Skip to main content

Is Multilateralism the Answer to Preserving the Rules-Based Global Order?

It is evident that the world is changing. The strategic withdrawal by the United States from the global rules‑based system has raised new questions about the future of global governance. Most nations continue to hold on to the principles of global collaboration, and for good reason. The existing system has allowed for unparalleled economic growth in the post–World War II era through free trade. Can the rules‑based system survive? I believe the existing global governance structure can be preserved through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‑Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The CPTPP: A Shield and a Standard‑Setter The CPTPP is one of the most sophisticated trade agreements in the world, encompassing free trade in goods and services, robust intellectual property protection, facilitated business travel, stringent labor standards, and government procurement opportunities. The trading bloc consists primarily of middle powers: A...
Post a Comment

India and China: A Delicate Dance of Rivalry and Cooperation

India and China are two ancient civilizations with histories stretching back millennia. Today, they find themselves in a modern rivalry shaped by ideology, geopolitics, and ambition. While both nations have expanded their global influence, their relationship remains defined more by competition than cooperation.

Ideological Divide: Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

At the core of the Sino‑Indian rivalry is an ideological divide. India, the world’s largest democracy, prides itself on its pluralistic political system, public discourse, and institutional checks and balances. While imperfect, India’s democratic institutions encourage compromise and public participation.

China, by contrast, operates under a one‑party authoritarian regime founded on communist ideology. The Chinese Communist Party maintains legitimacy through economic success and global influence rather than popular consensus. Its governance model prioritizes efficiency and strategic control over democratic participation.

These contrasting political identities shape their foreign policy approaches. India leans toward multilateralism and diplomacy, seeking to avoid military confrontation. China, in contrast, pursues an assertive, goal‑oriented diplomacy, using international relations as a tool to advance its strategic interests.

Diverging Foreign Policy Objectives

China’s foreign policy is driven by expansionist ambitions. Its territorial claims in the Himalayas—particularly in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh—are rooted in historical narratives such as Mao Zedong’s “five fingers of Tibet” analogy. The 1951 annexation of Tibet and continued influence in the region remain major sources of tension.

Beyond the Himalayas, China’s assertive posture in the South China Sea and its stated goal of annexing Taiwan reflect a broader pattern of uncompromising diplomacy. Artificial islands, military installations, and disregard for international rulings have drawn global criticism. India watches these developments with growing unease. Diplomatic dialogue has yielded little progress, and the 2020 Galwan Valley clash marked a sharp escalation in tensions.

Stabilizing Forces: Shared Goals and Global Platforms

Despite tensions, several shared priorities offer opportunities for cooperation. Both nations pursue poverty reduction, environmental sustainability, and infrastructure development. At the 2024 G20 summit in Brazil, leaders reaffirmed their commitment to these goals.

Within BRICS and through institutions like the New Development Bank, India and China have collaborated on development initiatives. Environmental stewardship is another area of convergence, with both countries participating in global climate frameworks.

Geopolitically, both support a multipolar world order and have expressed dissatisfaction with Western dominance. Their 2006 Joint Declaration emphasized their role as “major countries in the emerging multi‑polar global order.” However, China has stopped short of endorsing India’s bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat.

Economic Ties: Integration Without Trust

Economic interdependence has not translated into diplomatic stability. India faces a trade deficit with China nearing $100 billion, raising concerns about economic dependence. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while embraced by many nations, is viewed by India as a strategic tool for expanding Chinese influence.

The Path Forward: Pragmatism Over Idealism

To manage this complex relationship, both nations must recalibrate their strategies. China could benefit from revisiting Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatic foreign policy of the 1980s, which emphasized stability and cooperation. De‑escalating border tensions and adopting a more collaborative approach would help build trust.

India, meanwhile, should pursue realistic engagement. Recognizing that structural differences are unlikely to be resolved under China’s current leadership, India must assert its interests confidently while maintaining a non‑violent posture. Strengthening ties with Himalayan neighbors and deepening partnerships with other democracies could help counterbalance Chinese influence.

India must also accept that China will prioritize its core interests over shared values. When foreign policy agendas collide, China is unlikely to compromise.

Conclusion: Cooperation Amidst Rivalry

India and China share large populations, rapid economic growth, regional power status, and a vision for a multipolar world. Yet these commonalities have not been enough to overcome entrenched differences. Ideological divides, territorial disputes, and conflicting foreign policy goals continue to prevent a meaningful strategic partnership. Diplomatic gestures may keep dialogue alive, but the underlying rivalry remains firmly in place.

Read my full article on Diplomatist:
Strategic Rivals: India and China’s Parallel Ambitions – Diplomatist

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Redesigning Foreign Policy: The Rise of "Fashion Diplomacy"

In the complex and often theatrical world of international relations, diplomats and world leaders have long employed a broad range of tools to convey messages, build alliances, and project national identity. Beyond the carefully chosen words of speeches and the solemn signatures on treaties, a more subtle yet increasingly powerful form of communication is emerging: “fashion diplomacy.” This term describes the deliberate and strategic use of clothing, accessories, and style by political figures to articulate specific messages, signal ideological stances, cultivate goodwill, or even instigate subtle provocations on the global stage. The recent appearance of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in a vintage CCCP (USSR) sweater in Anchorage, Alaska, serves as a striking example of this emerging trend. Alaska and the Allure of the Past: A Sweater’s Provocative Message The image of a top diplomat from Moscow wearing the emblem of the Soviet Union...
Post a Comment
Read more

Trump's Tariffs: Truth or Fiction?

President Trump’s tariff strategy, aimed at revitalizing American manufacturing, continues to spark debate across economic and political circles. While the intent is clear, the broader implications raise important questions about its alignment with long‑term economic trends. The U.S. manufacturing sector has steadily shrunk over the past five decades, falling from 23% of GDP in 1970 to just 9.7% in early 2025. Job losses have followed suit, prompting concern among policymakers and workers alike. Yet this decline is not unique to the United States—similar patterns are evident in Canada , Germany , and Japan . Economists point to a natural evolution in advanced economies: agriculture gives way to manufacturing, which is eventually overtaken by services. In the U.S., the service sector has expanded from 71.8% of GDP in 1997 to 83.7% in 2025, driving employment growth and contributing to a low unemp...
Post a Comment
Read more

Trade as a National Security Strategy

For years, the conventional wisdom among political and economic leaders has been that expanded global trade leads to peace. This belief, rooted in liberal theory, suggests that countries with strong economic ties are less likely to go to war. However, in an increasingly competitive world, this idea is being challenged. Trade is no longer simply a neutral economic activity; it has become a powerful tool of national strategy. The Strategic Imperative of Trade Policy The long-standing economic partnership between the United States (U.S.) and China offers a clear example of this new reality. While Americans have enjoyed the benefits of inexpensive goods from China, this engagement has also contributed to China’s emergence as a major global power and military competitor. Since the 1990s, Beijing’s economic growth has funded a significant expansion of its armed forces and a shift toward manufacturing its own advanced military technolo...
Post a Comment
Read more