in the sensitive Chinese border provinces. The Taliban’s affiliates have previously attacked Chinese interests in neighbouring Pakistan. Despite these concerns, Beijing appears committed to strengthening its relationship with the Taliban, focusing on mutual security, technological exchanges and investments. Another diplomatic breakthrough for the Taliban is its improving relations with Russia. Russia invited the Taliban to the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, among other meetings held in Russia in 2024. Russia also decided to remove the Taliban from its list of terrorist organisations. These overtures suggest Russia is seeking closer relations with the Taliban. The Taliban played a long waiting game, biding its time since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. It ultimately prevailed by returning to power as soon as the United States withdrew 20 years later. Growing diplomatic engagements prove that the Taliban is again capable of playing a long game to wear down governments into a quasi-acceptance and recognition of its draconian rule. https://doi.org/10.59425/eabc.1741341600

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract The BRICS group emerged at the beginning of the current century as one of the important economies in the international system based on the hegemony of Western powers led by the United States of America. With the emergence of this group, political and economic writings have diversified, trying to explain the extent of this group's ability to compete globally facing the Western powers to rise to the top of the hegemony pyramid on the one hand, and the role of this group and its political and strategic influence in confronting economic, political and security challenges on the other hand. With the holding of the sixteenth presidential summit of the group in the Russian city of Kazan during the period 22 - 24 October 2024 under the slogan "Strengthening multilateralism for development, security and fair worlds" and with the participation of the group’s members and a number of other countries and representatives of international and UN organizations, many theories of international relations have tried to provide explanations for the emergence and rise of this group, including the Power Transition Theory. From this perspective, this study comes to investigate the BRICS group by relying on the interpretation of the Power Transition Theory as one of the most important theories of international relations that can contribute to developing interpretations of this group. KeywordsBRICS, International Relations Theories, Power Transition Theory, Kazan Summit Introduction Since the establishment of the BRIC group (Brazil, Russia, India and China) in September 2006, and its first summit meeting in 2009, and with the accession of South Africa in 2011 to become an entity that includes the fastest growing economies in the world, and its name became the "BRICS Group", the group has appeared on the horizon as a diplomatic and financial alliance that is increasingly important for development in many countries, and it has also appeared as an attempt to escape Western control at the economic level. Despite the differences between the BRICS countries in terms of geographical affiliation, economic disparity and their levels of production, and ethnic, religious and linguistic disparity, they have succeeded in finding a formula for agreement among themselves and finding global geostrategic influence. In this context, it is easy to notice the serious and ambitious endeavor of the countries of this group to formulate a new international system within the framework of the important radical changes that the world is witnessing. The countries currently under the group's banner: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, present themselves as an alternative to the existing international financial and political entities. The countries of the group are trying to present themselves as representatives of the countries of the South and as "the alternative model to G7". From this perspective, the BRICS group has received great attention from a wide sector of researchers and scholars in various science fields despite the recent history of this group. Accordingly, this study attempts, by relying on the statements and assumptions of the Power Transition Theory, to determine the nature of this group. Can BRICS achieve success in shaping a new global order? The problem of the study This study believes that understanding of the BRICS group does not only require applied analysis, but also requires theoretical understanding, as theoretical thinking helps to avoid the limitations of purely empirical interpretation of the nature, mechanisms & perspectives of the BRICS countries' development. Accordingly, this study focuses on interpreting the theory of power transition for the rise of the BRICS group, and its position in the international system facing the Western powers led by the United States. How does this theory view this group through its propositions and assumptions, by answering the following questions: Are the BRICS countries just another institution for international cooperation that fits the structure of the existing international system, or is it a radically different way of international relations that could seriously change current global politics? What are the motives of the BRICS countries? Can the BRICS group become an alternative to the hegemony of Western powers that has been formalized in the current system of international institutions and systems? Will this institution provide fundamentally new conditions that may lead to the development of international cooperation in contrast to the power policies pursued by the United States and its allies? Can the BRICS countries be considered as a new mechanism for global governance, or are they nothing more than a temporary/short-lived international governmental arrangement? Accordingly, through the previous questions, this study examines a main question that revolves around how to interpret the Power Transition Theory for the BRICS group. First, Power Transition Theory Despite the many writings that have addressed the future of global hegemony in light of the remarkable rise of the role of the BRICS group, these writings have not paid much attention to placing the issue of the impact of the power transition process on the future of that hegemony within its theoretical framework, which is a framework that may shed useful light on the nature of the challenges imposed on the Great Power as it exercises its hegemony. Here, the study discusses this theory and its ability to explain the rise of the BRICS countries and its potential to bring about changes in the current international system. This is done by addressing the concept of power transition, its indicators, and its application to the BRICS group. (1) The concept of power transition Organski proposed the Power Transition Theory in an attempt to analyze global politics by presenting a hierarchical system of powers or states in light of the proportions of power resources and the possibility of war. Thus, he describes a hierarchical system through which all states are known according to the relative power distribution. The distribution of power varies between units, so at the top comes the group of Dominant Nations in which power is concentrated, and thus they are at the top of the pyramid, and thus they control the largest proportion of resources in it, but they are not considered the dominant power, because they cannot control the behavior of other powerful actors on their own, but they maintain their position as a dominant power by ensuring the preponderance of power in their favor in the face of the potential competing power, as well as their ability to manage global politics according to the rules that help ensure the profit of their allies [1].   This, and in the next tranche of the pyramid of power, come those countries called "Great Powers", which are the major countries that are not as powerful as to dominate global politics, but they have the capabilities that make them a potential competitor to the dominant power. This group of great powers is generally satisfied to remain in its position as long as there is an alliance with it and with the dominant or hegemonic power. However, in many cases, a number of these great power countries are not satisfied to remain in the same tranche following the hegemonic power, and therefore seek and try to make a change in its current international status (Kai, J. (2017)). Accordingly, the concept of a great and not satisfied power - according to Organiski's description - is the group of countries that have grown to their maximum power after the current international system has been completely entrenched, and they have not - therefore - had a share or a portion in establishing this current international system, the benefits of which have already been distributed. In addition, the dominant power and its supporters are generally unwilling to grant newcomer countries more than a small fraction of the advantages they derive from the status quo, and thus these newcomers seek to establish a new position for themselves on the international stage, these countries are noted to be growing rapidly in power and are expected to continue to grow, which gives them reason to believe that they can compete with - and sometimes surpass - the dominant nation in terms of power. Also, one of the characteristics of this category of great powers is that they do not accept the marginalization of the international stage, especially if their pursuit of hegemony and dominance will contribute to granting them greater benefits and privileges [2]. In this, and at the third and lowest stage of the pyramid of international power comes this group of countries called "middle powers", which are considered relatively strong countries in specific geographical regions, but they do not have the ability to challenge the dominant nation or the structure of the international system as a whole. At the base of the pyramid of power comes this group of states called "small powers" and colonies. Accordingly, the concept of "Power Transition" refers to "the loss of a hegemonic country’s leadership position in the international system to another newcomer whose power is rapidly growing." Thus, this newcomer seeks to reach a position of hegemony. In order for a power transition to occur, the rising country must possess power components that are greater than those of the dominant country, or at least equal to them, and thus the rising country must work to narrow the gap between its national capabilities and the capabilities of the hegemonic country. (2) Applying the Power Transition Theory to the BRICS groupThe power transition theory (PTT) is considered the most popular theoretical approach to studying the BRICS group among Western scholars. PTT is based on a number of assumptions, including: that changes in the balance of power in world politics occur systematically, and that disputes and wars are usually the result of the increasing influence of countries competing with the hegemonic powers. In this regard, all countries are divided into two groups: those that support the status quo, and "revisionists", which are the group of emerging countries that are dissatisfied with the status quo. Powerful and influential countries, such as the United States, enjoy the advantages of the existing world order and fall into the status quo category, while countries that are dissatisfied with their status and role in the international relations system are considered revisionists. According to PTT, the latter favor radical changes in the current international order. In this sense, Russia and China are the main candidates for revisionist powers, while PTT supporters view Brazil, India and South Africa as countries with “moderate” revisionist ambitions (mostly regional in nature, although Brazil and India have some global aspirations such as their intention to become permanent members of the UN Security Council). In the following, the study examines the application of traditional and non-traditional indicators of the power transition theory to the BRICS group. A- Indicators of military power transition for Russia and ChinaAs for Russia, it has succeeded in modernizing its military force and doubling its military spending through huge oil revenues, which has placed the Russian army in the second place globally among the 138 most powerful armies in the world after the United States army [3]. Moreover, Russia’s military spending is expected to increase in light of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war, and in March 2021, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute issued a report on arms exports for 2020, in which it confirmed the growth of the American, French and German arms exports against a decline in Russian-Chinese arms exports, but the report expects the arms boom for 2020, especially in the wake of the billions of dollars in military aid provided by Europe to Kiev. The Russian Ukrainian war highlighted the inevitability of increasing military spending, which is directly proportional to the growth of the arms market. As for China, its defense budget has been revealed, especially in light of the escalation of external threats to suppress and contain it, as it will increase by 7.2% during 2023 in order to support and develop its military capabilities, bringing total military spending to $225 billion, according to the draft budget report issued by the annual meeting of the National People's Congress of China, making this increase the fastest in China's history since 2019 in light of the escalation of tensions with the United States of America. B - Indicators of the transition of the economic power of Russia and ChinaThe economic development that Russia witnessed during the Putin era represented a pivotal point for political decision independence, which was clearly evident in the Russian national security strategy, and in Russia's approach in dealing with the challenges it faced on the international stage. Russia's domestic production in 2020 amounted to about $1.67 trillion, ranking second among the world's strongest economies (4), and it also ranks third in oil production with an estimated 12.1% of global production, in addition to being the second largest producer of natural gas with 17%. Despite the economic sanctions imposed by the West on Russia following its war with Ukraine, the Russian economy remains able to bounce back and remains one of the major powers on the international stage. As for the Chinese economy, it recorded higher-than-expected growth in the first quarter of 2023, reaching 4.5% year-on-year, supported by policymakers’ moves to boost growth after lifting strict anti-Covid-19 restrictions in January 2023. Retail sales in the first two months of the year jumped 3.5% compared to 2022, a turnaround from the 1.8% year-on-year decline recorded in January 2023. This consumption will lead the economic recovery at a time when weak global demand is weighing on China’s exports. Infrastructure investment also increased by 9% year-on-year in early 2023, driven by government spending aimed at supporting the economy (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2023). According to PTT, today’s Russia is a typical revisionist country that creates many problems for the United States and its allies. Especially the threats it poses to countries friendly to the United States, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Sweden. The problem is also exacerbated because of Russia’s cooperation with “rogue countries,” such as Syria, Iran and North Korea. While revisionist powers – Russia and China – are seen as a source of destabilization of the international system and their activities are automatically associated with negative consequences, the behavior of hegemonic or dominant countries (status quo) is considered positive because they perform protective functions within the above system. C- Indicators of power transition for Brazil, India, and South AfricaAs for explaining the “moderate” revisionist policies of Brazil, India, and South Africa as middle powers, it is primarily through their ambitions to play the role of “regional hegemony” in South America, South Asia, and Africa, respectively. However, unlike Brazil and South Africa, which do not have “hot” conflicts with their neighbors and mainly use their soft power arsenal to achieve hegemonic positions in their areas of influence, India faces more serious security challenges, including territorial disputes with China and Pakistan – and sometimes – military confrontation with the latter. It should be noted that the policies of individual BRICS countries are assessed differently. A number of PTT advocates see BRICS as a tool that allows some of its members to secure their status as great powers and balance the West at the regional and global levels. However, another group of PTT adherents see the international position of the BRICS countries differently: while Brazil and China are seen as rising powers, Russia and South Africa are seen as declining powers due to their economic problems. However, in response to the challenges posed by China and Russia, a group of push-and-talk advocates have proposed various types of containment policies, yet not all PTT theorists see the BRICS countries as revisionist powers. Some even see Putin’s policy in Ukraine as a status quo strategy aimed at securing Russia’s influence in the post-Soviet space and counterbalancing NATO’s eastward expansion [5]. These analysts believe that the same (status quo) motivations drive Beijing and Moscow’s behavior at the global level. For example, Beijing and Moscow are quite skeptical about reforming the United Nations, preferring to preserve its structure and powers. As for the rest of the BRICS countries (Brazil, India, South Africa), on the contrary, they express their interest in reforming the UN in the hope that their status in the Security Council in particular and in the UN system in general will be raised. The advocates group of BRICS countries’ behaviour of PTT theorists who interpret the status quo believe that many of the problems with the BRICS countries stem from the fact that they have not been equally integrated into the international security system that emerged in the post-Cold War era. That is, Western countries led by the United States and Europe have crossed some of the “red lines” set by Russia in the post-Soviet space. For example, the armed conflict in Georgia in August 2008 was a clear manifestation of this Western policy 1. The Russian-Ukrainian war, which began in 2014 with a crisis and is still ongoing, is another example. When the Kiev authorities that came to power after the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime publicly declared their intention to join the European Union and NATO, Moscow reintegrated Crimea into Russia and supported pro-Russian rebels in Donbass (southeastern part of Ukraine). From the point of view of this group, Russia's policy is determined not only by its geopolitical interests but also by its geographic & economic interests, in particular, there is a constant competition between two integration projects - Russian and EU - in the post-Soviet space: the Eurasian Economic Union led by Moscow and the Eastern Partnership program led by the EU [6]. Supporters of this point of view believe that it is better to cooperate than to confront Russia. The same approach has been proposed in relation to other BRICS countries including, for example, the Chinese "Belt and Road" initiative or the "New Silk Road" initiative.  D- Soft power in BRICS countries’ policies as an unconventional indicator in the concept of power transitionWithin the framework of the principles and assumptions of the liberal perspective that help understand international relations, dating back to John Stuart Mill, Giuseppe Mazzini, Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes, as well as to the perceptions of Immanuel Kant in the 18th century, neoliberal IR theorists believe that the BRICS group can be better explained through the concept of soft power, and they emphasize that in contrast to the Cold War era, when many countries preferred to rely on hard (military) power, soft power tools have become more effective nowadays. Neoliberals note that the soft power strategy is attractive to the BRICS countries for a number of reasons: First, it can help them overcome their negative image in the international stage, an image that resulted from their systematic involvement in a series of international conflicts (Russia versus Georgia and Ukraine; China versus its neighbors in the South China Sea; India versus Pakistan, South Africa versus Angola and Namibia). Second, the soft power arsenal can also be useful in diversifying the BRICS countries’ methods of geopolitical and geoeconomic expansion and making these methods more effective. It is worth noting some specific details in the BRICS countries’ interpretation of the concept of soft power. First, the BRICS countries interpret soft power differently from its initial meaning given by Joseph Nye, who defined soft power as the power of attraction. In fact, however, the soft power policies of the BRICS countries (especially Russia and China) are often dominated by pragmatic interests rather than being attractive to other countries. For this reason, these soft power strategies do not always consider the preferences of international partners. In Nye’s view, this is often unacceptable to the BRICS partners and may provoke a hostile reaction to their soft power initiatives [7]. Moreover, several studies have found that the BRICS countries’ reading of the concept of soft power is much broader than Nye’s. While Nye believes that a country’s soft power depends primarily on three resources: its culture, its political values, and its foreign policies that should be attractive to foreign partners, BRICS theorists believe in the need to include the problem of soft power in everything that cannot be attributed to the security (military) agenda. That is, for BRICS countries, the concept of soft power is synonymous with the concept of soft (non-military) security, which includes not only diplomatic, social, and cultural components - according to Nye - but also other elements, such as economic and/or financial power. In contrast, this belief is unacceptable to Nye, who believed that economic and financial tools can be tools of coercion and push rather than attraction. Moreover, for BRICS theorists, soft power is a comprehensive concept that covers other closely related concepts: public diplomacy, peoples’ diplomacy, the humanitarian dimension of politics, and NGO diplomacy. Among the soft power tools, economic and financial tools, cultural cooperation, ethnic diaspora, educational and religious institutions are the preferred methods of the BRICS countries. In this context, the BRICS countries have created special bodies to implement soft power: the Chinese Confucius Institutes, the Russian Rossotrudnichestvo (agency for cooperation with citizens abroad), the “Russian World”, the Gorchakov and Andrei Pervozvani foundations, among others. It is worth noting here that in the BRICS countries, the governments of the countries play a major role in controlling and directing soft power policy, which makes it less flexible and effective.  In general, it can be said that the BRICS countries use soft power in their own way, trying to avoid imitating the Western experience and going beyond Nye’s interpretation - which can be described as narrow - of the concept of soft power. Policymakers and experts/academia in these countries have not yet developed a clear terminology regarding soft power and this negatively affects both the theoretical understanding of this political tool and its effectiveness. At the same time, the BRICS countries have enormous soft power potential that can enhance their international positions if used properly. This is what the BRICS countries have demonstrated in the successful use of their soft power arsenal through: China’s economic, financial and cultural expansion in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Beijing’s “Belt and Road” initiative; the rather successful Russian integration projects in the post-Soviet space (the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization). From the perspective of what was mentioned before, it can be argued that, although there are several advantages put forward by the power transition theory, it has many shortcomings. This theory was most applicable in the Cold War period, when two superpowers were interested in preserving the status quo due to the risk of mutual destruction in the event of a nuclear war. The current system of international relations, including its structure, is still in its formative stage, and in this context, the PTT can explain little about the behavior of the BRICS countries. Moreover, the PTT does not take into account the existence of a third type of countries - reformers who do not fully agree with the current system of international relations but prefer not to radically change the “rules of the game”. Instead, they try to adapt these rules to the dynamic changes in the world system in order to make them more fair and comfortable for all members of the international community. Often, these countries do not act as revisionists but it prefers the status quo by demanding that the "rules of the game" and international legal standards be observed. For example, the BRICS countries strongly oppose any attempts to revise the UN Charter regarding the use of military force and the principles of inviolability of state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states (in contrast to the Western doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”). It is clear from the above that if PTT supporters want this theory to better fit current realities and retain its explanatory power, they need to revise the classification of states they use and supplement it with a new (“reformist”) type of authority. Second: The Kazan Summit and its dynamics and interactionsDuring the period 22-24 October 2024, the Russian city of Kazan hosted the sixteen Presidential Summit under the slogan "Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global Development and Security", with the participation of members of the bloc and several other countries and representatives of international and UN organizations. This summit witnessed several dynamics and events, which can be summarized in the following elements: 1. Continuing requests to join the group: The group represented about 36.7% of the global economy in 2024, which is more than the share of the G7 countries, which amounted to 30% in 2023. In this context, many countries expressed their desire to join, most notably Turkey, which submitted an official request to join in September 2024, while countries such as Azerbaijan and Belarus also applied to join the group.  2. Wide participation by heads of state: 38 countries participated in the BRICS summit held in the Russian city of Kazan, and most of the participation was at the level of leaders and heads of state; The participations came mainly from the heads of the bloc’s member states, namely His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, and Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira, in addition to the participation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, and the participation of some the head of the heads of states that showed interest in the bloc, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and, Vietnamese Minister Pham Minh Chinh. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated with a high-level delegation headed by Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, as an invited country to join the group, and not as a full member as is the case for countries that have recently joined at the beginning of 2024. 3. Focus on international issues: The main focus of that summit's agenda was focused on the governance of the global system and its institutions, especially financial institutions that have begun to harm developing countries and tend to achieve the interests of Western powers alone; and the severe damage caused by Western sanctions to the economy and their conflict with the values of globalization, in addition to addressing raging international and regional issues such as the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. Views were also exchanged on cooperation between the BRICS countries on the international stage, including with regard to resolving ongoing regional conflicts. The agenda included discussing the conclusions of the previous summit in Johannesburg, especially deepening financial cooperation within the group, and discussing expanding the scope of the group and including new members in light of more than 30 countries expressing the desire to join. 4. Holding several meetings on the sidelines of the summit: Several meetings were held on the sidelines of the summit between the participants, perhaps the most prominent of which was a direct meeting between the Chinese president and his Indian counterpart for the first time. This came shortly after the two countries reached an agreement on conducting patrols on the disputed border in the Himalayas, after four years of military confrontation that led to an escalation of tensions between the two countries. As the host president, Putin also held bilateral meetings with all participating member states, as well as heads of invited states such as: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Lao President Thongloun Sisoulith, Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Cheikh El Ghazouani, and Bolivian President Luis Arce. 5. Moscow presented cooperative proposals: These included the creation of an online information exchange mechanism to resolve disputes related to e-commerce; with the aim of creating a proactive framework before litigation; an initiative to establish a BRICS Investment Arbitration Center; and the development of an agreement to settle investment disputes, it also proposed the establishment of a BRICS grain exchange, which would help discover fair and predictable prices for products and raw materials; to ensure food security and protect national markets from harmful external interference, speculation, and attempts to create artificial food shortages. That summit concluded with several outcomes and results, and the Kazan Declaration was formulated as the final statement of the summit. The most prominent of these outcomes were: 1. Financial and monetary cooperation: by moving forward towards establishing an independent infrastructure to regulate the settlement of cross-border payments and financial transactions (BRICS Clear), with the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM) focusing on facilitating and expanding innovative financial practices and methods for projects and programs, including finding acceptable mechanisms for financing in local currencies. With the study of establishing a unified transportation platform to ensure multi-modal logistics services between the countries of the association, and welcoming the establishment of a new investment platform that uses the infrastructure of the New Development Bank. 2. Reforming the governance of the global system: by endorsing the call launched by the G20 during Brazil’s presidency of the group regarding reforming global governance, while endorsing dialogues and partnerships that enhance cooperation with the African continent, such as the China-Africa Cooperation Forum Summit, the India-Africa Forum Summit, and the Russia-Africa Summit, while working to build on the outcomes of the second Johannesburg Declaration of 2023, and supporting the call for comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council; with the aim of making it more democratic, representative, effective and efficient, and increasing the representation of developing countries in the membership of the Council so that it can respond appropriately to prevailing global challenges, and support the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America.  3. Stance regarding Palestinian events: The bloc stressed the urgent importance of launching a comprehensive political process to address the entire Middle East problem, stop the violence, provide vital assistance to those affected, and work to establish a two-state solution and correct the historical injustice that the Palestinian people suffered from, and which is the only guarantee for establishing peace in the Middle East, while supporting Palestine's accession to the bloc as a member state.  4. Strengthening nuclear security: The bloc countries call for strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and for the Middle East region to be free of nuclear weapons, while stressing the need for all parties to renew the Iranian nuclear agreement. Support for the initiative to establish a center for research and vaccines development was also announced, as well as continuing to develop the integrated early warning system for the BRICS group to prevent the risks of diseases and epidemics. 5. Regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war: The bloc members stressed the importance of resorting to a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis and resorting to dialogue. The summit, its dynamics and its outcomes carry many implications and may have some repercussions, which can be explained as follows: 1. Russian flexibility and vitality: The success of Russian diplomacy and the Kremlin in hosting this summit at this time and mobilizing broad international participation, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations, represents a challenge to Western efforts to represent Putin as an isolated leader under Western sanctions and threatened with arrest, under the ruling of the International Criminal Court; as Russia has proven the flexibility and vitality of its regional and international partnerships as a system that enjoys international acceptance and trust. 2. The balance of Turkish foreign policy: Perhaps Turkish participation has provoked many reactions; given that it has the largest army in the ranks of NATO, which is hostile to Russia, this comes as an extension of its balanced approach in its foreign policy in order to diversify alliances while maintaining relations with the West, and it also reflects Turkish discontent with European policy regarding Ankara's membership in the European Union, and Turkey's joining the BRICS group would achieve strategic gains for the group; this will give it a balanced character instead of viewing the group as anti-Western, and this will achieve gains for Turkey, which will benefit from the flexibility of its relationship with both the East and the West. 3. Establishing a unified currency: The symbolism that Putin used during the summit regarding a unified currency for the bloc was not accepted by some of the bloc’s members themselves, who fear identifying with the Russian-Chinese orientation at the expense of their interests and their relationship with the West, most notably India and Brazil. There is a degree of exaggeration in imagining the possibility of eliminating the dollar’s position in the global system and moving towards removing it from the global economy. 4. Resolving the balance of power: We cannot ignore what is reflected in the interest of the countries of the South in participating in the activities of the BRICS summit, as well as the emerging international powers, and what it represents in terms of a trend among those countries to express their desire to change the balance of power in the global system based on Western hegemony, and to express dissatisfaction with the prevailing system, which reflects the interest in the efforts of China and Russia to direct the international community against the Western system due to its double standards, especially after the fragility of the international community organizations entrusted with implementing the rules of international law regarding the war in the Middle East became clear, in addition to their exposure of the flaws in the rules of international trade, and the frameworks of economic sanctions that harm the economies of the countries of the South in favor of the West.  In estimation, the importance of the development represented by the BRICS group and what it reflects in terms of a rapid transformation in the global system cannot be overlooked, within the framework of what it includes in terms of economy, markets, natural and industrial resources, and a huge human mass, but exaggerating the impact of the group's movements deviates from reality, especially considering that the group carries within it many contradictions that prevent the group from moving effectively, and in light of the divergence of the interests and goals of its members themselves, which can be inferred from the nature of the outcomes of the presidential summit, which are limited to announcements and visions regarding general cooperative projects without the existence of timetables and realistic implementation plans for many of them; the effectiveness of the group remains questionable. Third: Economic cooperation between the BRICS countriesData indicate that the ratio of the BRICS countries' GDP to the global GDP is witnessing a continuous increase during the period (2000-2023) to the point that it surpassed the G7 countries for the first time in 2020, as the BRICS share reached 31.02% for the G7 countries.   It is notable that the GDP rate of BRICS countries has witnessed declines during the mentioned period (2000-2024), and this decline can be explained by a number of reasons, including: the global financial crisis of 2009, the economic conditions experienced by a number of BRICS countries such as: Brazil 2015, represented by a high budget deficit and high inflation rates, Russia 2014, the decline in South Africa's GDP due to the collapse of raw material prices, and the decline in the GDP growth rate of the group's countries due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the global economy. As for the trade exchange volume, it witnessed a growth of 95.2% during the period from 2010-2022, recording about $10.52 trillion in 2022 compared to $5.39 trillion in 2010 [9]. On the side of foreign direct investment flows, according to UNCTAD data, we find that foreign direct investment flows to the BRICS group more than quadrupled during the period from 2001 to 2021, recording about $355 billion in 2021 compared to about $84 billion in 2001. In addition, the share of these flows in total global flows reached about 22% in 2021, compared to about 11% in 2001 [10]. UNCTAD data also indicate an increase in foreign direct investment among the group’s countries to reach about $167 billion in 2020, compared to about $27 billion in 2010, and China played a pivotal role in this increase by being the largest investor and recipient of investments within the BRICS group. On the other hand, Brazil and India witnessed strong growth among the group’s countries, while Russian growth declined and South Africa's foreign direct investment balance declined [11]. ConclusionThere are many theories of international relations that have tried to explain the emergence and development of the BRICS group, one of these theories is the power transition theory. The power transition theory has several analytical advantages that explain the rise of the BRICS group, but one of its biggest shortcomings is its greater applicability to the conditions of the Cold War era, where the status quo was maintained and there was fear of a nuclear war. However, the current international system is completely different, as it is in a new birth phase that hinders the power transition theory in explaining the behavior of the BRICS countries. This necessitates the interest of researchers and academics in several theories of international relations that explain the BRICS group, such as the peaceful coexistence theory, the state theory, and the global regionalism theory. In addition, supporters of the power transition theory should review the classification of countries they use to classify countries, and they should establish another type, which is reformist countries, as stated in the study. The concept of soft power as defined by Joseph Nye is completely different from that used by the BRICS group, as the group adheres to a pragmatic and practical approach to using soft power directed at promoting and protecting national interests rather than considering the preferences of international partners. The BRICS member states apply different methods in their pursuit of status - from mobility and competition strategies - to different types of policies. The BRICS group is one of the most important global economic groups that is characterized by a large number of advantages that qualify it to play a vital role in bringing about changes in the global economy due to the diversity of its member economies: Among these advantages are: - The growing economic weight of the group as a result of its association with the economies of emerging countries, which contributes to improving its ranking within the economies of the G20 countries. - The vital role played by the group in global food security through the occupation of Russia, Brazil, and India as the largest producers and exporters of wheat, soybeans, and rice - respectively - - It has adopted several important initiatives to promote and encourage investment within the group, especially with the increasing concern about the conditions of the global economy and the challenges associated with tensions on the international stage. - The BRICS countries are interested in establishing alternative development financial mechanisms to those of the West, such as: the New Development Bank (NDB), and the establishment of a Contingency Reserve Fund (CRA). - Establishing the BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy 2025, which defines the path for the group’s development and sets the framework for cooperation between its members in accordance with current economic trends and conditions. References 1. تعتبر الحرب الروسية الجورجية التي اندلعت في أغسطس 2008 أحد الأدلة على بدء سعي روسيا للسيطرة واستعادة نفوذها السابق سواء إقليميا أو عالمياً، حيث أن تلك الحرب مثلت لموسكو فرصة كبيرة لتحقيق نصالحها عبر استعادة نفوذها في جورجيا من جهة، وإيصال رسالة للغرب وللدول السوفيتية السابقة التي تحاول الخروج من دائرة النفوذ السوفيتي بأنها قادرة على حماية مصالحها ونفوذها ولا يمكن الاستهانة بقوتها وقدرتها العسكرية والتعامل معها كدولة كبرى لها دور فاعل ومؤثر.لمزيد من التفاصيل حول الحرب الروسية- الجورجية 2008، أنظر: عودة،جهاد (2017)، الحرب الروسية- الجورجية: استعادة النفوذ الروسي في جورجيا، المجلة العلمية للبحوث والدراسات التجارية، المجلد ،31 العدد .1  [1] Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. [2] A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler. The War Ledger. Pp. xii, 292. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1980 [3] Stockholm international Peace2020 ، [4] Statistical Review of World Energy, 2020 [5] Samuel Charap & Keith Darden, Russia and Ukraine, Global Politics and Strategy, Volume 56, 2014, Issue 2. [6] Patricia Hill Collins, Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas, Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 41, 2015. [7] Joseph S.Nye, JR, The Limits of Chinese Soft Power, The World’s Opinion Page, Jul 10, 2015. [8] http://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-world-gdp-g7-brics/#:~:text=By%202023%2C%20the%20difference%20had,held%20by%20the%20G7%20countries[9] World Development Indicators Database. [10] UNCTAD. 2023. BRICS Investment Report [11] UNCTAD. 2023. BRICS Investment Report

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The outcome of the G20 leaders' summit held in Rio de Janeiro undoubtedly marks a series of victories for Brazilian foreign policy and also for the international community if we understand what is considered a success in terms of global governance. Firstly, the G20 summit declaration is a major achievement for Brazilian diplomacy, as it brings together twenty countries around agendas that not all of them support (such as human rights). Reaching this consensus required a year of intense negotiations to reach the final result. Brazil obtained support on the main themes it proposed: hunger and poverty, always off the radar of rich countries; sustainability; the bioeconomy , reaching the first multilateral treaty on the subject. Another consensus was the taxation of the super-rich , an issue that touches on the issues of inequality between countries and tax havens. Reaching the support of the G20 members around these proposals represented the reconstruction of the objectives of Brazilian foreign policy, which had been mocked during the Bolsonaro government, and crowned Brazil's return as a relevant country in the international community after years of self-inflicted isolation. Two other points that went unnoticed by some analyses is that the G20 summit allowed dialogue with Venezuela to return to normal, avoiding enormous damage to the Brazilian government and preserving good relations with the tumultuous neighboring country. And what can we say about the turbulent presence of the newest representative of the Latin American extreme right, Argentine President Javier Milei, who until the last moment tried to undo the consensus reached and was skillfully circumvented by Brazilian diplomacy? Returning to the proposals made by the presidency and supported by the other members of the group, are they “more of the same”, “undefined”, that do not change at the international level, as some analysts and part of the press said yesterday? Understanding the nature of international forums such as the G20 may answer this question. Outlined in 1999 and formalized in 2008, the G20 was created to bring together finance ministers and central bank governors from the twenty largest economies on the planet to discuss the financial crises of those periods. The crises of the 1990s, in particular, brought a new factor: it was the first time that economic problems in developing countries affected the central economies. It was therefore necessary to expand the discussions beyond the restricted Group of Seven (G7), a group of rich countries created in 1975, and to bring emerging economies to the negotiating table. Over the years, the G20 began to discuss other topics besides finance, and today sustainability is at the center of the work. The G20 emerged as an informal group with a flexible structure, dependent on a rotating presidency among its members to organize summits and working groups. In addition, it does not have a constitutive treaty and does not have the capacity to impose standards. When reading this brief description, most people wonder why a forum of this kind should exist if it “serves no purpose.” But informality and flexibility are a demand of the member countries that voluntarily chose to participate. These are the characteristics that allow ministers and other representatives of countries with divergent interests, such as the United States and Russia, to discuss issues that affect humanity, such as the eradication of hunger or climate change, for almost a year. The concrete actions that we so desperately need will depend on the efforts of each country and the corresponding pressure from their civil societies. The commitments exist, and now it is necessary to demand their implementation. Imagining a world without any kind of coordination is difficult because we have lived under the weak governance of the United Nations (UN) since the end of the Second World War, which, by the way, will be 80 years old in 2025. The memories of an international system under constant threat of global wars and in which common problems were not even discussed are a pale memory and, perhaps for this reason, so many people disdain the advances of international forums such as the G20. There are political forces today that oppose these alliances and the minimum level of global governance that we have managed to achieve, as Milei’s criticisms in his speech at the leaders’ meeting made clear. In line with the thinking of other far-right politicians, the Argentine president called global governance a “corset” that suffocates countries that think differently. It is contradictory that international regimes are criticized for restricting the freedom of States while at the same time being accused of being weak and ineffective, which demonstrates empty criticisms that serve only to encourage their supporters against imaginary enemies. Leaders like Donald Trump and Miley defend the “every man for himself” rule in international relations. This idea is gaining more and more followers among the people, a situation that makes declarations like the one by the G20, which defends basic principles of human rights and sustainability, an important manifesto for those who still defend an international order based on rules and cooperation. The Brazilian presidency has achieved important achievements for our foreign policy and also for the international order that it seeks to preserve.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском In Rio de Janeiro, world leaders are gathering for a historic summit. The G20, the symbol of global governance, is at a crossroads. The planet is waiting. The climate, economic and geopolitical challenges are urgent.Since yesterday, at the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, under the strategic engagement of Russia, Foreign MinisterSergey Lavrov, guided by the instructions of President Vladimir Putin, has been playing a key role in discussions on combating inequality, hunger and poverty, as well as reforming global institutions. Together with the BRICS Alliance, innovative initiatives are being put forward to strengthen economic cooperation and global stability, including sustainable development projects and strategic trade agreements. This Summit is proving to be a crucial platform for addressing pressing global challenges such as security and climate change, while potentially influencing global governance and international relations in the years to come.Geopolitical context of the summit, the madness of the Biden administrationAs the G20 group meets in Rio de Janeiro to reconcile the positions of the balance of power in the global chessboard, the recent antithetical decisions of the United States, held on the very eve of the summit and supported by France and Great Britain, are once again dispersing the positions to be reconciled. The Western minority, accustomed to living off the labor of the planetary majority, is lamentably trying to redefine the dynamics of the international community in its favor, by authorizing deep strikes on Russian territory. This approach, adopted by the Biden administration, reflects both madness and a vision of resistance in the face of the potential defeat of Ukraine and NATO allies against Russia, while seeking a reaction that could exacerbate global tensions. This audacious geopolitical calculation, perceived as a last-ditch attempt to consolidate Ukrainian positions before a potential change in American leadership, marks a turning point towards a dangerous escalation of hostilities. It can also be compared to a very big step taken towards the start of the Third World War.The 2024 G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro is therefore taking place in a complex geopolitical context, marked by key global issues. International conflicts, exacerbated in the Middle East, Ukraine, Sudan, and tensions over the role of the United States, France, Great Britain and the collective West are at the heart of discussions on global security. While António Guterres (UN Secretary-General) urges the G20 to adopt actions aligned with the UN Charter – although Western ambitions of domination are being challenged by the rise of the BRICS Alliance – the Western minority continues to pour oil on the embers precisely to satisfy its ambitions of eternal domination.The climate crisis, meanwhile, is forcing more ambitious policies, as the G20, responsible for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, must revise its commitment to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Also, growing economic inequality and the need for reforms to a perceived unfair international financial system underscore the urgency of changing the global financial architecture. Despite the political challenges, the summit embodies a push towards stronger multipolarism, with key players such as Sergei Lavrov, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, etc., advocating for international cooperation. The political transition in the United States, with the imminent departure of Joe Biden and the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House, adds uncertainty, potentially impacting global cooperation and sustainability efforts. This nineteenth summit of the Group of Twenty powers (G20) is crucial to encouraging collective action in the face of complex challenges related to security, climate, the economy and international cooperation.Russia’s engagement in the world chessboardRussia’s participation in this Rio de Janeiro Summit is of major strategic importance. Led by Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and mandated by the President of the Russian Federation, the Russian delegation demonstrates the country’s strong commitment to global discussions. Russia aims to take a leading position in addressing global challenges such as combating inequality, hunger and poverty, and reforming international institutions. Mr. Sergey Lavrov’s interventions at the plenary sessions are essential, while his bilateral talks with other world leaders could lead to decisive agreements, strengthening international relations. Capitalizing on its long history of global engagement, Russia is ideally placed to influence these crucial debates for the future of the planet.Positive initiatives of the BRICS Alliance in global dynamicsThe BRICS, originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – and expanded over time to BRICS+ – represent an undeniable emerging force in global economic cooperation, as demonstrated by their landmark initiatives at the Rio Summit yesterday. By establishing the New Development Bank, these nations are demonstrating their commitment to financing joint infrastructure projects, strengthening their synergy and displaying a clear desire for de-dollarization. The significant progress made in social security also demonstrates their determination to improve social protection on a large scale. Looking ahead, the BRICS countries are committed to driving reform of international financial institutions, placing their economic weight at the heart of global decisions, while working towards sustainable development and the fight against climate change. Speeches by representatives such as Mr. Sergei Lavrov at the summit captured attention, underscoring the BRICS’ determination to impact global governance and promote a more equitable and sustainable economic future.The impact of the summit on global governanceAs mentioned above, the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, represents a crucial opportunity to transform global governance and have a lasting impact on the future of the planet and international relations. Since yesterday, this strategic meeting has been addressing major issues such as the reform of international institutions, requested in particular by the member countries of the BRICS Alliance, the proactive fight against climate change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and international security requiring enhanced cooperation in the face of current geopolitical tensions. Through decisive decisions, the summit could establish a new multipolar world order and decide on the choice between cooperation and global confrontation. The challenge lies in reconciling national and global interests, strengthening trust between international partners, and finding innovative solutions to address the complex challenges of our era. The G20 Summit in Rio thus offers a unique platform for leaders to demonstrate their leadership and vision, thereby shaping a multipolar and sustainable future for future generations.It can be said that the 2024 edition of the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro marks a turning point where world leaders are called upon to choose: cooperation or confrontation, progress or stagnation. The future of the planet is now in their hands. Today’s decisions, contained in the Summit Declaration, will shape the world of tomorrow. History will judge.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Elections in Europe demonstrate the growing popularity of far right parties as key outsiders gain on critical votes. In France, President Emmanuel Macron has moved to dampen Marine Le Pen’s success in the European Parliament with a snap national election. The election calendar for June has already thrown up some surprises, particularly in the northern hemisphere. To be sure, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was re-elected, though with a much-reduced majority which will place limits on his power. But the biggest shock is in Europe where French President Emmanuel Macron decided to call a snap election for 30 June after his most notorious far-right rival, Marine Le Pen, pulled off a decisive victory in the French election for the European Parliament. Macron is taking a massive gamble—that in a national election he can recover some of the popularity he has lost since his re-election as president in 2022, squashing Le Pen’s challenge to his leadership. The initial reaction of the commentariat is that Macron will manage a return to the Élysée palace, largely because the centrist parties holding the middle ground were the overall winners and the Left and the Greens failed to increase, or lost, shares of the vote. “I’ve decided to give you back the choice,” Macron said in an address to the electorate from the Elysée palace. In France, the Rassemblement National (RN) party led by Le Pen won 31.5 percent of the country’s vote, according to early results. In Germany, the three parties in Olaf Scholz’s fragile coalition—the Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, and the liberal FDP—were all overtaken by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which came in second behind the conservative CDU-CSU opposition. Significant gains by nationalist and ultra-conservative parties were also anticipated by exit polls in Austria, Cyprus, Greece, and the Netherlands. In Italy, prime minister Giorgia Meloni cemented her position in her governing coalition, and potentially her hand in negotiations with other European leaders, with her hard-right Brothers of Italy party taking over 28 percent of the vote in the European parliamentary elections. Attention will now turn to the campaign by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, to win another five-year term in office. She has a good record and currently no obvious challenger. Nonetheless, her re-election will hinge on her ability to make uncomfortable choices and deals, taking into account the EU’s clear shift to the right in parliamentary elections on 9 June. Though her centre-right European People’s party won the election, securing 189 seats in the 720-strong assembly, von der Leyen’s allies fared worse and the hard right surged from a fifth to nearly a quarter of seats. Her fate is likely to be decided at an EU summit on 27 June when she will seek the personal backing of the EU’s 27 leaders and aim to demonstrate to them that she has the required support in the European Parliament. Mexico Another remarkable election result this month was in Mexico where the ruling left-wing Morena party won a landslide victory in presidential, congressional, and state elections. While president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum and Morena’s victory on 2 June was not a surprise, the scale of it was. Sheinbaum won more votes than the centre-right Xochiti Galvez across genders, age groups, and in every state bar one, coming in 31 points clear of her rival. After decades of high poverty, glaring inequality, and low wages, the ruling Morena party more than doubled the minimum wage and expanded social programs, endearing itself to Mexico’s long-neglected have-nots. The result has left Mexico’s conservative elite struggling to understand the left’s landslide win, living as they do in gated communities far removed from the lives and feelings of average Mexicans. There are unlikely to be any surprises in the other major election this month—that of Iran on 28 June. Iranian authorities have disqualified prominent moderates as candidates in the snap presidential election, called following the helicopter crash that recently claimed the life of Ebrahim Raisi, the country’s president, and other senior ministers. The field of candidates has been narrowed to five hardliners and one mid-ranking reformist. The United Kingdom has seen a frenzy of election activity this month following Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s surprise decision to call an early election on 4 July. Polls show that there is likely to be a change of government to the opposition Labour party, which is currently holding a 22 percent lead, after 14 years’ Conservative government.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Narendra Modi, India’s two-time prime minister, was elected on June 5, 2024, as the leader of the National Democratic Alliance, a coalition of political parties that won with a slim majority in the recently concluded parliamentary election. Modi is expected to be sworn in for his third term as prime minister on June 8. The BJP had hoped for a landslide victory in the country’s six-week general election – the largest display of democracy, by far, in a year of voting around the world. But the party scored only 240 parliamentary seats in the final tally and needs coalition partners to secure a majority of 272. The Conversation U.S. spoke with Sumit Ganguly, distinguished professor of political science and the Tagore chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations at Indiana University, to understand more about the election results and what they mean for Indian democracy. The BJP had talked about an overwhelming victory, but it seems it will not get a majority. How do you explain these results? Part of the answer lies in the Modi government’s failure to realize that while economic benefits had been substantial, their distribution has been uneven. India has seen a growth in inequality and persistent unemployment both in rural and urban areas. Unemployment of those aged 20 to 24 years is at a high of 44.49%. And that is the overall national number; that data does not tell us that it may be much worse in certain regions. The other explanation is that Modi’s exploitation of historic Hindu-Muslim tensions seems to have run its natural course. You can beat the religious drum – and Modi did with rhetoric including calling Muslims “infiltrators” – but then the day-to-day issues of jobs, housing and other such necessities take over, and these are the things people care about the most. BJP made a miscalculation, in my analysis. It failed to realize that in a country where only 11.3% of children get adequate nutrition, Hindu pride cannot be eaten – ultimately, it’s the price of potatoes and other essentials that matter. Let’s talk about Uttar Pradesh, the northern Indian state with 80 parliamentary seats. It plays a crucial role in any national election, and Modi and his alliance are set to lose the state. What happened? It’s another example of the same miscalculation we are seeing nationally by the BJP. The chief minister of the state,Yogi Adityanath, saw himself as a firebrand Hindu nationalist leader and likely a successor of Modi. But he, too, failed to take into account how his policies were playing out in the poorer segments of the state’s population, who are mainly Muslims and those at the bottom of India’s caste hierarchy. He pursued grand infrastructure projects such as new highways and airports, and those might well have appealed to the middle class – but not to the poor. Additionally, years of presiding over a state government that has used police power to suppress dissent, often those of the poor and marginalized, have taken their toll on Adityanath’s support. What explains BJP’s inroads into the southern state of Kerala, where it is on course to make history by winning a parliamentary seat for the first time? The gains in the south are perplexing and will require more data on voting patterns for a more accurate analysis. Historically, the BJP has not been able to make inroads into the southern states for a number of reasons. These include linguistic subnationalism owing to the hostility toward Hindi. The other issue in the south is that the practice of Hinduism is quite different, including festivals and other regional traditions. The BJP’s vision of Hinduism is based on the “great tradition” of northern India, which believes in the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as the creator, the sustainer and the destroyer gods. The southern states are also engines of economic growth and end up subsidizing the poorer states of the north. As a consequence, there is resentment against the BJP, which has long had its political base in northern India. In July 2023, 26 opposition parties formed a coalition called INDIA – the Indian National Developmental and Inclusive Alliance – to challenge the BJP in the election. Were they given a fair chance? No, the playing field was far from level. The mass media has been mostly co-opted by the ruling BJP to advance its agenda. Apart from one or two regional newspapers, all the national dailies scrupulously avoid any criticism of the BJP, and the major television channels mostly act as cheerleaders of the government’s policies. A number of intelligence agencies are alleged to have been used for blatantly partisan purposes against the opposition parties. Political leaders have been jailed on charges that may prove to be dubious. For example, Arvind Kejriwal, the highly popular chief minister of New Delhi, was charged with alleged improprieties in the allocation of liquor licenses and jailed just days after election dates were announced. Despite the electoral losses, Modi is expected to return as prime minister for a third term. Given that the BJP got just two seats in the 1984 elections, what factors led to the party’s meteoric rise? The BJP has built a solid organizational base across the country, unlike the Indian National Congress, the principal opposition party. And the Congress party has done little to revitalize its political foundations, which had eroded in the 1970s after then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a state of emergency and a non-Congress government came into power for the first time. The BJP has also appealed to the sentiments of the majority Hindu population through slogans that paint India’s principal minority, Muslims, as the source of myriad societal problems. Hate crimes against Muslims and other minorities surged across India over the past few years. Finally, the BJP also benefited from economic reforms that the earlier Congress government had set in motion from the 1990s, including a national goods and services tax and the privatization of the loss-making, state-owned airline, Air India, thereby contributing to substantial economic growth in India. In December 1992, Hindu nationalists destroyed the 16th-century Babri Mosque. How crucial was that to BJP’s rise to power? And what should we read into BJP losing its seat in Ayodhya? The destruction of the Babri Mosque certainly galvanized an important segment of the Hindu electorate and led to a growth in support for the BJP. In 1999 – just seven years after the event – the BJP first came to power in a coalition government in which it had 182 out of 543 seats in the Indian Parliament. Two national elections later, in 2014, Modi assumed office as the prime minister with a clear-cut majority of 282 seats. In January 2024, just a few months before the election, Modi inaugurated a newly constructed temple in Ayodhya, the site of the Babri Mosque. It was a carefully stage-managed event with an eye on votes. However, BJP lost its seat in Ayodhya. It’s possible that all the fanfare around the new temple appealed to people outside of Ayodhya – but not to the city’s residents who continued to deal with waste mismanagement and other issues. What’s next for Modi? And what do the results tell us about Indian democracy? It’s certainly possible that Modi will form the government with coalition partners. I believe that Modi, as an astute politician, will most likely learn from this setback and adapt his tactics to new realities. The results might also be a useful corrective – the Indian voter has once again demonstrated that he or she might be willing to put up with some things but not others. Indian voters have demonstrated in the past that when they see democracy being threatened, they tend to punish leaders with autocratic tendencies. We saw this when the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suffered a crushing defeat in the elections in 1977. The elections followed a state of emergency that Gandhi had imposed on the country, suspending all civil liberties. Back then, it was India’s poor who voted her out of power. This time around, we might need to wait on additional electoral data about how particular caste and income groups voted. This article was updated on June 5, 2024, with the final election results and other developments.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Last March 16th, the Election Commission of India informed the public media about the schedule for the upcoming legislative elections in the country for the period 2024-2029. However, this announcement does not mark the beginning of the Indian electoral process, as since 2023, different national political parties had been shaping their candidates and, in some cases, initiating their political campaigns in preparation for the elections. The schedule, announced by the electoral authority, is divided into seven phases, and will be extended from April 19th, 2024, until June 1st of the same year, with vote counting taking place on June 4th. India’s independence from the British Colonial Empire in 1947 marked the beginning of a profound process of political, economic, and social transformations that determined the life of the society and the surrounding countries. The founding fathers of the country, not without setbacks, promoted the drafting and subsequent approval of a constitution that recognized the secular character of the country, reinforcing the idea of a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multilingual, and multi-religious India. Additionally, in the text, the foundations of the country's political system were declared, and consequently, its electoral system. India’s political and electoral system: General aspects India is a federal parliamentary democratic republic, so its political system is a combination of the parliamentary and presidential systems with a greater emphasis on the parliamentary system, where the President is the head of state, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. The President is elected by an Electoral College composed of members of Parliament and cannot act without the approval of the Council of Ministers, who are chosen by the Prime Minister. This is why the Prime Minister is more important than the President. The Indian Parliament is bicameral, meaning it consists of the ‘Lok Sabha’ (House of the People or Lower House) and the ‘Rajya Sabha’ (Council of States or Upper House). The ‘Rajya Sabha’ comprises 238 members, representing the States and the Union Territories, and 12 members designated by the President. Candidates are elected by the Legislative Assembly of the States and Union Territories through the single transferable vote system via proportional representation. On the other hand, the Members of Parliament of the ‘Lok Sabha’ are elected every five years directly by the electorate; the Prime Minister is typically the leader of the party with the most seats in the ‘Lok Sabha’. The party which has the majority of the 543 seats in the Lower House of Parliament can form a government and appoint a Prime Minister from among its winning candidates. In case that no party holds a simple majority, different parties form coalitions until they acquire the necessary number of seats to elect a Prime Minister. [1] While some alliances are formed before elections, many alliances are negotiated after results are announced and may even change during a government's term. The legal framework to conduct elections specifies that the supervision, direction, control, preparations, and behavior of the elections shall be established in the Election Commission, independently of the incumbent government (Article 324). The Election Commission also establishes the principle of adult suffrage (Article 326) and makes a general stipulation regarding the reservation of seats for backward castes, tribes, and the so-called Anglo-Indians (Articles 330-333). A person is qualified to be a candidate for election if they are over 25 years old for the ‘Lok Sabha’ and 30 for the ‘Rajya Sabha’, in addition to being a voter in a parliamentary constituency (Times of India, 2024b). The seats are distributed among the states in proportion to their population: more people mean more seats. Approximately 25% of the seats are constitutionally reserved for members from two disadvantaged communities: the Scheduled Castes (SC), also known as Dalits, and the Scheduled Tribes (ST), which represent India’s tribal populations or Adivasis. Eighty-four seats are reserved for SC candidates, and forty-seven seats are reserved for ST candidates (Times of India, 2024a). In these electoral constituencies, only candidates from the protected groups can participate in the elections, although all eligible adults can cast their votes. Although the Indian Parliament recently passed a new measure to reserve one-third of legislative seats for women, the implementation of this law has been postponed until after 2024. 2014 and 2019 general elections in India. A comparative analysis India’s unique characteristics make any political process there highly complex. The extensive geographical dimension, the contrasts between different climates and terrains, the remote nature of settlements, especially in mountainous regions, and the challenge posed by large, overpopulated cities, make election, whether state or general, become an event of immense proportions. In fact, general elections in India are considered the largest political, democratic, and logistical exercise in the world. In the electoral process of 2014, according to the numbers published by the Pew Research Center, there were 788 million voters, including nearly 150 million who would have been eligible to vote for the first time. In a survey conducted by the same Center between December 2013 and January 2014, the Indian public, by a three-to-one margin, preferred the BJP over the then-ruling INC. Additionally, 60% of the respondents stated they had a very favorable opinion of Modi, while only 23% held the same opinion about Rahul Gandhi, the INC candidate (Stokes, 2014). From April 7th to May 12th, 2014, the Sixteenth General Elections were held in India, they were divided into ten stages across the country's 35 states and Union Territories. Voting took place for representatives from 543 constituencies, with 412 for the general population (General), 84 for the Scheduled Castes, and 47 for the Scheduled Tribes. The total number of candidates for these constituencies was 8,251, of which 7,577 were men, 668 were women, and 6 were "others". The average number of candidates per constituency was 15. There were 927,553 polling stations distributed across the country. The electoral roll consisted of 834,082,814 citizens, with 553,020,648 voters participating, reaching an effective electoral participation rate of 66.30% (Moreno Hernández, 2015). The BJP campaign, which presented Narendra Modi for the first time as its strongest candidate for Prime Minister of the country, was characterized by building an image around Modi as the "development man" — the man who would facilitate comprehensive development in India, having successfully implemented his governance model for over 10 years as Chief Minister in Gujarat. The campaign capitalized on popular discontent and sought to focus its message on the upper and middle classes, as well as the youth, through a developmental discourse that extensively utilized information technologies such as social media and unprecedented media bombardment in India at that time. Modi personally addressed over 400 rallies in a span of 7 months, traveling more than 300,000 kilometers to participate in nearly 200 campaign events, while the holographic projections of his figure and broadcasts of his speeches reached nearly all Indian constituencies (Muralidharan, 2014), effectively transforming the parliamentary campaign into what resembled a presidential-style elections. On May 16th, 2014, the total vote count was conducted. The results showed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the BJP, as the clear winner, securing most of the constituencies, specifically 336 out of 543, which represents 61.8% of the total seats. It is noteworthy that the BJP alone won 282 seats, accounting for 31.34% of the total votes, meaning that out of the 834,082,814 citizens eligible to vote, only 171,660,230 decided to cast their ballots in favor of the BJP. However, the indisputable victory of the right-wing requires a deeper analysis, as the outcome in 2014 does not compare to the 1984 elections when the Congress Party won 414 seats. This highlights the need for caution when referring to the "orange wave" as a pan-Indian phenomenon (Moreno Hernández, 2015). Voter turnout in Indian elections tends to be high: the parliamentary elections of 2019 saw a 67% turnout of the total eligible population. Votes are cast electronically in over a million polling stations, requiring around 15 million employees during voting. To reach all possible voters in villages and isolated islands in the Himalayas, electoral officials travel by any means available, including trains, helicopters, horses, and boats. In 2019, the elections took place in seven phases between April 11th and May 19th, with all votes being counted on May 23rd. Typically, the first phase of elections is held in a specific set of geographic regions, and subsequent phases gradually move across the country to cover other regions. Without primary elections, party leaders have complete control over the nomination of their candidates. If candidates fail to secure the party endorsement, they may run as independents, putting them at a disadvantage compared to party-backed candidates. Out of 543 Members of Parliament elected in 2019, only four were independent candidates (Roy-Chaudhury, 2019). While they are considered the elections with the highest number of voters in the world, due to being the most populous country globally, this exercise is also considered one of the most expensive. According to studies, in the 2019 elections, political parties spent over $7 billion. Specifically, parties and candidates spent approximately $8.7 billion to attract more than 900 million eligible voters (Roy-Chaudhury, 2019). Regarding the total number of candidates fielded and the electoral roll, in 2019, 8,054 candidates representing 673 parties contested the elections to have the opportunity to become Members of Parliament. Nearly 615 million people (67.4% of Indians) voted in 2019: this was the highest voter turnout recorded. For the first time in history, the persistent gender gap between male and female participation disappeared. In these elections, the ‘Bharatiya Janata Party’ (BJP), in power since 2014, increased its strength by 21 seats to 303 in the ‘Lok Sabha’, securing 38.55% of the votes cast. The number of seats won by its National Democratic Alliance (NDA) also rose to 350, but fell short of a two-thirds majority, and its percentage of votes increased to 45%. In monetary terms, the BJP received over 73% of the declared donations from India's largest political parties in 2017-2018 and over 94.5% of the electoral bonds, totaling at least £19 million. Overall, it is estimated that all political parties spent a total of over £6.7 billion, more than three times the cost of the United States presidential elections in 2016 (Roy-Chaudhury, 2019). Mistakes made by the principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress (INC), led to it winning only 52 seats out of 545, just eight more than in the 2014 elections. This was a result of differences among political leaders within the organization, a complacent approach to its program in the elections, betting on its voters repeating the trend of rejecting the incumbent government, and a refusal to accept pre-electoral alliances with regional parties in key States (Roy-Chaudhury, 2019). India’s 2024 General election: approximations On March 16th, 2024, the Election Commission of India publicly announced the schedule for the ‘Lok Sabha’ elections to appoint the 543 seats. This schedule will be implemented nationwide in seven phases, from April 19th to June 1st, with the vote count taking place on June 4th, including assembly elections, by-polls, and general elections. The current government’s term ends on June 16th, 2024 (Hindustan Times, 2024a). Additionally, the data provided reveals that in this political process, the electoral roll amounts to a total of 968.8 million voters, of which 497 million are men and 471 million are women. It was also reported that 18.4 million voters fall in the age group of 18 to 19 years, 26.3 million are new voters, and 48,044 are senior citizens.  Source: The Times of India Similarly, according to the mandate of the Supreme Court of India, data related to electoral bonds issued to each contesting party between April 12th, 2019, and January 11th, 2024, were published. The figures revealed that the largest recipient of donations was the BJP, and the largest national donor was the company Future Gaming and Hotel Services. This company accounted for bonds worth 1,365 million rupees distributed among several parties. The second-largest donor was Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) with 966 million rupees, of which 60.5% went to the BJP. In financial terms, the BJP received a total of 6,061 million rupees, with MEIL being its largest donor, followed by Qwik Supply Chain and Vedanta. For the INC, the largest donor was Vedanta with 125 million rupees, followed by Western UP Power Transmission Company Limited and MJK Enterprise, amounting to a total of 1,422 million rupees (Hindustan Times, 2024b). Currently, in India, there are two main coalitions competing in the 2024 general elections: the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), both of which include several parties. The NDA, led by the BJP, is a coalition of right-wing conservative parties formally established in 1998 to counter the then-dominant INC. Prominent parties in the alliance include the National People's Party (NPP), Shiv Sena, Janata Dal, Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Janata Dal, Rashtriya Lok Janshakti Party (RLJP), and the currently dominant Bharatiya Janata Party since 2014. The candidate for prime minister is the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has stated the intention of securing over 400 seats for the NDA in these elections (Mint, 2024). The INDIA bloc was formed in 2023 by 26 opposition parties. It is currently led by the president of the INC, Mallikarjun Kharge, who is also the leader of the opposition in the Upper House of the Parliament. Other parties comprising the bloc include the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), Aam Aadmi Party, Samajwadi Party, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (WION, 2024).  Source: Hindustan Times On Friday, April 5th, the INC released its manifesto, this time focusing on equity, youth, women, farmers, workers, the Constitution, the economy, federalism, national security, and the environment. Its 2019 counterpart, mainly focused on the economy and livelihoods, also committing to cover government contracts and eliminate regulations to start a business. It also promised a budget for farmers and pledged to make the non-payment of agricultural loans a civil crime (Hindustan Times, 2024c). On the other hand, for the 2019 general elections, the BJP's electoral manifesto (Sankalp Patra) addressed issues related to nationalism, agriculture, infrastructure, governance, and zero tolerance towards terrorism. Similarly, commitments to amending the citizenship law to protect religious minorities from neighboring countries and the revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution addressing the autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir and its change to a semi-autonomous position were fulfilled during the party's and Modi's mandate over the last 5 years. In the 2019 manifesto, the BJP also promised a pension scheme for all small and marginalized farmers in the country, a macroeconomic stability, as well as job generation and gender equality (Hindustan Times, 2024c) Final Considerations The main surveys point to the BJP with Modi at the helm as the primary winning force in the elections. While the intention of both his party and the alliance he leads to conquer more than 400 seats is somewhat ambitious and hasn't been achieved since 1984 when the INC won 144 seats, the NDA is poised as the clear winner in these elections. On the other hand, India is divided by rivalries, political defections, and ideological clashes. "Analysts say that discussions about the allocation of seats within the alliance have cooled off, partly due to the demands of the Congress Party to field its own candidates in most seats, even in states where it is weak" (Agrawal and Anand, 2024). The truth is that the 2024 elections in India are shaping up as an exercise where the BJP and its coalition appear as clear winners. At the same time, it is very challenging for opposition leaders and parties to confront Modi, who after 10 years of national governance and 13 years of state administration, has demonstrated mostly successful implementation of his governance model. The INC and INDIA start from a very disadvantaged position when facing an overwhelming media machinery, a government that promotes laws to silence opposition, thus playing on favorable ground. Additionally, it's worth noting the growing popularity of the Prime Minister, who ranks as one of the most popular leaders worldwide with a 78% national approval rating. In a politically and religiously polarized India, where the government has been promoting an economic, social, and religious agenda aligned with the leading party for the past 10 years, and with a powerful technological and media mechanism, it is unthinkable to imagine that Modi will not secure his third consecutive term at the helm of the country. References Agrawal, Aditi y Anand, Utkarsh (2024). Electoral bonds: Donor-party link public after SC push. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/poll-bonds-donor-party-link-public-after-sc-push-101711046938707.html Mint (2024). BJP’s first list of candidates for Lok Sabha elections 2024 to be out today. https://www.livemint.com/politics/news/lok-sabha-elections-2024-bjp-first-list-to-be-out-today-11709377057949.html Rai, Indrajeet (2024). How BJP’s strenghts and weakness match up with Congress’s. Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/lok-sabha-elections-2024-pm-modi-rahul-gandhi-bjp-congress-how-bjps-strengths-and-weakness-match-up-with-congresss/articleshow/108614186.cms?utm_source=wa_channel&utm_medium=notification#google_vignette Times of India (2024b). Congress releases fourth list of 46 candidates for Lok Sabha polls. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/congress-releases-fourth-list-of-46-candidates-for-lok-sabha-polls/articleshow/108737876.cms?utm_source=wa_channel&utm_medium=notification Wion (2024). Lok Sabha Elections 2024: List of parties competing in the upcoming polls. https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-elections-2024-list-of-parties-competing-in-the-upcoming-polls-700851/amp Moreno Hernández, Dulce J. (2015). De Gujarat a India: Análisis de la trayectoria política y candidatura a Primer Ministro de Narendra Modi. Tesis de Maestría en Estudios de Asia y áfrica, Centro de Estudios de Asia y África, Colegio de México. https://repositorio.colmex.mx/concern/theses/wd375w520?f%5Bcenter_sim%5D%5B%5D=Centro+de+Estudios+de+Asia+y+%C3%81frica&f%5Bdirector_sim%5D%5B%5D=Banerjee-Dube%2C+Ishita&f%5Blanguage_sim%5D%5B%5D=espa%C3%B1ol&f%5Bmember_of_collections_ssim%5D%5B%5D=Producci%C3%B3n+Institucional&locale=en&per_page=100&view=list Stokes, Bruce (2014). Indians’ support for Modi, BJP shows an itch for change. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/02/27/indians-support-for-modi-bjp-shows-an-itch-for-change/ Molina Medina, Norbert y Duarte Peña, Juan J. (2015). Narendra Modi y la India de hoy (Primera Parte). Universidad de Los Andes, Centro de Estudios de África, Asia y Diásporas Latinoamericanas y Caribeñas “José Manuel Briceño Monzillo”. Muralidharan, Sukumar (2014). Modi, media and the feel-good effect. Himal Southasian. https://www.himalmag.com/comment/modi-media-and-the-feel-good-effect Roy-Chaudhury, Rahul (2019). Modi’s return as prime minister of ‘New India’. International Institute for Strategic Studies. https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/online-analysis/2019/05/modi-return-new-india/ Hindustan Times (2024a). Lok Sabha Election 2024 Highlights: Polls begin on April 19, results on June 4; MCC kicks in. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/lok-sabha-election-2024-date-live-election-commission-esi-voting-result-date-time-schedule-announcement-today-march-16-101710550714891.html?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=whatsappChannel Times of India (2024a). Lok Sabha elections: BJP releases fifth list of candidates, fields Kangana Ranaut, Naveen Jindal. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/lok-sabha-elections-bjp-releases-fifth-list-of-candidates-fields-kangana-ranaut-from-mandi/articleshow/108753780.cms?utm_source=wa_channel&utm_medium=notification Hindustan Times (2024b). BJP’s 5th candidates list for Lok Sabha election: Kangana Ranaut from Mandi, Arun Govil from Meerut. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kangana-ranaut-bjps-candidate-from-mandi-arun-govil-from-meerut-101711294635407.html?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=whatsappChannel Hindustan Times (2024c). In 2019, Congress’s manifesto primarily focused on economy, livelihoods. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-2019-congress-s-manifesto-primarily-focussed-on-economy-livelihoods-101712316094820.html [1] An important feature of the process of electing the Prime Minister of India is that all candidates must be a member of the ‘Lok Sabha’ or ‘Rajya Sabha’, which means the candidate must contest elections to secure a seat representing a particular locality.