💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • [10th January 2026] The Hindu OpED: De-dollarisation fear

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] What introduces friction into the ties between India and the United States is that Washington is still unable to find for India a position in its global strategy, which would satisfy India’s national self-esteem and ambitions’. Explain with suitable examples.

    Linkage: UPSC GS-II frequently examines how great-power strategies affect India’s strategic autonomy, especially in the context of U.S. unilateralism, sanctions, trade coercion, and global power realignments.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Recent U.S. trade and sanctions measures aimed at Russia, China, and third-country partners mark a decisive shift from market-led globalisation to coercive economic statecraft. The article examines how aggressive tariff threats, secondary sanctions, and currency weaponisation are accelerating global de-dollarisation pressures, with India emerging as a key collateral stakeholder in a fragmenting global financial order.

    Why in the News

    The U.S. administration has proposed tariffs of up to 500% on countries importing Russian oil. It has also expanded sanctions on Russian and Venezuelan energy assets. This represents a shift from targeted sanctions to secondary economic coercion, affecting neutral partners like India. At the same time, growing non-dollar energy settlements and China’s yuan-based oil trade indicate stress in the dollar-centric system, raising concerns over trade stability, capital flows, and autonomy of emerging economies.

    How has economic coercion replaced market-led globalisation?

    1. Secondary sanctions: Extends U.S. trade penalties to third countries purchasing Russian oil, redefining neutrality as non-compliance.
    2. Punitive tariffs: Proposals of up to 500% import tariffs convert trade policy into a deterrence instrument rather than a competitiveness tool.
    3. Asset targeting: Sanctions on Russian and Venezuelan energy infrastructure weaken supply-side stability rather than isolating individual firms.
    4. Systemic impact: Shifts global trade from rules-based predictability to power-based negotiation.

    Why is the dollar’s centrality increasingly contested?

    1. Currency weaponisation: Repeated use of the dollar-clearing system for sanctions enforcement erodes trust among trading partners.
    2. Trade settlement diversification: Russia now conducts over 20% of its crude exports outside the dollar system.
    3. Historical contrast: The dollar underpinned global finance throughout the late 20th century due to neutrality and liquidity, not coercion.
    4. Structural signal: Reduced dollar reliance reflects risk hedging, not ideological alignment.

    How are energy markets driving de-dollarisation?

    1. Non-dollar oil trade: China’s payment for Russian crude in yuan indicates partial energy-market realignment.
    2. Discount-driven trade: India’s increased Russian oil imports reflect price arbitrage rather than political alignment.
    3. Settlement experimentation: Bilateral currency mechanisms reduce exposure to sanctions-induced payment disruptions.
    4. Market fragmentation: Energy trade increasingly follows geopolitical blocs rather than price efficiency alone.

    What are the implications for India’s trade and exports?

    1. Export vulnerability: U.S. tariffs could affect textiles, footwear, marine products, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and engineering goods.
    2. Negotiating asymmetry: India faces pressure to absorb geopolitical costs despite non-alignment.
    3. Investment uncertainty: Escalating trade coercion weakens investor confidence amid already volatile capital flows.
    4. Macroeconomic stress: Potential spillovers include currency pressure, trade deficits, and costlier imports.

    How does China’s trade posture differ from India’s exposure?

    1. Export diversification: China has significantly reduced dependence on U.S. markets through diversified trade corridors.
    2. Scale advantage: China’s large domestic market cushions external shocks.
    3. Strategic insulation: India’s export basket remains more sensitive to Western market access.
    4. Asymmetric resilience: De-dollarisation favours economies with manufacturing scale and settlement alternatives.

    Is the global financial architecture entering a transition phase?

    1. Multipolar currency signals: Rise of yuan, local currencies, and barter-like arrangements.
    2. Erosion of predictability: Sanctions-driven finance increases transaction costs and compliance risks.
    3. Institutional strain: Bretton Woods-era assumptions face stress from unilateral enforcement actions.
    4. Systemic uncertainty: The issue extends beyond geopolitics to the architecture of global trade itself.

    Conclusion

    The expanding use of sanctions, tariffs, and financial leverage by the United States signals a shift from a rules-based economic order to coercive geo-economics, weakening trust in the dollar-centric system. For India, this moment underscores the necessity of safeguarding strategic autonomy through diversified trade partnerships, resilient payment mechanisms, and calibrated engagement with competing power blocs in a transitioning global financial order.

  • Somaliland is no longer a diplomatic endnote

    Why in the News?

    Israel recognised Somaliland as an independent state in December 2025. It is the first such recognition by a strategically significant UN member. The decision ends decades of diplomatic ambiguity. It departs from the long-standing international support for Somalia’s territorial integrity. As a result, Somaliland has moved from diplomatic obscurity to strategic relevance. This shift is significant in the Horn of Africa, a region critical to Red Sea and Gulf of Aden security.

    About Somaliland:

    1. Somaliland a self-governing entity that declared independence from Somalia in 1991.
    2. It has functioned as a de facto state for over three decades.
    3. Despite internal stability and regular elections, it remained internationally unrecognised.
    4. Most countries continued to uphold Somalia’s territorial integrity.
    5. This kept Somaliland diplomatically marginal despite its strategic location in the Horn of Africa.

    Why does Israel’s recognition of Somaliland matter geopolitically?

    1. Diplomatic Rupture: Breaks the international consensus of non-recognition upheld since Somalia’s collapse.
    2. Security Recalibration: Positions Somaliland as a node in Israel’s Red Sea and Gulf of Aden security strategy.
    3. Regional Escalation: Introduces military, intelligence, and diplomatic contestation into an already volatile maritime corridor.

    How does Somaliland’s internal stability contrast with Somalia’s state fragility?

    1. Governance Record: Maintains competitive elections for over three decades.
    2. Security Conditions: Demonstrates relative internal security compared to Somalia’s chronic instability.
    3. State Capacity: Functions as a de facto state, exposing limits of recognition-based legitimacy frameworks.

    Why does China face a strategic dilemma over Somaliland?

    1. Sovereignty Principle: Beijing’s rejection of secessionist movements conflicts with Somaliland’s persistent statehood.
    2. Taiwan Factor: Somaliland’s decision in 2020 to host Taiwan’s representative office directly challenged the “One China” principle.
    3. Recognition Precedent: Israeli endorsement strengthens Somaliland’s claim more than any previous engagement.

    How has the Horn of Africa become central to great-power competition?

    1. Strategic Geography: Controls access to the Bab el-Mandeb, linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.
    2. Military Presence: Hosts multiple foreign military bases, notably in Djibouti.
    3. Security Architecture: Somaliland’s recognition disrupts a carefully curated regional balance.

    What risks does Israel’s move create for regional stability?

    1. Chinese Countermeasures: Increased likelihood of economic coercion, diplomatic pressure, and information warfare.
    2. Alliance Polarisation: Forces regional states to recalibrate positions between competing power blocs.
    3. Escalatory Dynamics: Adds intelligence and military rivalry to a region already prone to conflict spillovers.

    How does this episode expose limits of China’s Africa strategy?

    1. Influence Constraints: Demonstrates inability to prevent diplomatic shifts despite economic leverage.
    2. Strategic Costs: Raises costs of maintaining the status quo amid rival interventions.
    3. Credibility Test: Challenges China’s image as a neutral development partner.

    Conclusion

    Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is not merely symbolic; it signals the transformation of the Horn of Africa into a frontline of global geopolitical contestation. The episode underscores the tension between sovereignty norms and ground realities, while revealing how regional micro-states can acquire outsized strategic relevance in an era of fragmented global order.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] “If the last few decades were of Asia’s growth story, the next few are expected to be of Africa’s.” In the light of this statement, examine India’s influence in Africa in recent years.

    Linkage: This question reflects GS-II focus on Africa’s rising geopolitical significance and the role of external powers in shaping the continent’s growth trajectory. The Somaliland episode highlights how Africa, especially the Horn of Africa, is emerging as a theatre of strategic competition.

  • Beyond economy, Iran stir reflects rage against regime

    Why in the News

    Iran has witnessed its third major wave of protests in three years, triggered by a rapidly depreciating currency and a sharp rise in the cost of living. The Iranian rial crossed 14.8 lakh rials per dollar in January 2026, reflecting severe macroeconomic stress. Unlike earlier protests, the current unrest increasingly targets regime legitimacy rather than isolated economic grievances, marking a qualitative shift in public anger.

    Introduction

    Iran is experiencing a convergence of economic collapse, political fatigue, and institutional rigidity. While inflation and currency depreciation act as immediate triggers, the protests reflect deep-rooted dissatisfaction with governance structures, the exclusionary political system, and the shrinking space for reform within the Islamic Republic.

    Is the current unrest primarily economic in nature?

    1. Currency depreciation: The Iranian rial has lost value rapidly, falling from 8.17 lakh per dollar in January 2025 to 14.8 lakh by January 2026, indicating macroeconomic instability.
    2. Inflationary pressures: Inflation crossed 30% in 2025, while food inflation exceeded 52%, eroding real incomes.
    3. Purchasing power collapse: Rising import costs and sanctions-driven shortages have reduced household consumption capacity.
    4. Recurring pattern: Similar economic triggers were visible in protests of 2017-18, 2019, and 2022, indicating unresolved structural weaknesses.

    Why do these protests extend beyond economic grievances?

    1. Regime-directed anger: Protest slogans increasingly target the Islamic Republic itself, not just economic managers.
    2. Legitimacy deficit: Long-standing political exclusion and weak accountability mechanisms have amplified discontent.
    3. Historical continuity: Economic hardship has consistently acted as a vehicle for political dissent over the past two decades.
    4. Symbolic rupture: Public defiance now challenges the foundational narrative of revolutionary governance.

    How has Iran’s political structure constrained internal reform?

    1. Clerical dominance: The Islamic Republic’s institutional design concentrates power within unelected clerical bodies.
    2. IRGC entrenchment: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps controls large segments of the economy and security apparatus.
    3. Electoral erosion: Disqualification of reformist candidates has weakened the representative character of elections.
    4. Policy rigidity: Governance prioritises regime survival over economic rationalisation.

    Why is this moment particularly vulnerable for the regime?

    1. Leadership uncertainty: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s advanced age raises succession concerns.
    2. Factional paralysis: Internal elite divisions limit coordinated economic or political responses.
    3. Social exhaustion: Repeated protest cycles have normalised public confrontation with authority.
    4. Youth alienation: A demographically young population faces unemployment and restricted mobility.

    How have external pressures compounded Iran’s internal crisis?

    1. Sanctions impact: US-led sanctions continue to restrict oil revenues, banking access, and trade.
    2. Geopolitical isolation: Iran’s global standing remains constrained despite regional influence.
    3. Security prioritisation: External threats have reinforced a militarised governance approach, reducing focus on civilian welfare.
    4. Limited diplomatic relief: No durable sanctions relief has materialised to stabilise the economy.

    Conclusion

    Iran’s current unrest reflects a structural crisis of governance rather than a cyclical economic downturn. Inflation and currency collapse act as triggers, but the persistence of protests signals a deeper crisis of political legitimacy, one that economic management alone cannot resolve without systemic political reform. 

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] In what ways would the ongoing U.S-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?

    Linkage: UPSC frequently frames questions on major geopolitical flashpoints such as the U.S.-Iran nuclear issue, as they have direct implications for India’s foreign policy, energy security, and strategic autonomy. The article highlights how prolonged sanctions and nuclear-related tensions have translated into economic distress and internal instability in Iran.

  • Despite patchy record, US climate exit will still pinch

    Why in the News?

    The USA formally exited the UNFCCC framework and associated climate institutions following Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, completing a process initiated during his first term. This move reverses post-2021 re-engagement. This creates a quantified emissions gap toward 2030 targets, and transfers leadership space to China. Furthermore, this makes it a significant departure from prior multilateral climate engagement.

    Why is the US withdrawal from the climate regime significant despite its mixed record?

    1. Institutional Influence: The US shaped global climate action through bodies such as the IPCC, International Solar Alliance, and International Renewable Energy Agency, enabling coordination, research, and monitoring.
    2. Scientific Capacity: Ensured global access to climate modelling, emissions tracking, and data-collection networks critical for mitigation planning.
    3. Policy Signalling: Anchored climate ambition through participation rather than absolute emissions outcomes.

    How does this decision disrupt global emissions reduction efforts?

    1. Mitigation Gap: US withdrawal contributes to a shortfall that pushes global emissions beyond pathways needed to meet 2030 targets.
    2. Burden Redistribution: Places disproportionate pressure on developing countries to compensate for reduced ambition.
    3. Credibility Deficit: Weakens enforcement norms within the Paris Agreement framework.

    What are the consequences for India’s decarbonisation pathway?

    1. External Pressure: Increases international expectations on India to deliver faster emissions reductions.
    2. Technology Access: Affects collaboration on clean energy research and innovation platforms.
    3. Investment Climate: Risks slowing capital inflows for renewable infrastructure dependent on global policy certainty.

    How does US disengagement alter global climate leadership dynamics?

    1. Strategic Vacuum: Creates space for China to dominate renewable manufacturing, supply chains, and deployment.
    2. Economic Leverage: Strengthens China’s position in equipment, infrastructure, and financing ecosystems.
    3. Geopolitical Shift: Transfers normative leadership in climate governance away from Western institutions.

    What does the withdrawal mean for climate finance and multilateral commitments?

    1. Finance Gap: Reduces availability of concessional funding for mitigation and adaptation.
    2. Institutional Weakening: Undermines credibility of collective responsibility frameworks.
    3. Operational Uncertainty: Affects ongoing funding mechanisms for developed and developing countries.

    Why is the impact larger than US domestic emissions alone?

    1. Systemic Role: The US functioned as a coordinator, funder, and standard-setter.
    2. Network Effects: Withdrawal disrupts global research, verification, and compliance systems.
    3. Long-Term Costs: Creates structural weaknesses that outlast the current political cycle.

    Conclusion

    The US climate exit, despite its inconsistent mitigation record, weakens global climate governance by eroding institutional capacity, financing mechanisms, and leadership credibility. For India, the withdrawal raises decarbonisation pressures while simultaneously constraining access to capital and technology, underscoring the fragility of voluntary multilateral climate regimes.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] “Too little cash, too much politics, leaves UNESCO fighting for life’. Discuss the statement in the light of US’ withdrawal and its accusation of the cultural body as being ‘ anti- Israel bias’.

    Linkage: The UNESCO PYQ illustrates how US withdrawal and politicisation weaken multilateral institutions through funding gaps and credibility loss. Similarly, the US exit from the climate regime undermines UNFCCC effectiveness, shifts leadership space to China, and increases the burden on developing countries like India.

  • US Withdraws from UNFCCC and IPCC

    Why in the News?

    US President Donald Trump has signed a presidential memorandum withdrawing the United States from 66 international organisations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This makes the US the first country to formally exit the UNFCCC.

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

    The UNFCCC is the foundational global treaty that governs international cooperation on climate change. It provides the legal and institutional framework under which global climate negotiations take place.

    Established

    • Adopted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit
    • Entered into force in 1994
    • Nearly universal membership among UN countries

    Key role

    • Organises annual Conference of Parties (COP) climate negotiations
    • Hosts the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming
    • Establishes systems for
      • Emissions reporting
      • Transparency and accountability
      • Climate finance mechanisms
      • Carbon markets and rule making

    Legal implications of US withdrawal

    • Withdrawal takes effect one year after formal notice
    • Exit from UNFCCC automatically means exit from the Paris Agreement
    • US will no longer be a Party to COP negotiations
    • Can attend meetings only as an observer, without bargaining rights

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    The IPCC is the UN body that assesses and synthesises global scientific research on climate change, its impacts, and mitigation and adaptation options.

    Functions

    • Produces comprehensive assessment reports
    • Provides scientific benchmarks for climate negotiations
    • Informs global and national climate policy

    Impact of US exit

    • Reduces US influence over global climate science assessments
    • Limits formal nomination of US experts to IPCC author teams
    • US scientists may still contribute as reviewers or through non government nominations
    [2009] The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty drawn at: 

    (a) United Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972 

    (b) UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992 

    (c) World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002 

    (d) UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, 2009

  • India Bangladesh Ganga Water Sharing Treaty (1996)

    Why in the News?

    Senior officials from the Union Jal Shakti Ministry visited Farakka Barrage as the India–Bangladesh Ganga Water Sharing Treaty is set to expire in December 2026, ahead of renewal discussions between India and Bangladesh.

     About 

    • A bilateral treaty governing the sharing of Ganga (Ganges) river waters between India and Bangladesh during the dry season, with regulated releases at Farakka Barrage in West Bengal
    • Signed on 12 December 1996
    • Valid for 30 years
    • Renewable by mutual consent
    • Downstream monitoring at Hardinge Bridge in Bangladesh

    Background

    • Dry season water disputes date back to the 1950s
    • Interim arrangements were signed in 1977, 1982, and 1985
    • The 1996 treaty introduced a stable, rule based and long term framework for cooperation

    Key features

    • Ten day sharing schedule (January to May): Water allocation based on a formula using historical average flows from 1949 to 1988
    • Low flow consultation clause: If river flow falls below 50,000 cusecs in any ten day period, immediate bilateral consultation is required
    • Minimum release assurance: India ensures downstream releases, allowing limited withdrawals up to 200 cusecs for reasonable uses between Farakka and the Bangladesh border
    • Joint Committee mechanism: Equal representation from both countries. Daily monitoring at Farakka and Hardinge Bridge. Annual reports on implementation and dispute resolution
    • Review and renewal: Review every five years or earlier if necessary. Renewal only by mutual agreement.
    [2017] With reference to river Teesta, consider the following statements: 

    1. The source of river Teesta is the same as that of Brahmaputra but it flows through Sikkim. 

    2. River Rangeet originates in Sikkim and it is a tributary of river Teesta

    3. River Teesta flows into Bay of Bengal on the border of India and Bangladesh

    Which of the statements given above is/ are correct? 

    (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • [7th January 2026] The Hindu OpED: At a crossroads: On Iran’s unrest, its re-engagement with the world

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?

    Linkage: It falls under GS II-Effect of policies and politics of developed countries on India’s interests, focusing on sanctions, energy security, strategic autonomy, and West Asia stability. Iran’s unrest and economic collapse show how the U.S.-Iran nuclear dispute disrupts regional stability and directly affects India’s energy security and connectivity interests.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Iran is witnessing its most serious internal crisis since the 2022-23 unrest, marked by economic collapse, mass protests, and renewed geopolitical pressure. The current phase of instability is unfolding in the immediate aftermath of a brief but intense war with Israel and amid heightened U.S. coercive posturing. This editorial examines how domestic economic fragility, external pressures, and governance constraints have converged to place Iran at a critical crossroads. Here repression risks deepening instability, and reform coupled with global re-engagement remains the only viable exit.

    Why in the News?

    Iran is facing its largest nationwide protests since the 2022-23 Mahsa Amini unrest, triggered initially by a strike by Tehran shopkeepers on December 28 against the sharp collapse of the Iranian rial. What makes this moment significant is the convergence of economic freefall, post-war vulnerability, and overt foreign signalling, including claims by Israel’s Mossad of field-level presence and explicit U.S. threats of force. At least 12 protest-related deaths have been reported within a week, underscoring the scale and volatility of the crisis.

    Introduction

    Iran’s current unrest is not an episodic protest cycle but a manifestation of structural economic decay and political rigidity. The collapse of the rial, runaway food inflation, declining oil revenues, and daily power outages have eroded regime legitimacy. While President Masoud Pezeshkian has signalled limited social relaxation, especially on morality policing, his administration remains constrained on economic reform and national security. The state’s reliance on repression and attribution of unrest to foreign interference risks aggravating an already combustible situation.

    What triggered the current wave of protests?

    1. Currency Collapse: Sharp fall in the Iranian rial since the June 2025 war directly affected traders and households, triggering the initial strike.
    2. Economic Shock Transmission: Trader unrest rapidly expanded into nationwide protests, indicating deep-rooted economic distress beyond urban commercial classes.
    3. Continuity with Past Unrest: Represents the largest mobilization since the Mahsa Amini-led protests of 2022-23, signalling unresolved grievances.

    How severe is Iran’s current economic crisis?

    1. Food Inflation: Reached 64% in October, the second highest globally after South Sudan, indicating acute cost-of-living stress.
    2. Currency Devaluation: Rial has lost 60% of its value since the June 2025 war, eroding savings and purchasing power.
    3. Oil Export Decline: 2025 oil exports fell by ~7% compared to the 2024 average, tightening fiscal space.
    4. Energy Shortages: Daily power outages have become routine, reflecting infrastructure stress and governance failure.

    How is post-war geopolitics amplifying domestic instability?

    1. War Aftermath: The unrest comes six months after a 12-day Iran-Israel war, which already strained Iran’s economy and security apparatus.
    2. Israeli Signalling: Mossad publicly claimed operational presence “in the field” with protesters, intensifying regime paranoia.
    3. U.S. Threat Posture: U.S. President Donald Trump warned on January 2 that the U.S. was “locked and loaded” to use force if protesters were killed.
    4. External Pressure Effect: Foreign threats have reinforced regime defensiveness while worsening civilian suffering.

    How is the Iranian state responding internally?

    1. Repression: Security warnings against “rioters” and reported deaths indicate reliance on coercive control.
    2. Limited Social Relaxation: President Pezeshkian has relaxed morality police enforcement, signalling tactical social easing.
    3. Economic Paralysis: The President admitted in December that the government was “stuck” and incapable of performing “miracles”.
    4. Blame Externalisation: Default regime response continues to attribute crises to foreign interference.

    Why is repression proving counterproductive?

    1. Cycle of Crisis: Economic deterioration combined with repression is reinforcing instability rather than restoring order.
    2. Public Anger Reservoir: Years of shrinking economic opportunity and erosion of political and personal freedoms have accumulated latent discontent.
    3. Ideological Fatigue: Religion and nationalism are no longer sufficient buffers against economic hardship.
    4. Legitimacy Erosion: Persistent hardship weakens the regime’s social contract and coercive credibility.

    What path does the editorial suggest forward?

    1. Domestic Reform: Calls for tackling corruption and initiating meaningful economic reform.
    2. Empowering Moderates: Urges external actors to engage and empower President Pezeshkian, not undermine him.
    3. Re-engagement with the World: Emphasises that isolation and coercion deepen instability.
    4. Strategic Restraint: Warns against threats issued on Israel’s behalf, which harden regime paranoia.

    Value Addition: Regional and Global Political Impact of Iran’s Imbroglio

    Impact on the Middle East

    1. Regional Power Balance: Weakens Iran’s capacity to project influence across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, altering the regional balance vis-à-vis Israel and Gulf Arab states.
    2. Proxy Network Stress: Economic strain constrains Iran’s ability to sustain allied non-state actors, increasing volatility and fragmentation within proxy theatres.
    3. Escalation Risks: External pressure combined with internal unrest raises incentives for diversionary foreign policy actions, heightening conflict risks in the Gulf and Levant.
    4. Israel-Iran Confrontation: Mossad’s public signalling and Iran’s internal vulnerability increase the likelihood of covert and overt escalatory cycles.
    5. Gulf Security Architecture: Reinforces security anxieties among Gulf Cooperation Council states, accelerating defence alignment and external security dependence.

    Impact on India

    1. Energy Security: Iran’s instability and sanctions-related disruptions affect global oil supply dynamics, exposing India to price volatility and import uncertainty.
    2. Connectivity Projects: Political instability undermines strategic projects such as Chabahar port, affecting India’s access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
    3. Strategic Autonomy: Intensified U.S.-Iran tensions constrain India’s diplomatic space, complicating balanced engagement with West Asia, Israel, and the U.S.
    4. Diaspora and Trade: Regional instability increases risks for Indian diaspora, remittances, and trade flows across the Gulf region.
    5. Regional Stability Interest: Sustained unrest weakens India’s vision of a stable West Asia essential for economic and maritime security.

    Impact on the Global Order

    1. Sanctions Fatigue: Highlights the limits of coercive economic tools, demonstrating how prolonged sanctions can erode civilian welfare without political moderation.
    2. Norms of Intervention: U.S. threats of force linked to internal unrest blur lines between humanitarian concern and strategic coercion.
    3. Energy Markets: Iran-related instability contributes to structural volatility in global energy markets, affecting inflation and growth worldwide.
    4. Multipolar Contestation: Iran’s crisis becomes another arena for great-power signalling, deepening geopolitical fragmentation.
    5. Authoritarian Resilience Debate: Raises questions about the sustainability of repression-led governance under prolonged economic stress.

    Conclusion

    Iran’s current unrest reflects a convergence of economic collapse, governance rigidity, and external pressure. Continued reliance on repression and isolation risks deepening internal instability and regional spillovers. Sustainable stability lies in economic reform, political accommodation, and calibrated international re-engagement rather than coercive containment.

  • The Chinese are using ambiguity on the LAC and unsettles borders as a pressure point against us

    Introduction

    The Line of Actual Control is not a mutually demarcated boundary but a result of differing historical perceptions. China has progressively shifted from negotiating boundary clarification to leveraging uncertainty to alter ground realities. This strategy enables incremental territorial assertion without triggering full-scale conflict, fundamentally altering the nature of India-China border management.

    Why in the news?

    India-China border tensions persist despite multiple agreements and disengagement talks, underscoring a deeper structural problem: the absence of a mutually accepted alignment of the LAC. China is no longer merely disputing territory but strategically weaponising ambiguity itself. Unlike earlier periods where border negotiations aimed at eventual settlement, China now treats unsettled borders as a permanent pressure lever, enabling coercion below the threshold of war. This marks a sharp departure from confidence-building frameworks established since the 1990s and highlights a major failure of past assumptions that economic engagement would moderate China’s territorial behaviour.

    How did the LAC originate and why does ambiguity persist?

    1. Historical Construction: The LAC emerged after the 1962 conflict as a de facto line reflecting troop positions rather than a legally negotiated boundary.
    2. Divergent Interpretations: China interprets the LAC using selective historical maps, while India relies on watershed principles and traditional usage.
    3. Absence of Final Alignment: No exchange of mutually accepted maps has occurred for the entire LAC, particularly in the Western and Eastern sectors.
    4. Strategic Utility of Ambiguity: China benefits from uncertainty, as clarity would constrain its manoeuvrability on the ground.

    How has China operationalised ambiguity as a strategic tool?

    1. Grey-Zone Operations: Incremental troop movements, patrol obstruction, and infrastructure build-up alter facts without overt combat.
    2. Salami-Slicing Tactics: Small, cumulative actions avoid escalation while steadily shifting the status quo.
    3. Denial of Disengagement: China accepts disengagement in principle but resists restoration of pre-2020 positions.
    4. Psychological Pressure: Persistent friction imposes military, economic, and diplomatic costs on India.

    Why is Arunachal Pradesh central to China’s claim strategy?

    1. Rejection of McMahon Line: China contests the eastern boundary despite historical acceptance by Tibet’s representatives.
    2. Political Rebranding: Use of alternative nomenclature seeks to delegitimise India’s sovereignty claims.
    3. Diplomatic Signalling: Repeated objections to Indian infrastructure and political activities reinforce claims.
    4. Negotiation Leverage: Eastern sector claims are used to extract concessions elsewhere.

    What role have border agreements played and why have they failed?

    1. 1993 and 1996 Agreements: Established peace and tranquillity but avoided boundary clarification.
    2. Confidence-Building Focus: Emphasised troop restraint rather than territorial settlement.
    3. Breakdown Post-2020: Galwan clashes exposed the fragility of trust-based arrangements.
    4. Structural Limitation: Agreements regulate behaviour but do not resolve competing perceptions of the LAC.

    How has India responded to China’s pressure strategy?

    1. Firm Rejection of Claims: India has consistently rejected Chinese assertions in Arunachal Pradesh.
    2. Infrastructure Development: Accelerated border roads and logistics to reduce asymmetry.
    3. Military Posture Adjustment: Forward deployment and sustained presence across friction points.
    4. Diplomatic Signalling: Insistence on restoration of status quo ante as a prerequisite for normalisation.

    Conclusion

    The continued absence of a clearly delineated Line of Actual Control has transformed the India-China boundary from a negotiable dispute into a strategic pressure instrument. China’s deliberate exploitation of ambiguity has weakened confidence-building mechanisms and normalised coercion below the threshold of war. For India, effective border management now requires not only military preparedness and infrastructure development but also sustained diplomatic firmness anchored in restoration of the status quo and long-term boundary clarity.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Analyze internal security threats and transborder crimes along Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan borders including Line of Control (LoC). Also discuss the role played by various security forces in this regard. 

    Linkage: UPSC has repeatedly asked questions on border area management and transborder security threats, particularly along the LoC and international borders. In the current context, the LAC has emerged as an equally critical security frontier, where China’s use of ambiguity and grey-zone pressure mirrors the management of persistent, low-intensity threats without escalation.

  • Greenland Sovereignty and US Interest 

    Why in the News?

    Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has rejected renewed remarks by Donald Trump on taking over the island. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated that citizens should not fear an imminent American annexation, while European powers reaffirmed support for Greenland’s sovereignty.

    Political Status of Greenland

    • World’s largest island
    • Population around 57,000
    • Autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark
    • Controls internal affairs, while defence and foreign policy remain with Denmark
    • Not an independent NATO member, but covered under Denmark’s NATO membership

    Strategic Importance of Greenland

    • Located between Europe and North America
    • Critical for US ballistic missile defence systems
    • Part of the Arctic region, gaining importance due to climate change
    • Rich in critical minerals and rare earth elements
    • Important for reducing dependence on Chinese mineral supply chains

    International Law Angle

    • Territorial sovereignty is a core principle of international law
    • Annexation of another territory without consent violates UN principles
    • NATO is based on collective defence, not internal coercion

    Prelims Pointers

    • Greenland is not an independent country
    • Defence of Greenland is linked to Denmark’s NATO membership
    • Arctic geopolitics is driven by security, minerals, and climate change
    • Public opinion in Greenland strongly opposes US annexation
    [2014] Consider the following countries: 

    1. Denmark 

    2. Japan 

    3. Russian Federation 

    4. United Kingdom 

    5. United States of America 

    Which of the above are the members of the ‘Arctic Council’? 

    (a) 1, 2 and 3 only (b) 2, 3 and 4 only (c) 1, 4 and 5 only (d) 1, 3 and 5 only

  • Global Environment Facility Approves New UNEP Projects  

    Why in the News?

    The Global Environment Facility approved US$52.8 million for four new projects led by the United Nations Environment Programme at its 70th Council meeting.

    About Global Environment Facility

    • A multilateral environmental financing mechanism
    • Provides grants and blended finance to developing countries and economies in transition
    • Supports projects that deliver global environmental benefits

    Establishment

    • Established in 1991
    • Created ahead of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit

    Objectives

    • Support country driven projects with global environmental benefits
    • Integrate action on climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, oceans, chemicals and pollution
    • Strengthen environmental governance while promoting sustainable development

    Conventions for Which GEF Serves as Financial Mechanism

    • Convention on Biological Diversity
    • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
    • United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
    • Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
    • Minamata Convention on Mercury
    • Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement

    Significance

    • Largest source of multilateral biodiversity funding globally
    • More than US$26 billion provided in grants
    • Over US$153 billion mobilised in co financing
    • Active in more than 160 countries
    • Contributes to environmental protection along with livelihood improvement

    Prelims Pointers

    • GEF predates the Rio Earth Summit
    • Serves as a financial mechanism for multiple multilateral environmental agreements
    • Works closely with UN agencies including UNEP
    • Focuses on projects with global environmental benefits
    [2014] With reference to ‘Global Environment Facility’, which of the following statements is/are correct? 

    (a) It serves as financial mechanism for ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’ and ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’

    (b) It undertakes scientific research on environmental issues at global level

    (c) It is an agency under OECD to facilitate the transfer of technology and funds to underdeveloped countries with specific aim to protect their environment

    (d) Both (a) and (b)