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"