Connect with us

DIPLOMACY

Indian academician: ‘BRICS is a platform to defuse India-China tensions’

Published

on

Dr. Rajiv Ranjan, Associate Professor, East Asian Studies at the University of Delhi, commented on India’s expectations regarding the BRICS Summit to Harici: “I think it is wrong to think that India-China rivalry or disagreements are weakening BRICS. From the Xiamen Summit in 2017 to the Kazan Summit in 2024, BRICS has emerged as one of the international platforms to defuse tensions between India and China. The India-China tension has not affected BRICS in any way.”

While the West is eyeing the points of ‘disagreement’ at the 16th BRICS Summit that started in Kazan, hosted by Russia, an important step came from China and India, two rival countries in the grouping that have been at the forefront of disagreement and conflict between them.

Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said the agreement on military patrols in certain areas brings the situation back to where it was before the deadly border clash in 2020, adding that the “distancing process” with China has been completed. Beijing confirmed that the two sides had “reached a settlement” as a result of “close communication on relevant border issues through diplomatic and military channels”.

This was seen as a development that would pave the way for a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kazan. It is expected to be the first official meeting between Xi and Modi since the 2020 conflict, which created a lasting strain in relations between the two countries.

Prior to the summit, Western experts had said that it would be difficult for BRICS to develop a common position and adopt a common stance, especially in light of the conflict between the two countries. However, this development shows that BRICS is playing a positive role in resolving conflicts between member countries.

We discussed the meaning and importance of BRICS for India and New Delhi’s expectations from the Kazan Summit with Assoc. Prof. Rajiv Ranjan from East Asian Studies at the University of Delhi.

What do BRICS mean for India? What are India’s expectations from this summit?

BRICS for India is a grouping of countries which reflects their aspiration to build better world, which is equitable and just. BRICS also represents new reality of these new emerging countries in the world. BRICS is united to help and assist countries of Global South to develop, both economically and politically.

From this summit , which is after recent expansion of BRICS, India hopes to get better voice for countries of Global South. Prime Minister is expected to meet both Russian President Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping on sidelines of the summit too. This is essential for India to usher the multipolar Asia and world order. India promote trade and economic development, protect interests of global south in climate change negotiations and fight against terrorism.

For Putin, this summit is considered important both symbolically and practically. What do you think? How do you evaluate the importance of this summit for Russia?

Since Russia -Ukraine war, Russia is under sanctions both political and economically by united West. Russia may like to garner support to counter these pressures.

The dispute and competition between China and India is seen as one of the weaknesses of BRICS. Do you agree? On what issues might the two countries clash at this BRICS summit? Is the expansion agenda one of them?

I think this is the wrong way to project and infer that India – China competition or disputes any way weakens BRICS. In fact, BRICS has emerged as one of the international platforms which defuses the tension between India and China, from Xiamen Summit 2017 to Kazan Summit 2024. In no way India China tension has impacted BRICS.

BRICS expansion had enabled India to reach to greater audiences in Global South. As we know that expansion of BRICS is not decided by one member but all so it wrong to say that any one can have more influences or dictate the terms to other.

China had called for BRICS to “transform into a new type of multilateral cooperation mechanism”. China is said to see BRICS as a tool for its political and strategic goals towards the international system. Do you agree?

Ans. Every member countries has its own agenda and objectives. But remember that BRICS is a collective identity and not foreign policy of one country. BRICS is formed to enlarge and protect the interests of its member countries. As PRIME Minister Modi had remarked earlier BRICS is not against any other country. We have to see BRICS as a positive voice in international system and not anti west grouping.

So don’t you agree with the approach that BRICS is an alternative to Western-centered institutions and functioning?

BRICS is an alternative but not necessarily against the west. It is designed to protect and create more equitable and just order. It is not designed to oppose but create complementary to the existing institutions and structures.

BRICS has an important place in the world economy. De-dollarization in trade and alternative payment systems between member countries are on the agenda of this summit. How do you evaluate this? Do you see it realistic?

BRICS, if it can come up with its own currency, then it will provide alternative to existing payment system. Domination of one currency is not good for global south. The world is moving towards multipolar order and thereby it’s natural that there are payment systems which is not controlled and exploited by few institutions or countries. Thereby having more payment alternatives in fact, usher economic multipolarity.

Well, it looks little complicated given the very nature of BRICS and above all of would be united efforts of a group of countries leading to a payment system not dominated by one but true multilateral payment system.

DIPLOMACY

US proposes controversial ‘colonial’-style agreement to Ukraine

Published

on

The US is pushing to control all future major infrastructure and mining investments in Ukraine, veto the role of Kyiv’s other allies, and undermine its goal of European Union membership.

According to a draft document obtained by Bloomberg, the Donald Trump administration is demanding the “right of first refusal” on investments in all infrastructure and natural resource projects under a revised partnership agreement with Ukraine.

If accepted, the partnership agreement would give the US enormous power to control investments in projects in Ukraine such as highways and railways, ports, mines, oil and natural gas, and the extraction of critical minerals.

The agreement would give the US first claim on profits transferred to a special reconstruction investment fund controlled by Washington.

The most crucial point of the document is that the US considers the “material and financial benefits” it has provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the war as a contribution to this fund.

In effect, this means the Trump administration would force Ukraine to pay the cost of all US military and economic support provided since the start of the war before Kyiv receives any income from the partnership fund.

According to the draft document, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) will control the investment fund by nominating three of the five board members and holding a “golden share” giving it special voting rights to block certain decisions. Ukraine will appoint the other two members and will be prevented from interfering in the fund’s daily management.

The Kyiv government will be required to deposit 50% of the earnings from all new natural resource and infrastructure projects into the fund. The draft states that the US will be entitled to all profits until its investment is recouped, plus a 4% annual return.

Ukraine will be obliged to submit all projects to the fund for review “at the earliest possible time,” and the DFC will gain board membership or oversight rights in all funded programs.

Kyiv will also be prohibited from offering rejected projects to other parties on “materially better” terms for at least one year.

Furthermore, according to the draft, the US government will have the right to purchase Ukraine’s metals, minerals, and oil and gas on commercial terms before other parties, regardless of whether the fund finances the project.

The agreement, which has no time limit, also prohibits Kyiv from selling critical minerals to countries that are “strategic rivals” of the US.

The US presented a revised agreement to officials in Kyiv last weekend after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to sign an earlier deal fell through following a tense discussion with Trump in the Oval Office last month.

The White House said last week that the administration has moved beyond the previously negotiated agreement covering critical minerals in Ukraine.

Negotiations between the two sides are ongoing, and the final draft may include revisions to the terms. A person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that Ukraine would respond to the US document with its own changes this week.

Speaking to reporters in Paris on Thursday, where he traveled to attend a summit with European leaders, Zelenskyy said the full agreement proposed by the US requires “detailed study” and that the terms are constantly changing during negotiations.

While it is too early to say an agreement has been reached, he said, “We support cooperation with the US, we do not want to send a single signal that could cause the US to stop helping Ukraine.”

In response to a request for comment, a US Treasury Department spokesperson stated that the US remains committed to the swift finalization of the agreement and securing a lasting peace for Ukraine.

National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt said, “The minerals agreement offers Ukraine the opportunity to establish a lasting economic relationship with the US, which is the foundation for long-term security and peace. This agreement will strengthen relations between the two countries and benefit both sides.”

Ukraine gained EU candidate status in 2022 and is set to begin accession talks for full membership, which could take years to complete. This situation is likely to become more complicated if the US gains effective control over investment decisions covering large areas of the Ukrainian economy.

Ukraine had previously stated that an agreement with the US should not conflict with its association agreement with the EU. It had also previously rejected the US demand that Washington’s past support for Ukraine be included as a contribution to the joint fund.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

EU to continue funding Türkiye despite İmamoğlu concerns, Politico reports

Published

on

Protests following the detention and arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu seem to have put Europe in a difficult position.

In an assessment published in Politico titled “EU faces a billion-euro dilemma in Türkiye crisis,” politicians and officials cited say that regardless of what happens on the streets of Istanbul, Ankara is too important an ally to alienate.

The report states, “The European Union will continue to transfer billions of euros to Türkiye despite President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s extensive crackdowns on political opponents.”

Recalling that European officials warned their southern neighbor to “uphold democratic values” following Ekrem İmamoğlu’s arrest, Politico writes, “But Türkiye’s strategic importance means the bloc will likely look the other way. Erdoğan knows this too.”

Dimitar Bechev, a lecturer at Oxford University, says, “Whatever the Turkish leader does, the EU will have to follow suit.”

Two European officials, speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity, said that Türkiye’s EU candidate status requires it to protect democratic values and that Brussels would respond to violations. Although one of them stated, “We are following the developing situation in Türkiye with great concern” and “Recent developments contradict the logic of EU membership,” they also acknowledge that given Türkiye’s importance in migration, trade, energy, and defense matters, any reaction from the EU is unlikely to disrupt relations between Brussels and Ankara.

Pointing out that although Türkiye’s EU membership negotiations have stalled over the past decade, the country still receives billions of euros in accession funds, Politico notes, “Ankara has also received about 9 billion euros in aid to host refugees from the Middle East and is in line to receive large sums to support European defense industries.”

Highlighting that Türkiye, which has become a major hub for oil and gas exports, has a trade flow with the EU exceeding 200 billion euros annually, the publication writes, “Türkiye has also played a key role in controlling access to the Black Sea and enforcing sanctions against Moscow since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Recently, its potential significant contribution to a possible peacekeeping mission in Ukraine has been discussed.”

Bechev says, “The status quo before İmamoğlu’s arrest was comfortable for the EU because there was enough democracy,” and suggests that recent developments are not dire enough to change this.

According to the “Readiness 2030” plan presented by EU leaders last week, Türkiye, as an EU candidate country, has the potential to access 800 billion euros worth of joint procurements from funds designed to increase the bloc’s defense spending.

However, Greece and Cyprus, both long in conflict with Türkiye, are pushing for restrictions. Diplomats speaking to Politico said they intend to enact a clause requiring the defense move to occur “without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States.”

Arguing that Athens and Nicosia, which were in the process of normalizing relations with Ankara before the recent crisis, now have to perform a “delicate balancing act,” Politico quotes a senior Greek official admitting that “even Athens cannot go too far.”

The Greek official involved says, “Of course, we will support a firm stance condemning the current developments in Türkiye, but without being provocative. The defense industry remains a major gap for Europe, which paves the way for this policy of trade-offs that we see happening.”

Even Cypriot MEP Michalis Hadjipantela, calling for “targeted sanctions” by stating “Effective pressure from the EU is essential,” also said that “sanctions should be targeted and linked to progress on the above issues to prevent further alienation of the country.”

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

Fidan and Rubio discuss Syria, Gaza, and defense in US meeting

Published

on

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan and his accompanying delegation began a two-day visit to the US.

During the visit, Fidan met with US Senator Marco Rubio. According to a statement attributed to US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce, the two discussed cooperation on key issues in security and trade.

Rubio requested Turkey’s support for peace in Ukraine and the South Caucasus, while appreciating Ankara’s leadership in the “Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.”

According to the spokesperson, the American senator reiterated the need for close cooperation to support a “stable, unified, and peaceful Syria,” stating they do not want Syria to be “either a base for international terrorism or a pathway for Iran’s destabilizing activities.”

Rubio also highlighted recent progress in bilateral trade and encouraged an even greater economic partnership moving forward.

Finally, the Senator expressed concerns regarding the recent arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu in Turkey and the subsequent protests.

Turkey has not made an official statement: AA reported based on ‘foreign ministry sources’

According to Turkish Foreign Ministry sources cited by AA, Fidan and Rubio emphasized the “importance of engaging with the Syrian government” during their meeting on Tuesday.

The sources stated, “Both sides emphasized the importance of engaging with the Syrian government and expressed their determination regarding the stabilization of Syria and the fight against terrorism.”

According to the sources speaking to AA, Fidan and Rubio discussed a range of regional and bilateral issues, including the need for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, deemed essential for “regional peace.”

The sources also mentioned that the issues discussed in the phone call between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump on March 16 were followed up on during the meeting.

The two sides also discussed preparations for upcoming presidential-level visits and expressed their determination to remove obstacles to defense cooperation.

The report added, “Both sides clearly expressed their political will to remove obstacles to cooperation in the defense industry. Technical meetings will be held to resolve existing issues.”

The two sides also discussed efforts to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with Turkey expressing support for recent US efforts in this direction.

The talks also covered the ongoing peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the importance of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s stability for the entire Balkan region.

Is Hamas on the table?

Meanwhile, Trump, during a White House meeting with a group of US Ambassadors confirmed by the Senate, referred to Turkey and Erdogan as a “good country, a good leader.”

The new US Ambassador to Ankara, Thomas Barack, was also present at the meeting. Barack, known as a close friend of Trump and a real estate magnate, thanked the President for appointing him to Turkey, “one of the ancient civilizations.”

In an article penned by Murat Yetkin in Yetkin Report, it is alleged that Trump might engage in bargaining over Hamas and Gaza in exchange for steps such as lifting CAATSA sanctions against Turkey.

Yetkin relays that CHP leader Ozgur Ozel, in a statement on March 18, referred to the Trump-Erdogan phone call, criticizing the lack of mention of Gaza and Israel, and accused Erdogan of “selling out the Palestinian cause for Trump.”

Recalling that Trump’s special representative Steve Witkoff told Tucker Carlson in an interview that they expect “good news” from Turkey, Yetkin underscores that Witkoff also stated elsewhere in the interview, “A terrorist organization cannot run Gaza; this is unacceptable for Israel. But their disarmament is possible. Then they can stay for a while longer and even get involved in politics.”

Yetkin asks, “Is Trump supporting Erdogan because of a plan to disarm the PKK and Hamas together?” while also noting that the Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee, Hussein al-Sheikh, met with Foreign Minister Fidan in Ankara on March 19, before Fidan flew to the US.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey