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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • Indians earn the most among Asian Americans

    Why in the News?

    Indian Americans earn more than any other Asian group in the U.S., making about 40% more than Chinese and Japanese households.

    What is the median annual income of Indian American households?

    • Highest Median Income Among Asian Groups: Indian American households had a median annual income of $151,200 in 2023, the highest among all Asian ethnic groups in the U.S. Eg: Indian Americans earn about 40% more than both Chinese and Japanese households.
    • Income Reflects High Educational Attainment: The high income level is linked to strong educational achievements—77% of Indian Americans aged 25+ hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, second only to Taiwanese Americans. Eg: Despite similar education levels, Mongolian Americans earn far less, highlighting that factors beyond education (like job type, geography, or discrimination) may also impact income.

    How does it compare to other Asian groups?

    Asian Group Median Household Income (2023) Key Comparison Point Example
    Indian Americans $151,200 Highest income among all Asian groups 40% higher than Chinese or Japanese households
    Taiwanese Americans Slightly below Indians (~$140,000+) Second highest, due to even higher educational attainment (83%) Close to Indian income levels, driven by education
    Mongolian Americans $54,300 Despite high education (69% with degrees), lowest income Shows income isn’t always proportional to education

    Who are the largest Asian ethnic groups in the U.S. as of 2023?

    • Chinese Americans: Approximately 5.5 million individuals, making up 22% of the Asian American population. Example: Chinese Americans are the largest Asian ethnic group in the U.S.
    • Indian Americans: Around 5.2 million individuals, accounting for 21% of the Asian American population. Example: Indian Americans are the second-largest Asian ethnic group in the U.S.
    • Filipino Americans: Approximately 4.6 million individuals, representing 18% of the Asian American population. Example: Filipino Americans rank third among Asian ethnic groups in the U.S.

    What is the significance of the Indian diaspora? 

    • Economic Influence: Indian diaspora communities contribute significantly to the economies of their host countries through entrepreneurship, skilled labor, and remittances. Example: Indian-Americans contribute to the U.S. economy, particularly in the technology sector, with companies like Google and Microsoft having Indian-origin CEOs.
    • Cultural Exchange: The Indian diaspora has played a major role in promoting Indian culture globally, including its festivals, cuisine, music, and film. Example: Bollywood films and Indian cuisine have a large following across the world, especially in the UK, the U.S., and the Middle East.
    • Political Influence: The Indian diaspora has a growing presence in political leadership positions, influencing policies in their respective countries. Example: Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States, and Priti Patel, the Home Secretary of the UK, are of Indian origin and have shaped political discourse.
    • Educational Contributions: Indian diaspora members are highly skilled professionals and students, making notable contributions to global research and academic excellence.
      Example: Indian-origin scientists and engineers have made significant strides in fields like space exploration, medicine, and technology worldwide.

    What are the challenges? 

    • Caste-Based Discrimination: Despite migration, caste-based discrimination persists within diaspora communities. Marginalized groups, such as Dalits, often face exclusion and prejudice in educational institutions, workplaces, and social settings.
    • Racial and Religious Intolerance: Indian diaspora communities frequently encounter racism and xenophobia, particularly in countries with complex immigration histories. These discriminatory practices can hinder social integration and economic mobility.
    • Political Polarization and Identity Conflicts: Global political tensions, such as those related to the Kashmir issue, can lead to divisions within diaspora communities. Protests and calls for calm in response to international conflicts reflect how such issues can strain local community relations.

    Way forward: 

    • Promote Inclusivity and Social Integration: Efforts should be made to combat caste-based discrimination, racism, and xenophobia within diaspora communities by fostering inclusive policies and promoting intercultural dialogue. This can help create a more harmonious environment for integration and equal opportunities.
    • Encourage Political and Civic Engagement: To address political polarization, the Indian diaspora should engage in local politics and civic activities to bridge divides and advocate for constructive dialogue, ensuring their concerns are heard and their influence in the host country’s policies is constructive and united.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2023]  Indian diaspora has scaled new heights in the West. Describe its economic and political benefits for India.

    Linkage: The high earnings of Indian Americans, as indicated in the article, are a clear example of the Indian diaspora “scaling new heights” economically in the West. This economic strength directly contributes to the potential economic benefits (like remittances, investment, trade promotion) and political influence (lobbying, soft power) that the diaspora provides to India. This question requires discussing precisely these benefits stemming from the diaspora’s success, of which high income is a key metric.

  • [3rd May 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A profound shift in the global order

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2019] ‘The long-sustained image of India as a leader of the oppressed and marginalised Nations has disappeared on account of its new found role in the emerging global order”. Elaborate.

    Linkage: India is at a turning point, and the world is becoming more equal, moving away from old colonial ways. As Asia becomes more important again, this change is also affecting how India is seen and positioned globally.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  India is at another turning point, similar to when Vasco da Gama arrived in Kozhikode in 1498 and the local ruler, the Zamorin, failed to act strategically. But this time, it’s not about sea trade routes—it’s about how global value chains are being reshaped through power and influence. This is a crucial moment for India, which is on track to become the world’s third-largest economy. For the past 75 years, the world has followed a post-colonial order known as globalisation. It was based on countries following common rules for the greater good, and divided the world into “donors” and “recipients.” But this idea no longer works, especially after China overtook the U.S. in foreign aid, manufacturing, and global trade share. As a result, institutions like the WTO, UN, and various treaties have become less useful to powerful countries, leading to U.S. pullouts.

    Today’s editorial analyses global value chains as being reshaped through power and influence. This content would help in the GS Paper II (International Relations).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    President Donald Trump is not acting randomly. He is reacting to a world where countries are becoming more equal and breaking free from old colonial ideas, while still trying to keep their fading advantages.

    What shift in global trade is compared to Vasco De Gama’s arrival?

    • Transition from Trade Routes to Value Chains: Vasco De Gama’s 1498 voyage opened sea-based trade routes connecting India to Europe. Today, the world is witnessing a shift from traditional trade to technology-driven global value chains (GVCs), reshaped by geopolitical forces rather than free markets. Eg: The semiconductor supply chain, where countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and the U.S. dominate chip design and fabrication, reflecting value chain complexity over simple trade.
    • Strategic Inertia vs Strategic Foresight: The Zamorin’s complacency during Vasco’s arrival represents a lack of strategic foresight in seizing global opportunities. India now faces a similar moment and must act strategically to capitalize on the global trade realignment and not miss out like in the colonial past. Eg: India’s PLI (Production Linked Incentive) schemes in electronics and pharmaceuticals are efforts to plug into global manufacturing chains proactively.
    • Geopolitically Driven Trade Structures: Earlier global trade was commercially motivated, but today it is increasingly geopolitically driven, with blocs forming and multilateralism weakening. Eg: The U.S.-China trade war and decoupling from Chinese supply chains are forcing countries like India to reposition themselves in new GVCs.

    Why is the post-colonial global order losing relevance?

    • Shift from Multilateralism to Bilateralism and Power Politics: The post-colonial world order was built on rule-based multilateral institutions (e.g., WTO, UN), promoting equal participation. Now, major powers prefer bilateral deals that prioritize national interest over global consensus. Eg: The U.S. withdrawing from multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and WTO dispute mechanisms.
    • Obsolescence of Donor-Recipient Hierarchy: The older order assumed a world divided into ‘donors’ (developed nations) and ‘recipients’ (developing nations). This has become irrelevant as emerging powers like China now surpass traditional Western powers in aid and trade influence. Eg: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has made it a larger global lender than the World Bank in many regions.
    • Erosion of Trust During Global Crises: Global institutions failed to uphold equitable principles during emergencies, revealing self-serving behavior by developed nations. Eg: During the COVID-19 pandemic, G-7 countries hoarded vaccines and medical supplies, sidelining poorer nations and weakening trust in global cooperation.

    Who should lead India’s push for new global governance principles?

    • India’s World-Class Diplomats: India should empower its skilled and experienced diplomatic corps to frame and advocate new governance principles suited to a multipolar world. Eg: Indian diplomats played a key role in shaping the International Solar Alliance, showing leadership in global climate governance.
    • Cooperation Between Political Leadership and Policy Experts: A coordinated approach involving political vision (e.g., Prime Minister’s “Asian Century” narrative) and strategic policy institutions can guide India’s global engagement. Eg: NITI Aayog and MEA’s policy think tanks can jointly shape proposals for reforms in multilateral institutions like the WTO and UN.
    • Engagement with Global South and Emerging Institutions: India must lead with inclusive principles by aligning with BRICS, ASEAN, and the African Union, promoting a fair and tech-driven global order. Eg: India’s BRICS presidency and advocacy for the Global South Voice at G-20 summits shows readiness for leadership beyond the West-dominated system.

    How can India become a global leader in AI and technology?

    • Leverage Human Capital and Digital Infrastructure: India must build on its skilled workforce, vast datasets, and proven digital stack (like Aadhaar, UPI) to drive AI innovation. Eg: IndiaStack enabled large-scale digital public goods, which can now serve as the foundation for developing large language models (LLMs) and AI applications.
    • Promote Open-Source and Indigenous Innovation: Focusing on open-source technologies and encouraging local R&D will allow India to innovate independently and at scale. Eg: India can emulate models like DeepSeek (an open-source AI rivaling U.S. models) to build affordable, accessible AI tools.
    • Create National Consensus and Industry-Academia Collaboration: A national policy consensus involving all stakeholders—governments, academia, and industry—must be built to focus on AI, chips, and deep tech. Eg: China’s rise in hardware was driven by state-industry coordination; India needs similar programs for semiconductors and AI research centers.

    Which regions should India partner with for a new economic framework?

    • ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations): India should collaborate with ASEAN to build an Asian Common Market and leverage regional complementarities in trade, manufacturing, and digital economy. Eg: India’s Act East Policy and its trade agreements with Singapore and Thailand provide a base for deeper economic integration.
    • African Union: Africa offers a growing consumer base and untapped potential for investment in infrastructure, technology, and education. Eg: India’s Pan-African e-Network Project and growing pharma exports make Africa a strategic partner in India’s south-south cooperation.
    • BRICS and Emerging Economies: Collaborating within BRICS helps India shape multipolar global governance and alternative trade norms. Eg: India’s proposal for a BRICS currency system and its role in the New Development Bank demonstrate long-term strategic engagement.
    • Middle East (West Asia): Strong energy ties and growing interest in tech cooperation make the Middle East a key partner in India’s economic future. Eg: The India-UAE CEPA and I2U2 group (India-Israel-UAE-USA) promote trade, food security, and innovation-led partnerships.
    • Latin America and Caribbean (LAC): This region provides opportunities for trade diversification, agricultural cooperation, and technology exchange. Eg: India’s investments in pharmaceuticals and IT sectors in Brazil and Mexico mark a growing footprint in the LAC region.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutionalise Strategic Partnerships: India should formalise economic and technology alliances through frameworks like FTAs, digital cooperation pacts, and regional value chains with emerging regions (ASEAN, Africa, LAC).
    • Champion Inclusive Global Norms: Lead the Global South in advocating reforms in global governance institutions, emphasising equity, sustainability, and tech sovereignty to shape a multipolar, resilient global order.

  • [2nd May 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: China’s strategic push — Asia ties amid tariff tensions

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2017] China is using its economic relations and positive trade surplus as tools to develop potential military power status in Asia’, In the light of this statement, discuss its impact on India as her neighbor.

    Linkage: China’s economic relations to its strategic power status in Asia and asks about the impact on India, which aligns with the broader implications of China’s growing regional influence discussed in the source.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia from April 14-18, 2025, aimed to present China as the most reliable partner in the region. With a 145% tariff on Chinese goods imposed by the Trump administration, China is rethinking its foreign trade strategies, particularly with countries in Southeast Asia where it has strong ties and supportive partners. This visit is not just regular diplomacy but a strategic move by China to ease economic pressure, show stability, and strengthen its leadership role in the Indo-Pacific region.

    The editorial today analyzes Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia. This analysis can help in understanding the broader dynamics of China’s foreign policy and its impact on international relations, which is relevant for GS Paper 2 in the UPSC exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Beijing’s efforts to engage with Southeast Asia could make it harder for the U.S. to form a coalition aimed at isolating or limiting China economically.

    What was the aim of Xi Jinping’s Southeast Asia tour?

    • Counter U.S. Economic Pressure and Protectionism: In response to the 145% tariff on Chinese exports by the Trump administration, China used the tour to strengthen trade ties with receptive Southeast Asian partners like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia.
    • Position China as a Stable and Reliable Partner in the Indo-Pacific: Xi signed 45 agreements with Vietnam and over 30 with Malaysia, showcasing China’s willingness to invest in digital economy, AI, agriculture, and infrastructure — directly contrasting U.S. policies perceived as protectionist or security-centric.
    • Promote China’s Regional Leadership and Soft Power: Xi emphasized non-interference, cultural ties, and the Belt and Road Initiative, including major projects like the Funan Techo Canal in Cambodia, to build a “community with a shared future” and present China as the regional leader.

    Why is Southeast Asia key to China’s trade strategy?

    • Buffer Against U.S. Trade Pressures: As the U.S. imposes tariffs (e.g., 145% on Chinese exports under Trump), China needs trade partners less influenced by Washington. Eg: Cambodia, Vietnam, and Malaysia are not aligned with U.S. protectionism and offer alternate trade routes.
    • Alternative Manufacturing Base: Rising labor costs and export restrictions push China to shift low-cost manufacturing to nearby countries. Eg: Many Chinese firms are investing in Vietnamese and Malaysian industrial parks as part of their “China Plus One” strategy.
    • Gateway to Regional Supply Chains: Southeast Asia is integrated into global value chains and is a key node in East Asian manufacturing. Eg: The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) links China with ASEAN, allowing tariff-free trade on many goods.
    • Diplomatic and Economic Receptiveness: ASEAN countries are generally open to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and infrastructure investment. Eg: The Funan Techo Canal in Cambodia, funded by China, improves logistics and deepens economic ties.
    • Market Expansion and Political Influence: Growing middle classes and urbanization offer long-term markets for Chinese goods and services. Eg: Digital economy and AI agreements with Malaysia expand Chinese tech firms’ reach while strengthening bilateral ties.

    Which agreements were signed with Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia?

    • Vietnam – Strategic and Economic Deepening: China and Vietnam signed 45 cooperation agreements covering infrastructure, trade, connectivity, and border management. Eg: Agreements included railway connectivity, digital economy initiatives, and boosting cross-border trade.
    • Malaysia – Tech and Economic Collaboration: Over 30 agreements were signed focusing on the digital economy, artificial intelligence, agriculture, and infrastructure. Eg: MoUs on AI cooperation, palm oil trade, and joint development of industrial parks were key highlights.
    • Cambodia – Investment and Infrastructure Expansion: China reaffirmed its role as Cambodia’s largest investor and trading partner, with a focus on large-scale infrastructure projects. Eg: The Funan Techo Canal project was a major outcome, seen as a symbol of deepened strategic and economic ties.

    How does China’s approach differ from the U.S. in the region?

    • Economic Diplomacy vs. Security-Centric Strategy: China emphasizes infrastructure, trade, and investment, while the U.S. often leads with security alliances and military cooperation. Eg: China’s Belt and Road projects (like the Funan Techo Canal in Cambodia) contrast with U.S.-led initiatives like AUKUS and the Quad.
    • Non-Interference vs. Value-Based Engagement: China promotes a policy of non-interference and economic cooperation without imposing political conditions. The U.S. ties engagement to democracy, human rights, and strategic alignment. Eg: China’s warm ties with Cambodia, despite its authoritarian governance, contrast with U.S. criticism of its human rights record.
    • Tangible Deliverables vs. Abstract Frameworks: China offers clear economic incentives (like market access and investments), while U.S. initiatives often lack concrete trade benefits. Eg: China signs dozens of bilateral agreements; the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) has been criticized for lacking market access.

    What could be the impact on India? 

    • Strategic Space Shrinkage in Southeast Asia: As China deepens ties with ASEAN countries, India may find it harder to expand its influence in the region. Eg: Vietnam engaging with China despite maritime tensions may dilute India’s strategic partnership with Hanoi.
    • Competitive Pressure on Infrastructure and Trade Diplomacy: China’s aggressive investment through BRI challenges India’s outreach via initiatives like the Act East Policy or Mekong–Ganga Cooperation. Eg: China’s infrastructure push in Cambodia (e.g., Funan Techo Canal) may overshadow India’s developmental efforts in the region.
    • Risk of Regional Economic Isolation: Closer China-ASEAN integration may sideline India from key trade and supply chains unless it accelerates its economic engagement. Eg: India’s exit from RCEP and China’s expanding trade deals with ASEAN may reduce India’s leverage in setting regional economic norms.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Economic and Infrastructure Diplomacy: India should deepen its engagement with Southeast Asia through large-scale infrastructure projects, trade agreements, and digital economy initiatives to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Eg: Focusing on improving connectivity, like the India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway, and enhancing regional supply chains could help.
    • Foster Strategic Partnerships and Multilateral Cooperation: India should prioritize strengthening its strategic ties with ASEAN countries through multilateral platforms like the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the Quad, focusing on security and regional stability. Eg: India must increase its participation in economic partnerships to counter China’s growing influence.

  • [1st May 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The impact of suspending a water treaty

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2016]  Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and political implications in the context of changing bilateral relations.

    Linkage:  India’s action regarding the IWT due to strained bilateral relations stemming from terrorism and outlines potential economic impacts on Pakistan and political/diplomatic implications for India.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  In response to the terrorist attack by The Resistance Front that killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 immediately. This suspension will remain in place until Pakistan completely stops supporting cross-border terrorism. The decision essentially means ending the water treaty, which was signed in 1960, but there is no clause in the treaty that allows for it to be cancelled unilaterally.

    Today’s editorial looks at the recent halt of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. This topic is useful for GS Paper II (International Relations).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    India may defend its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, but this could affect its relationships with neighbouring countries.

    Why did India suspend the Indus Waters Treaty?

    • Response to Cross-Border Terrorism: India suspended the IWT as a strong retaliatory measure after The Resistance Front, a Pakistan-backed terrorist group, killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. Eg: The Cabinet Committee on Security declared the suspension until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.”
    • Strategic Leverage Against Pakistan: India views the IWT as a tool of strategic pressure, given that Pakistan’s agriculture and hydropower heavily rely on water from the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers. Eg: By suspending water-sharing obligations and planning to increase storage and diversion, India aims to weaken Pakistan’s water security.

    What legal challenges arise from this suspension under international law?

    • Lack of Exit Clause in the IWT: The IWT does not have a provision for unilateral termination or suspension by either party. Article XII (4) specifies that the treaty shall continue unless a duly ratified treaty for termination is concluded. Eg: India’s suspension of the treaty violates this provision, as there is no formal exit mechanism within the IWT itself.
    • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Challenges: India’s use of VCLT provisions, particularly Article 62 on treaty modification or termination due to a fundamental change in circumstances, is problematic. India is not a party to the VCLT, and Pakistan has signed but not ratified it, making its application complex. Eg: Using VCLT to justify the suspension may face legal challenges since it doesn’t apply directly in the context of the IWT.
    • Violation of International Legal Norms: Unilateral suspension of the IWT without mutual consent may be viewed as a violation of customary international law, which favors the continuation of treaties unless both parties agree to their termination. Eg: Legal experts argue that India’s actions undermine the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), which is a core tenet of international law.
    • Possible Retaliation and Legal Action by Pakistan: Pakistan has legal recourse to challenge India’s suspension, including bringing the issue to international forums such as the ICJ, UN Security Council, or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Eg: Pakistan could argue that India’s suspension violates the VCLT or raises a dispute regarding the treaty’s interpretation, seeking a legal ruling on the matter.

    How could the move impact water disputes within Pakistan?

    • Intensification of Inter-Provincial Water Conflicts: Pakistan’s provinces, particularly Punjab and Sindh, already face longstanding water disputes. India’s suspension of the IWT could exacerbate these internal conflicts, especially as the western rivers are critical to both agriculture and hydroelectric power in Pakistan. Eg: Punjab and Sindh have previously clashed over water allocations, and a reduction in water flow from India could heighten tensions, particularly over the allocation of Indus river waters.
    • Increased Political Instability: A reduction in the water flow from India could lead to widespread agricultural damage and water shortages, particularly in Punjab, which is the country’s agricultural heartland. This could spark public protests and political instability within Pakistan. Eg: The ongoing disputes over projects like the Cholistan Canal between provinces may intensify if Pakistan faces reduced water availability, leading to political pressures on the federal government to resolve these disputes.

    Which infrastructure projects support India’s water strategy?

    • Hydroelectric Projects: Projects like Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project and Ratle Dam utilize water from the western rivers for power generation, in line with India’s share under the Indus Waters Treaty.
    • Run-of-the-River Dams: Baglihar Dam and Salal Dam regulate river flows for electricity generation, without significant water storage, supporting India’s strategy to manage water resources.
    • Irrigation and Flood Control: Infrastructure like the Srinagar flood control project and irrigation systems in Jammu and Kashmir helps manage water for agricultural use and regional stability.

    What are the regional diplomatic consequences of India’s decision?

    • Strained Relations with Pakistan: Suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) may worsen India-Pakistan relations, particularly over water access, potentially leading to diplomatic protests. Eg: Pakistan could raise the issue at international platforms like the UN or the International Court of Justice.
    • Impact on India-China Relations: China, as an upper riparian of India’s rivers, may use India’s suspension to justify withholding hydro data on rivers like the Brahmaputra. Eg: During the 2017 Doklam crisis, China did not share hydro data with India but did with Bangladesh.
    • Influence on India-Bangladesh Ties: India’s suspension could affect the renewal of the Ganga Water Treaty with Bangladesh in 2026. Eg: Bangladesh could be concerned about water-sharing agreements, given the geopolitical tensions.

    Way forward:

    • Engage in Diplomatic Dialogue: India should initiate diplomatic discussions with Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh to mitigate tensions and seek mutually beneficial water-sharing agreements, ensuring regional stability.
    • Strengthen Water Infrastructure: India must invest in enhancing its water storage and management infrastructure to maximize its treaty entitlements and reduce reliance on fluctuating water flows.

  • From a rules-based world to shambolic disorder

    Why in the News?

    Even before Donald Trump’s time in office, there were clear signs that the world was becoming more uncertain in many areas. This was a warning of trouble in different parts of the world, and leaders in government, business, and strategy had already started getting ready for tougher times.

    What are the main global disruptions contributing to geopolitical and economic instability?

    • Leader-led Disruption and Geopolitical Tensions: Authoritarian leaders such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump are reshaping global politics. Eg: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. trade wars under Trump have strained international alliances.
    • Rise of Protectionism and Trade Wars: Economic nationalism and tariff barriers have disrupted global trade. Eg: Trump’s tariff war with China reduced U.S. GDP growth and disrupted global supply chains.
    • Technological Disruption and Cyber Threats: Rapid tech changes and cyber warfare are causing instability in national security and job markets. Eg: Growing reliance on disruptive technologies without governance frameworks leads to digital vulnerabilities.
    • Regional Conflicts and Expanding Military Influence: Conflicts in West Asia, increasing military presence, and border tensions are destabilizing regions. Eg: Israel’s offensive in Gaza, tensions in Syria, and China’s naval expansion in the Indian Ocean.
    • Resurgence of Terrorism and Non-State Actors: Groups like ISIS are re-emerging in Africa and South Asia, causing fresh security challenges. Eg: Recent terror attacks in Kashmir and IS activity in Mozambique and Congo signal renewed threats.

    Why is the United States, once a model of democratic stability, now perceived as a deeply divided nation?

    • Deepening Political Polarization: Internal divisions between conservative and liberal ideologies have intensified, weakening national unity. Eg: Sharp divide over Trump’s policies and Capitol Hill riots in January 2021 reflect erosion of democratic consensus.
    • Transactional Foreign Policy Approach: U.S. foreign relations have become self-serving, leading to fractured alliances. Eg: Trump’s tariff wars and criticism of NATO allies strained transatlantic relations.
    • Targeting of Educational and Immigration Systems: Policies against foreign students and elite institutions hurt America’s soft power and economy. Eg: Restrictions on student visas under Trump threatened $40 billion in economic contribution.
    • Economic Protectionism and Declining Global Trade Role: Shift from free trade to protectionist policies reduced U.S. leadership in global economic governance. Eg: Imposition of tariffs led to decline in U.S. GDP growth and disrupted global supply chains.

    How is China capitalising on the shifting geopolitical landscape in Asia?

    • Expanding Influence through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): China is using infrastructure projects to create economic dependencies and increase political leverage across Asia. Eg: China’s investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) strengthens its hold in South Asia and secures a vital trade route.
    • Exploiting U.S. Retreat and Growing Global Uncertainty: As the U.S. retreats from global leadership, China has stepped in as a key player, especially in the Indo-Pacific. Eg: China’s leadership in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest free trade bloc, contrasts with U.S. absence under Trump.
    • Enhancing Military and Naval Presence in Key Regions: China is expanding its military presence, particularly in maritime zones crucial for trade and regional security. Eg: China’s aggressive stance in the South China Sea, including artificial island building and military installations, asserts control over disputed waters.
    • Strengthening Bilateral and Multilateral Ties with Neighboring Countries: China is forging strategic alliances with neighboring countries to offset U.S. influence and enhance regional dominance. Eg: China’s growing ties with Southeast Asian countries like Cambodia and Laos, as well as influence in Sri Lanka through infrastructure projects like the Hambantota Port.
    • Leveraging the China-India Rivalry to Expand Influence: China is exploiting tensions between India and its neighbors to increase its regional influence. Eg: China’s increasing influence over Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, alongside tensions at the India-China border, shifts regional power dynamics in China’s favour

    What implications could this have for India?

    • Strategic Encirclement and Security Concerns: China’s increasing presence in India’s neighborhood (Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka) creates strategic pressure and challenges India’s regional dominance.Eg: The development of the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka under China’s BRI is seen as part of a “String of Pearls” strategy encircling India.
    • Economic Competition and Trade Imbalance: China’s dominance in Asian trade frameworks like RCEP and its export power pose risks to Indian manufacturing and trade sovereignty. Eg: India opted out of RCEP over concerns that cheap Chinese imports would harm Indian MSMEs.
    • Border Tensions and Military Confrontation: Persistent border disputes, particularly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), escalate military spending and diplomatic tensions. Eg: The 2020 Galwan Valley clash led to casualties on both sides and worsened India-China relations..

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Strategic Partnerships: India should deepen ties with like-minded nations through forums like Quad and ASEAN to counterbalance China’s regional dominance. Eg: Enhanced defense and technology cooperation with Japan, Australia, and the U.S.
    • Boost Domestic Capabilities and Connectivity: Accelerate infrastructure development, self-reliant manufacturing (Atmanirbhar Bharat), and regional connectivity with neighbors to reduce Chinese influence. Eg: Development of the Chabahar Port to bypass China-influenced trade routes.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of a China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.” Explain.

    Linkage: Major shift in the global power balance and a challenge to the established international order (historically dominated by the US post-Cold War).

  • [28th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The ‘political trilemma’ and the crisis in the West

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2019] Are we losing our local identity for the global identity? Discuss

    Linkage: The tension between globalising forces and national or local identities, which is at the heart of the debate surrounding the political trilemma, particularly the interplay between international economic integration and national sovereignty/popular democracy.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  Democracies in the West are facing a crisis marked by increasing polarization, mistrust in institutions, and rising populism, leading to more insular policies. Economist Dani Rodrik’s “political trilemma” suggests countries can only have two of three things: global economic integration, national sovereignty, and popular democracy. Despite globalization, nations have imposed trade barriers, limiting its benefits.

    Today’s editorial examines the growing polarization, distrust in institutions, and the rise of populism, which are driving countries towards more insular policies despite globalization. This topic is relevant for GS Paper 1 on Society and GS Paper 2 on Polity in the Mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    What was once just a concept in academic studies is now happening around the world, with its effects being more noticeable in Western countries than in others.

    How has globalization impacted sectors and populations in Western countries, fueling populism?

    • Job Losses in Manufacturing: Outsourcing of jobs to lower-cost countries has led to job losses in traditional sectors like steel and textiles, especially in regions like the U.S. Rust Belt, fueling populist sentiments. Eg: The U.S. steel industry decline and its role in Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
    • Economic Inequality: Globalization has widened the gap between prosperous urban elites and struggling rural populations, contributing to resentment and populist support. Eg: The Brexit vote, with economically disadvantaged areas pushing for leave due to perceived inequality.
    • Cultural and Identity Concerns: The movement of people and ideas has raised fears of cultural dilution, driving anti-globalization and nationalist rhetoric. Eg: The rise of far-right parties in Europe, like the National Rally and AfD, focusing on immigration and national identity.

    What are the three choices in balancing democracy, sovereignty, and globalization, according to Rodrik’s trilemma?

    • Democracy + Globalization, but Ceding Sovereignty: Countries embrace democratic participation and global economic integration but surrender some national sovereignty. Eg: The European Union (EU), where countries gave up control over key areas like trade and migration for economic benefits, leading to nationalist backlash, such as Brexit.
    • Globalization + Sovereignty, but Restricting Democracy: Countries maintain sovereignty and integrate into the global economy but limit democratic influence on economic decisions, often relying on technocratic governance. Eg: IMF-imposed austerity measures in countries like Kenya, which prioritized fiscal stability over popular democracy, leading to public dissatisfaction.
    • Democracy + Sovereignty, but Limiting Globalization: Countries preserve both sovereignty and democracy but restrict the extent of globalization, often through protectionist policies. Eg: India’s approach of using protectionism and selective foreign investment to balance globalization with domestic control, ensuring political stability and sovereignty.

    How have China and India managed their economies through selective globalisation?

    • Controlled Foreign Investment: Both countries selectively allow foreign investments in specific sectors while restricting or limiting them in others to protect strategic industries. Eg: China has encouraged foreign investments in manufacturing but tightly controls foreign ownership in sectors like media, telecom, and finance. India has similarly promoted foreign direct investment (FDI) in industries like technology but has been cautious in sectors like retail and defense.
    • Export-Oriented Growth: Both nations have prioritized export-led growth, using globalization to access international markets while maintaining strong domestic industrial policies. Eg: China’s “Made in China” strategy focused on becoming the global manufacturing hub, while India’s “Make in India” initiative aims to boost domestic manufacturing for export.
    • Government Control Over Key Sectors: Both countries retain significant government control over critical sectors, such as banking, energy, and infrastructure, to safeguard national interests. Eg: China’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) dominate key industries like energy and finance, while India has state-run companies in sectors like oil, railways, and defense.
    • Selective Trade Agreements: China and India have negotiated trade agreements that protect domestic industries while opening up others for global competition. Eg: China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 but protected its agricultural sector with subsidies. India has been cautious in committing to trade agreements that might undermine its domestic sectors, like agriculture.
    • Managing Political and Economic Sovereignty: Both nations maintain tight political control, limiting the influence of external forces on domestic governance and policy-making. Eg: China tightly controls its political landscape and restricts foreign influence through measures like the “Great Firewall,” while India enforces its sovereignty by regulating foreign content in media and restricting foreign NGOs in sensitive areas.

    What consequences have Western democracies faced from balancing free trade, self-determination, and democracy?

    • Economic Inequality and Job Losses: Free trade has led to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to lower-cost countries, resulting in job losses and economic insecurity for certain segments of the population. Eg: In the U.S. and the U.K., industrial regions like the Rust Belt have seen significant declines in manufacturing jobs due to globalization, contributing to growing economic disparities.
    • Rise of Populism and Nationalism: As global competition increased, many voters felt left behind by globalization, leading to the rise of populist and nationalist political movements that prioritize national sovereignty over international cooperation. Eg: Brexit in the U.K. and the election of populist leaders like Donald Trump in the U.S. were fueled by sentiments of reclaiming national sovereignty and resisting the perceived negative impacts of globalization.
    • Erosion of Trust in Democratic Institutions: The challenges of balancing democracy with the pressures of globalization have caused frustration among citizens, leading to diminished trust in democratic institutions and the political establishment. Eg: In France, protests like the “Yellow Vest” movement reflect public dissatisfaction with economic policies seen as favoring global markets over local welfare, questioning the legitimacy of institutions and their responsiveness to the people’s needs.

    Way forward: 

    • Balancing Globalization with Domestic Welfare: India must ensure that globalization benefits are equitably distributed, addressing economic insecurity and preventing resentment. Eg: Support local industries and vulnerable sectors through skill development and welfare programs.
    • Strengthening Democratic Institutions: India should make democratic institutions more responsive to public concerns, ensuring inclusivity and addressing inequality. Eg: Engage citizens in policymaking to ensure economic policies benefit all.

  • India raises Continental Shelf claim in Arabian Sea Region

    Why in the News?

    India has recently expanded its claim in the Central Arabian Sea by nearly 10,000 square kilometers as part of its ‘extended continental shelf,’ modifying an earlier claim to resolve a dispute with Pakistan.

    India raises Continental-Shelf claim in Arabian Sea Region

    About Extended Continental Shelf (ECS):

    • ECS refers to the area beyond 200 nautical miles that countries can claim by submitting geological and geophysical evidence to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).
    • These claims allow countries to explore resources like oil, gas, and minerals on and beneath the seabed.
    • Coastal states have rights to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 nautical miles from their coastline.
    • However, such States can claim additional seabed area beyond this limit if they prove scientifically that the continental shelf extends naturally from their landmass.

    Back2Basics: Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)

    • The CLCS estd. In 1997, is a UN body under the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) that helps states determine the outer limits of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
    • The CLCS reviews the scientific data provided by states and makes binding recommendations on the extent of the outer shelf limits.
    • The commission comprises 21 experts from geology, geophysics, and hydrography, ensuring legal compliance and peaceful boundary resolution.

    India’s Modified Claims and Pakistan:

    • India first submitted a claim in 2009 for an extended shelf in the Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, and Arabian Sea, claiming an additional 1.2 million square kilometers.
    • After Pakistan’s objections, India modified its claim, splitting it into two parts to resolve disputes and ensure uncontroversial areas in the Central Arabian Sea.
    • India also increased its claim by 10,000 square kilometers using new scientific data.
    • The Sir Creek area, a disputed waterway between India and Pakistan, remains a point of contention, but India’s modification aims for peaceful resolution.
    • India’s claim overlaps with Oman’s shelf, but the two countries have an agreement to keep the delimitation open without conflict.
    [UPSC 2022] With reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea, consider the following statements:

    1. A coastal state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baseline determined in accordance with the convention.

    2. Ships of all states, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

    3. The Exclusive Economic Zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

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

     

  • Indus Waters Treaty, Simla Agreement ‘in abeyance’: What this means

    Why in the News?

    After the Pahalgam terror attack, India responded by putting the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) on hold and announced several other diplomatic steps. In return, Pakistan said it would also consider suspending all bilateral agreements with India, including the Simla Agreement.

    What are the key reasons cited by India for holding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) “in abeyance”?

    • Fundamental Change in Circumstances: India argues that since the treaty’s signing in 1960, there has been a drastic shift in population demographics and developmental needs, especially the urgent requirement for clean energy. Eg: India’s push for hydropower projects on western rivers like Kishanganga and Ratle reflects its clean energy goals.
    • Violation of Good Faith Principle: India claims that Pakistan has not acted in good faith, as evidenced by its continuous sponsorship of cross-border terrorism, which undermines mutual trust required under international treaties. Eg: The recent Pahalgam terror attack is cited as part of a pattern of hostile actions.
    • Obstruction in Treaty Implementation: India points to Pakistan’s resistance and obstructionist approach in dispute resolution and infrastructure development under the treaty framework. Eg: In 2016, Pakistan bypassed the Neutral Expert process and approached the Permanent Court of Arbitration directly, delaying dam projects.

    Why is the term “hold in abeyance” not considered valid under international law, especially in the context of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)?

    • “Abeyance” Not Recognised in VCLT Terminology: The VCLT only recognises terms like “termination” and “suspension” of treaties—not “abeyance.” Hence, “holding a treaty in abeyance” has no formal legal status or procedural clarity under international law. Eg: Article 62 of the VCLT provides for treaty termination due to fundamental change in circumstances, but does not mention or define “abeyance.”
    • High Threshold for Fundamental Change: Even under Article 62, “fundamental change in circumstances” must directly relate to the core purpose of the treaty, and meet strict criteria set by international jurisprudence, particularly the ICJ. Eg: In the 1984 Nicaragua v. United States case, the ICJ rejected the US claim that a political shift in Nicaragua was a fundamental change justifying treaty exit.

    How does the dispute resolution mechanism under the Indus Waters Treaty function? & What are its three tiers?

    • Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) – First Tier: Both India and Pakistan appoint Commissioners who meet regularly to resolve technical and implementation issues bilaterally. This is the first step in resolving disputes. Eg: Disagreements over annual data sharing or small projects are often addressed at this level.
    • Neutral Expert – Second Tier: If the issue remains unresolved, either country can request the World Bank to appoint a Neutral Expert for technical matters such as design parameters of projects. Eg: In 2005, a Neutral Expert was appointed to resolve the Baglihar Dam dispute between India and Pakistan.
    • Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) – Third Tier: If the issue is legal or political, or if technical resolution fails, the matter can be escalated to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, facilitated by the World Bank. Eg: In 2016, Pakistan skipped the Neutral Expert stage and approached the PCA over the Kishanganga and Ratle projects, which India opposed.

    When did Pakistan previously bypass the neutral expert stage under the IWT?

    • Bypassing in 2016 Over Indian Hydropower Projects: In 2016, Pakistan directly approached the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) over India’s construction of the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, skipping the Neutral Expert stage meant for resolving technical disputes. Eg: Pakistan alleged that India’s designs violated the IWT’s specifications regarding spillway structures and pondage levels.
    • India’s Objection to Parallel Proceedings: India strongly opposed this move, stating that the IWT does not allow parallel proceedings at both the Neutral Expert and PCA stages for the same issue. India refused to participate in the PCA process and called for dispute resolution through the Neutral Expert instead. Eg: India maintained that allowing parallel processes undermines the treaty’s dispute resolution structure.

    Which Simla Agreement clauses are “best endeavour clauses” and why are they non-binding?

    • Nature of Language – Non-Mandatory Phrasing: Clauses in the Simla Agreement use soft language such as “shall prevent” or “pending final settlement” rather than definitive legal commands. This implies a diplomatic intention rather than enforceable obligations. Eg: “Pending the final settlement… both sides shall prevent… acts detrimental to peaceful relations” is advisory, not obligatory.
    • Absence of Enforcement or Penalty Mechanism: The agreement does not specify consequences for violations, nor does it include a dispute resolution framework. This makes compliance a matter of political will rather than legal duty. Eg: Despite ceasefire violations and the 1999 Kargil conflict, no legal action could be taken under the Simla Agreement.
    • Meant to Guide, Not Compel: These clauses are seen as guiding principles or diplomatic assurances, commonly called “best endeavour clauses” in international law, which reflect a commitment to try but not an obligation to achieve. Eg: The agreement promotes bilateralism, but repeated internationalization of Kashmir by Pakistan hasn’t attracted treaty penalties.

    Way forward: 

    • Treaty Modernisation Through Bilateral Dialogue: India and Pakistan should initiate structured negotiations to update the Indus Waters Treaty, aligning it with present-day challenges like climate change, clean energy needs, and population growth.
    • Strengthen Dispute Resolution with Third-Party Mediation Rules: Introduce clear procedural timelines and limitations on bypassing dispute tiers (e.g., Neutral Expert stage) to ensure consistency, transparency, and mutual trust in treaty enforcement.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2016] Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and political implications in the context of changing bilateral relations.

    Linkage: The Indus Water Treaty is very important in the current situation where it’s being “put on hold.” It directly relates to the changing relationship between India and Pakistan, which is the main reason behind this move.

  • [25th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Is the World Trade Organisation still relevant?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2016] The broader aims and objectives of the WTO are to manage and promote international trade in the era of globalisation. But the Doha round of negotiations seems doomed due to differences between the developed and the developing countries. Discuss from the Indian perspective.

    Linkage: WTO’s aims and the failure of the Doha Round, a key point made in the article to illustrate the WTO’s declining negotiating function and its diminished relevance. The question also asks for a discussion from the Indian perspective, which connects to the article’s reference to India’s stance on certain WTO issues.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:   Donald Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” have been compared to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, which are believed to have worsened the Great Depression. The key difference today is that we have the World Trade Organization (WTO) to manage and enforce global trade rules. However, some believe that over time, the WTO has lost its direction and needs significant reforms.

    Today’s editorial examines the relevance of the WTO in the current global context. This content will be useful for GS Paper 2 (International Institutions) and GS Paper 3 (Economy).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Over time, the WTO has become less effective and lacks clear direction, with many believing it requires major reforms to better manage and enforce global trade rules in the current world.

    What are the main functions of the WTO?

    • Negotiating Trade Agreements: The WTO provides a platform for member countries to negotiate and revise global trade rules aimed at reducing trade barriers (tariffs, quotas, etc.). Eg: The Doha Development Round was launched in 2001 to negotiate issues like agricultural subsidies and market access for developing countries.
    • Settling Trade Disputes: The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) resolves trade conflicts between countries based on agreed rules. Eg: The U.S.–EU Banana Dispute, where the U.S. challenged the EU’s import regime for bananas, was resolved through the WTO dispute system.
    • Monitoring and Reviewing National Trade Policies: The WTO monitors trade policies of member nations to ensure transparency and consistency with WTO rules. Eg: The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) allows regular scrutiny of each member’s trade practices — for instance, India’s trade policy is reviewed every 4-5 years under this mechanism.

    Why is it struggling to fulfil them?

    • Stalemate in Trade Negotiations: Consensus-based decision-making often leads to deadlocks, especially between developed and developing countries. Eg: The Doha Round has been stalled for years due to disagreements on agricultural subsidies and market access.
    • Crisis in the Dispute Settlement System: The Appellate Body (WTO’s top court) has been non-functional since 2019 because the U.S. blocked the appointment of new judges, citing bias and overreach. Eg: Over 20 trade disputes remain unresolved, weakening trust in WTO’s ability to enforce rules.
    • Rise of Protectionism and Plurilateralism: Countries increasingly prefer regional or bilateral agreements, bypassing WTO rules. Also, rising protectionism (e.g. tariffs, export bans) undermines multilateral trade. Eg: The U.S.–China trade war and RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) are signs of countries drifting away from WTO-centered trade governance.

    Why has the WTO’s Appellate Body become dysfunctional?

    • U.S. Block on Judge Appointments: The United States has repeatedly blocked the appointment of new judges, alleging judicial overreach and bias against U.S. interests. Eg: As of 2019, the Appellate Body lacked the minimum three judges required to hear appeals, halting its operations.
    • Allegations of Judicial Overreach: Critics, especially the U.S., claim the Body has exceeded its mandate by creating new obligations not agreed upon by member states. Eg: In disputes like U.S.–Antidumping Measures, the Appellate Body was accused of “interpreting” rules rather than just applying them.
    • Delays in Rulings and Case Backlog: The Appellate Body has been criticized for delays in delivering rulings, often exceeding the 90-day deadline, leading to a growing backlog. Eg: In cases like the EU–Airbus dispute, delayed rulings undermined timely dispute resolution.

    How has the MFN principle weakened?

    • Rise of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Countries increasingly prefer bilateral or regional trade agreements (FTAs) over WTO multilateral negotiations, which often bypass the MFN principle. Eg: RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) and USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) offer preferential treatment to members, sidelining MFN principles.
    • Protectionist Measures by Major Economies: The U.S. and other major economies have imposed unilateral tariffs and trade measures, undermining the non-discriminatory nature of the MFN principle. Eg: The U.S. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum were applied globally, but countries like the EU and Canada were exempted, contradicting MFN rules.
    • China’s Trade Practices: China’s practices in trade, such as subsidizing domestic industries and restricting foreign market access, have raised concerns about compliance with MFN, as they distort fair trade. Eg: The U.S.–China trade war involved tariffs on Chinese goods despite China’s MFN status at the WTO.
    • Decreasing Role of the WTO in Enforcing MFN: The WTO’s inability to enforce the MFN principle effectively, particularly with its dysfunctional dispute settlement mechanism, has weakened its role in global trade governance. Eg: In the India–U.S. solar panel dispute, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Indian solar panels despite the MFN rule, and the dispute resolution was delayed.
    • FTAs and Evasion of MFN Obligations: Many countries have opted for free trade agreements (FTAs), which offer preferential trade treatment to signatories, making it easier to bypass MFN obligations for non-signatories. Eg: India has entered into FTAs with several countries, such as ASEAN, which offer preferential tariffs and benefits not extended to other WTO members, violating MFN principles.

    How did the launch of the Doha Round contribute to this decline?

    • Overly Ambitious Mandate: The Doha Round, launched in 2001, aimed to address a wide range of issues, including agricultural subsidies, tariffs, and market access. This broad agenda led to mismatched expectations and difficulties in reaching agreements, causing the talks to stagnate. Eg, despite extensive negotiations, no consensus was reached on key issues like agricultural subsidies, which frustrated many member countries.
    • Challenges with China’s Accession: When China joined the WTO in 2001, there was insufficient foresight regarding the challenges its integration would pose. China’s growing dominance in global exports, especially in sectors like steel and cement, created trade imbalances and undermined the WTO’s ability to manage its impact. Eg, the WTO rules were not equipped to handle such issues, leading to frustration, particularly from the U.S.
    • Failure to Lower Tariffs: The Doha Round aimed to reduce tariffs on a multilateral basis, but negotiations failed to gain traction. Eg, the U.S. had already lowered its tariffs significantly, but other countries, particularly India, were unwilling to reciprocate. This lack of progress on tariff liberalization further highlighted the WTO’s inability to deliver on its promises, contributing to its declining relevance.

    Who is responsible for the collapse of key trade negotiations ? 

    • Developed Countries’ Reluctance to Reduce Agricultural Subsidies: Developed nations, especially the U.S. and EU, were unwilling to significantly cut their domestic farm subsidies, which distorted global prices and affected developing countries’ exports. Eg: In the Doha Development Round, talks stalled because the U.S. refused to reduce subsidies that gave an unfair advantage to its farmers.
    • Developing Countries’ Demand for Greater Policy Space: Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa demanded flexibilities to protect their poor farmers and industries, which was resisted by developed nations. Eg: India’s push for a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security clashed with U.S. and EU positions, contributing to the deadlock.
    • Consensus-Based Decision-Making Slowing Progress: The WTO follows a consensus model, requiring all 164 members to agree, making it difficult to conclude negotiations when interests diverge widely. Eg: In the Nairobi Ministerial Conference (2015), the failure to achieve consensus on the future of the Doha Round led to its effective collapse.

    What role has India played?

    • Advocating for Food Security and Agricultural Subsidies: India has strongly opposed any restrictions on agricultural subsidies and public stockholding for food security, fearing it would hurt its poor farmers. Eg: India led the opposition to a proposed agreement on agricultural subsidies during the Doha Round and sought a permanent solution for public stockholding, which stalled the negotiations.
    • Pushing for Development Concerns of Poorer Countries: India has consistently championed the interests of developing nations at the WTO, advocating for greater policy flexibility in trade-related matters such as industrialization and agriculture. Eg: India was vocal in demanding special and differential treatment for developing countries and resisted any trade reforms that might harm their domestic industries, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
    • Defending Sovereignty in Trade and Investment: India has often resisted foreign investment liberalization measures and binding international rules on labor standards and environmental regulations that it believes could undermine national sovereignty. Eg: India rejected proposals in the Doha Development Agenda that could have led to binding agreements on labor standards and environmental protections, fearing they could impose undue burdens on its developing economy.

    Way forward: 

    • Reform Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM): The WTO needs to revive and strengthen the Appellate Body by addressing issues such as judge appointments and allegations of judicial overreach, ensuring its effectiveness in resolving disputes and maintaining trust in the multilateral system. Eg: A compromise on U.S. concerns could be explored to restart the Appellate Body’s functioning.
    • Enhance Flexibility for Developing Nations: The WTO should allow more policy flexibility for developing countries in areas like agriculture and food security, while balancing global trade interests. This could encourage inclusive negotiations and help prevent deadlocks, addressing concerns such as those raised by India in the Doha Round. Eg: Promoting a permanent solution for public stockholding in agriculture could lead to greater participation from developing nations.

  • Amidst regional ferment, Kurds’ quest for statehood

    Why in the News?

    The chances of Kurds achieving statehood have improved, but they are still divided by national, tribal, and internal ethnic differences.

    What is the current geopolitical situation in West Asia?

    • Rising Tensions Between Israel and Arab States: The Israeli government’s hardline stance on the Palestinian issue is at odds with Arab nations’ insistence on a two-state solution. The expansion of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and certain Arab countries, is now being challenged by this conflict. Eg, the Israeli government’s policies have led to a strained relationship with countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who continue to push for Palestinian statehood.
    • Weakened Iran and Resumption of U.S. Pressure: Iran’s geopolitical influence is diminishing due to both internal instability and external pressure from the U.S., including sanctions and military threats. Iran has agreed to negotiate its nuclear program as part of this dynamic. Eg, the U.S. has imposed “maximum pressure” tactics, leading to renewed discussions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, showing a shift in regional power balances.
    • Economic Instability Due to Declining Oil Prices: The decline in oil prices by 20% in 2025 has raised concerns about the economic stability of the region, which heavily depends on oil exports. This has already caused volatility in the economies of Gulf countries, impacting countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where the oil sector is a significant source of revenue.

    How is it impacting the Kurdish quest for statehood?

    • Weakened Regional Powers Create Opportunities for Kurdish Autonomy: The instability and weakening of central authorities in Iraq, Syria, and Iran have created opportunities for Kurdish groups to assert autonomy and establish a foothold in the region. Eg, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq has gained considerable autonomy since the 1990s, and the Kurdish Self Defense Forces (SDF) control significant portions of northern Syria, both reflecting a push for Kurdish statehood amidst regional chaos.
    • Absence of a Unifying Kurdish National Movement: Despite these opportunities, the Kurds lack a unifying ideology or transnational political entity to consolidate their ambitions for statehood. Eg, while some Kurdish factions in Iraq and Syria have made strides towards self-governance, the absence of a coordinated regional Kurdish political structure has hindered their ability to form a fully recognized Kurdish state.

    Why did the Kurds fail to achieve statehood after the 1920 Treaty of Sevres?

    • Opposition from the Turkish Nationalists: The Treaty of Sevres in 1920 promised the Kurds an autonomous state in eastern Turkey, but it was thwarted by the rise of Turkish nationalism under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Eg, the Turkish nationalist movement rejected the idea of a Kurdish state, and Atatürk’s forces succeeded in establishing the Republic of Turkey, which vehemently opposed Kurdish autonomy.
    • Geopolitical Interests of Western Powers: The Western powers, who supported the Treaty of Sevres, were more focused on dismantling the Ottoman Empire and securing their own geopolitical interests in the region, rather than prioritizing Kurdish self-determination. Eg, the Treaty was eventually replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which ignored Kurdish aspirations and reinforced the territorial integrity of Turkey, sidelining the Kurds.

    How has Turkish repression of Kurds led to the formation of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party)?

    • Suppression of Kurdish Identity: Turkish repression of Kurdish culture, language, and political rights led to widespread resentment among the Kurdish population. Eg, in the 1980s, the Turkish government officially classified Kurds as “mountain Turks” and banned the use of the Kurdish language, which prompted a reaction from Kurdish activists.
    • Formation of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party): In 1978, Abdullah Öcalan founded the PKK to demand Kurdish independence through armed struggle, responding to decades of discrimination and oppression. Eg, the PKK launched an insurgency in 1984, which led to a prolonged conflict with the Turkish state, causing tens of thousands of deaths.

    What role has the Kurdish Self-Defence Force (SDF) played in Syria? 

    • Fighting Against Terrorist Groups: The Kurdish Self Defence Force (SDF) played a crucial role in fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, particularly in the northern regions. Eg, the SDF, with support from the U.S., was instrumental in the liberation of Raqqa, the de facto capital of ISIS, in 2017.
    • Control Over Syrian Territories: The SDF currently controls nearly 40% of Syria, establishing significant political and military influence. Eg, the SDF’s control over areas like Kobani and Manbij has been a source of tension with Turkey, which accuses the SDF of having links to the PKK.

    How is the potential reduction of American military presence affecting their future?

    • Loss of Strategic Support for Kurdish Forces: The reduction of American military presence in Syria could undermine the Kurdish Self-Defense Forces (SDF), who have heavily relied on U.S. military support in their fight against groups like ISIS. Without this backing, the SDF may face greater vulnerability to Turkish military operations, which view the Kurdish forces as aligned with the PKK. Eg: The SDF’s influence in Syria could diminish, particularly in regions where they have fought hard to establish autonomy, such as in the northeast of the country.
    • Increased Regional Instability: The pullback of U.S. forces could embolden regional powers like Turkey, Iran, and Syria to exert more control over Kurdish regions, weakening their position in any future negotiations for statehood or autonomy. It could lead to more internal conflict and repression within Kurdish-majority areas. Eg: Turkey, already critical of the SDF’s alignment with PKK, could launch more aggressive military operations, further displacing Kurdish communities in Syria.

    How can India take advantage of it? (Way Forward)

    • Strategic Partnerships and Influence in West Asia: India can leverage the evolving geopolitical dynamics in West Asia to strengthen its strategic ties with Kurdish regions, particularly in Iraq and Syria. India can increase its diplomatic and economic engagement with Kurdish political entities to gain influence in the region. Eg: India can build stronger relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq, offering support in areas like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, which may enhance India’s influence in the region.
    • Energy and Trade Opportunities: As Kurdish regions, especially in Iraq, are rich in oil resources, India can increase its energy imports from Kurdish-controlled areas. Securing energy deals with the KRG could help India diversify its energy supply sources and reduce reliance on traditional suppliers. Eg: India could expand its participation in oil exploration and infrastructure projects in the Kurdish region, similar to its involvement in the development of oil fields in Iraq.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2019] Explain how the foundations of the modern world were laid by the American and French revolution.

    Linkage: Both the American and French Revolutions championed the ideals of self-determination and nationalism, which have been significant drivers for various ethnic groups, including the Kurds, seeking statehood. Understanding the impact of these revolutions on the formation of the modern nation-state system provides a broader context for the Kurdish quest.