Trump’s Ukraine peace push is a dangerous delusion

By: Azhar Azam

President Donald Trump’s push to broker a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow reflects less an instinct for mediation than an impulse to appease. He has acted as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s henchman – leaving Russia emboldened, Ukraine isolated, allies abandoned and international security at risk.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy discovered this harsh reality when he, earlier this year, sought Trump's support to deliver a strong response to Russia’s unprovoked invasion. Against all expectations, he received no assurances – just public humiliation.

Trump’s blunt tone and abrasive treatment of a partner under siege revealed that under his presidency, Washington’s foreign policy will be driven by self-interest, not commitment and values.

By making overtures to Moscow, Trump is tearing apart a coalition of 50 nations, his predecessor painstakingly stitched together to shore up Kyiv’s defense. He appears willing to surrender Ukraine’s sovereignty and undermine Europe’s security.

Trump’s placation of a revisionist leader has transcended all limits. He has placed the onus of ending the war on Ukraine, painting Russia as a victim. Not long ago an impassioned defender of democratic freedoms, human rights and transatlantic cohesion – America under new president has defected to an authoritarian adversary – branding Zelenskyy as a “dictator” and dismissing conflict as a European war.

Chasing personal glory and rapid-fire peace deals, he has talked of territorial swaps, nixed Ukraine’s Nato membership, refused security guarantees to Ukraine and pressured Zelenskyy to end the war on Putin’s terms – ceding Crimea to Moscow. Trump’s “deal-making” normalizes aggression and encourages Russia to demand recognition of “new territorial realities.”

This isn't diplomacy – it's capitulation. This doesn’t just reward aggression – it hails tyranny. Worse, this approach shakes the foundation of transatlantic security and casts serious doubts on US commitment to allies.

His action to trade away Ukraine's sovereignty for self-projection has broader implications for global security. It set a dangerous precedent for other powers to resort to use of force – emboldening Israel to flex its muscles beyond Gaza as exemplified by its military campaign in Qatar, a staunch US ally, to target Hamas top leadership.

Trump's abandonment of Ukraine will reinforce the global south's suspicions on US reliability as a security partner and guardian of the rules-based international order, hastening their embrace of a China-led global governance model – not out of ideological convergence but out of disillusionment with America’s negotiable commitments with partners.

To prevent this drift, Washington must reestablish its credibility. Clinging to an arrogant obsession of the world's lone-superpower won’t change the global south’s perception.

For America to change this view, it must treat existing allies as equals, build new partnerships – not alliances – with individual countries and demonstrate that it values its allies regardless of economic and military weight.

Even Europe is growing wary. The bloc’s 2025 Strategic Foresight Report underscores that security has become a “key vector” for all European policies, stressing “We are witnessing the erosion of the rules-based international order and fracturing of the global landscape.” Britain, Belgium, France and Portugal and several US allies have announced to recognize Palestine – apparently in a backlash against Trump’s protectionism and ambivalence toward European security.

Moscow, meanwhile, is exploiting Trump’s whimsical approach. Far from tempering its stance, it has hardened its conditions to end the war, demanding most of the territory it has seized and some of which it's yet to, accepting Zelenskyy only as a “de facto” head of a “regime” rather than as a leader of a sovereign state.

Putin continues to pin the blame of his invasion of Ukraine on the “(2014) coup” and Kyiv’s accession to Nato – a narrative echoed by some Western scholars but belied by Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian land.

More than a decade later, the West’s assessment has prevailed with Russia seizing almost 20% of Ukraine. And despite Trump’s assurance to deny Nato membership to Ukraine, Putin is seeking more – let alone returning the occupied territory. His dizzying pace and bountiful concessions to Moscow have shocked allies and invited escalation.

If this is the peace deal, he boasted on his campaign trail to clinch in 24 hours, Ukraine and Europe are rightly alarmed. Surrender, dressed up as statesmanship, won’t bring peace – it will weaken Ukraine, fracture transatlantic bonds and strengthen authoritarian rivals.

Trump must reverse course. To reestablish US credibility and sustain its global leadership, he must deter aggression, reaffirm Washington’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and allies including those in the global south and strengthen – not undercut – the rules-based international order.

Inaction is not an option. Failure to act risks dragging the world back to the prewar era – only this time, not with bayonets, but with far deadlier weapons and nuclear stockpiles – a catastrophe for both America and the rest.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared in Brussels News and Express Tribune with the title "Need to reverse course reestablish US credibility"

CAEXPO reaffirms China's enduring commitment to a peaceful, prosperous ASEAN

By: Azhar Azam

The 22nd China-ASEAN Expo (CAEXPO) concluded in Nanning, the capital of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in south China. The five-day event, covering a total exhibition area of 160,000 square meters, spotlighted artificial intelligence (AI) as its central theme – boosting cooperation in a field that is rapidly transforming every walk of life.

In recent years, CAEXPO has promoted cooperation between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in emerging areas such as digital and green economies, fostering growth and advancing sustainable development across both sides. The upgraded China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement 3.0 pledges to deepen cooperation in these two areas as well as supply chain connectivity – three overarching drivers likely to shape the world's future.

Since the turn of the century, China has promised friendly relations with regional countries – a relationship based on "good neighborliness, security and prosperity" and non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation to safeguard regional stability and economic interests.

This neighborhood policy – guided by important principles such as amity, sincerity, mutual benefit, inclusivity and shared future – continues to form the bedrock of China's regional approach. In the middle of intensifying conflicts, it seeks to strengthen regional peace and economy by pursuing the Asian model of security and promoting high-quality Belt and Road cooperation.

ASEAN holds a prominent place in China's neighborhood diplomacy. Underpinned by strong political and economic relations, bilateral relationship has blossomed over the recent decades. CAEXPO itself is a symbol of economic, trade and investment cooperation, enhancing strategic consensus and political trust between China and Southeast Asian nations.

Data speaks for itself. China has been the bloc's largest trading partner for 16 consecutive years and the relationship has notched a new milestone with Beijing's imports and exports hitting the $694 billion mark in the first eight months of 2025. CAEXPO, among others, has been pivotal to this trajectory as bilateral trade increased more than sevenfold by 2024 since the inaugural expo in 2004.

This underscores that Beijing and Southeast Asian countries have common interest to protect regional peace and prosperity and jointly uphold multilateralism. Encouragingly, ASEAN leaders are demonstrating a commitment to multilateralism and calling for strengthening mutual trust, implementing strategic connectivity projects and enhancing people-to-people exchanges and cooperation across all areas – endorsing China's push to work together in securing a stable and sustainable region.

Given the latest edition drew high-level political and diplomatic participation and a tourism exhibition took place in Guilin, CAEXPO served as a platform for Beijing's neighborhood policy to bolster China-ASEAN ties, advance regional economic integration and further reinforce political trust, cultural exchanges and multilateral cooperation.

CAEXPO isn't just a marketplace for trade and investment deals or launchpad for new products and business partnerships; it's an avenue of dialogue and mutual learning among civilizations. Some 3,200 companies from 60 countries participated in the expo while the Belt and Road International Exhibition Area hosted 33 countries including Pakistan, South Korea and New Zealand.

With business and youth representatives of diverse cultures and nationalities gathering and interacting at a single place, it reflected China's ethos of openness and inclusivity and the expo's role in deepening understanding and furthering mutual learning. Beijing's visa-free policy, triggering a sharp rise in inbound travel from ASEAN, hasn't promoted just connectivity but also economic development.

China and ASEAN have deep, historical cultural and economic bonds. Unprecedented economic and security challenges are drawing them closer, fortifying their belief in cooperation, stability and shared responsibility for collective success.

CAEXPO – by holding several dozen sideline events and high-level forums such as on AI, blue, green and digital economies and roundtable dialogues – could carry this consensus forward, accelerating the implementation of building a community with a shared future.

Building a resilient, innovative, dynamic and people-centered ASEAN – one that is inclusive, respects political, social and cultural diversity and upholds multilateralism – anchors the regional organization's Community Vision 2045. To achieve this ambitious goal, it prioritizes embracing blue, green and digital economies, resolving disputes peacefully, maintaining stability in the region and developing robust economic partnerships.

*My article that first appeared in CGTN

Global Governance Initiative lays groundwork for inclusive global system

By: Azhar Azam

Lead: China's Global Governance Initiative proposes a pathway toward multilateral reform, emphasizing sovereign equality and shared benefits over Western-dominated international system.

At the "Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus" Meeting on Sept. 1, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI), calling on all countries to work together for a more just and equitable global governance system and advance toward a community with a shared future for humanity.

The GGI represents the fourth transformative initiative Xi has unveiled since 2021. It builds on the three other major proposals made previously: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. Together, these frameworks aim to create an open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security and common prosperity by revitalizing global development partnerships, strengthening the U.N.'s central role in international security governance and promoting cultural exchanges between diverse civilizations with the common goal of worldwide peace and prosperity. Of course, it will serve to accelerate the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The GGI is grounded in five guiding principles: sovereign equality, respect for international law, multilateralism, a people-centered approach, and concrete action. This framework offers a new paradigm of inclusive global governance to guide the world from confrontation toward peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit.

It considers sovereign equality as the most important norm governing state-to-state relations, casting it as a core premise of global governance and the foremost principle observed by the U.N. and all other international institutions and organizations.

The initiative doesn't intend to develop a global governance system where Chinese views and norms are decisive. Rather, it emphasizes that all countries, regardless of size, strength and economic power, should be equal partners in decision-making and equal beneficiaries of global governance. The GGI advocates greater democracy in international relations to ensure the system reflects the interests and aspirations of all nations, not just those of one or a small number of countries.

Affirming respect for sovereignty and the right of every country to choose its social and development model, the GGI maintains that internal affairs brook no external interference. Against the backdrop of America's normalization of high tariffs as a tool for "conquering markets and interfering in domestic issues," the initiative shares a vision to protect the territorial integrity and economic security of all countries.

Some Western observers frame partner nations' support for the GGI as obsequious and describe its language as abstract or ideological, attempting to downplay the initiative's significance due to long-held bias. However, endorsements from Malaysia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and many other nations demonstrate that its emphasis on principles, including sovereign equality, has compelling resonance for a wide array of countries.

The GGI puts commitment to the rule of law at the bedrock of global governance, stressing equal application of international law and rules. Xi said there should be no double standards and that "house rules" must not be imposed on others.

Countries across the Global South have intensified their criticism of Western hypocrisy in the application of international law and the U.N. Charter. These double standards have eroded the confidence of many countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America and even Europe in the existing international order.

The U.S. administration's protectionist approach, disrespect for multilateral institutions and international law, dismissal of existential threats such as climate change and rhetoric toward partners have awakened a desire in the Global South to pursue a multipolar world order and expand partnerships.

Leaders of developing and emerging economies are pressing hard for a more just, equitable and representative world order based on universally recognized principles of international law. By advocating consensus-based international rules and uniform enforcement of international law, the GGI intends to purge double standards from the global governance system, which has long helped powerful nations tilt the system in their favor.

Multilateralism is the cornerstone of global governance. Rooted in extensive consultation and joint contribution, the GGI rejects unilateralism and maintains that the governance system, resting on inclusive decision-making and true multilateralism, should be built by all, with its benefits shared by all.

Contrary to claims the GGI showcases Beijing's ambition for a new global economic and security order, it actually pursues defending the U.N.'s status and authority, augmenting its "irreplaceable" role in global governance. At a time when the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation with rising unilateralism, it could help build a unified, multilateral response to global crises, from climate change, poverty and pandemics to inequality and socioeconomic regression.

The GGI draws on China's people-centered approach, following which it achieved dramatic progress against poverty, inspiring Global South leaders. The initiative strives to reform global governance to meet people's needs and improve their well-being by accelerating development, bolstering resilience to shared challenges and advancing common interests. In doing so, it has the potential to help narrow the North-South divide, act as a bridge between them and serve the interests of both the developed and developing countries.

The GGI affirms that governance is about concrete actions, not making statements. The initiative calls for adopting a systematic and holistic approach, coordinating global actions, mobilizing resources and boosting practical cooperation. It further necessitates addressing both root causes and symptoms to achieve sustainable outcomes.

Global governance lacks substance unless it produces tangible results. By placing problem-solving at the core of global governance and urging developed and developing countries to shoulder their respective responsibilities of providing more resources and contributing their best efforts, the initiative aspires to forge a synchronized effort against interconnected global challenges and generate visible outcomes for the world.

Despite growing skepticism surrounding the effectiveness of global governance and international institutions, the GGI doesn't aim to abandon or overturn the existing international order. Instead, it seeks to reform and strengthen this system by embedding fairness, inclusivity and transparency into its structure so it can respond to global needs and deliver lasting benefits to developed and developing nations alike.

The GGI sets out bold and ambitious goals. It vows to harness platforms provided by the U.N. and regional, sub-regional and international multilateral institutions to infuse energy into the global governance system. The initiative also focuses on building consensus to address governance gaps in areas such as international financial architecture, artificial intelligence, climate change and trade.

Anchored in multilateralism and aligned closely with the U.N. Pact for the Future, the initiative reaffirms its commitment to the U.N.-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law. The framework envisions cooperation with all progressive forces to build a community with a shared future for humanity.

For a world facing a cascade of threats and challenges from environmental degradation and terrorism to Cold War thinking, hegemonism and protectionism, the GGI maps out the course for a fairer and more equitable global governance system, one built on the principle of mutual consultation and pledging peace, prosperity and security to all.

*My article first appeared in China's Diplomacy in the New Era

Climate injustice no excuse for Pakistan’s climate inaction

By: Azhar Azam

From abstract threat to an existential challenge, climate change has sped through the planet – wrecking ecosystems, lives, social structures and livelihoods particularly of vulnerable countries and small islands.

The world’s descent to this point isn’t abrupt – it’s been gradual and deliberate. Unchecked fossil fuel combustion, industrial expansion and exploitation of natural resources over the last two centuries engendered a phenomenon, called global warming. The scorching heat accelerated climate-induced disasters such as droughts, water scarcity, wildfires, floods, biodiversity loss and spread of infectious diseases.

Pakistan is highly exposed to climate change. Arguably the worst in its history, the 2022 floods submerged a third of the country, affected 33 million people, resulted in 1,700 deaths and caused $30 billion in damages and economic losses, according to the Word Bank.

Islamabad has sharply climbed up the ladder vis-à-vis weather extremes. It was ranked at #5 in countries most affected by the extreme climatic events by GermanWatch's Climate Risk Index 2020. The country now tops the list, mainly due to its monsoon-driven exceptionally high relative economic losses between June to September 2022.

A climate catastrophe is in the offing as climate-related calamities have triggered 802 fatalities including 203 children in the ongoing rainy season, mostly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), aside from wreaking havoc on infrastructure, crops and livestock.

Glacial melt led to creation of thousands of glacial lakes in northern areas. The process, kindled by excessive heat, sharply elevated the specter of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). These sudden events – over their potential to cause significant downstream damage by releasing millions of cubic meters of water and debris in a few hours – are a persistent threat to life, infrastructure and livelihoods of 7 million people in KP and Gilgit-Baltistan.

Pakistan’s government often singles out climate injustice and “lopsided allocation” – receiving $2.8 billion from international creditors against pledges of $10 billion – of green funding for its failure on climate action. Yet it remains unwilling to address its own governance weaknesses and step up climate adaptation efforts.

For instance, the UN-backed $37 million GLOF-II project faced criticism for failing to contribute to disaster preparedness and deliver early warnings, partially because the funds were allegedly misused. Other projects were also accused of being plagued by institutional incompetence and corruption or eroded in value over unimpeded deforestation.

Similarly, poor access of climate-smart technologies to farmers and major policy distortions such as in wheat procurement and inequitable subsidies continue to block Pakistan's agricultural transformation and harm rural communities.

At the COP27, loss and damage fund was hailed as a quantum leap in climate finance but as of June, 27 countries had pledged just $789 million – a minuscule fraction of hundreds of billions required annually

Developed countries authored the climate destiny of vulnerable nations; the government mustn't dawdle, watching Pakistan sleepwalk into climate catastrophe. It has to iron out cracks in its governance.

For Pakistan to imprint a sustainable impact on climate change, it shouldn't rely squarely on international climate financing and must mobilize domestic resources. Rather than merely shifting blame on the wealthy nations, it should expand the network of technology providers (largely concentrated in Punjab) across Pakistan and encourage private investment in renewable energy and climate-resilient infrastructure to boost productivity and lower emissions.

Establishing effective risk-sharing mechanisms such as crop insurance, promoting initiatives like issuance of green bonds and experimenting alternative climate finance models for example debt-for-climate swaps should be expedited to protecting farmers and generate climate finance.

The country’s energy mix is highly dominated by oil, gas and coal. Albeit shrinking, circular debt in the energy sector is both a threat to climate adaptation and economic stability, butting heads with terrorism and insurgency for the country’s biggest challenge.

Considering Pakistan’s economic fragility and tiny forex reserves, its heavy reliance on fossil fuels could be acceptable only as short-term necessity to foster transition toward long-term climate resilience.

Still, the government can’t lurk behind climate injustice to evade climate action. This will be akin to courting disaster. Fixing systemic inefficiencies such as low tax-to-GDP ratio, strengthening accountability mechanisms and controlling transmission and distribution losses and unproductive subsidy regimes could create a fiscal space to shore up Pakistan’s climate resilience.

In the coming decades, Pakistan is projected to stay amongst the group of countries most vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather. The country’s high exposure to torrential downpour, floods, cloudbursts and GLOFs urges a collective, nonpartisan national response.

By lacing up climate action with climate injustice or resorting to cosmetic measures – viewed by experts as taxation levies framed as climate mitigation efforts while climate adaptation funding has declined from 40% to 10% in a decade – the government shouldn't pretend to act.

The monsoon that once whispered of bliss and euphoria now fetches pain and affliction. What was rejoiced as a boon is being mourned as a doom. Climate change isn’t alone responsible for this tragic reversal. Chronic Governance failures too have magnified this crisis. Addressing systemic weaknesses is crucial to boost climate adaptation and build a climate-resilient Pakistan.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared in Asia Times

Why Trump is tightening up India's screws?

By: Azhar Azam

For many years, India successfully leveraged US tensions with China and Russia to its advantage, playing both ends against the middle. On one side, New Delhi spotlighted its potential as a counterweight to China and on the other, it reaffirmed its allegiance to Chinese- and Russian-led geopolitical blocs, BRICS and SCO, which America believes pointedly challenge its global leadership by pursuing to construct an alternative international order and upend US dollar dominance.

Employing Machiavellian diplomatic maneuvering and lofty claims, India framed itself as a prized American partner whose indispensability was central to implement US Indo-Pacific strategy. Tactics worked as Trump, in his first term, pitched India as a vital ally in the Indo-Pacific to set off a new cold war with China. His successor Joe Biden, after initially pressing India to cut back its oil purchases from Moscow over its invasion of Kyiv, too inveigled it to advance shared interests in the region.

India’s archetypal practice of changing goalposts when it suits its interests, what New Delhi calls a non-aligned policy, drove it to circumvent rifts with China, swindle the West and boost trade with Russia. Its trade with Moscow last year topped $68 billion, about six times the pre-pandemic levels. Shockingly, India’s imports from Russia accounted for almost 93% of bilateral trade including $50.3 billion spent on buying Russian discounted crude.

The Indian refined oil exports to Europe surged a whisper below 250% from 2019, largely because it shipped Russian crude after refining to European countries. India’s staggering trade with Russia, redirected oil shipments to Europe and supply of components for Russian drones for its military campaign in Ukraine hid New Delhi’s treacherous currents to exploit the conflict on European shores for its economic gains while supporting the Russian war economy. This binary approach further allowed India to abuse its strategic partnership with the US to evade sanctions and benefit from America’s “friend-shoring,” becoming for the first time the leading smartphone supplier to the US.

Once Trump returned, New Delhi betted on personal bonhomie between him and Modi to navigate choppy terrain and brave the former's tariff blitz but the president tormented India’s lofty plans. After embarrassing it by wooing its arch rival Islamabad and rubbing salt in India’s wounds – declaring trade and joint oil exploration deals with Pakistan – Trump ordered a tariff hike of 50% on India in response to its “most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers” and oil purchases from Russia.

Deals with Islamabad may cloak Washington’s geopolitical interests in mineral-rich Balochistan such as monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and counter Chinese influence; America’s presence in insurgency-riven province will represent complex challenges for India’s subversive agenda of stoking sedition in neighboring country through support for secessionist movements and terrorist organizations.

The goal behind Trump’s India bashing is, unarguably, transactional. Unlike Moscow, New Delhi maintains a jaw-dropping trade deficit in goods with Washington of $45.8 billion. He wants to rebalance this lopsided trade relationship that is heavily tilted toward India owing to its tariff and non-tariff barriers with his rhetoric dispatching New Delhi in a state of paranoia.

Data from World Trade Organization (WTO) reckons India’s simple average tariff rate at 17% compared to America's 3.3%. These high tariffs and factors such as import restrictions, import licensing and medical device price control as well as poor environmental standards, with particular matter (PM2.5) roughly 10 times the World Health Organization’s guidelines, stifle foreign competition and unfairly bolster domestic competitiveness.

Modi’s vision, “Atmanirbhar Bharat” or “Viksit Bharat 2047” replicates Trump’s “Make America Great Again” to “Make India Great Again” including by imposing a simple average agricultural tariff of 39% in contrast to the US’ 5%. Such protectionist policies had, hitherto, allowed New Delhi to take advantage of its strategic location in the Indo-Pacific to reap trade and economic advantages from America yet have now put India at Trump’s point-blank range whose volley of tariff bullets threaten to shave off half a percent of Indian GDP.

Not only Trump’s claim, India is “selling (Russian oil) on the open market for big profit,” is precisely accurate; He’s also right when he labels India a “tariff king” with “one of the highest tariffs in the world.” It's New Delhi’s indisposition to cut taxes rather than Trump’s stubbornness that poses risks to US-India decades-old relationship.

Expecting him to underrate India's economic potential and strategic significance would, however, be naïve. His core objective instead is to weed out irritants from the bilateral relationship, which could propel US-India strategic partnership into obfuscation, to strengthen the US and India hyphenation for long-term geopolitical goals in the Indo-Pacific. It was illustrated by “US-India COMPACT for the 21st Century” that pledged to “elevate military cooperation across all domains” in the region.

But first, he seeks to settle the trade score. Since February, Trump’s aides have negotiating a deal with New Delhi to address the bilateral trade deficit by augmenting sale of US military equipment and oil and gas to India. Despite several rounds of talks, there’s no progress on a US-India deal, insinuating the latter's reluctance to open its market for US businesses and buy defense gear and energy supplies from Washington. India would hope to go scot-free over US broader objectives to use India as a strategic hedge against China yet Trump, this time, is in an unforgiving mode.

More than two decades after supporting China’s accession to the WTO, the US is bewailing its strategic lapse of clearing the way for Beijing’s dominance in world manufacturing. By tightening up the screws on India, Trump is buckling down to minimize the specter of another “China Shock” that would be a death knell for US competitiveness and its downward-leaning global leadership.

*My article that first appeared in Express Tribune

What makes the SCO's security strategy exceptional

Security is the cornerstone of national stability and the foundation of development and people's wellbeing. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without peace. In today's world, national security and regional stability are inextricably linked. No country is secure unless all are secure, and cooperation based on dialogue, mutual respect and multilateralism is essential to achieving true security.

Built on this premise, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is committed to resolving disputes through dialogue, countering the lingering zero-sum mentality of the Cold War.

As part of its efforts to foster universal peace and build a new, democratic, and just economic and political international order, the SCO has adopted a unique approach anchored in the "Shanghai Spirit," a foundational philosophy emphasizing mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations, and the pursuit of common development. 

This ethos translates into external policies of non-alignment, non-confrontation, and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. This commitment to dialogue over diktat forms the bedrock of the organization's operations.

Through concrete institutions and agreements, the SCO translates its guiding principles into actions. Since its establishment, the organization has prioritized combating the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism, and extremism, as well as drug trafficking and other transnational organized crimes. This effort was institutionalized by the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), established in 2004 and regarded as one of the SCO's most tangible outcomes. RATS has become a central pillar for intelligence sharing, extraditions and joint military exercises among members, serving as the backbone of the organization.

Recognizing that security challenges know no borders, the SCO has actively forged initiatives and built partnerships. It has established partnerships and signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with international and regional multilateral organizations. Its Anti-Drug Strategy, Anti-Drug-Center and collaboration with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime support efforts against illicit drug-trafficking while MOUs with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and others strengthen the fight against terrorism, extremism, separatism and transnational crimes. 

These initiatives contribute to regional stability while reinforcing the implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

Counterterrorism has been a primary area of SCO cooperation. The goal and its promotion of non-use of force or threat of use of force are consistent with the UN Charter and distinguish the SCO from the U.S.-dominated alliances with a history of invading sovereign nations to ensure the security and prosperity of a few. It opposes unilateral sanctions and protectionist actions, which hinder global development. Instead, the SCO upholds the principles of the UN Charter and confirms that all human rights are universal.

The bloc does not seek to advance the economic agenda or strengthen any single country. It advocates resolving disputes through dialogue and developing joint responses to common security challenges, with the goal of insuring true security for all and promoting regional social and economic development.

*My article that first appeared in CGTN

China's multilateral vision offers hope amid global security crisis

By: Azhar Azam

Lead: With the world facing its highest number of conflicts since World War II, China's pluralistic approach to international security deserves serious consideration from a fractured international community.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. After an unflagging 14-year resistance and suffering over 35 million military and civilian casualties, the Chinese people achieved a great victory in the war.

This war was described as the "Asian" and "forgotten" holocaust. The invading Japanese military forces committed heart-wrenching atrocities and brutal war crimes against Chinese men, women and children. The Chinese people also became victims of biological warfare and ghoulish experiments. In the meantime, with huge sacrifices, the Chinese nation struggled unremittingly to establish the values of international peace, security and justice, as stipulated in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

Today, the world is facing the highest number of conflicts since World War II, costing $17.5 trillion a year. About 2 billion people, or a quarter of the global population, including one in every five children, live in conflict-affected regions. The international security landscape has deteriorated sharply.

Worldwide, six out of seven are plagued by feelings of insecurity. More than 12 million children have been killed, injured or displaced by conflicts across the Middle East and North Africa in just two years. State-based armed conflict climbed from last year's No. 8 to No. 1 risk in the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2025. The U.S. preference to resolve conflicts unilaterally further pushes the world toward instability.

Worsening conflicts, rising geopolitical tensions and eroding trust in multilateral institutions are reshaping the global security environment. Climate change and transnational organized crime compound these dense challenges. The profound shifts have led to demands for new visions and mechanisms for international cooperation and restructuring multilateral organizations.

The Global Security Initiative (GSI), proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, offers a flexible and innovative vision. It promotes common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. It respects the sovereignty of all countries and seeks to resolve disputes through dialogue while committing to maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains.

The GSI immediately precipitated a ruckus in Washington. Officials there viewed it as an attempt to "challenge, tear down and even destroy" the U.S.-led international order. However, the initiative actually aims to eliminate the root causes of international conflicts and reduce the risk of their recurrence. It promotes multilateralism as a way to address widening deficits in peace, development, security and governance. The GSI seeks to strengthen the international system, underpinned by international law, with the United Nations at its core.

The initiative supports U.N. efforts to reinforce conflict prevention, resolve conflicts through development and establish security through political dialogue, peaceful negotiation and diplomatic means. The GSI encourages international cooperation on climate change and transnational crime. It stresses the implementation of the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to promote sustainable security. It also supports structural and transnational components of conflict prevention but is cautious about operational segments or "direct prevention" because of their tendency toward military intervention, which is at variance with China's principle of non-interference.

China has been instrumental in strengthening global security and advancing world peace under U.N. auspices. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and a responsible international player, Beijing has actively participated in U.N. peacekeeping operations since 1990 to build and maintain peace in conflict-ridden countries.

Beijing is the largest troop contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations among the Security Council's permanent members and the second-largest of assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. In collaboration with the U.N., China has also established the Peace and Development Trust Fund, whose Peace and Security Sub-Fund supports peace activities, including mediation, preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, counterterrorism and cybersecurity.

Over the past 35 years, the Chinese military has participated in 25 U.N.-mandated peacekeeping missions and deployed about 50,000 personnel to more than 20 countries and regions, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Sudan and South Sudan. Chinese peacekeepers have conducted mine clearance and explosive ordnance disposal operations, provided medical treatment and protected civilians.

Chinese women have stood beside Chinese men to strengthen international security and promote peace. Some 332 of China's Blue Helmets, including 16 women, received a prestigious U.N. medal in 2023 for their contributions in upholding durable peace, improving community lives and building top-quality infrastructure in South Sudan.

Africa faces a complex web of security threats, ranging from terrorism and insurgency to political instability and transnational crime. Security is a prerequisite for regional development, and China is committed to bolstering the continent's security, as illustrated by the Partnership Action for Common Security.


Proposed by Xi at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation last year, this initiative pledged 1 billion yuan ($139 million) in military assistance to Africa. It will also provide training to 6,000 military and 1,000 law enforcement personnel. Rather than an effort to counterbalance or overtake U.S. traditional leadership in the security realm, it aims to boost practical cooperation in traditional and non-traditional security to jointly promote peace and ensure meaningful development.

China's peace efforts extend to support for a nuclear-free world. Xi once called nuclear weapons "the Sword of Damocles" hanging over humanity. Unlike Washington, which maintains deliberate, calculated ambiguity on nuclear weapons, Beijing pursues a self-defensive nuclear strategy and has committed to a no-first-use policy. China's Peace Ark hospital ship has traveled across six continents and three oceans to treat people in dozens of countries, delivering a message of interconnectedness and common humanity.

Playing a proactive mediation role, China brokered a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran in March 2023. More than two years after the historic rapprochement, diplomatic engagement between the two neighboring nations continues, despite concerns of fragility. Riyadh openly denounced U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and violations of Tehran's sovereignty during the recent Israel-Iran conflict.

China has reiterated its support for the two-state solution to end the longstanding Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To prevent the crisis from worsening, Beijing has urged Israel to halt its Gaza siege immediately. China has also reaffirmed support for Arab efforts to end the war and ensure the free flow of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

On the Ukraine crisis, Beijing advocates a negotiated peace solution. In February 2023, China released its peace plan containing key proposals such as respecting territorial integrity, abandoning the Cold War mindset, resuming peace talks, resolving the humanitarian crisis and lifting unilateral sanctions. If implemented fully, it could lead to sustainable peace between the warring parties in Europe.

Beijing's efforts to pursue peace through dialogue, support for the U.N.-centered governance system and promotion of mutual coexistence, multilateralism and non-interference — essential elements woefully lacking in the contemporary international order — embody its apolitical vision to safeguard security and foster the peaceful development of all nations.

Amid an increasingly unstable and fragmented global security landscape marked by unilateralism, protectionism, hegemonism and power politics, this peaceful, multilateral and pluralistic approach holds potential for narrowing the international security deficit. It could advance world peace and combine resources to counter real threats to humanity, such as climate change, terrorism and transnational crime.

*My article that first appeared in "China's Diplomacy in the New Era"

EU needs to trim down its wishlist to effectively engage China

By: Azhar Azam

Brussels’ readout of the 25th China-EU Summit was replete with charges. It’s a significantly harsh tone compared to what European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen struck in April, urging both sides to support a “strong reformed trading system,” representing a carefully calibrated signal of cooperation.

True, the EU runs a massive trade deficit in goods of €305 billion with China. While this gives a colossal leverage to the bloc and strengthens its bargaining position in bilateral talks, Brussels’ extensive wishlist muddles its ambitions to overcome the stumbling blocks, posing challenges to a “mutually beneficial” relationship.

Indeed, trade with China has benefited European consumers, providing them greater access to cheap products and supporting 3 million jobs. Mutual investments have augmented European companies’ profits; the country’s capital inflows in electrical vehicle and battery manufacturing and the China-EU energy cooperation could enhance EU’s production capacity and ensure its energy security, bringing economic prosperity and accelerating green development.

After all, it was China whose imports and capital influx assisted to prop up Europe’s creaking economies during the European sovereign debt crisis. Although it was seen as strategic move to help Beijing itself, China’s support at a critical time bolstered European ability to navigate one of the nastiest economic challenges.

The EU has been accusing China of flooding the global markets with subsidized overcapacity; Beijing’s competitive advantages including affordable labor costs, efficient supply chains and large economies of scale – producing more goods at significantly lower prices – are some of the major drivers behind its export boom.

China has leveraged its low-cost production and immense innovation capabilities in advanced industries to make an increasing number of Chinese companies formidable global competitors. By frequently staying ahead in innovation, Beijing continues to lead or is on par with global leaders in commercial nuclear power, electric vehicles and batteries and make progress in key sectors like robotics, biopharmaceuticals and artificial intelligence.

The East Asian economy is a global manufacturing leader and a lynchpin of the global supply chain owing to its decades-old strategic policies that were envisioned to transform the country into a manufacturing powerhouse through industrialization, skilled labor force, robust infrastructure and integrated supply chains. As a result, China’s share in world gross production in 2023 was estimated to be three times of the US, six times of Japan and nine times of Germany.

Over the last decade, China has revolutionized its manufacturing industry, from one focusing on output to that centering quality and innovation. Service industry, green development and domestic consumption presently are the core components of the country’s economic growth with value-added manufacturing continuing to rise.

Beijing’s share in global value-added manufacturing has risen from less than 9% in 2004 to nearly 28% in 2024 and it is forecasted to account for 45% of the world's industrial production by 2030 compared to the US’ 11%. Industrialization has played a vital role in China’s “remarkable” achievement of lifting 800 million out of poverty and contributing to nearly 75% reduction in extreme poverty globally, the top UN sustainable development goal.

One of the EU's major concerns is China’s export controls on rare earth elements (REEs). While these raw materials are critical in producing a gamut of gadgets like smartphones, laptops and electric vehicles, they can be used to develop missiles, fighter jets and drones. Beijing may argue that its curbs are in line with EU's own practices to prevent the misuse of these dual-use items and contribute to global peace and non-proliferation efforts.

Brussels, per the Eurostat, in 2024 imported 12,900 tons of REEs – 46.3% from China, 28.4% from Russia and 19.9% from Malaysia, exporting 5,500 tons to other countries. The data contests the EC claim the EU relies on China for 98% of its REEs supply and weakens its position against Beijing vis-à-vis latter’s trade with Moscow.

The EU or to put it straightly von der Leyen’s China approach is markedly different from the European leaders who when visited Beijing sought to build a “powerful partnership,” struck trade deals and pursued to deepen cooperation to tackle climate change, hasten green transition and uphold free trade and multilateral trading system.

More recently, Brussels has been looking to chart its own independent path to assert itself as a leading geopolitical and economic player. By trimming its demand list to trade and investment, the EU could extract more concessions from China, allowing itself to expand exports and strengthen its commercial footprint in the large Chinese market.

A more balanced approach, containing a concise rather than exhaustive list of demands, will further help to build a collective response to US President Donald Trump’s economic bullying and threats emanating from his actions to the multilateral trading system and rules-based international order. The EU needs to close these loopholes in its foreign policy to engage China on better footing.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared in the Express Tribune

Trump's belligerence drives a major shift in Indo-Pacific

By Azhar Azam

Donald Trump's implacable belligerence has tutored traditional US allies to quickly adjust to new geopolitical realities or truckle to his ceaseless demands. An increased sense of urgency across Europe and the Indo-Pacific implies that they have decided to take up the gauntlet of diversifying their partnerships.

In a rare show of displeasure at US president's stubborn arrogance, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during his China visit sought to stabilize relations and manage differences to “contribute” to regional peace and prosperity, holding a “constructive” meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping to underscore Beijing's importance for "our economy, our security and the stability of our region."

Beijing is Canberra’s largest trading partner with almost a third of Australia’s exports destined for China and bilateral trade hitting A$312 billion in 2024. The two economies are highly complementary, meaning China has a huge demand for Australian goods and services. This symbiotic bond, unlike the Australia-US parasitistic trade ties, provides a sound footing to tap the opportunity and strengthen the extensive relationship.

China’s investments contribute to infrastructure development, productivity and job creation in Australia; the East Asian nation’s development, opening-up and rising middle class unleash new vistas for Australian exporters. As members of Asia-Pacific Economic Forum and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, both countries also have shared interests in safeguarding regional stability and prosperity.

In the face of a rising protectionism and unprecedented volatility in global trade due to Trump’s unilateral tariffs, a stable and strengthened Australia-China relationship would ensure the Australian economy to withstand and navigate strenuous trials and continues to make a positive impact on domestic workers, employers and industries.

The strengthening of Beijing-Canberra ties has ushered in a wave of optimism among Australian businesses with 75% of foreign firms in a poll by the Australia-China Chamber of Commerce reporting profitability in 2024. Their enthusiasm – as 70% rate China as one of their top three destinations for investment over the next three years – reinforces Beijing's appeal as a hub of innovation and industrial transformation.

Canberra’s intent to "do more business with China" was reflected in its Trade Minister Don Farrell’s interview in which he refused to budge to US pressure, emphasizing that Chinese trade was nearly 10 times more valuable to Canberra. "We'll make decisions…to engage with China based on our national interests and not on what the Americans may or may not want."

Nonetheless, disparity between Albanese's and the country's defense department's approaches risks derailing Australia's newfound charm offensive against China. For instance, Canberra has been accusing Beijing of spearheading the largest and most ambitious military buildup since the second world war. Its Defense Minister Richard Marles recently echoed such an assertion.

Yet this assessment has long been contested by none other than Australia’s own analysts and former diplomats who believe the Chinese strategy is essentially inward looking, focusing internal stability and external security. Even leading Western investigations reveal the US by far outspends China in defense spending and that Beijing’s military development and record of use of force are relatively restrained.

Conversely, Trump's return is spurring new challenges for the Albanese government. After the Biden administration wanted to get Canberra “off the fence” by locking it for the next 40 years through the AUKUS, Trump's AUKUS-skeptic undersecretary of defense Elbridge Colby is leveraging the trilateral partnership to hard-press Australia into making pre-commitments if a US-China war breaks out on Taiwan.

The Trump administration is also pressurizing Australia to increase defense spending to 3.5% of the GDP. Canberra has hitherto resisted the US pressure for it would cost Australia tens of billions of dollars. For an economy that will remain in a structural deficit through 2034-35, a defense splurge would indeed imperil Albanese' social policy agenda.

Trade with China has helped Australia to put the cost of living on a downward trajectory. Studies show that this trade relationship has increased disposable income of Australian households by an average of A$2,600, supporting around 600,000 jobs. While US maintains 10% baseline tariff on Australian goods, 25% on automobiles and 50% on steel and aluminum – Beijing thanks to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies an average of just 1.1%, urging Canberra to rethink before jumping on Washington's bandwagon vis-à-vis Beijing.

No wonder, China is seen as a more reliable trade partner than the US by Australians with a sizable majority of them (71%) agreeing the country’s relationship with Beijing is important. This comes as Trump has upended the long-held assumption that America could be a dependable ally, stoking a belief in many Aussies whether it could even act responsibly.

Establishing diplomatic relations, Beijing and Canberra in 1972 agreed to develop the relationship on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence.

These fundamental tenets laid the foundation of a robust Beijing-Canberra relationship as people across the two countries lived together peacefully through decades. Should Australia chuck out its schizophrenic ambivalence, both nations can still pioneer the way for a resilient strategic partnership and a secure and thriving Indo-Pacific.

*My article that first appeared in the "Express Tribune"

All eyes on BRICS Summit for solutions

By: Azhar Azam

As the international multilateral system continues to erode and the 90-day pause on additional global tariffs by the Trump administration nears its end on July 9, global trade, security and governance face uncertainty and new challenges. Therefore, all eyes are on the 17th BRICS Summit in Brazil's Rio de Janeiro to see what kind of strategy the champion of the Global South and a stabilizing force in an increasingly volatile world comes up with to tone down differences and ensure a fair and balanced international order.

The BRICS Summit is expected to strategize how to break trade barriers and strengthen supply chain resilience, foster economic integration and push intra-BRICS trade.

The BRICS vision of reforming international institutions, preventing conflicts, promoting peace and addressing poverty and inequality is now being echoed by the Western intelligentsia as well. The organization's advocacy of a multilateral order that upholds state sovereignty, rejects protectionism and proposes trade in national currencies as the U.S. policy continues to shift has strengthened with its expansion.

The expanded BRICS now boasts 11 full member states who together account for almost 48.5 percent of global population, 39 percent of world GDP (in purchasing power parity) and 24 percent of international trade. It also has 10 additional countries as partners.

This vast demographic and economic prowess has given BRICS the potential to stabilize the global economy and make the international order just and equitable, a long-standing demand of the Global South.

Many countries in the Global South believe that current international order undermines their interests. The stockpiling of COVID-19 vaccines by some wealthy nations during the pandemic proved this, as well as the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. This has led to a stronger demand for fairness in the global order.

Nations view their accession to BRICS as a "strategic step" to expand cooperation with other developing nations and accelerate their infrastructure development and energy transition despite Donald Trump's threat to impose 100 percent tariff on BRICS nations.

Intra-BRICS trade has reportedly crossed $1 trillion while the GDP of the bloc in 2025 is projected to reach 3.4 percent, exceeding the global average of 2.8 percent. As of 2024, BRICS' New Development Bank had approved 120 projects to the tune of $39 billion in key areas such as transport infrastructure, clean energy, sanitation and social development.

With the latest expansion, BRICS countries account for about 42 percent of global food production, 33 percent of agricultural land, 39 percent of the planet's water resources and more than 40 percent of oil production worldwide. This has made the bloc an economic, technological and commodity powerhouse.

Mechanisms and initiatives such as the Contingent Reserve Arrangement to provide mutual financial support to BRICS members facing balance of payments difficulties, the BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy for 2030, which prioritizes trade facilitation, boosting intra-BRICS trade, and aligning trade with environmental concerns, and the Partnership for the New Industrial Revolution to foster industrial development, innovation, and technological cooperation, are providing financial cushions, driving innovation and uplifting BRICS' competitiveness.

China's presence has given additional ballast to BRICS. In the first nine months of 2024, Beijing's trade with other BRICS countries rose 5.1 percent to $648 billion. It is the primary trading partner and major source of foreign investment for several BRICS nations. China's booming trade, large consumer market and the Belt and Road Initiative have been a driving force behind the alliance's integration.

Contrary to the claim by some countries that BRICS is diminishing the role of West-dominated institutions, its long-term priorities are to reform and improve these very multilateral bodies while strengthening economic, social and political cooperation among its member states to increase the influence of Global South in international governance and bring the marginalized into decision-making structures.

In an era of heightened security crises and increasingly complex geopolitical environment, its member states remain committed to non-interference and have unanimously called for respecting the international law and using channels of dialogue and diplomacy to avoid escalation and resolve disputes.

If BRICS nations shelve their sporadic differences and intensify economic and trade cooperation, it can withstand new economic and geopolitical challenges and trade uncertainties.

When geopolitical tensions are rising and the world economy is in a whirl, a multilateral trading system can bring peace and stability. The U.S. has failed to take cognizance of the looming danger to the American economy. But by pledging to increase trade, supporting economic growth and pursuing sustainable development goals, BRICS leaders at the upcoming summit can shield their economies from the rampant trade extremism and contribute to the construction of a fair and balanced international order.

*My article that first appeared in "CGTN"

G7 risks disappearing into oblivion

By: Azhar Azam

The Western efforts to display cohesion on global challenges collapsed after US President Donald Trump left the G7 summit in the middle and embarrassed other member states by accusing them of not offering a fair trade deal. The widening cracks imply that G7 has effectively regressed into G6 with the future of the alliance entering an uncharted territory.

G7 was originally established to cope with economic challenges but in the 1980s broadened its scope to foreign and security policy issues. In the coming years, this seismic shift aggravated conflicts and hampered peace and prosperity the world over, weighing upon credibility of an alliance whose approach was replete with risks and relevance marred by internal differences.

Beneath G7 downfall, there lies aggrandizement of threats and advancement of self-seeking interests. These narcissistic cravings drove the bloc to impose the US-led international order on the rest of the world, preventing greater involvement of major international players and shunning collaboration on pressing global challenges.

Yet once Trump returned with all his bully and bluster, its member states began to feel the pinch of venturing recklessly with Washington. As a result, they are seeking “independence” from America’s security guarantees, declaring US tariffs as “brutal and unfounded” and recalibrating ties with China to diversify their trade away from the US.

Trump’s view the European Union was formed to “screw” the US is the sequel of his first term when he launched a scathing criticism of the bloc, prodding then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel to rely less on Washington and “take our fate into our own hands.” While factors such as lack of follow-through and Trump's acrimony have the bloc’s unity to test, middle powers’ exclusion has contributed to a sharp decline in G7 international prominence.

The alliance’s waning economic heft is another rationale behind its declining significance. G7 share in global GDP on purchasing power parity, per International Monetary Fund, is set to contract from 51.8% in 1980 to 28.4% in 2025. With emerging and developing accounting for almost 61% of global economic output, the North can more stifle the rise of the Global South or strip it of its legitimate right of having a greater role in the global governance system.

In order to prevent it from fading into triviality, G7 posed itself as an inclusive organization by inviting leaders of emerging economies such as Brazil, India and South Africa that are part of the China-led BRICS, a multilateral alliance seeking to strengthen economic, political and social cooperation and increase influence of the South.

But G7 is unlikely to catch the South's attention because it for decades has denied accession to the emerging economies and remained narrowly focused on interests of a handful of advanced industrial economies. A literal exclusion of South suggests that the bloc pursues to leverage its economic relationship to achieve its own mercenary goals; its spending cuts, leaving developing countries exposed to poverty, hunger, conflicts and climate disasters, debunk its commitment with the South.

The BRICS is being accused of diminishing the role of West-dominated institutions; its long-term priorities have been to reform and strengthen these very multilateral bodies with the aim of enhancing representation of marginalized countries. The notion of a reimagined G7 to resolve the global governance crisis is doomed from the outset given it will just be an extension of an elite club, constraining the involvement of the South as a bystander. Even proponents of the concept have acknowledged the South would find a little appeal in it as they will still be excluded from the alliance.

The Western double standards are the biggest obstacle to G7 drive of tantalizing the South into its camp. For instance, the US and allies have been framing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a struggle for democracy, supporting its right to defend itself and its sovereignty under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Yet when it came to Gaza and now Iran, the rich nations extended full-throated support to Israel, disregarding the latter’s violations of international law and the UN Charter. This powerful display of the Western hypocrisy – as Trump dismissed his own intelligence community’s assessment that Tehran wasn’t building nuclear weapons – would further alienate the North from the South.

The West’s violent strategy, inflated threat perception and hypocrisy on climate change – as well-heeled countries historically accounted for most of the carbon emissions but shifted the responsibility of the green transition on the South that contributed the least to triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution yet suffered the most – have triggered resentments in the South and would continue to blight the G7 ambition of carving out developing world from China’s influence into its orbit.

For decades, G7’s delusion of grandeur has precluded it from authorizing entry of developing economies to the forum, ensuring it remains an exclusive club of wealthy-only nations. This stubbornly arrogant posture accompanying a marked propensity to spark conflicts has faced a pushback from the South, dishing out a beatdown to the alliance’s significance. The bloc is at a crossroads, ergo: mend its hypocritical approach or risk disappearing into oblivion.

*My article that first appeared in the Express Tribune

Implications of NATO's ramped-up defense spending

By: Azhar Azam

After NATO defense ministers' meeting in Brussels earlier this month, the military alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte said that allies had agreed on "new capability targets" forming the basis for a new defense investment plan. The proposal, expected to be endorsed at the NATO summit in The Hague on June 24 and 25, will call for allies to jack up defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, including 3.5 percent on core defense and 1.5 percent on defense and security-related investment such as infrastructure and resilience.

In 2014, NATO states committed to spending 2 percent of their economic output on defense. A decade later, the coalition is again looking to take advantage of the conflicts to ramp up its military expenditure, a move that could have serious economic and social implications for member states.

By the time NATO announced that 22 of its 32 members in 2024 had hit the threshold of 2 percent, U.S. President Donald Trump stunned allies by asking them to more than double the target, or he wouldn't protect them. Several NATO countries such as Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal and Spain as of 2024 were yet to meet the 2 percent target while those of Albania, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Slovak Republic, Sweden and Türkiye barely matched their commitment.

The new 5 percent target could allow Trump to declare a win at the coming summit, but it is economically and politically unviable for many NATO's European partners, which are facing a myriad of economic challenges and where defense spending isn't politically popular. Defense economists have also argued that even if Europe were to grow at quite an extraordinary rate of more than 10 percent in real terms in 2024, it would take 10 years to get to 3 percent of GDP.

Allies have agreed to boost their weapon inventories. Yet, given that many European countries either lack the economic wherewithal or are experiencing sluggish growth rates, it will be difficult for them to raise defense spending without squeezing their social safety net. The GDP in the euro area and European Union (EU) last year increased by 0.9 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively and is projected to stay at those levels in 2025, making the task of meeting the target more onerous.

The new commitment will take a heavy toll on NATO economies. For instance, one percent of Germany's GDP represents 45 billion euros (more than $52 billion). That means Berlin (with 2.12 percent) in 2024 spent more than 95 billion euros on defense and will have to earmark an additional 62 billion euros annually on core defense alone. The new goal of 3.5 percent will cost the Dutch government 16-19 billion euros a year on top of the existing defense budget.

Likewise, an extra 1 percent amounts to 30 billion pounds (about $40.7 billion) for Britain. The UK welfare cuts of 4.8 billion pounds and enhanced defense spending of 2.2 billion pounds have sparked concerns among Britons, lawmakers and poverty campaigners. The demand to ratchet up defense spending – at a time when the country's independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, has halved its economic prediction for 2025 and raised forecasts for public borrowing and inflation – could exacerbate domestic challenges for the government.

What's more, several NATO countries in Europe have high GDP-to-debt ratios. The debt of Greece, Italy, France, Belgium and Spain exceeds their economic output, which would require them to borrow more to meet the target. This will compound their economic challenges and could be risky politically over its potential to trigger spending cuts on education, health and other welfare programs especially in Croatia, Hungary, Greece, Slovakia, Czechia and Italy where a majority of people, according to NATO's own survey, want to maintain current defense spending levels.

The Trump administration's coercive tactics, as well as these factors, have propelled an urge in Europe to gradual independence from the U.S. and may drive countries to ratify the 3.5 percent target with no intention whatsoever of ever reaching the target.

Already, rifts are surfacing in the alliance about this unreasonable and counterproductive target over its potential to dampen the ambitions of the welfare states, with some questioning NATO's existence. After much inside wrangling, Spain has won the exemption; it will inspire others to emulate Madrid's path to skirt political backlash and public wrath.

Studies have also found that Europe's shift toward defense spending increases economic activity moderately in the short term but crowds out private demand and pushes the debt-to-GDP ratio higher, activating a trickle-down effect on the economy. With NATO military expenditure touching unprecedented fiscal limits, social benefits and economic growth will be chopped, adding pressure to public finances, and climate goals will face an existential threat.

In an effort to protect the U.S. military-industrial complex and prevent NATO from sleepwalking into irrelevance, the Trump administration is setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. This arbitrary target would elicit a reckless arms race internationally, slow down economic recovery, impinge on societal goals and weaken climate action, leaving people in NATO countries wondering whether their governments were standing with or against them.

*My article that first appearted in CGTN

China and EU can lead global energy transition

By: Azhar Azam

Just more than a year before the adoption of the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, Chinese President Xi Jinping and former U.S. President Barack Obama made a historic announcement in Beijing on climate change, extending their commitment to a successful agreement in Paris and marking a new era of multilateral climate diplomacy.

The two leaders in 2016, on the eve of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, formally ratified the treaty. Commemorating the momentous moment, Obama said " … where countries like China and the United States are prepared to show leadership … it is possible for us to create a world that is more secure, more prosperous and more free than the one that was left for us."

But within months of this unprecedented cooperation, U.S. President Donald Trump in his first term withdrew from the deal, seen by world leaders as an act of "denying science (and) turning your backs on multilateralism." The broad-based multilateralism is again under strain after Washington for the second time pulled out of the Paris Agreement, urging other major powers such as China and the EU to fill the void by undertaking the role of climate leadership.

As part of the EU quest of finding new climate partners, French Minister for Ecological Transition Agnes Pannier-Runacher recently visited Beijing and found "points of convergence" including "commitment to the Paris Agreement" and "multilateralism." "At a time when science is doubted … impact of climate deregulation … is contested … it is important for the European Union and China to assume their responsibilities."

With the U.S. continuing to retreat from its pledges, China could be a valuable EU partner on climate change and the acceleration of global transition to green technology. This was highlighted in Pannier-Runacher's comments, which hailed China's "dynamism" and urged all countries to learn from its "quickness" on renewable energy technologies.

China, as a leader in green technology, offers significant opportunities of cooperation for Europe on reducing carbon emissions through clean energy transition. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, 92.5 percent of global energy capacity added in 2024 came from renewable energy, at 585 gigawatts (GW). China accounted for 373.6 GW or about 64 percent of new global renewable capacity with significant contributions in solar, wind, bioenergy and hydropower.

Beijing is also the world's largest investor in clean energy. Per research provider Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), China's total investment estimated at $818 billion in green technology last year was greater than the combined investment of the U.S., EU and the UK. Of the total 16.2 million employment opportunities created in renewable energy globally in 2023, 7.4 million jobs were generated in China. It is also the "dominant equipment manufacturer" in the two most dynamic renewable energy sectors: wind and solar photovoltaics (PV).

The world's second largest economy is set to cement its position as a global clean energy leader. After surpassing its end-of-the-decade 1,200 GW target for solar PV and wind six years early, China is forecast to be the home of every other megawatt of all renewable energy capacity installed worldwide by 2030. The International Energy Agency's Executive Director Fatih Birol summed up Beijing's stunning lead in two words: "China, solar."

China's ascendancy in renewable energy may be astonishing but it isn't shocking. Several decades ago, Beijing identified clean energy industries as strategic, directed investments toward them and introduced policies that would promote the deployment of renewables and manufacture of those technologies. Initiatives such as Green Electricity Certificates are accelerating the push of de-carbonization and sustainable development domestically; China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative is hastening the adoption of clean technology internationally through development of green infrastructure.

Both Beijing and Brussels, as major global energy consumers and with their shared interests and goals toward green, low-carbon development, have a great potential to work together and fast-track their clean energy transition. With China's extensive experience in project development and technology innovation and the EU's ambitious climate goals and proximity to Africa – cooperation between the two sides can meaningfully contribute to climate goals, energy transition and green industrialization, unlocking matchless opportunities for market expansion and job creation as well as advancing Africa's own energy future.

China and the EU have a long history of cooperation on climate change. The China-EU Partnership on Climate Change, signed in 2005, was one such high-level political framework that sought to strengthen cooperation and dialogue on low-carbon technologies with a focus on the "development and deployment of clean energy technology."

Established in the China-EU Leaders' Meeting in 2020, the China-EU High-Level Environment and Climate Dialogue (HECD) builds on this partnership. Realizing interconnected challenges of climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss and desertification, both sides in the fifth HECD last year recognized the urgency of global climate action to "respect the goals of the Paris Agreement and the targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework," agreeing to intensify cooperation on the environment, water and circular economy and jointly contributing to a multilateral process of climate governance.

In contrast to the U.S. that has frequently deviated from its commitments, China has remained steadfast in honoring its promises with the world. Once Trump in his first term had ditched the Paris Agreement, Beijing pledged to stand by its responsibilities on climate change, and China and the EU after the 20th China-EU Summit in 2018 underlined their "strong determination" to fight climate change and demonstrate global leadership, showing commitment with multilateralism.

As Washington's actions threaten to weaken climate action and multilateralism as well as aggravate the climate crisis, green cooperation between Beijing and Brussels is essential to low-emission transition, develop new technologies and achieve sustainable development goals, a universal call to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.

*My article that first appeared in "CGTN"