Latest news with #Western-led
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Turkey FM urges Russia, Ukraine to end ‘bloody war'
ISTANBUL: The third round of talks between Russia and Ukraine opened on Wednesday evening in Istanbul, with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan urging both sides to end the 'bloody war' as soon as possible. 'Our aim is to end this bloody war, which has a very high cost, as soon as possible … The ultimate goal is a ceasefire that will pave the way to peace,' Fidan said as he opened the negotiations. Turkey, which has good relations with both of its Black Sea neighbours, has provided drones for Ukraine and shied away from Western-led sanctions on Moscow. Fidan thanked Russian and Ukrainian leaders Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky for demonstrating 'the will to hold these talks', as well US President Donald Trump for his calls for an end to the war. Zelenskiyy says Ukraine, Russia to hold peace talks in Turkey on Wednesday He said the first and second round of talks, which also took place in Istanbul, achieved 'significant results'. 'We are pleased to see that the prisoner exchanges carried out to date have been appreciated by the international community in terms of their humanitarian outcomes,' he said. 'We also consider it an important development that the parties exchanged memoranda reflecting their perspectives on the ceasefire and peace during the second round of talks,' he added. 'Our hope for this third round of negotiations is that the parties will hold substantive and results-oriented consultations on the memorandums they have exchanged.' Fidan also said if a ceasefire is agreed, Turkey has 'the necessary infrastructure in place for a monitoring mechanism'. 'The Istanbul talks provide us with an opportunity to show the world that diplomacy and dialogue are more effective than conflict and weapons in securing peace.'
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Mains answer practice — GS 2: Questions on Vice‑President's office and BRICS grouping (Week 112)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative for the practice of Mains answer writing. It covers essential topics of static and dynamic parts of the UPSC Civil Services syllabus covered under various GS papers. This answer-writing practice is designed to help you as a value addition to your UPSC CSE Mains. Attempt today's answer writing on questions related to topics of GS-2 to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for July 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at Discuss how the BRICS grouping challenges the Western-led liberal international order through efforts such as de‑dollarisation and the establishment of parallel financial and developmental institutions. When the Vice‑President's office is vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha presides over the Upper House. Discuss how this provision safeguards legislative continuity and the balance of power within Parliament. Introduction — The introduction of the answer is essential and should be restricted to 3-5 lines. Remember, a one-liner is not a standard introduction. — It may consist of basic information by giving some definitions from the trusted source and authentic facts. Body — It is the central part of the answer and one should understand the demand of the question to provide rich content. — The answer must be preferably written as a mix of points and short paragraphs rather than using long paragraphs or just points. — Using facts from authentic government sources makes your answer more comprehensive. Analysis is important based on the demand of the question, but do not over analyse. — Underlining keywords gives you an edge over other candidates and enhances presentation of the answer. — Using flowcharts/tree-diagram in the answers saves much time and boosts your score. However, it should be used logically and only where it is required. Way forward/ conclusion — The ending of the answer should be on a positive note and it should have a forward-looking approach. However, if you feel that an important problem must be highlighted, you may add it in your conclusion. Try not to repeat any point from body or introduction. — You may use the findings of reports or surveys conducted at national and international levels, quotes etc. in your answers. Self Evaluation — It is the most important part of our Mains answer writing practice. UPSC Essentials will provide some guiding points or ideas as a thought process that will help you to evaluate your answers. QUESTION 1: Discuss how the BRICS grouping challenges the Western-led liberal international order through efforts such as de‑dollarisation and the establishment of parallel financial and developmental institutions. Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers. Introduction: — The BRICS originated as a group dedicated to contesting the norms that drive multilateral economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. BRICS provided another avenue for India's aspirations for global leadership, as it, along with Brazil, China, and Russia, negotiated a larger share of quotas and votes in these institutions. — In recent years, as BRICS membership has grown, it has undoubtedly given India with another platform to strengthen ties with countries in the Global South. Body: You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer: — The BRICS are quietly altering some of the rules of international politics. From de-dollarization to alternative development models, it is rapidly posing a challenge to the Western-led liberal international order. — Following World War II, this system gave way to the Western-led liberal international order. The United States, along with its allies, established a network of institutions that represented its beliefs and interests, including the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. This order was based on free markets, democracy, and, most importantly, the US dollar's dominance in global finance. — One of the most prominent messages from the BRICS summit in Brazil was about de-dollarisation. It may sound technical, but it is extremely political. This concept has been gaining traction for several years, but recent developments, particularly the weaponization of financial systems through sanctions, have pushed it to the forefront. — The difficulty is that the majority of global trade and finance is based on the US dollar. When India buys oil from Russia, it usually pays in dollars. Brazil typically takes out loans in dollars. When China invests abroad, the transactions are often routed through dollar-based networks such as SWIFT. This offers the US not only financial but also political clout. — At the Brazil summit, governments revived the notion of a BRICS currency, but as a symbol of intent rather than an imminent undertaking. In the meantime, they encourage trade in local currencies. Russia and China already transact more than 80% of their trade in roubles and yuan. India has started using rupees in some transactions with Iran and Sri Lanka. India and the UAE have begun to settle some oil transactions in rupees and dirhams. — To avoid dollar exposure, the BRICS-created New Development Bank now issues loans in local currencies. This isn't only about lowering transaction costs. It is about breaking out from a system that many in the Global South regard as biased against them. Conclusion: — BRICS promises to provide a platform for countries who did not have a seat at the table when the postwar international order was created. The group positions itself as a voice for the Global South. — This initiative to create new platforms and organisations reflects a common frustration that the rules of the global system are frequently established by people who do not confront the same issues as those in the Global South. Together, the BRICS are attempting to shift not only policy but also the narrative about what kind of development is legitimate and who should lead. (Source: How BRICS is chipping away at the Western order) ints to Ponder Read more aboutBRICS members Read about New Development Bank Related Previous Year Questions 'Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the SCO' In the light of the above statement point out the role of India in mitigating the problems. (2023) How will I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE and USA) grouping transform India's position in global politics? (2022) QUESTION 2: When the Vice‑President's office is vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha presides over the Upper House. Discuss how this provision safeguards legislative continuity and the balance of power within Parliament. Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers. Introduction: — The Vice-President is elected by an electoral college made up of members from both Houses of Parliament — Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha — including nominated members. — Voting is held in Parliament House by secret ballot, using the system of proportional representation with a single transferable vote. Each MP casts a vote by ranking candidates in order of preference. All votes carry equal value. — To be declared elected, a candidate must reach a required minimum number of votes — called the quota. This is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes by two and adding one (fractions, if any, are ignored). If no candidate crosses the quota in the first round, the one with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the remaining candidates based on second preferences. The process continues until one candidate crosses the quota. Body: You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer: — The Constitution does not provide for an acting Vice President. However, because the Vice-President is also the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Deputy Chairman shall preside over the House in his absence. — In the case of the President, the Constitution requires that vacancies be filled within six months. However, there is no specified timeframe for a Vice-Presidential vacancy. The only prerequisite is that the election take place 'as soon as possible' after the office becomes vacant. — The poll is held under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act of 1952. According to protocol, the Secretary General of either House of Parliament serves as the Returning Officer in rotation. — The Presiding Officers of Rajya Sabha have the responsibility to conduct the proceedings of the House. The Vice-President of India is ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha. Rajya Sabha also chooses from amongst its members, a Deputy Chairman. There is also a Panel of Vice-Chairmen in Rajya Sabha, who are nominated by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha from the amongst the members of Rajya Sabha. In the absence of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, a member from the Panel of Vice-Chairmen presides over the proceedings of the House. Conclusion: — A person contesting for the post of Vice-President must be a citizen of India, at least 35 years old, qualified to be elected to the Rajya Sabha, and registered as an elector in any parliamentary constituency. They must not hold any office of profit under the central or state governments, except positions like President, Governor, or Minister. (Source: What happens when the Vice-President resigns mid-term, Points to Ponder Read more about Vice-President of India – Functions and Powers Read about Chairman and Panel of Vice-Chairmen in Rajya Sabha Related Previous Year Question Discuss the role of the Vice-President of India as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. (2022) UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 112) UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 111) UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 110) UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 111) UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 110) UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 111) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
AllAfrica
21 hours ago
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Implausible deniability: China arming Russia, Pakistan, Iran
China has long maintained that it does not supply arms to any party at war – a central tenet of its 'noninterference' foreign policy. But in recent years, Beijing has repeatedly faced accusations of doing the opposite: providing direct military assistance to nations engaged in conflict, while publicly denying doing so and even adopting a position of diplomatic neutrality. That has seemingly been the case for two of China's closest allies: Russia in its war against Ukraine and Pakistan during its recent armed standoff with India in May. Now, Beijing is facing scrutiny over alleged military links to Iran – a country engaged in a long-running shadow conflict with Israel that recently tipped into a short-lived hot war. After the ceasefire that followed the 12-day war in the Middle East, China reportedly supplied batteries for surface-to-air missiles to Iran in exchange for oil. Such parts are a critical military need for Tehran after its air defense network was severely damaged by Israeli missiles. The Chinese Embassy in Israel denied the reports, stating that China firmly opposes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and does not export arms to countries at war. But China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has yet to issue an official statement on the alleged transfer. As an expert specializing in China's grand strategy, I think it is highly possible that China would offer Iran military support while denying it publicly. Such plausible deniability would allow Beijing to assert military influence and showcase some of its hardware, while deflecting international criticism and preserving diplomatic flexibility. But the tactic works only so far. As indirect evidence accumulates, as many suggest is happening, such covert action may gradually develop into an open secret – leading to what scholars term 'implausible deniability,' where denial is no longer credible even if it is still officially maintained. Although Beijing has consistently said it is neutral in the Russia-Ukraine war that broke out in 2022, China has, in practice, quietly supported Russia. In part, that is because China shares the same strategic goal of challenging the Western-led international order. Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly told European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas that Beijing cannot afford to see Russia lose the war in Ukraine. He was said to have warned that a Russian defeat would likely bring the full force of US strategic pressure to bear on China. From Beijing's perspective, Moscow plays a vital role in keeping the West preoccupied, offering China valuable strategic breathing room by diverting American attention and resources away from the Asia-Pacific region. Beyond deepening trade relations that have become a lifeline for Moscow's economy under Western sanctions, China has reportedly supplied Russia with large quantities of dual-use goods – goods that can be used for civilian and military purposes – to enhance both Moscow's offensive and defensive capabilities, as well as to boost China's military-industrial production. Beijing has also allegedly provided satellite imagery to assist Russia on the battlefield. While the US and Europe have repeatedly tried to call out China for aiding Russia militarily, Beijing has consistently denied such claims. Most recently, on April 18, 2025, Ukraine formally accused China of directly supporting Russia and slapped sanctions on three Chinese-based firms that Kyiv said was involved in weapons production for the Russian war effort. In what has become a common refrain, China's Foreign Ministry rejected the Ukrainian accusation, reaffirming that China has never provided lethal weapons to any party in the conflict and reiterating its official stance of promoting a ceasefire and peace negotiations. Beijing has long presented itself as a neutral party in the India-Pakistan conflict, too, and has called for restraint on both sides and urged peaceful dialogue. But in practice, China is allied with Pakistan. And the direct military support it has provided to Lahore appears driven by China's desire to curb India's regional influence, counterbalance the growing US–India strategic partnership and protect the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, a massive bilateral infrastructure project. In the latest flare-up between India and Pakistan in May, Pakistan deployed Chinese-made J-10C fighter jets in combat for the first time, reportedly downing five Indian aircraft. Pakistan's air defense relied heavily on Chinese equipment during the short conflict, deploying Chinese-made surface-to-air missile systems, air-to-air missiles, advanced radar systems and drones for reconnaissance and strike operations. Overall, more than 80% of Pakistan's military imports have come from China in the past five years. In what would be a far more stark example of military support if proven true, the deputy chief of India's army alleged that China had provided Pakistan with real-time intelligence on Indian troop movements during the conflict. When asked to respond, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said they had no knowledge of the matter. They reaffirmed that China's ties with Pakistan are not directed against any third party and reiterated Beijing's long-standing position in favor of a peaceful resolution to any India-Pakistan dispute. Similar to Russia and Pakistan, Iran has increasingly been viewed as a partner to China. In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year, US$400 billion comprehensive cooperation agreement that covered trade, energy and security, signaling the depth of their strategic relationship. The accord was indicative of the strategic value Beijing places on Iran. From Beijing's perspective, Tehran presents a counterbalance to the influence of the US and its allies – especially Israel and Saudi Arabia – in the region and helps divert Western resources and attention away from China. But recently, Tehran's position in the region has become far weaker. Not only has its air defense infrastructure suffered badly in the confrontations with Israel, but its regional proxies and allies – Hamas, Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria – have either been devastated by Israel or collapsed altogether. Under these circumstances, it is strategically compelling for Beijing to provide support to Tehran in order to maintain regime stability. Indeed, Beijing has frequently circumvented sanctions on Iranian energy, with an estimated 90% of Iran's oil exports still going to China. Although Beijing did not extend any substantive support to Iran during the 12-day war, reports have abounded since that Iran is looking to China as an alternative supplier of its defense needs. The thinking here is that Russia, Tehran's traditional military partner, is no longer able to provide sufficient, quality defense equipment to Iran. Some influential social media posters in China have gone as far as advocating for direct military sales by Beijing. If China does do this, I believe it is likely to follow the same playbook it has used elsewhere by denying involvement publicly while covertly providing assistance. Doing so allows China to maintain diplomatic ties with Iran's regional rivals, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously benefiting from a turbulent Middle East that distracts Washington and grants Beijing strategic breathing room. China's use of plausible deniability reflects a broader strategic ambition. Namely, it wants to assert influence in key regional conflicts without triggering open backlash. By quietly supporting partners while maintaining a facade of neutrality, Beijing aims to undermine Western dominance, stretch US strategic focus and secure its own interests – and all while avoiding the risks and responsibilities of open military alignment. Linggong Kong is a PhD candidate in political science at Auburn University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
How BRICS is chipping away at the Western order
The recent 2025 BRICS summit, held in Brazil, did not appear dramatic on the surface. There were no loud declarations or confrontations. However, the agenda was quietly ambitious, and the message it sent was unmistakable – the West no longer has a monopoly on how the world should work. BRICS is quietly rewriting some of the rules of global politics. From de-dollarisation to alternative development models, it is increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order. One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government. Countries can agree on rules, but no one can force them to follow them. This is what some international relations scholars call an 'anarchic system,' not because it's disorderly, but because there is no overarching authority to enforce rules. Countries act in their own interests. Cooperation happens, but it's often fragile. Power matters. Strong states often do what they can. Weak ones suffer what they must (Recall the Melian Dialogue from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War). Power is distributed unevenly, and when a few countries have more of it, they tend to shape the rules in their favour. The Western-led liberal international order grew out of this system after World War II. The US, along with its allies, built a network of institutions, like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, that reflected its values and priorities. This order was based on free markets, democracy, and above all, the dominance of the US dollar in global finance. For a while, that order worked – at least for the West. But now, the rest of the world is starting to ask why a system created in 1945 should still define the rules of the 21st century. For a long time, emerging powers like Brazil, China, India, and South Africa largely accepted this structure. However, with the global economic landscape shifting and the world becoming more multipolar, they are pushing back. BRICS is the most visible platform for that push. One of the loudest messages from the BRICS summit in Brazil was about de-dollarisation. It sounds technical, but it's deeply political. This idea has been gaining ground for some years, but recent events, especially the weaponisation of financial systems through sanctions, have brought it to the forefront. The issue is that most global trade and finance depend on the US dollar. When India buys oil from Russia, it usually has to pay in dollars. When Brazil takes a loan, it often does so in dollars. When China invests abroad, the transaction typically moves through dollar-based systems like SWIFT. This gives the US not just financial influence but also political leverage. At the Brazil summit, countries once again floated the idea of a BRICS currency – not an immediate project, but a signal of intent. In the meantime, they are promoting trade in local currencies. Russia and China already conduct over 80 per cent of their trade in Roubles and Yuan. India has begun using rupees for some transactions with Iran and Sri Lanka. India and the UAE have begun settling some oil deals in rupees and dirhams. The New Development Bank, created by BRICS, is now issuing loans in local currencies to avoid dollar exposure. This is not just about saving on transaction costs. It's about creating freedom from a system that many in the Global South see as tilted against them. This is not going to be easy. The US dollar dominates because it is stable, widely accepted, and backed by a deep financial system. But the fact that BRICS countries keep returning to this topic shows how deep the frustration runs. De-dollarisation may not happen overnight, but the intent is clear – reduce exposure to a system controlled by Washington. BRICS claims to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed. The group presents itself as a voice for the Global South. It talks about fairer development, more inclusive trade rules, and reforms in global institutions. It also backs concrete alternatives. The NDB offers loans without the political strings often attached to IMF or World Bank funding. BRICS countries are exploring joint investments in infrastructure and clean energy. There's talk of creating a BRICS rating agency to counter the dominance of Western credit rating firms. BRICS also pushes for reforms in the UN Security Council and the World Bank's voting rules to give more voice to emerging powers. Here, Brazil, India, and South Africa play a bridging role. They are democracies with growing economies, often seen as more acceptable faces of BRICS to other developing countries. China brings deep pockets and strategic weight. Russia, increasingly isolated from the West, is strengthening its ties with non-Western partners. This effort to build new platforms and institutions reflects a shared frustration that the rules of the global system are often written elsewhere, by people who don't face the same challenges as those in the Global South. Together, BRICS is trying to change not just policies but also the narrative about what kind of development is legitimate and who should lead. Notably, international relations theory can help us understand why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why it matters. Realism Realism, one of the oldest schools of international relations, sees power as the main force shaping global affairs. States act primarily in their own interest. Institutions and alliances matter only if they help countries protect or expand their power. From this perspective, BRICS is not a community of like-minded nations but a strategic arrangement – a balancing act against Western dominance. When Russia promotes de-dollarisation or China supports the NDB, they are not guided by ideals of fairness or cooperation. They are responding to the realities of power politics. A good example of this logic came after the US froze Russian central bank assets following the Ukraine war. Many countries saw how exposed they were if their reserves were held in dollars. The concern wasn't ethical. It was practical. It was about survival. Liber theory On the other hand, liberal theory, which posits that cooperation is possible and institutions matter, would argue that if the global order is unfair, countries will attempt to establish new institutions. That's exactly what BRICS is doing by creating alternatives to Western-run systems, not through war, but through investment, banking, and trade. It believes that the way to change the system is to create better alternatives within it. The NDB isn't just a protest against the World Bank. It's a real bank giving loans, financing projects, and developing regulations. That's classic liberal theory in action – solving global problems through cooperative institutions. Constructivism Constructivist theorists go a step further. They argue that power is not just about money or military strength, but about ideas. It's also about whose story is seen as legitimate. BRICS challenges the idea that Western liberal democracy is the only valid model of progress. It says there are many ways to grow and that the West doesn't have a moral monopoly. BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. When BRICS leaders speak of 'mutual respect' and 'non-interference,' they are offering a different political culture – one that appeals to countries tired of lectures from the West about democracy and governance. Whether this rhetoric matches reality is debatable, but the narrative matters. These theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive views. They all help explain why BRICS is doing what it's doing and why the West is starting to take it more seriously. However, none of this means that the Western-led order is collapsing. The US dollar still dominates global trade and finance. Western-led institutions still make the rules. The US still has unmatched military power. Western technology and capital continue to dominate global supply chains. At the same time, BRICS has its own internal differences. China and India are locked in border tensions. Russia is diplomatically isolated. Brazil and South Africa are wary of being seen as backing an anti-Western front. The NDB is still small compared to the World Bank. However, the system is no longer a one-way street. Something is shifting. The fact that major economies are even talking about bypassing the dollar or creating their own financial systems was unthinkable two decades ago. The fact that they are acting on it, even though cautiously, means the world is entering a new phase. This isn't about tearing down the West. It's about making space for the rest. The BRICS summit in Brazil didn't create headlines because it didn't need to. It was not designed to shock. It was designed to show that the world is no longer waiting for change from the West. It is building change elsewhere. One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government, prompting some international relations scholars to call the international system 'anarchic'. Comment. How is BRICS rewriting some of the rules of global politics, and increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order? BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. Evaluate. By claiming to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed, BRICS presents itself as a voice for the Global South. Do you agree? How do theoretical perspectives, realist, liberal, and constructivist, help explain why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why the West is starting to take it more seriously? (The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
News18
6 days ago
- Business
- News18
BRICS Vs G7: Comparative Analysis Of Global Economic Powerhouses
The BRICS and G7 are two influential global blocs representing contrasting economic and political power centres. (Image: Network 18 Creative) The BRICS countries are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and the G7 includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. (Image: Network 18 Creative) 3/6 The BRICS countries hold a larger share of the global population than the G7, while the G7 countries have a larger nominal GDP. (Image: Network 18 Creative) By 2024, BRICS accounted for 35% of global GDP (PPP), while the G7 accounted for 30% according to Statista. (Image: Network 18 Creative) Within the G7, the US has the largest individual share. In the BRICS group, China has the largest individual share. (Image: Network 18 Creative) G7 seeks to lead global policy on security, climate change, pandemic response, and global finance. BRICS pursues multipolarity, financial alternatives to Western-led institutions. (Image: Network 18 Creative)
