The phone call between US President Joe Biden and Chinese strongman Xi Jinping last week may be construed as a follow-up to the in-person meeting they had in November in San Francisco. To recapitulate, the main objective of the San Francisco meeting was to try and establish common sense guardrails so that “competition does not veer into conflict”. The first requirement for this is constant communication between the two sides at all levels and that seems to have been achieved. Indeed, after the telephone call, both sides agreed that the conversation was candid and constructive.

Indications are that Biden initiated this telephone call. This need not be overinterpreted to mean that the US needs stability in bilateral ties more than China does. Perhaps, both sides need it for different reasons. Biden would not want yet another theatre of conflict in Taiwan, in addition to the ones in Ukraine and Gaza, given the impending American elections. Xi Jinping faces way too many headwinds, all of which have been well documented. He needs a breather too, to set his house in order. So it suits them both to act all statesmanlike and signal a temporary truce, if nothing else.

Indeed, Xi Jinping after the conversation said ” Sino-US ties are stabilizing”. This is a far cry from two years ago when both sides were emitting hot air over a balloon! The US side may have initiated the telephone call because of possible Chinese cooperation on the question of “Fentanyl” and lesser intercepts of American military assets by China. Also, China has dialled down previous dangerous rhetoric on Taiwan. U.S. and Chinese military officials reportedly met last week for a series of rare meetings in Hawaii focussed on operational safely and professionalism.

In the near term, it is the technology denial regime sought to be put in place by the Americans that is causing angst in Beijing. Xi Jinping said as much when he asserted that attempts to “de-risk” by the West were actually creating more risks. Going further, Xi warned that if the US insists on suppressing hi-tech development and depriving China of its legitimate right to develop, then it will not stand by idly. All this against the backdrop of the saga over Tik-Tok’s ownership issue being played out in the US Congress. Last month, American lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill giving Chinese tech firm ByteDance 165 days to divest TikTok or else the app would no longer be available on app stores or accessible on US-based web hosting services.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is visiting China and she is clearly a darling of the media there. The media has extolled her ability to use chopsticks and her gourmet choice of cantonese dishes in restaurants. She also stated after meeting Premier Li Qiang that while relations were on a more stable footing than two years ago, it was important for both countries to have what she called “tough conversations”. One such issue is Chinese factory “overcapacity” in particular Electric Vehicles, solar panels and other green energy products. There is real fear in the West that as the Chinese economy stalls and domestic demand remains tepid, the Chinese will start dumping their products in external markets.

In another indication that China and America are condemned to co-exist, Xi Jinping met with key American executives on March 27 and let it be known that China is open for business, when in actual fact it is anything but. The former Dean of Harvard Kennedy School Graham Allison and the author of the famous book “Destined for War: Can America and China escape the Thucidides’s Trap?” also met Xi Jinping and Wang Yi. The reason for this special treatment is clear. Allison has emerged as the biggest advocate of Sino-American rapprochement (a la Kissinger one might add) arguing that war between the two countries is not inevitable. Indeed, rumour has it that Graham Allison is the brain behind recent moves for detente between the two countries. Allison says that he asked for clarification from Xi Jinping who while talking about Sino-American ties used the following metaphor “I am in you and you are in me” to US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. It is not entirely clear what Xi said to Allison. But the irrepressible Global Times goes on to quote Allison as saying that the US and China are like inseparable, conjoined Siamese twins. A case of mixed metaphor?

It is conventional wisdom that Israel and the jewish lobby have enormous clout in the formulation and execution of American foreign and security policy. Recent events, however, have called into question the above reasoning.

A couple of factors have contributed to the unusual discord between the strongest of geopolitical allies. The first has to do with Israel’s war in Gaza and the civilian casualties accompanying it. It is now clear that most Americans disapprove of Israel’s war in Gaza; a Gallup poll puts the figure at 55 per cent. This is critical for the incumbent President Joe Biden who is running neck and neck with Donald Trump. Second, Biden faces a serious dilemma: he needs the support of the jewish lobby just as much as he needs the support of ALL democrats. But here is the thing. Last year a Gallup poll found that for the first time in more than two decades, democrats sympathized more with Palesitinians than with Israelis. Biden is thus walking a tight rope in a knife-edge election.

The other demographic shift in the US is that more young Americans are critical of Israel than their elders. Again, Biden needs the support of this group to win in November. Last but not least, immigration may have also led to the spread of Muslim population in the US. This has led to protests against Israel in the unlikeliest of places: Huntsville and Boone! Again, Biden will want to ensure that these votes don’t go to Trump.

There is also the small matter of chemistry between Biden and Bibi. They may have started off being polite with each other, but the relationship has clearly soured and the strain is showing. All of this is taking place against the backdrop of relative decline of American power. If the US cannot persuade Israel, of all countries, to do what it wants then you can scarcely expect China or Russia to be intimidated by American power.

Finally, both Biden and Bibi may want to see the back of each other. It is true that Bibi is up against the wall in Israel, but he is nothing if not a survivor. Biden on the other hand hopes to prevail against Trump. Bibi however may fervently wish for Trump to prevail. After all, with Trump in the White House, Bibi if he is still around may have a freer hand. With Trump there is unlikely to be a debate of right versus wrong and a discussion of niceties like civilian casualties and famine affecting children.

It is probably premature to say that US-Israel ties have changed irreversibly. With a change in leadership either in Israel or indeed the US, things could quickly revert to status quo ante. But there is no gainsaying the fact that the once indestructible relationship is going through a turbulent phase!

The United States of America may have gone past its unipolar moment, but it still is by far the most pre-eminent power around in today’s world. China certainly threatened that position and bid fair to replace the US at some point in the future. But now, legitimate questions are being asked about whether China will ever overtake the US. At any rate, world history does not move in straight lines!

For a pre-eminent power, the strategy and tactics followed by the US to practice its public diplomacy is questionable. The original aims of public diplomacy have remained the same since times immemorial: to explain a country’s diplomatic stand on issues, seek understanding especially of the foreign audience for that stand and finally, to advance one’s own interests in the matter. The US has had an approach which can best be described as “megaphone diplomacy”. For the uninitiated, megaphone diplomacy is a term used to describe  negotiations between countries or parties that are held through press releases and announcements, aiming to force the other party into adopting a desired position. It stems from an unnuanced or a manichean world view and the message sought to be conveyed is deliberately provocative.

The United States has also practiced a brand of cowboy diplomacy for some time now. The earliest example of this from an Indian standpoint is the dreaded Special 301 process flowing from the US Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 which has been described rightly as an instrument of aggressive unilateralism. This was used with impunity against countries like India during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations to make the latter accept Intellectual Property Rights as a subject in the GATT/WTO system. Truth be told it worked for the US. But the point is it left such a bad taste with countries against whom it was targeted, that you have to wonder whether this form of public diplomacy is helpful in meeting the overall objectives for which it is intended. And yet year after year, the US continues with this practice treating friend (India) and foe (China) alike. Trump took this to a whole different level when he imposed tariffs using the pretext of national security.

US also delights in commenting on the internal affairs of other states, regardless of how strategically important those countries might be. It is one thing for the US to comment on whether or not the elections in Russia were fair or not. After all US and Russia are in the middle of an information war, as it were. But the US could not desist from commenting on the notification of the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Soon after the Government of India notified the CAA on March 11, a State Department Spokesperson expressed concern over the CAA and made gratituous remarks to the effect that respect for religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all communities are fundamental democratic principles (sic). This led in turn to the Indian spokesman for the Ministry of External Affairs saying that this is an internal matter of India and is in keeping with India’s inclusive traditions and its long-standing commitment to human rights. The External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar, as is his wont, was scathing in his remarks and questioned the Americans’ understanding of India’s history. The trouble is if the US makes remarks on the internal affairs of India, any proud country like India will be forced to respond. This tit-for-tat does not serve either country and it certainly runs counter to what has been billed as the most “consequential partnership” between the world’s oldest and the world’s largest democracy.

The US must re-examine its strategy of public diplomacy which appears to have the opposite effect to that of winning friends and influencing people. There are basically two options available for the US. One, take up these things in private as normal friends and strategic partners do among themselves. Or have a closed-door bilateral dialogue giving each other equal opportunity to raise issues of mutual concern. Doing it in public through megaphone diplomacy is clearly counterproductive and it is hard to fathom what, if anything, the US gains from it all.

It is a truism to say that things in China are opaque. But even by Chinese standards, things under Xi Jinping are becoming more opaque. And so it was with the recently-held “Two Sessions” meeting.

The “Two Sessions” meeting refers to annual meetings of the National People’s Congress – China’s parliament- and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an advisory body. The National People’s Congress, even though a rubber stamp gives an opportunity, especially for the Premier of the day (Li Qiang), to outline in some detail the economic targets for the year ahead. This year, the “Two Sessions” talked of “AI-plus” initiative and focused on the ” new three” which refers to solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries. It is clear the Chinese economy is looking into the future.

In the past, the Premier read out from a prepared text and then addressed a press conference which no doubt was “choreographed” well in advance. Nevertheless, it was followed closely by foreigner investors, scholars and China experts for reading the tea leaves. At least symbolically, the Premier was supposed to be number two in the hierarchy. At the end of the day, the “Two Sessions” meet is a way for foreigners to understand how Chinese “democracy” works.

Imagine the surprise then when the much-awaited press conference by Premier Li Qiang was cancelled without explanation this time around. The following questions arise immediately:

(1) Is this Xi Jinping’s way of making sure no one else grabs any limelight other than himself. Li Qiang had already stated unambiguously in his report that: We owe our achievements in 2023 to General Secretary Xi Jinping, who is at the helm charting the course. Mao was known as the “Great Helmsman” so the above description was not lost on anyone.

(2) It is clear that Xi Jinping does not want a Premier like the one before i.e. Li Keqiang who passed away recently and was popular enough to attract crowds at his funeral. He certainly appeared to have enjoyed lot more powers than his successor. It may now be reasonably argued that there is no number two in the Chinese hierarchy at present.

(3) By cancelling a press conference, albeit a highly choreographed one, Xi Jinping was also letting it be known that he is not too concerned about what signal this sends to foreigners, about lack of transparency etc. This concerns the Chinese economy and is of enormous interest to foreign investors. But that does not seem to bother Xi Jinping in the least. It is CCP control and his own position that is predominant.

(4) Are we also seeing a more emphatic shift in the power balance between the CCP and the State Council/Government, in favour of the former. The Premier typically heads the State Council/Government. The Government is now merely an instrument perhaps to implement the CCP’s wishes.

(5) There are also other small tell tale signs. The CEOs of Hong Kong and Macau used to meet separately with the President and the Premier in the past. Now they meet with just President Xi Jinping with the Premier sitting in.

(6) There may have been other changes as well. Foreign Minister Wang Yi now apparently reports directly to Xi Jinping. This was hardly the case with Wang Yi’s predecessors. Our China experts may be able to confirm this.

It is well known that Xi Jinping has been consolidating his base and concentrating power in his hands. Xi Jinping is no longer first among equals; there is virtually no one equal or even comparable to him anymore.

While this development is not new and has been in the offing for some years now, the key question is to ask what geopolitical implications this will have for China’s partners and adversaries. From our perspective, it seems clear in retrospect that Ladakh could not have happened without Xi Jinping’s explicit instructions. Equally, things can improve only if he wishes it. The trouble for India is that our two leaders are not meeting anymore, so chances of improvement in bilateral ties seem bleak at least in the short run.

US and EU will have taken note of this as well. If Xi Jinping is the only one who counts in China, it is hard to attach too much importance to the likes of Foreign Minister Wang Yi or even Premier Li Qiang. It is Xi Jinping all the way, for better or for worse.

The WTO stopped functioning the way it should have, a long time ago. Yet, meeting after meeting at the Ministerial-level takes place at regular intervals to make some incremental progress, probably saving it from obvious extinction. The meeting at Abu Dhabi (hereinafter referred to as MC 13) was no exception to this.

The question is why it is not allowed to die? Well, one reason is that international organizations rarely disappear. Even UNIDO which was to have been wound up some years ago, has managed to reinvent itself and is now surviving, if not flourishing. In the case of the WTO, there has been enormous investment by the industrialised West in the organization. It was fine as long as the West benefitted from the WTO, the classic example being the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations which enabled the transition from the erstwhile GATT to the WTO in 1995. The Uruguay Round was broadly based on the “Washington Consensus”, a notion propagated by the West.

But China, among other countries, changed the fundamental Western calculus with regard to the WTO. China negotiated for 15 long years to get into the WTO. But once they got inside in 2001, they played the WTO game in a way no one could have previously imagined. Basically, for China, if something was not explicitly forbidden by the WTO rules, it was kosher. And they had a “hybrid capitalist” system which the WTO did not provide for, much less bargained. Take industrial subsidies. The degree of opacity in China in this respect is so acute that the prevailing system of depending on the voluntary disclosure to the WTO Secretariat by countries concerned regarding industrial subsidies is nothing short of ludicrous. Or take forced transfer of technology or IP theft by China. There are really no disciplines in the WTO for forced tech transfer in the WTO; on IP theft, it is hard, if not impossible, to prove. All in all, China turned the WTO rules on its head to benefit tremendously from it. The West, especially the US, EU and Japan tried taking them to dispute settlement but found that the Appellate Body actually ruled in favour of China a great deal of the time. This was frustrating for the West to say the least. Hence the American opposition to the Appellate Body. All this in the midst of a major power shift in the world from the West to the East. So, China cannot be steamrollered the way India was in the late eighties in the Uruguay Round.

Against this backdrop, the MC 13 did what it could, which was modest. Thorny problems were kicked down the road and enough decisions were made to keep the WTO afloat. In a development unusual in the WTO, a China-led plurilateral initiative for an agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (backed by well over 100 countries) was prevented from happening by India and South Africa, the latter two objecting to it on grounds of principle, rather than for substantive reasons. This prompted some observers to quip that there was trouble in the BRICS paradise!

What about India? Well we were and will always be sui generis, especially in the WTO. So much so, our satisfaction with WTO Ministerial meetings is inversely proportional to the degree of success that the meetings enjoy. The MC 13 was a relative failure by all accounts; so, our joy knew no bounds!

India approached the MC 13 with some specific objectives: restoration of the Appellate Body, permanent solution to the issue of Public Stockholding (PSH), 25 year Special & Differential Treatment on Fisheries Subsidies, preventing plurilateral initiatives in the WTO and stopping the extension of moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. There were other supplementary objectives as well.

In my latest Book “India’s Moment”, I have designed an integrated assessment framework for evaluating India’s negotiating positions. So, with your indulgence, I will now apply that framework’s six criteria to assess India’s positions in the MC 13:

(1) Poverty Veto: The decision to seek a permanent solution to the PSH issue is rooted in the poverty veto in the form of the Pradhaan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana which reportedly feeds 800 million people. If it was not for this programme, poverty levels would have soared during COVID. This is not to say the prosperous farmers from Punjab are right in their protests, they are in fact dead wrong. But the larger issue of reform of Agriculture in India is crucial. This is one issue where the WTO has no credibility to tell us what to do, having allowed the US and EU in the past to subsidize without limits. The Agriculture Agreement of the Uruguay Round is one of the most unfair and unjust Agreements, especially with regard to developing countries. If there is one issue on which India can and should take on the entire WTO, it is Agriculture.

(2) Policy Space: In my Book I argue that India needs much more policy space than other comparable countries. This is the reason we are seeking 25 years’ transition period for fisheries subsidies (over-capacity and over-fishing) with disciplines for developed countries as well. Other countries view 25 years as excessive, and it is hard to blame them for thinking that. But we make haste slowly in India and have perfected that art! Indian fishermen are local in character and have livelihood concerns. This is in stark contrast to EU, Japan, China and Taiwan which have large fishing fleets and engage in heavily subsidized deep sea fishing. Comparing our subsidies with theirs is a bit like comparing our current coal consumption to that of past misdeeds by the West and current misdeeds by China in this regard.

(3) Domestic Politics: With general elections not far away, the Government was keen to be seen as doing everything to protect the interests of farmers and fishermen, two vital electoral constituencies. So much so, on the fisheries subsidies issue, the EU negotiator blamed India as the only country blocking a positive outcome. In the negotiations at the WTO, domestic politics is never far behind.

(4) Geo-political Imperatives: While our objecting to the China-led initiative on Investment was seen as a by-product of the Ladakh imbroglio, the truth is that India objected to it on grounds of principle. If you allow this plurilateral initiative, then the flood gates will open in the WTO. Still, it is hard to deny geo-politics did play a small part. Interestingly, our Commerce Minister reached Abu Dhabi only after the Chinese Minister left, so no tete-a-tete between them. On the other hand, we did not name the US by name as the culprit for holding up single-handedly a solution on the Appellate Body issue. The geopolitics in the WTO is interesting. Brazil, India’s former ally, has moved on and its interests no longer coincide entirely with India in Agriculture. With China and Brazil out, India will have to rely more and more on the Africa Group for support in the WTO. US elections may prove critical for WTO in particular. One source in the “Heritage Foundation” tells me Trump, if elected, will withdraw from the WTO and have a reciprocal trade act passed in the Congress so he can deal with all partners bilaterally. After all, he knows the “The art of the deal” !

(5) Commitment to Principles: Our objection to plurilateral initiatives in the WTO is because we say we believe in the multilateral character of the WTO and that there must be a consensus among ALL countries before a subject can be included in the WTO. This position will come under pressure in the future as more and more countries want to negotiate subjects like E Commerce, Investment, Gender and Environment and we along with a handful of countries block it on grounds of principle. Interestingly, while the WTO operates on the basis of consensus (in practice and by convention) the rules actually provide for voting! Two major countries object to voting in the WTO: the world’s richest democracy and the world’s largest democracy. Talk of supreme irony!

(6) Realpolitik: It was also interesting that the Indian Minister Goyal said that he had reluctantly agreed to the extension of moratorium on customs duty on electronic transmissions only because of a personal request from his UAE Counterpart. This moratorium has thus been extended by a further two years. India had earlier decided to block the extension of the moratorium.

There is a disconnect between India’s strategic/foreign policy discourse and its trade policy discourse. The former makes it sound like India is already a ten trillion dollar economy or will become one soon. The latter gives an impression that it is still a one trillion dollar economy. This needs bridging. There is thus an imperative need for India to become a ten trillion dollar economy with major trading credentials. If not, our strategic/foreign policy ambitions will take a hit at a time of possibly a Trump-led US, an assertive China, a distracted EU and multilateralism in terminal decline.

As for WTO, India must prepare for a contingency when the WTO is more plurilateral than multilateral, when it is based on the old GATT system of dispute settlement and when the WTO is open to negotiating on subjects like environment, gender etc which we have traditionally considered as “non-trade” subjects.

24 February 2024 marks the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian action in 2022 set off a conflict in the heart of Europe upending decades of peace on the Continent. The conflict has now reached a tipping point with most observers seeing the momentum shifting in favour of Moscow. So, it is time to ask how this war has played out and where things are heading.

Any expectation that this war will be swift and decisive has been completely belied by events. Two predictions made by Russia experts have turned out to be absolutely prophetic: (a) That this will be a long war of attrition; and (b) That there is no way Russia can lose this war given the obvious advantages in manpower and material that it enjoys. This broad assessment has stood the test of time so far, despite some spectacular initial success that Ukraine enjoyed. Ukraine simply flattered to deceive, especially when it failed abysmally in its counter-offensive.

The loss of life and destruction of property has been extensive for both sides. But again, given the huge disparity in size between Russia and Ukraine, the per capita impact has been much more catastrophic for Ukraine than for Russia. Russia has gained momentum lately, so it does not have any incentive to negotiate now. In the case of Ukraine, it ought to be willing to negotiate if common sense prevailed, but it is politically suicidal for Ukraine and EU to negotiate now after investing so much in the war. Moreover, both sides are in a wait and watch situation particularly with regard to the US elections which may see a certain Mr Donald Trump in the White House. And if that were to happen, all bets are off.

EU clearly finds itself in a bind. It cannot not support Ukraine, but its support is increasingly turning out to be inadequate and divisions within EU are beginning to emerge. So, in practice EU will be able to support Ukraine only as long as it can, not necessarily as long as it takes. And Russia knows this only too well. EU has effectively talked itself into the following: (1) That Ukraine must not be allowed to lose this war. (2) This is not just Europe’s war, it is something that should concern the entire world including the Global South. (3) Russia will not stop at Ukraine. If it is allowed to get away in Ukraine, it will attack other countries, including those that belong to NATO. (4) Russia is EU’s implacable arch-enemy. The trouble with the above propositions is that they are all liable to becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, with disastrous strategic implications for the EU, the US, the NATO and more broadly the West.

It is proper after two years of the war in Ukraine to ask what it has done to the world order and international relations. Some broad-brush conclusions:

(a) There has been a serious fragmentation of the world order into at least three constituent parts: the West, the anti-West and the non-West (to borrow a phrase from the Indian External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar). The G7 represents the first faction; Russia, China, North Korea and Iran represent the second faction. A number of other countries like India represent the non-West faction. The complicated dynamics of the interaction between these three factions may well determine the broad contours of the geopolitics of today’s world.

(b) While the Russia experts were absolutely right about many things including the length of the war and Russia’s edge in it, I think it is fair to say that many of them were just plain wrong when they argued that Russia will never accept “junior status” vis-a-vis China. Russian junior status vis-a-vis China is no longer arguable; it is demonstrably true, even if reversible in the medium to long term.

(c) China emerges a major winner from the war in Ukraine, mainly because it enhances the strategic options for it even while shrinking the strategic space for its main adversaries including the US, EU and India.

(d) The war in Gaza, predictably, takes the US focus away from Ukraine to the delight of Russia and to the satisfaction of China.

(e) Like long-COVID, could this be a long-war that all of us have to get used to? If so, India will have to hasten its plans for diversification away from Russian defence ties and also deal with the de facto Sino-Russian alliance. Africa will need to grapple with food insecurity. And Europe will be distracted for a long long time. Security in the Indo-Pacific may be a casualty.

(f) If one compares the initial war aims of Russia and Ukraine, it is fair to conclude that neither one has substantially achieved those. But Russia has gotten the territory that it really coveted and conversely, Ukraine has lost close to twenty per cent of its land to Russia. On the other hand, it is hard to deny that Russia’s strategic scenario has become much more adverse with Sweden and Finland joining NATO and Ukraine eventually set to join Western institutions.

(g) The energy scene has been complicated by the war in Ukraine and countries have been forced to overlook environmental considerations. The war against climate change thus has taken a back seat.

(h) EU is going to be hobbled by economic and financial travails for the foreseeable future as a result of the war in Ukraine. And if the US is less forthcoming, then the war effort will have to be more or less entirely financed by the EU.

(i) The question as to what the conflict might have been if Ukraine was in possession of nuclear weapons is not lost on any one. Many countries in vulnerable situations must be evaluating their nuclear options. Nuclear non-proliferation may become a casualty.

Where does the world go from here? There is simply no traction at present for a negotiated settlement for the conflict in Ukraine. But a force majeure kind of event, such as the election of Trump in the US or massive infusion somehow of money/weapons into Ukraine may change the course of the conflict and eventually spur willingness for negotiations between the parties. Until then, Europe will sadly continue to be the killing field it resembles at present.

It is fair to say that a number of Pakistan experts have nowhere to hide at present. In the run up to the polls, it was widely predicted by many of them that the omnipotent military of Pakistan had rigged things in such a way that the old warhorse, Nawaz Sharif, will be “selected” as the next Prime Minister by the people. It is entirely possible that Nawaz Sharif may still emerge as Prime Minister of a coalition government. But there is no gainsaying the fact that the voters decided to send a clear message to the military establishment as to who the “boss” really was in Pakistani politics.

Consider the following. Imran Khan, the popular leader falls foul of the military before the polls. The military, not wanting to take any chances, puts him behind bars and encourages a number of Khan’s colleagues to either quit politics altogether or defect to other parties. Many, however, are allowed to fight elections as independents, perhaps a fatal error by the establishment in hindsight. On the other hand, the military makes it clear to anyone who cares to listen that Nawaz Sharif is the chosen one. Charges against him are dropped and he comes back from exile in time to campaign for his party, with his daughter and brother in tow. What could possibly go wrong?

In a classic demonstration of Murphy’s law, everything that can go wrong went wrong for the military establishment in these polls. First, even with every conceivable advantage, Nawaz Sharif and his party failed to win an absolute majority. Worse, the independents, the vast majority of whom belonged to Khan’s party, emerged as the single largest group in the results declared so far. From his prison, Khan congratulated the people of Pakistan for keeping faith in democracy. He stated a number of seats were “rigged” and urged his followers to take to the streets “peacefully” to protest this. Meanwhile, horse-trading has begun in right earnest. All this will play out with drama and theatre in the next couple of weeks.

The main implications of the election results in Pakistan are:

(1) The people of Pakistan took their vote seriously, despite serious odds.

(2) The military establishment has turned out to be less omnipotent than was believed earlier. Its reputation has certainly taken a beating.

(3) Imran Khan is by far the most popular politician in Pakistan today. As one Pakistan commentator put it, he has managed to score a century without a bat in his hand!

(4) A coalition government appears inevitable and a period of political instability may lie ahead. This is not ideal, given the myriad challenges that await this nuclear-armed nation of about 240 million people.

(5) It is for Pak experts to weigh in on this point, but India did not figure prominently in this election. This is no bad thing from our point of view.

(6) Did the “American factor” play a role in the electoral outcome? After all, it is an open secret that there is no love lost between the Americans and Imran Khan.

(7) The US, UK and the EU said they would work with the next government in Pakistan but did express serious concern over alleged irregularities. At the time of writing this, India has understandably not reacted to events in Pakistan.

What all this will mean for India’s policy towards Pakistan remains to be seen. A weak coalition government and a smarting military establishment is unlikely to provide a conducive environment for peace and reconciliation between the two countries. That said, abhi picture baaki hai!!

While the impending American presidential election is hard to predict, countries around the world are seeking to ‘Trump-proof’ their foreign and security policy. This is based on current wisdom that while Trump is not a shoo-in, it is virtually impossible to rule him out!

The one important point to ponder is that unlike the vast majority of politicians, Trump actually believes what he says. He therefore means what he says; this applies even to the outrageous things that he says on the campaign trail. Some may argue that Trump’s bark is worse than his bite. This is a dangerous argument. It is much better to assume that with Trump what you see is what you get!

The big question for the world is whether the US under Trump would turn isolationist and focus inwards in a significant way. After all this is the signature theme of MAGA i.e. Make America Great Again. Should this happen, the biggest casualty may be NATO. If the US treats NATO agnostically, then there are implications not just for Russia, but also the new entrants Finland and Sweden. It is however Ukraine which will face the Trump impact in almost an existential manner. Trump boasted recently that he could resolve the Ukraine issue in a matter of days, causing enormous consternation to Ukrainian President Zelensky. It is near certain that Trump will cut off military aid to Ukraine. In parallel, Trump is most likely to deal with Putin from a clean slate. Effectively, this means that a negotiated solution in Ukraine suddenly becomes possible; the trouble is this also means Ukraine will have to deal with Russia from a position of relative weakness. Territory occupied by Russia will most likely remain Russia’s. NATO may be weakened to the point where Ukraine’s potential membership in that organization may become meaningless.

The transatlantic relationship (US-EU) will be in for a paradigmatic shift if Trump makes it to the White House. The EU’s “Common Security and Defence Policy” is still work in progress and is arguably inadequate to meet all of EU’s security requirements. More important, the “Strategic Compass of the EU”, announced with much fanfare in 2022 and aimed at a stronger and more capable EU in the field of security and defence unambiguously states that the transatlantic relationship and EU-NATO cooperation is key to its overall security. Trump therefore is unquestionably bad news in that sense for the EU. It is fair to say that EU will be left largely to fend for itself.

China’s case is rather interesting. On the one hand, the Chinese hate unpredictability and therefore will be loath to seeing Trump in the White House. On the other hand, Trump will be totally free of ideology and will be ever ready to do a deal. The Chinese may welcome this aspect of a Trump presidency. They must already be preparing a list of products and services that they can import from Trump constituencies and looking at potential investments they can make in Trump companies and properties.

ASEAN will be most worried about a Trump presidency, also because it is hard to predict where Sino-American ties will be headed. This probably holds true for Japan and ROK as well. Alliances such as AUKUS and the Camp David security pact between US, Japan and ROK will face unpredictability.

What of India? While most aspects of our relationship with the US can be handled by following a policy of forbearance and resilience, it is the trade, investment and IPRs dossier that may prove thorny and intractable. Trump is a classic “Luddite” when it comes to trade ties and he will harp on the trade deficit with India ad nauseum. Moreover, how Trump goes about dealing with China will have implications for our own ties with China. Trump’s unsophisticated and raw approach to foreign and security policy means that we must be ready for a weakened Quad, heightened criticism of India in the area of IPRs and a more disruptive G20. UN is likely to be a low priority for Trump. Conversely, the personal chemistry between Trump and Modi should be a real plus. Trump is also less likely to focus on democratic backsliding and absence of religious freedom worldwide.

Lots of people may construe the above as not so good news. But Trump’s age makes it certain that this will be his last term. There is only so much one can do or not do in 4 years’ time. So, just consider it a roller coaster ride and remember to wear your seat belt!

For the uninitiated, “The World Crisis” is a magnum opus written by Winston Churchill published in six volumes and gives a detailed account of the First World War. As his American biographer William Manchester said: Churchill’s masterpiece “The World Crisis” begins with the Great War’s origins in 1911 and ends with its repercussions in the 1920s. Magnificently written, it is enhanced by the presence of the author at the highest councils of war and in the trenches as a battalion commander. It was often said that the book was Churchill’s autobiography disguised as a history of the Universe. With Kissinger dead, it will be interesting to know who might write a magnum opus for the present period in world history like the one Churchill wrote. Perhaps a well-known figure from the Orient for a change?

I mention this not because I am a fan of Winston Churchill (it is hard for any Indian to be that) but because the conditions characterising the world order today resemble most the period obtaining prior to and during World War I. Indeed, it is possible to argue that the present period is much worse since most parts of the world are in a state of profound of crisis.

We begin with Latin America if only because it is often a forgotten continent when you happen to reside in India. Argentina is bang in the middle of a politico-economic crisis (when has Argentina been without one, you might ask) with a maverick leader who has just assumed office. Venezuela and Guyana are at each other’s throat over a piece of territory. Overall, Latin America and Caribbean will see their economic situation determined by actors outside the region, with resultant loss of agency.

US presents the million dollar question. Will Trump trump (pun absolutely intended) Biden? All signs point to it barring unforeseen events such as Biden voluntarily stepping down in favour of a younger Democratic nominee or Trump getting into such a legal quagmire that effectively prevents him from running and holding office. How does the world prepare for Trump 2.0? What should NATO, EU and Ukraine do by way of contingency planning? How should China prepare for a Trump administration? More significantly, Middle Powers around the world such as India, Japan and ASEAN will wonder what is in store for them. The policy planning outfits of Foreign Offices around the world have their hands full and must be churning out briefs after briefs.

Europe is already in full blown crisis thanks to Ukraine. The war in Ukraine shows no sign of abating. But the advantage seems to be shifting to Russia. Trump has already said he can resolve the Ukraine issue in 24 hours. Zelensky has responded to it bravely, but deep inside EU and Ukraine must be terribly worried about a Trump presidency. Russia may consider itself a fortunate beneficiary of a Trump administration, but who knows?

The Middle East is up in flames and enough has been written about it. A wider regional war seems possible, if not probable. Some would argue the wider war is already under way. The question is how Trump will deal with Israel. There was a Trump peace plan officially titled: Peace to Prosperity: A vision to improve the lives of of the Palestinian and Israeli people. This was rejected by Palestinians earlier and the peace plan demanded virtually no concessions from Israel. Would Netanyahu prefer to deal with Trump rather than Biden? It would certainly seem so.

Africa has a busy election calendar in 2024, with 19 countries slated for presidential or general elections. Two-thirds of these elections are packed into the last quarter of the year. Half of the elections are uncompetitive and will see incumbents triumph. But it is the economic situation that should worry the world. South Africa is expected to barely grow in 2024 and Nigeria may grow by a little over 3 per cent. However, poverty will persist and the achievement of SDGs actually hinges on Sub-Saharan Africa.

Will the Indo-Pacific see conflict in 2024? This is the one thing that will matter most not just for countries in Asia but also the world, since Asia is now the main driver of global economic growth. The answer to the question above will depend primarily on China. With the US distracted by domestic politics in an election year, the EU distracted by Ukraine, Taiwan having just elected an “independent-minded” leader and the Middle-East up in flames, will the Chinese leader Xi Jinping be tempted by adventure in South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait, or alternatively, will he hunker down to put China’s house in order.

India continues to find itself in a geopolitical sweet spot. Subject to brent crude not going through the roof, the new Government in India which takes office in May should usher in deep and difficult reforms in Land, Labour and Agriculture which have been elusive thus far. The other challenge is to make economic growth and prosperity more inclusive so that everyone has a stake. 2024 will therefore not merely pose challenges but also present significant opportunities which must be grabbed with both hands. After all, fortune favours the brave.

It is now clear in hindsight that when the Hamas carried out the horrific attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023 , it had certain strategic objectives in mind. Among them, the most important was to draw attention to the Palestinian issue by establishing a correlation between Israeli responsibility and the lack of fulfilment of Palestinian aspirations. In retrospect, it is hard to avoid the impression that Israel walked right into the trap set for it. The right thing for Israel would have been to carry out a proportionate military response and show the Hamas truly for what they are: a bunch of terrorists. But by conflating Hamas with all Palestinians, Israel may have committed a strategic error from which there is now no going back.

Any hope therefore that the Israeli response will be confined to specific Hamas targets in Gaza and limited in duration, turned out to be a pious hope by the international community. Israel’s response was not just massive and indiscriminate; it also demonstrated scant regard to civilian casualties, particularly involving women and children. Some estimates put this figure in Gaza at over twenty thousand civilian deaths. International condemnation was quick in coming. Even the US, Israel’s staunchest ally, rebuked Israel but to no avail. In fact, Israel within days of the incursion in Gaza, also carried out incursions in the cities of West Bank which saw increase in army and settler violence leading to the deaths of at least 288 Palestinian civilians.

While Israel was bombing the hell out of Gaza, beginning 17 October 2023 militias allegedly backed by Iran  initiated a coordinated series of more than 115 attacks on American military bases  and assets in Syria  and Iraq. Within days of the Hamas attacks and the Israeli response therefore, there were signs that this will not be confined to Gaza.  From 27 October 2023 to 4 January 2024, the US carried out multiple airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq in locations such as Abu Kamal, Deirez- Zor, Abu Gharib and Kirkuk. On 4 January 2024, the US military carried out a drone strike on the headquarters of Harakat al Nujaba  in Baghdad, with the specific target being Mushtaq Talib al-Saidi , a senior leader held responsible for orchestrating attacks against US forces. In response, the Iraqi PM  announced on 5 January 2024 that the Iraqi government would begin a process towards the removal of the U.S.-led international military coalition from Iraq.

In addition to the above, Lebanon entered the fray willy-nilly when Israel allegedly killed the top deputy commander of Hamas on 2 January 2024 in a suburb of Beirut through a drone attack. This part of Lebanon is Hezbollah territory and its leader Hasan Nazrallah vowed revenge on Israel. True enough on 6 January 2024, Hezbollah fired dozens of rockets (62 missiles to be precise) at an Israeli air surveillance base and said this was merely an initial response to the killing of the Hamas leader by Israel. It is hard to see either Israel or Hezbollah calming down.

As if all this were not enough, Iran suffered a deadly bomb attacks in a crowded market which killed 84. While the Islamic State claimed responsibility, some in Iran pointed a finger at Israel and the US. Iranian authorities vowed revenge.

So, the areas affected so far by the conflict in Gaza are: West Bank, Israel itself, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. If this is not regional conflagration, what is? The maritime theatre is also badly affected with Red Sea now a no-go zone for shipping giants such as Maersk which have decided to take the longer route via Cape of Good Hope. Except that the situation is neither good nor one of hope!