Category Archives: international affairs

Global Governance, Global order, international affairs, Writing

Global Dynamics in a Year of Domestic Contestation and Political Shifts

Karim El Aynaoui, Paolo Magri, Samir Saran

Foreword

In 2024, two devastating conflicts intensified: the war in Ukraine, and the escalating crisis in Gaza. In Ukraine, the conflict reshaped global alliances, with NATO reclaiming a pivotal role as Europe reexamined and bolstered its defence and security strategies. In the Middle East, the crisis in Gaza expanded to involve Lebanon, exacerbating an already dire humanitarian situation as blockades and military operations worsened civilian suffering. Both conflicts underscored the fragility of international norms, the challenges to achieving lasting resolutions, and the interplay between local grievances and broader geopolitical rivalries. Together, they emphasise the urgent need for diplomatic engagement, humanitarian relief, and sustainable frameworks for peace.

The year also marked the largest election year in modern history, with millions of people across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas going to the polls to elect their representatives and leaders. In Latin America, at least six countries have voted in 2024, while in Africa, nearly 17 nations have already held or are about to hold elections at the time of writing.

In the African continent, these high-stakes elections have been accompanied by a troubling resurgence of military coups. While some nations achieved peaceful democratic transitions, others grappled with contested outcomes and coups d’état amid ongoing security crises, economic hardships, and climate challenges.

In India, home to the world’s largest electorate, the elections resulted in a broad continuity of leadership, albeit with a diminished mandate for the ruling party. In neighbouring Bangladesh, widespread post-poll protests overthrew Sheikh Hasina’s regime and upended the country’s stability. In the United Kingdom, elections ended 14 years of Conservative reign and brought the centre-left Labour Party to power. In France, the elections resulted in a closely contested outcome, leaving the ruling government with a fragile parliamentary majority and the daunting task of navigating a fragmented political landscape.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s decisive election victory in the United States threatens to undermine multilateral governance structures that are already under immense strain. Just as the US election results poured in, Germany’s coalition government collapsed, leaving a complex political situation that will likely take months to resolve. As the West looked on, the expanded BRICS grouping, fraught with internal divisions, held its 16th summit in October. Amid these shifts, regional actors are stepping in to reshape global governance by addressing critical gaps, both nationally and collectively. Morocco’s Atlantic initiatives and Africa’s broader cooperation schemes exemplify the rising impact of complementary frameworks in driving innovative solutions to global challenges.

Such domestic shifts will impact policymaking across the globe, in areas ranging from climate change to trade and security policy. With protectionist tendencies in vogue and the imposition of tariffs dominating the economic toolkits of nations, new leaderships are slated to recalibrate trade policies. At the same time, key global actors such as India, the US, and the EU are working to reduce their dependencies on the Chinese market. In Europe, far-right surges are impacting mainstream parties, which are tempted to adopt parts of the far-right agenda to appeal to voters, in the process potentially compromising sections of the ambitious European Green Deal. The advent of digital technologies, while increasing citizen engagement, has also exacerbated the threat of disinformation undermining elections. Meanwhile, migration remains a pivotal issue for many regions, including Europe and Africa, frequently used as a convenient scapegoat for deeper socio-economic and political challenges as countries navigate the complex implications.

Against this challenging global backdrop, the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI, Italy), the Observer Research Foundation (ORF, India), and the Policy Center for the New South (PCNS, Morocco) combined their efforts to produce the second edition of their Annual Trends Report. This report, framed in the overarching theme of ‘Global Dynamics in a Year of Domestic Contestation and Political Shifts’, aims to encapsulate the consequences of electoral outcomes and domestic contestations and what these might mean for the delivery of key global public goods—whether combating trends of disinformation, bringing peace in Ukraine and Gaza, advancing global climate action, or pursuing economic growth.

This edition divides these global public goods into five areas: global governance; security; economy and development; energy and climate change; and new technologies and digital transition. Each of these policy areas is examined by scholars from the three institutes, offering their diverse perspectives from three different continents. As countries adapt to fresh domestic (and global) realities, it is our hope that this collaborative effort will shed light on how political shifts across continents are impacting key policy areas, and enable policymakers to better navigate and prepare for their impact.

On a broader note, the ISPI-ORF-PCNS tripartite initiative aims to propose solutions to pressing global challenges through joint research, strategic deliberations, and engagement, supported by the pooled expertise of over 400 experts across three continents. To this end, our partnership involves a range of initiatives, from cooperation during our Flagship Forums to annual inter-staff dialogues and Young Fellows Exchange Programs that aim to shape the leaders of tomorrow.

In a world beset by divisions and competition, we hope that our effort epitomises a revival of international collaboration and connection.

We extend our deepest gratitude to Dr. Harsh V. Pant, Vice President, Studies and Foreign Policy at ORF and to Antonio Villafranca, Vice President for Research at ISPI for their scientific leads on the first two editions of this report. We also thank Shairee Malhotra, Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme at ORF, for her critical contribution and Oussama Tayebi and Nassim Hajouji at PCNS and Matteo Villa at ISPI for their vital efforts in coordinating the 2024 edition. This report reflects the strength of our partnership and shared mission.

Read the report here.

Standard
Economic Challenges, Geopolitics, international affairs, Writing

5 geopolitical questions for 2025

  • In 2025, leaders will grapple with a range of geopolitical challenges.
  • Various dynamics and questions should shape the geopolitical agenda next year.
  • Here are five key questions that leaders will need to address.

If 2024 was the year of elections, 2025 will be the year of questions.

The start of the year will see governments across the world at the beginning of new terms, forced to respond swiftly to mounting economic, social, security, environmental and technological challenges. These issues would be difficult to address at any time, but today they come amid a turbulent geopolitical context—one that is seeing a disintegration of the post-war international order.

As a result, leaders will not only need to address specific challenges but do so while finding agreement to build a global framework for promoting peace and prosperity in place of the aggression and economic uncertainty we are now experiencing.

What, then, are the dynamics that should inform leaders’ actions?

What 3 dynamics should inform leaders’ actions in 2025?

First, leaders must account for a growth in seemingly irrational responses among their constituents and counterparts. Leaders can no longer assume domestic and global stakeholders will be guided by identifiable interests because polarized domestic and global politics may lead to decisions that appear counterproductive to external audiences. Indeed, some of the forces shaping these decisions are the result of not just deepening polarization but rising levels of misinformation.

The effect of geography on consciences is plainly visible in divergent responses to Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan.

Second, leaders need to be ready for a growth in inconsistency. External commitments are made based on a state’s location and domestic interests. The effect of geography on consciences is plainly visible in divergent responses to Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. Acceptance of double standards around the application of human rights and the responsibility or desire to protect are now more normal than the aspiration to universal values, such as those espoused by the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Lastly, leaders need to be ready for a growth in influential voices. Leaders will have to reckon with and listen to new actors, from business leaders to social influencers to rising states, many of who are unwilling to adhere to the status quo. The postwar ‘liberal’ consensus is being challenged as much from within as without—even those states that were the bulwark of post-war order contain strong domestic political forces that now contest it.

With these dynamics as a backdrop, what are the most pressing geopolitical questions leaders will need to answer in the year ahead?

Here are five questions for 2025:

How to advance security within a fragmenting global order?

Global cooperation is at a low point and conflict is escalating. Traditional leaders and institutions, such as the WTO and UN, have recently proved ineffective in delivering broad global consensus, or serving as a platform to resolve disputes. Countries and emergent blocs from across the Global South have not yet clarified whether they will serve as a salutary check on a declining West-led global security order, or simply play a disruptive role. Balancing this dynamic will also be Beijing’s task, given that it is at the centre of multiple new geometries—such as the proposed Global Security Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and a possible Russia-Iran-China axis.

Traditional leaders and institutions, such as the WTO and UN, have recently proved ineffective in delivering broad global consensus, or serving as a platform to resolve disputes.

The two most divisive conflicts in 2024—Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza—emerged from long-standing frictions. That these conflicts suddenly inflamed, signals that the global security order is too fragmented to either maintain or negotiate peace.

In this context, when adherence to universal values is an impossibility and the existing order is disintegrating, leaders will be forced to acknowledge the limitations to their influence and the constraints of their alliances.

Leaders will have to ask: What are ways to reach across divides to prevent further conflict? Is it possible for leaders to accept more limitations on their power and take on the task of peace-making? What are the minimum areas of agreement that can generate progress and counter retrogressive action?

How to understand sovereignty in the contemporary world?

The ideal of a rules-based order, painstakingly preserved since 1945, is further away from being practiced now than it has been over the past eight decades. Without shared norms, strong institutions, and a commitment to international law, it is difficult to shape a stable, peaceful environment. However, defenders of the rules-based order have come to realize that for many countries, the role and stability of national political institutions and arrangements are essential. While armies crossing physical borders is an obvious affront to sovereignty, perverse economic measures, manipulation of political systems and regulating access to markets, trading arrangements and payment systems potentially violate the UN Charter and can infringe on the most important aspects of sovereignty.

Without shared norms, strong institutions, and a commitment to international law, it is difficult to shape a stable, peaceful environment.

In recent decades, it was seen as vital that countries cede sovereignty and the ability to make independent decisions on certain policies to global governance institutions, in order to build a “cohesive” global order. Illiberal challengers to this order have long stressed the importance, as they see it, of maintaining sovereignty as the building block of international relations. Now, even defenders of a global order often understand that rules cannot be designed or enforced in a world where state sovereignty is not respected. Because without strong states that can speak for their populations and defend their rights, how can a rules-based order flourish?

In 2025, therefore, leaders will ask: Can the independence of the state be addressed and revitalized in parallel with the strengthening of trans-national structures that offer security for their populations?

Looking ahead

In 2025, leaders across the world will have to search out answers to these five questions. Their answers need not be identical; but the chances are that, if they are in sharp dissonance with each other, then the problems the world seeks to address will be magnified. Amid irrationality, inconsistency, and an abundance of voices, finding a fragile consensus is more important than ever.

This essay first appeared on the World Economic Forum.

Standard
international affairs, Quad, Raisina Dialogue, Strategic Studies, Writing

Two Decades of the Quad: Diplomacy and Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific

With HARSH V. PANT | LILAH CONNELL | VIVEK MISHRA | AMY NAMUR | ROBIN MCCOY | ARYAN D’ROZARIO | SATU LIMAYE

Quad countries are home to a combined 1.9 billion people—or 24% of the world’s population— and represent 35% of the world’s GDP and 18% of global trade[1]

The Quad, initially known as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is a strategic diplomatic partnership composed of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. The group’s origins can be traced back to December 2004 when these four countries first came together as an ad-hoc grouping to provide humanitarian aid and assistance to countries affected by the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Despite the end of the humanitarian relief operation in January 2005, a push for a more formal partnership continued. In 2007, the group held its inaugural, albeit informal first meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum in Manila, the Philippines. However, the initial iteration of the Quad was short-lived, as concerns about the group’s impact on diplomatic relations—particularly with China—led to its informal dissolution in 2008.

The Quad regained momentum in 2017, driven by shared concerns regarding the assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific region, the need to further promote cooperation and strategic consultations between its members, and a desire to uphold peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Senior officials from the four countries met on the sidelines of the 2017 East Asia Summit in Manila, signaling a renewed interest in collaborative efforts. Over the next few years, the Quad focused on policy coordination and the provision of public goods in the Indo-Pacific, both bilaterally and through regional institutions. In the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic beginning in early 2020, the Quad gained further relevance as the grouping shifted its focus to vaccine diplomacy, health security, and economic recovery, evolving from a senior officials’ dialogue to leader-level summits. Since 2019, Quad foreign ministers have met seven times and the Quad Leaders have met five times. Although there have been no stand-alone meetings of Quad defense ministers, the Raisina Dialogue, which is held annually in New Delhi, India, has been a venue for panels of Quad naval chiefs to meet and discuss. 

Quad Member Participation in Trilateral Partnerships

Since regrouping in 2017, the Quad has announced the creation of six working groups which focus on a variety of policies and initiatives. During the inaugural Leaders’ Summit held virtually in March 2021, the group announced a Quad Vaccine Partnership—later renamed the Quad Health Security Partnership—alongside the establishment of a Critical and Emerging Technologies Working Group and a Climate Working Group.[5] A Space Working Group was established later that year during the first in-person Leaders’ Summit held in Washington, D.C., the United States.[6] As Quad activities continue to evolve beyond traditional security concerns, the grouping now includes progressive partnerships such as the Quad Cybersecurity Partnership, the Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience, the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness, and the Quad Partnership on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.

As the Quad strengthens its internal mechanisms, it simultaneously deepens its ties with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other regional bodies, aligning its goals with broader regional strategies. As ASEAN Dialogue Partners, the Quad countries are committed supporters of ASEAN centrality and ASEAN-led regional architecture. Quad countries have also made strides in strengthening cooperation with the Pacific Islands Forum—of which Australia is a member—aligning Quad priorities with Pacific initiatives such as the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.[7] In the Indian Ocean, the Quad seeks to support the regional leadership of the Indian Ocean Rim Association, of which India and Australia are both members. In 2023, Quad countries took on leadership roles including Japan’s G7 presidency, India’s G20 presidency, the United States’ hosting of APEC, and Australia’s bid to co-host the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change COP31 in 2026.

This report is co-published by the East-West Center: www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/two-decades-quad-diplomacy-cooperation-indo-pacific.

Read the report here.

Standard