Latest news with #Western-dominated
AllAfrica
5 days ago
- Business
- AllAfrica
Putin's new ally has nukes — and nothing to lose
North Korea is now supplying critical artillery shells and ballistic missiles to Russian forces in Ukraine, with North Korean personnel reportedly helping maintain these systems on the battlefield. This unlikely partnership reveals a troubling reality: the isolated nation has become one of Moscow's most reliable military suppliers — not because of its technological prowess, but because its nuclear arsenal shields it from meaningful Western retaliation. The implications go beyond the battlefield. This marks a significant expansion of Russia's support network — one that complements, rather than replaces, its relationship with Iran. While Iran continues to provide Moscow with sophisticated drones and regional disruption capabilities, its utility as a wartime partner is increasingly constrained. Domestic unrest has drawn Tehran's focus inward, while US and Israeli operations have made its leadership cautious about exposing critical military assets. Most importantly, Iran's decision to remain a nuclear threshold state — a move calculated to preserve leverage without inviting full-scale war — leaves it vulnerable to foreign intervention. Iran must weigh each escalatory step, constantly calibrating risk. North Korea does not. Despite its isolation and economic hardship, Pyongyang operates with impunity. Its nuclear arsenal, though crude, grants absolute protection from regime-change scenarios. This allows Kim Jong Un to act boldly — supplying weapons, personnel and support without hesitation or fear of reprisal. When Russia needs ammunition, North Korea doesn't hesitate. When Moscow seeks unconditional loyalty, Pyongyang obliges. The economic angle is equally revealing. North Korea's continued arms exports, despite global sanctions, expose the limits of Western financial pressure against nuclear-armed states. These deals likely rely on barter, sanctioned intermediaries or alternative currencies, bypassing the Western-dominated financial system entirely. This emerging 'division of labor' serves all parties. Iran maintains plausible deniability while pursuing regional goals. North Korea monetizes its military stockpiles and showcases its strategic relevance. Russia receives diverse forms of support tailored to each partner's risk tolerance. What's forming is not a formal alliance but an ecosystem — one defined by transactional partnerships, hardened regimes and nuclear immunity. For Washington, this presents a sobering dilemma. The standard toolkit — sanctions, isolation, limited military threats — loses its effectiveness when adversaries are nuclear-armed, deeply sanctioned and increasingly interconnected. The more these states cooperate, the harder they become to isolate or deter. North Korea doesn't need to be strong. It only needs to be useful — and untouchable. That's the new model. And it's not theoretical anymore. When nuclear weapons become a passport to participation in global conflicts — rather than just a deterrent against invasion — rogue states don't just survive – they thrive. That's not just a challenge for American strategy. It's a fundamental rewriting of the rules of power. Kurt Davis Jr is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He advises private, public, and state-owned companies and creditors globally on cross-border transactions.
The Hindu
14-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Trump's economic nationalism and its ripple effects on India and BRICS
U.S. President Donald Trump's latest announcement to impose a 10% tariff on BRICS nations, alongside a potential 200% levy on pharmaceutical imports, signals a dramatic shift in how the world's largest economy seeks to wield its influence. For India, which recently submitted a comprehensive trade offer covering goods worth $150-200 billion to the U.S., this rhetoric threatens not only the flow of exports but also the trust underpinning one of its most important economic partnerships. As global trade teeters on the edge of uncertainty, Mr. Trump's strategy to 'weaponise' tariffs is poised to reshape not only bilateral deals but also the foundational dynamics of multilateral blocs, such as BRICS. BRICS blowback President Trump's decision to target the BRICS bloc with a blanket 10% tariff is more than a fiscal policy — it is a symbolic strike against a coalition perceived to be challenging U.S. hegemony. BRICS, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newer entrants such as Iran, Egypt, and the UAE, has gained traction as a geopolitical alternative to Western-dominated platforms. The bloc's collective economic weight, accounting for nearly 32% of the global GDP and over 40% of the global population, has given it newfound assertiveness, including moves to settle trade in local currencies and reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar. The U.S. administration, viewing this as a threat, opted for aggressive tariff-based retaliation. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), total U.S. imports from the BRICS nations amounted to $886 billion in 2024, with China and India being the largest contributors. A 10% tariff on this volume would potentially generate over $88 billion in additional duties, effectively acting as a deterrent to BRICS expansion and dollar decoupling. India, as both a BRICS member and a strategic U.S. partner, finds itself in a delicate position — caught between bloc solidarity and bilateral dependence. Targeting India's export backbone Mr. Trump's rhetoric around a 'very, very high rate' of 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals directly strikes at the heart of India's export economy. India is the largest provider of generic drugs globally, with the U.S. being its most significant customer of these drugs. In the financial year 2024-25, India exported pharmaceuticals worth $9.8 billion to the U.S., a 21% increase from the previous year's, accounting for more than 30% of all Indian drug exports. The Indian pharmaceutical sector is not just a business; it is a lifeline for the American healthcare system, supplying affordable generics, vaccines, and essential medicines. A 200% tariff, if implemented, would drastically raise the price of Indian drugs in the U.S. market, disrupting supply chains and possibly triggering domestic drug shortages. Moreover, the impact would not be restricted to Indian exporters. American consumers, especially Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, may bear the brunt of price hikes. In States such as Texas, California, and Florida, which are major recipients of Indian pharma shipments, this move could have a ripple effect on the political landscape as healthcare costs soar. Whether this is a negotiating tactic or a serious policy shift is unclear, but the implications are severe. On the industrial front, India's $2 billion copper export sector, with the U.S. accounting for $360 million or 17%, is another casualty of this tariff-driven agenda. Copper, a critical component in technology and infrastructure, saw India regain export momentum after the reopening of capacities shut during the pandemic. A 50% tariff on copper will erode the competitiveness of Indian producers, particularly those in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, and shift demand to alternative sources, such as Chile or Peru. Between alignment and autonomy Trump's tariff threats, cloaked in the language of 'economic nationalism', mark a decisive shift from collaborative trade engagement to unilateral economic coercion by the U.S. For India, which has been walking a tightrope between its strategic autonomy within BRICS and its growing partnership with Washington, this development presents a critical diplomatic inflection point. New Delhi's recently tabled trade proposal, valued at $150-200 billion, now teeters in uncertainty as the White House weighs domestic populism against long-term global cooperation. India has made it clear that no further concessions are on the table, signalling a firm stance amid rising pressure. However, this stand-off reveals a deeper global reality: in today's geopolitical climate, trade is no longer merely transactional — it is a contest of power, alignment, and sovereignty. Should the U.S. proceed with its punitive tariff agenda, it may secure momentary tactical gains but at the cost of alienating key partners such as India, which is increasingly exploring alternative multipolar alliances. For BRICS, this aggressive turn by Washington could serve as a unifying catalyst, accelerating internal cohesion and driving a shift away from U.S.-centric trade frameworks. Ironically, by attempting to fracture the bloc's influence through tariffs, Trump may have strengthened its resolve and relevance. In weaponising trade, the U.S. risks not only isolating itself but also fuelling the very multipolar world order it seeks to resist. Vipin Benny is Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala, and the author of 'Elevating Excellence: The Relevance of Internal Marketing in Higher Education Institutions in India' (2023) and 'Decoded Decisions: Behavioural Finance Meets Artificial Intelligence' (2025). Views are personal
The Hindu
12-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
From the margins to the centre
The idea of the Global South historically referred to the grouping of countries primarily in Asia, Africa and Latin America that shared a history of colonialism and ongoing struggles against global inequalities. They sought to transform a historically Western-dominated world order through 'South-South cooperation' — a set of practices and organising concepts that these nations aim to use to achieve development through mutual assistance and increased solidarity among themselves. This aspiration has roots in landmark initiatives such as the Bandung Conference of 1955 and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which sought to foster economic and cultural cooperation while promoting human rights and establishing a New International Economic Order (NIEO). These movements aimed to counteract the vertical power relations between former colonies and their colonisers, advocating for fair trade relationships, sovereignty over natural resources, and the right to nationalise key industries. Also Read | Global South's voice key to contemporary world's progress: PM Modi tells Ghana's Parliament The Global South has never been monolithic. Its diversity — vastly different histories, economies and political systems — has been both a potential source of strength and a cause of internal divisions that complicate efforts to form unified positions on global issues. However, the BRICS grouping has emerged as a more solidified possibility, representing a formalised attempt to advance many of the Global South's aims, even if it doesn't entirely embody its full aspirations or overcome all its inherent contradictions. The recent BRICS summit held in Rio de Janeiro exemplified this challenge, with members navigating different relationships with both the U.S. and Russia, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where most BRICS members have sought a middle ground in contrast to Western positions. Institutional voice BRICS began as an economic acronym coined by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill in 2001. It has now evolved into a substantial intergovernmental organisation comprising 35% of the global economy and almost half of the world's population — surpassing the G7's 30% economic share as of 2024. The bloc's primary objectives centre on fostering economic, political, and social cooperation among members while increasing their collective influence in international governance. This includes advocating for greater representation in global bodies, coordinating economic policy, and reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar. Initiatives such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) were designed to offer alternatives to Western-dominated financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Also Read | G7 summit: Will highlight priorities of Global South in G-7, says PM Modi The Rio summit demonstrated both the potential and limitations of this approach. The declaration's strong language on Gaza and Iran reflected genuine consensus on critical geopolitical issues as opposed to the West's view, while India's successful inclusion of condemnation of the Pahalgam terror attack showcased the bloc's capacity to address diverse security concerns. The summit also endorsed expanded roles for India and Brazil in the UN Security Council, advancing a long-standing demand for greater Global South representation. Significantly, the summit introduced a new 'partner countries' category, extending associate status to nations including Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. This institutional innovation suggests BRICS is evolving beyond its original membership structure to accommodate broader Global South participation. Priorities and realities The Global South's diversity becomes particularly apparent when examining BRICS members' different regional contexts and priorities. Brazil's focus on environmental issues and sustainable development reflects its role as a guardian of the Amazon rainforest, while also serving its agribusiness interests. India's emphasis on technology and services reflects its emergence as a global IT powerhouse, even as it maintains significant agricultural and manufacturing sectors. China's Belt and Road Initiative represents perhaps the most ambitious attempt at South-South cooperation, yet it has also generated concerns about debt dependency among recipient countries. Russia's inclusion in BRICS, despite its geographical location largely in the Global North, reflects how the grouping wants to transcend simple geographical boundaries for shared interests in challenging Western hegemony. Intra-BRICS trade has grown at a faster pace than that of G7 countries, demonstrating tangible shifts in global economic activity. Trade between Brazil and China increased fiftyfold in 20 years, and China-India trade rose 28 times in the same period. The NDB has begun providing alternative funding for sustainable development and infrastructure projects, addressing perceived gaps left by traditional financial institutions. Yet, the path to challenging Western economic dominance faces significant obstacles. The U.S. dollar remains entrenched as the world's principal reserve currency, used in the vast majority of global trade transactions. While BRICS advocates for lesser dependence on the dollar, creating a workable alternative currency system faces enormous technical and political hurdles. Internal Contradictions A critical examination of BRICS reveals inherent contradictions that mirror broader challenges in South-South cooperation. While the rhetoric emphasises solidarity and mutual benefit, the pursuit of national interests by individual members can overshadow collective goals. For example, China's domination within the grouping has resulted in lopsided economic engagement with other developing nations, leading to what some critics have termed 'near-colonial patterns of trade', where raw materials are exported to China in exchange for manufacturing goods. Brazil's advocacy for fairer global trading systems, while simultaneously pursuing the interests of its competitive export-oriented agribusiness sector, exemplifies how national economic interests can complicate collective solidarity. Russia's recent actions in Ukraine negate the idea of South-South cooperation as a legacy of former colonised nations. Besides, Western powers have not remained passive observers of BRICS' growth. Donald Trump, responding to the bloc's criticism of unilateral tariffs and military strikes on Iran, threatened that any country 'aligning itself with' what he termed 'the Anti-American policies of BRICS' would face an additional 10% tariff. This marked an escalation from his earlier threats of 100% tariffs if BRICS countries attempted to replace the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. Moreover, Western institutions have shown capacity to adapt and co-opt rising powers. The emergence of the G20 can be seen as a response designed to give emerging economies a seat at the table, even if decision-making remains largely influenced by dominant Western powers. Beyond National Interests: A People-Centered Vision As India prepares to assume BRICS leadership next year with its theme of 'Building Resilience and Innovation for Cooperation and Sustainability', the bloc stands at a crossroads. As the world's largest democracy and a major economy with complex relationships with both China and the U.S., India may be uniquely positioned to bridge internal divisions within BRICS. However, ongoing border tensions with China and India's growing strategic partnership with the U.S. through initiatives such as the Quad complicate its role as a unifying force. BRICS undoubtedly represents the most viable institutional expression of Global South aspirations, offering developing nations unprecedented collective economic leverage and political voice in global affairs. However, its current trajectory risks becoming merely another arena for great power competition rather than genuine transformation. The bloc's ultimate promise lies not in replacing Western hegemony with a new form of elite-driven multipolarity, but in evolving into a platform that prioritises the developmental needs and democratic aspirations of the Global South's peoples.
Daily Maverick
09-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
BRICS Summit 2025 — hard reset might be needed to reverse the bloc's flagging momentum
A back-to-basics approach might be needed amid mounting concerns about the blocs' continued relevance in shaping the international order. The recently concluded BRICS Leaders' Summit in Rio took place against the backdrop of great geopolitical flux. After years of growing relevance, the group appears to be struggling to maintain forward momentum. As its expanded membership grapples with its own internal contradictions and an increasingly unpredictable international system, a hard reset may be needed to get back to basics. In recent years, BRICS has enjoyed a resurgence. In 2022, the Ukraine war and fatigue with Western-dominated global governance and finance institutions bolstered interest in alternative power centres, particularly among Global South countries. The group's utility for its five core members has centred on shared interests, South-South cooperation and progressive internationalism. Global events bolstered the club's attractiveness as countries worldwide grappled with their geopolitical hedging strategies, seen, for example, through multi-alignment and active nonalignment behaviours. This was clear at the 2023 Johannesburg summit, which unexpectedly (and perhaps prematurely) led to BRICS' expansion. Invitations were extended to six new members – five officially joined, including Indonesia in 2025. Saudi Arabia has yet to formally accept. At the 2024 Kazan summit, the new 'partner country' model allowed 10 more states to participate in annual summits, with limited influence on declarations and outcomes. The group has become a vital platform for geopolitical recalibration among member states. Kazan, for example, led to a considerable strategic thaw in Indo-China relations following the first formal bilateral meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in more than five years. Despite this positive momentum, concerns about BRICS' continued relevance in shaping the international order have intensified. This is mainly due to the bloat of its growing agenda, internal contradictions of its increasing membership and lack of a robust normative bedrock. Without this foundation, members will struggle to agree on a strategy to reform global governance and financial institutions. This year's summit appears to have dimmed the group's prospects further. Two of the five core members' heads of state did not attend in person. Xi's absence owing to a 'scheduling conflict' arguably points to Beijing's preoccupation with domestic priorities, as it grapples with mounting economic stresses. This was the first time Xi had not attended (either virtually or in person) since assuming office more than a decade ago. Russian President Vladimir Putin participated online, due to his International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. This is reminiscent of South Africa's quandary as an ICC Rome Statute signatory and BRICS summit host in 2023. While this approach has seemingly become accepted by BRICS members, it points to deep contradictions in their respective international legal commitments – another impediment to pursuing global institutional reforms for a more just world. Also absent were the Egyptian, Iranian and United Arab Emirates presidents, who sent senior representatives. Two other core BRICS members, South Africa and host Brazil, appeared preoccupied with preparations for hosting other forthcoming multilateral summits: the G20 Leaders' Summit in Johannesburg and the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém. External pressures compound these challenges. President Donald Trump's administration had warned the bloc against initiatives to displace the US from its dominant position in global affairs. He asserted during the summit that 'any country aligning themselves with the anti-American policies of BRICS will be charged an additional 10% tariff'. Trump had threatened earlier that any moves to replace the US dollar with a BRICS-backed reserve currency would be accompanied by 100% tariffs, perhaps forcing a more circumspect approach from BRICS members. BRICS support for de-dollarisation, led by China and Russia, is high on the group's agenda – but internal disagreement around achieving it reveals fractures in the bloc's strategic unity, geopolitical strategist Velina Tchakarova told ISS Today. The German Marshall Fund's Dr Garima Mohan also highlighted these tensions, telling ISS Today: 'Given strained ties between two of its major founding members, India and China, it seems unlikely that the grouping will be able to speak in one voice or provide a credible critique of the current system of global governance. 'Additionally, China seeks to promote its own model – within BRICS and in other international formats – which is not more representative/democratic than the system we have in place today. This raises the question [of] whether BRICS is the right kind of platform for the reforms we need today.' With its core members spread so thin, it is unsurprising that this year's summit produced no fireworks. Expectations were limited to institutional developments focused on consolidating BRICS membership and thematic focus areas relating to cooperation on global health, trade and finance, climate change and artificial intelligence. The leaders' declaration contained several (fairly predictable) statements on global policy issues, and the outcomes largely validated the mild expectations for the Rio gathering. In sum, BRICS' approach this year has been to simply keep things turning over. This logic may not be entirely misplaced. Dr Samir Puri, the security director at Chatham House's Centre for Global Governance, says: 'BRICS has not emerged as a loud challenger to the controversial steps being taken by the second Trump administration, prompting questions over whether the platform has any worth. 'But a low-key BRICS summit may prove to be [smarter]. The BRICS countries are playing the long game, and there's little gain in provoking a loud clash with a conflictual US president.' However, this could equally be viewed as a missed opportunity. For all its flaws, BRICS remains uniquely positioned to represent global realities. Its diversity, non-ideological cooperation and growing economic heft allow coordination among nations that don't always agree but share common interests (not values). BRICS offers a platform that is pragmatic, strategic and unconstrained by the bureaucratic inertia of other multilateral bodies like the UN. While BRICS' incremental institutionalisation is a net positive, it will not move the needle in the prevailing global environment. The group's members are grappling with the weaponisation of trade policy, unilateral military interventionism, surging global defence expenditure and the impact of all this on the global institutional order. In this context, how will BRICS chart a new way forward for international cooperation? For the moment, it seems content responding to the volleys being served from Washington DC, rather than pre-empting major geopolitical developments, or placing other powers on the back foot. Against the headwinds of a revisionist US, a shaky Western alliance and a global system in crisis, bold and decisive moves by BRICS leaders are needed to usher in a more multipolar order. Simply keeping the ball rolling won't be enough. DM
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Houthi Rebels Unleash Drone & Missile Strikes On Israel After IDF Pummels Yemeni Cities
Putin Gives Dollar Shock To Trump; Big Announcement On Ditching U.S. Currency In BRICS Speech The use of national currencies in trade between BRICS nations is accelerating, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Speaking on the growing shift away from the U.S. dollar, Putin revealed that in 2024, 90% of Russia's transactions with partner states were conducted in rubles or other "friendly" currencies. This marks a significant milestone in the bloc's push for greater financial sovereignty and de-dollarization. The BRICS alliance—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and recent new members—has long sought alternatives to Western-dominated financial systems. Watch. 4.9K views | 1 day ago
