diplomacy

The history between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been marked with suspicion, lack of equality, and missed potential, especially in recent history. It is in diplomacy, as in life, that there are occasions in which the sound of a gesture carries its message above the sound of the past. Such an opportunity is provided by the recent expression of the Deputy Spokesperson of the Islamic Emirate, Hamdullah Fitrat. The fact that he promises that the Afghan soil would not be used against Pak and asks that both neighbouring countries work together economically and in the field of diplomacy shows that things are getting on the better side and both need to respect and coexist. In a world that has long found itself in reactive security positions, the language of restraint and responsibility holds the prospect of a more reflective world.

Of course words are not in themselves an end. However, when said clearly and with intention, as Fitrat did speak, they may pave the way toward another type of relationship. There was a kind of political ease in his tones, such as crowds of today do not have. Such a developing dialogue can potentially assist the two countries to do away with such zero-sum logic that has been a dominant feature of their interaction all along. The bonds of trust that have been damaged by war and proxy politics need to be re-established cautiously, and lighting shouldn’t further be established on sentimentality but on sustained interaction based on mutualistic interests. The readiness of Kabul to reinstate ambassadorial-level relations with Islamabad is a good indication of good intention. It will be a reversion to formal diplomacy and architecture, which can substitute on a more permanent basis episodic contact with persistent dialogue. Although such measures appear technical at face value, they play critical roles in the creation of atmospheres of trust. A dialogue at this level facilitates a constant exchange of ideas, grievances, and solutions, and both countries find it easier to work out the misunderstandings before they toughen into grievances. During diplomacy, the big moves are seldom as successful as the small moves that are made regularly and highlight long-term success.

Even a new focus on regional economic connectivity, especially on such projects as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, introduces a strategic depth into the changing alliance. Development corridors are not mere energy and trade routes; rather, they consist of architectures of common fate. By supporting such initiatives, Kabul accepts the vision of interdependence under which prosperity rather than suspicion characterizes relationships within the region. This indicates a pragmatism that is familiar to Pakistan as the longing to perceive an economic integration as the stabilizing factor in South Asia.

Similarly important is the fact that Afghanistan is aware of the role played by Pakistan in making it possible to trade with the rest of the world. This kind of recognition shows a coming of age of the need that geography and goodwill must be compounded. Trade, as trust, is established on unblocked channels—physical, political, and psychological. It will be important to foster this interdependence by establishing effective policy models and simple communication to help turn transactions into strategic partnerships. The positive edge that Kabul has taken on in complicated humanitarian issues, especially the refugee issue, is perhaps the most promising. For a long time, displacement politics has been a contentious affair. It is important to note that when treated together, it will turn into the venue of institutional collaboration. Collective action is needed in the nature of managing refugees, beyond policy based on reactions, but a compassionate and progressive construction that treats human beings at the centre of all boundaries as deserving of dignity. As the two countries can testify, the plight of refugees generally reflects the sense of right or wrong the state carries.

Goodwill will have to be accompanied by action. History can provide us with a sufficiency of instances of lost opportunities for organization or dissimulation. The actual challenge of these new overtures will be in the translation to the ground realities, particularly solving the much-desired security concerns of Pakistan about the cross-border militancy. Provided the efforts of Afghanistan are followed through on a regular basis, and further provided that Pakistan acts with restraint and in the vein of positive diplomacy, there is a chance of a new era of cooperation in the region.

Pakistan, on its part, is also dedicated to the relation, which is founded on mutual respect and equality of sovereigns. The voice of Kabul can give an unusual chance to formulate the shape of this relationship, not in the reflections of the past wars but in the image of peace and development. The world will be looking on, but in the end it will be the latter that will determine how this story should be written with bravewisdom by both Kabul and Islamabad. In geopolitics there are times when history turns softly, without tumult but by the turning of a phrase of expression, a change of one word and phrase. This can turn out to be one of such instances. It extends an opportunity to the two countries to shed off the gravitational force of their history and, gradually and together, step forward towards a future anchored on trust. In the fragile structure of peace, truth and imperturbability are more powerful than power and the ultimate position of judgment wisdom, which man swiftly restrains himself with regard to another.

The specter of global food insecurity looms larger than ever, with 783 million people facing chronic hunger and 18 hunger hotspots—spanning Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and conflict zones like Sudan and Syria—teetering on the brink of famine. From a progressive perspective, acute food shortages are not merely logistical failures but symptoms of deep-seated inequities rooted in colonialism, neoliberal trade policies, and inadequate global governance. Diplomacy, when wielded with a commitment to justice and solidarity, can be a powerful tool to address these crises. By prioritizing multilateral cooperation, dismantling systemic barriers, and centering the needs of the Global South, progressive diplomacy can pave the way for sustainable solutions to food insecurity.

Hunger is not an isolated issue but a consequence of structural injustices. Decades of extractive economic policies, driven by wealthy nations and multinational corporations, have left low-income countries vulnerable to food crises. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, reliance on cash-crop exports, often mandated by IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs, has undermined local food sovereignty. Climate change, disproportionately caused by industrialized nations, exacerbates droughts and floods, devastating smallholder farmers who feed much of the world. Conflicts in regions like Sudan, where 12 million people are displaced, and Gaza, where 96% of the population faces acute food insecurity, are compounded by sanctions and blockades that restrict aid flows. These are interconnected crises requiring diplomacy that challenges power imbalances rather than perpetuating them.

Multinational efforts to improve the situation on the ground must prioritize multilateral frameworks to ensure food security is treated as a global public good. The United Nations, despite its imperfections, remains a critical platform for coordinating responses. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) must lead efforts to scale up emergency food aid, but they require robust funding and political support. Diplomats must push for increased contributions to the WFP, which faces a $4.5 billion funding gap for its humanitarian operations. Wealthy nations, particularly G7 members, should commit to doubling their pledges, redirecting funds from military budgets to humanitarian aid—a move aligned with progressive values of prioritizing human welfare over militarism.

Moreover, diplomacy should reform global trade rules that disadvantage poorer nations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) must address subsidies that allow Western agribusiness to flood markets with cheap imports, undercutting local farmers. A well-planned diplomatic agenda would advocate for trade agreements that protect smallholder agriculture, promote agroecology, and ensure fair pricing for producers in the Global South. For example, negotiations at the WTO’s 2026 ministerial conference could prioritize exemptions for food security programs, allowing countries like India to maintain public stockholding for staple crops without facing punitive measures.

Conflict is a primary driver of acute food shortages, and progressive diplomacy must focus on peacebuilding to ensure aid reaches those in need. In Syria, where sanctions have crippled food and medical supply chains post-Assad, diplomats should negotiate humanitarian exemptions to facilitate aid delivery. The U.S. and EU, often quick to impose sanctions, must adopt a human-centered approach, prioritizing civilian access to food over geopolitical leverage. Similarly, in Sudan, where 25.6 million people face acute hunger, regional diplomacy through the African Union can mediate ceasefires and establish safe corridors for aid distribution. Diplomats should amplify the voices of local civil society, ensuring that peace processes are inclusive and address root causes like resource inequity.

Climate change, a crisis disproportionately affecting the Global South, demands diplomatic efforts rooted in justice. At COP30 in Brazil, diplomats must advocate for a $300 billion climate finance package, with a significant portion allocated to adaptation for smallholder farmers. This includes funding for drought-resistant crops, irrigation systems, and community-led seed banks. Wealthy nations, responsible for 80% of historical emissions, owe a moral and financial debt to vulnerable countries. Diplomacy should also push for technology transfers, enabling poorer nations to adopt sustainable farming practices without reliance on corporate-controlled inputs like genetically modified seeds.

A decisive diplomatic approach centers the agency of food-insecure regions. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offer opportunities to strengthen regional food systems, reducing dependence on volatile global markets. Diplomats should support capacity-building programs that empower local farmers, particularly women, who produce up to 80% of food in some African nations. By facilitating South-South cooperation, such as knowledge-sharing between Latin American and African cooperatives, diplomacy can foster resilient, self-sufficient food systems.

Acute food shortages are a moral and political failure, but coordination among nations offers a path forward. By reforming global trade, prioritizing humanitarian exemptions in conflict zones, securing climate finance, and empowering the Global South, diplomats are able to address the root causes of hunger. This requires a rejection of failed policies that prioritize profit over people and a commitment to equity, solidarity, and systemic change. In 2025, the world cannot afford half-measures—diplomacy must be bold, inclusive, and unwavering in its pursuit of a hunger-free future.

VATICAN CITY — Pope Leo XIV urged the warring sides in the Israel-Iran war to “reject the logic of bullying and revenge” and choose a path of dialogue and diplomacy to reach peace as he expressed solidarity with all Christians in the Middle East.

Speaking at his weekly Wednesday general audience, the American pope said he was following “with attention and hope” recent developments in the war. He cited the biblical exhortation: “A nation shall not raise the sword against another nation.”

A ceasefire is holding in the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which involved Israel targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites and the U.S. intervening by dropping bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful.

“Let us listen to this voice that comes from on High,” Leo said. “Heal the lacerations caused by the bloody actions of recent days, reject all logic of bullying and revenge, and resolutely take the path of dialogue, diplomacy and peace.”

The Chicago-born Leo also expressed solidarity with the victims of Sunday’s attack on a Greek Orthodox church in Damascus, Syria, and urged the international community to keep supporting Syrian reconciliation. Syria’s Interior Ministry has said a sleeper cell belonging to the Islamic State group was behind the attack at the Church of the Holy Cross, which killed at least 25 people.

“To the Christians in the Middle East, I am near you. All the church is close to you,” he said. “This tragic event is a reminder of the profound fragility that still marks Syria after years of conflict and instability, and therefore it is crucial that the international community doesn’t look away from this country, but continues to offer it support through gestures of solidarity and with a renewed commitment to peace and reconciliation.”

SEOUL — Since beginning his second term earlier this year, President Trump has spoken optimistically about restarting denuclearization talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whom he met for a series of historic summits in 2018 and 2019 that ended without a deal.

“I have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un, and we’ll see what happens, but certainly he’s a nuclear power,” he told reporters at an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in March.

Earlier this month, Trump attempted to send a letter to Kim via North Korean diplomats in New York, only to be rebuffed, according to Seoul-based NK News. And now, following the U.S. military’s strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran on Sunday, the chances of Pyongyang returning to the bargaining table have become even slimmer.

For North Korea, which has conducted six nuclear tests over the years in the face of severe economic sanctions and international reprobation — and consequently has a far more advanced nuclear program than Iran — many analysts say the lesson from Sunday is clear: A working nuclear deterrent is the only guarantor of security.

“More than anything, the North Korean regime is probably thinking that they did well to dig in their heels to keep developing their nuclear program,” said Kim Dong-yup, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.

A TV screen at the Seoul Railway Station shows the launch of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile on Oct. 31.

(Lee Jin-man / Associated Press)

“I think this strike means the end of any sort of denuclearization talks or diplomatic solutions that the U.S. had in mind in the past,” he said. “I don’t think it’s simply a matter of worsened circumstances; I think the possibility has now gone close to zero.”

On Monday, North Korea’s foreign ministry condemned the U.S. strike on Iran as a violation of international law as well as “the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state,” according to North Korean state media.

“The present situation of the Middle East, which is shaking the very basis of international peace and security, is the inevitable product of Israel’s reckless bravado as it advances its unilateral interests through ceaseless war moves and territorial expansion, and that of the Western-style free order which has so far tolerated and encouraged Israeli acts,” an unnamed ministry spokesperson said.

Trump has threatened to attack North Korea before.

Early in Trump’s first term, when Pyongyang successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. West Coast., administration officials reportedly considered launching a “bloody nose” strike — an attack on a nuclear site or military facility that is small enough to prevent escalation into full-blown war but severe enough to make a point.

“Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely,” Trump wrote on social media in August 2017.

While it is still uncertain how much damage U.S. stealth bombers inflicted on Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo — and whether they have kneecapped Iran’s nuclear program, as U.S. officials have claimed — experts say the feasibility of a similar attack against North Korea is much smaller.

“North Korea has been plowing through with their nuclear program for some time, so their security posture around their nuclear facilities is far more sophisticated than Iran,” Kim Dong-yup said. “Their facilities are extremely dispersed and well-disguised, which means it’s difficult to cripple their nuclear program, even if you were to successfully destroy the one or two sites that are known.”

Kim Dong-yup believes that North Korea’s enrichment facilities are much deeper than Iran’s and potentially beyond the range of the “bunker buster” bombs — officially known as the GBU-57 A/B — used Sunday. And unlike Iran, North Korea is believed to already have 40 to 50 nuclear warheads, making large-scale retaliation a very real possibility.

A preemptive strike against North Korea would also do irreparable damage to the U.S.-South Korea alliance and would likely also invite responses from China and, more significantly, Russia.

A mutual defense treaty signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un last June states that the two countries “shall immediately provide military and other assistance” to the other if it “falls into a state of war due to armed invasion from an individual or multiple states.”

Yet talk of such an attack in Trump’s first term was soon replaced by what he has described as a friendship with Kim Jong Un, built over the 2018-19 summits, the first ever such meetings by a sitting U.S. president. Though the talks fell apart over disagreements on what measures North Korea would take toward disarmament and Trump’s reluctance to offer sanctions relief, the summits ended on a surprisingly hopeful note, with the two leaders walking away as pen pals.

An undated photo provided on Sept. 13 by the North Korean government shows its leader, Kim Jong Un, center, visiting what the country says is a facility for nuclear materials in an undisclosed location in North Korea.

(Associated Press)

In recent months, administration officials have said that the president’s goal remains the same: completely denuclearizing North Korea.

But the attack on Iran has made those old sticking points — such as the U.S. negotiating team’s demand that North Korea submit a full list of its nuclear sites — even more onerous, said Lee Byong-chul, a nonproliferation expert who has served under two South Korean administrations.

“Kim Jong Un will only give up his nuclear weapons when, as the English expression goes, hell freezes over,” Lee said. “And that alone shuts the door on any possible deal.”

Still, Lee believes that North Korea may be willing to come back to the negotiating table for a freeze — though not a rollback — of its nuclear program.

“But from Trump’s perspective, that’s a retreat from the terms he presented at the [2019] Hanoi summit,” he said. “He would look like a fool to come back to sign a reduced deal.”

While some, like Kim Dong-yup, the professor, argue that North Korea has already proven itself capable of withstanding economic sanctions and will not overextend itself to have them removed, others point out that this is still the United States’ primary source of leverage — and that if Trump wants a deal, he will need to put it on the table.

“Real sanctions relief is still valuable,” Stephen Costello, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington-based think tank.

While he agrees that immediate denuclearization may be unrealistic, Costello has argued that even halting production of new fissile material, nuclear weapons and long-range missiles are “well worth ending nonmilitary sanctions,” such as those on energy imports or the export of textiles and seafood.

“Regardless of U.S. actions in the Middle East, the North Koreans would likely gauge any U.S. interest by how serious they are about early, immediate sanctions relief,” he said.

The attack on Iran will have other ramifications beyond Trump’s dealmaking with Kim Jong Un.

Military cooperation between North Korea and Iran, dating back to the 1980s and including arms transfers from North Korea to Iran, will likely accelerate.

Lee, the nonproliferation expert, said that the attack on Iran, which was the first real-world use of the United States’ bunker-buster bombs, may have been a boon to North Korea.

“It’s going to be a tremendous lesson for them,” he said. “Depending on what the total damage sustained is, North Korea will undoubtedly use that information to better conceal their own nuclear facilities.”

As tensions escalate between Iran and its Western adversaries, the Iranian government is now considering one of the most consequential diplomatic withdrawals in contemporary arms control history: the potential abandonment of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This decision, should it materialize, would not merely represent a legal realignment of Iran’s international obligations but would constitute a seismic strategic maneuver—disrupting the global nonproliferation architecture, reshaping diplomatic alliances, and accelerating the regional arms race in a Middle East already teetering under the weight of protracted conflict and fractured diplomacy.

Established in 1970, the NPT rests on three foundational pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear technology, and promoting disarmament. Iran’s current commitment to the treaty has remained, at least in formal terms, one of the last remaining legal barriers preventing its open development of nuclear weapons. As of 2025, 191 states remain parties to the NPT, making it the most widely adopted arms control agreement in human history. However, should Iran exit, the symbolic and material damage to this institutional cornerstone may extend well beyond the region.

From a strategic standpoint, Iran’s withdrawal would signal a clear departure from what Jacques E.C. Hymans in Achieving Nuclear Ambitions (2017) characterizes as “nuclear latency”—the state of possessing technological capability without crossing the threshold. Until now, Iran has carefully danced on the periphery of weapons capability, maintaining plausible deniability while accumulating enriched uranium and advanced centrifuge design. Abandoning the NPT, however, would mark an irreversible step from latency to overt preparation, thereby dismantling the carefully curated ambiguity that has served as both shield and sword in Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy.

The political ramifications of this decision are likely to be equally profound. In Nuclear Politics (2017) by Alexandre Debs and Nuno Monteiro, the authors argue that nuclear proliferation is inherently political—tied not only to the technological constraints of a state but also to its perception of existential threat and diplomatic isolation. With the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, Tehran’s calculus has dramatically shifted. The strikes may have paradoxically accelerated the very outcome they purported to prevent, legitimizing within Iran a discourse of resistance that views nuclear armament not as an offensive ambition, but as a necessary deterrent in an anarchic international system.

On the diplomatic front, Iran’s departure would further erode the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization charged with verification and monitoring under the NPT. As explained in Maria Rost Rublee’s Nonproliferation Norms (2017), much of the success of nonproliferation hinges on normative adherence, not merely technical inspections. Should Iran expel inspectors and cease all cooperation with the IAEA—as is anticipated in the wake of withdrawal—other states disillusioned with Western double standards may reconsider the utility of remaining bound by a treaty perceived as discriminatory and selectively enforced.

The security implications are perhaps most destabilizing. Mark Fitzpatrick, a noted arms control expert, argues that such a move would remove Iran’s final legal constraints and free it to pursue weaponization openly. Already, Iran is believed to possess over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, technically just short of the 90% required for a weapon. With the infrastructure for advanced enrichment in place and a cadre of nuclear scientists—despite the assassination of several key figures by Israeli operations—still intact, Fitzpatrick warns that Iran could feasibly complete a weapons program within a year. This timeline finds corroboration in Jeffrey Lewis’ The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States (2018), which, while fictionalized, illustrates how rapidly a state with the technical base and political will can escalate from enrichment to deployment.

Moreover, Iran’s exit from the NPT would not exist in isolation. The regional fallout, especially in terms of proliferation contagion, cannot be overstated. As noted in Shashank Joshi’s The Future of Nuclear Deterrence (2020), the exit of one state from the global arms control regime often triggers anxieties in others, particularly those with existing rivalries. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to match Iran’s nuclear capabilities should it proceed toward weaponization, and Egypt, long aggrieved by Israel’s undeclared arsenal and exemption from NPT scrutiny, may see an opportunity to challenge the status quo. The fragile balance of deterrence across the Middle East could thus collapse into a cascade of armament and instability.

The global normative order also stands at risk. If the U.S.—itself a founding signatory of the NPT—can target another signatory’s nuclear infrastructure without consequence, and if the IAEA proves unable to enforce compliance or prevent escalation, then the treaty’s legitimacy may begin to unravel. As articulated in Fiona Cunningham’s Nuclear Norms in East Asia (2021), international regimes rely not merely on legal instruments but on perceived fairness and reciprocity. The perception that the NPT regime disproportionately penalizes non-Western states while tolerating exceptions for allies—such as Israel or India—could hasten a broader exodus from the treaty.

Russia’s role as a potential counterbalance on the diplomatic chessboard must also be considered. While Moscow remains a signatory of the NPT and is unlikely to openly assist Iran in developing a nuclear weapon, its alignment with Tehran in international forums—especially at the United Nations Security Council—could serve as a strategic shield against renewed sanctions or enforcement actions. This maneuvering resembles the patterns described in Andrew Futter’s Hacking the Bomb (2018), which explores how nuclear power is now shaped as much by information warfare and diplomatic alliance as by kilotons and centrifuges.

Finally, there is the matter of strategic miscalculation. Should Iran proceed with weaponization and Israel respond with preemptive strikes—potentially supported again by U.S. tactical operations—the possibility of a full-scale regional war would no longer be hypothetical. As Caitlin Talmadge notes in The Dictator’s Army (2017), nuclear breakout scenarios often escalate not through deliberate choice, but through misinterpretation, miscommunication, and the psychology of brinkmanship. Each step away from treaty obligations narrows the window for de-escalation and expands the risk of unintended catastrophe.

In conclusion, Iran’s threatened withdrawal from the NPT represents not merely a response to recent attacks but a profound inflection point in international security architecture. The unraveling of treaty commitments, the weakening of normative frameworks, and the potential for cascading proliferation across the Middle East suggest that the cost of unilateral coercive diplomacy may be greater than the strategic benefits it purports to yield. The global community stands at a precipice, where the pursuit of short-term tactical gains may irreparably fracture the long-standing scaffolding of nuclear restraint.

THE HAGUE — Whether the United States launches a broader war against Iran after bombing its nuclear facilities may come down to President Trump’s meetings with NATO partners this week at a summit of the alliance, a gathering long scheduled in the Netherlands now carrying far higher stakes.

So far, Washington’s transatlantic partners have praised the U.S. operation, which supplemented an ongoing Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, air defenses and military leadership. But European officials told The Times their hope is to pull Trump back from any flirtation with regime change in Iran, a prospect that Trump and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly discussed in recent days.

Trump is scheduled to arrive in The Hague on Tuesday morning for two days of meetings, now expected to focus on the nascent crisis, as U.S. intelligence and military officials continue to assess the outcome of U.S. strikes over the weekend against Iran’s main nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

NATO was directly involved in the last two U.S. wars in the Middle East, taking part in a U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks and helping to train and advise security forces in Iraq. And while not a member of NATO, Israel coordinates with the security bloc through a process called the Mediterranean Dialogue, which includes work against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

At the Mauritshuis on Monday evening, overlooking The Hague’s historic court pond and under the gaze of Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” NATO officials, European military leaders and U.S. senators discussed the obvious: A summit that had been seen as an opportunity to show Trump that Europe is willing to pay more for its defense — with NATO members now committing to spend 5% of their GDP on military essentials and expenditures — will now be consumed instead with the possibility of a new war.

As the event was ending, Iran struck the U.S. military base in Qatar, its largest in the Middle East. But the Iranians gave Doha advance notice of the strike in an effort to avert casualties, the New York Times reported, indicating Tehran might be looking for an off-ramp from continuing escalation with Washington.

While the Pentagon said the U.S. bombing run, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, American and Israeli officials acknowledged to The Times that it is not entirely clear how much equipment and fissile material Tehran was able to salvage before the attacks began.

And as concerns emerge that Iran may have been able to preserve a breakout capability, Israel’s target list across Iran seemed to broaden on Monday to reflect military ambitions beyond Iran’s nuclear program, including the headquarters of the Basij militia and a clock in downtown Tehran counting down to Israel’s destruction.

“Trump spoke too soon,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, of the president’s declaration that the United States had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity with its weekend strikes.

“We may have simply waited too long with our hand-wringing, and given the Iranians time to evacuate their enriched stockpiles. If so, that represents a failure of leadership,” he added, noting reports that trucks could be seen at the Fordo site leading up to the U.S. attack. “If they then scattered and the U.S. intelligence community lost track of where they went, then that is an intelligence failure that could potentially be as costly as the one that preceded the Iraq war.”

European powers, particularly France, Germany and the United Kingdom, have been careful to praise Trump for ordering the strikes. But they have also urged an immediate return to negotiations, and expressed concern that Israel has begun targeting sites tangential and unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, warning of “volatility” in the region, encouraged Iran “to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.” And Germany’s foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, questioned whether Tehran’s nuclear knowledge could be bombed away. “No one thinks it’s a good thing to keep fighting,” he told local media.

“I called for deescalation and for Iran to exercise the utmost restraint in this dangerous context, to allow a return to diplomacy,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. “Engaging in dialogue and securing a clear commitment from Iran to renounce nuclear weapons are essential to avoid the worst for the entire region. There is no alternative.”

Later Monday, after Israel had struck Iran’s notorious Evin prison, where foreign nationals are held, France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, issued a more scathing rebuke. “All strikes must now stop,” he said.

One European official said that efforts would be made once Trump arrives to underscore his military successes, noting the example he has made — using military force to deter an authoritarian foe — could still be applied to Russia in its war against Ukraine. Now that Trump has demonstrated peace through strength, the official said, it is time to give diplomacy another chance.

But it’s unclear if Iran would be receptive to pleas for a diplomatic breakthrough.

In a post on X on Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, noted that Israel’s attacks last week and the U.S. strikes this week coincided with negotiations, torpedoing any chance for talks to succeed.

“Last week, we were in negotiations with the U.S. when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/E.U. when the U.S. decided to blow up that diplomacy,” he wrote, adding that European calls to bring Iran to negotiations were misplaced. The E3 represents France, Germany and Italy.

“How can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?” he added.

On Monday, before its strikes against the U.S. base in Qatar, Iranian military leaders vowed vengeance against the United States for the strikes.

The retaliation “will impose severe, regret-inducing, and unpredictable consequences on you,” said Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaqari, head of the Iranian military’s central command headquarters, in a video statement on Iranian broadcaster Press TV. He added that the U.S. attack “will expand the range of legitimate and diverse targets for Iran’s armed forces.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran’s nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation.

President Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel’s war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday in Iran.

While the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had “crossed a very big red line,” the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself.

Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Persian Gulf region.

Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world.

United Nations

U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said he was “gravely alarmed” by the use of force by the United States.

“There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,” he said in a statement on the social media platform X. “I call on Member States to de-escalate.

“There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.”

United Kingdom

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned of escalation beyond the Middle East as he called for all sides to negotiate a diplomatic end to the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region.

The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran.

Starmer said Iran’s nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security.

“Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,” Starmer said.

Russia

Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin’s Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons.

He didn’t specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it “strongly condemned” the airstrikes and called them a “a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.”

Iraq

The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability, and it called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis.

“The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,” government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement.

Egypt

President Abdel Fattah Sisi warned of “grave repercussions” for expanding the Middle East conflict and urged a return to negotiations.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia, which previously condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leaders, expressed “deep concern” about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them.

“The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Qatar

Qatar, which is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, said it “regrets” escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran war.

Its Foreign Ministry in a statement urged all parties to show restraint and “avoid escalation, which the peoples of the region, burdened by conflicts and their tragic humanitarian repercussions, cannot tolerate.”

Qatar has served as a key mediator in the Israel-Hamas war.

Hamas and the Houthis

The Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas in the Gaza Strip condemned the U.S. strikes.

The Houthi political bureau in a statement called on Muslim nations to join “the Jihad and resistance option as one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.”

Hamas and the Houthis are part of the “Axis of Resistance,” a collection of pro-Iranian proxies backed by the Tehran government stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave the Islamic Republic considerable power across the region.

Lebanon

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the U.S. bombing could lead to a regional conflict that no country could bear and called for negotiations.

“Lebanon, its leadership, parties, and people, are aware today, more than ever before, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its land and in the region,” Aoun said in a statement on X. “It is unwilling to pay more.”

Pakistan

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who spoke by phone with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, condemned the U.S. strikes as a “serious violation of international law,” his office said.

The condemnation comes less than 24 hours after Sharif’s government said on X it was recommending Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in defusing the recent India-Pakistan crisis.

China

China condemned the U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East.

In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue.

“China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,” the ministry said.

European Union

The European Union’s top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint.

“I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media.

Italy

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said she discussed the worsening crisis with several other members of the Group of 7 leading industrial nations, as well as the Saudi, Emirati and Qatari leaders, and all agreed to work toward negotiations to prevent a widening conflict.

European Council

President Antonio Costa said he was “deeply alarmed” by the bombings and called on all parties to “show restraint and respect for international law and nuclear safety.”

“Too many civilians will once again be the victims of a further escalation,” Costa added. “The EU will continue engaging with the parties and our partners to find a peaceful solution at the negotiating table.”

Netherlands

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, whose country is hosting a summit of NATO leaders including Trump on Tuesday and Wednesday, said the government’s national security council would meet later to discuss the issue.

He said the U.S. attacks amounted to “a further escalation of a worrying situation in the Middle East.”

Latin America

Left-wing Latin American governments expressed fierce opposition to the U.S. strikes.

Iran-allied Venezuela called the attacks “illegal, unjustifiable and extremely dangerous.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro said they were an insult to the Middle East. Chilean President Gabriel Boric said they violated “rules we have established as humanity.” Mexico’s Foreign Ministry made “an urgent call for peace.”

In contrast, Argentina’s hard-right president, Javier Milei, a loyal ally of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, praised the attacks on social media. “Terrorism, never again,” his spokesperson said.

Japan

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented.

Ishiba, asked whether he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment.

The Vatican

Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square, calling for international diplomacy to “silence the weapons.”

After an open reference to the “alarming” situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that “today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace, and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.”

Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to “stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.”

EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Trump: Iran doesn’t want to speak to Europe

Ukraine’s leader was denied a meeting with his most powerful ally, after Donald Trump left the summit a day early.

The Group of Seven summit in Canada has ended without leaders issuing a joint statement in support of Ukraine, as Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned that “diplomacy is now in a state of crisis”.

The summit of major industrial democracies, which wrapped up in the Canadian Rocky Mountain resort of Kananaskis late on Tuesday, had been intended to showcase unity on major global issues.

But unlike in previous years, when the group had jointly denounced Russian “aggression” against Ukraine, this time it was unable to issue a statement in support of the embattled Western ally, in a sign of growing differences within the group amid escalating global crises.

Zelenskyy met the leaders of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, along with NATO chief Mark Rutte, on the final day of the conference. However, a meeting with the leader of the group’s most powerful member, the United States – President Donald Trump – did not take place after he left the summit a day early to address the escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran from Washington.

Zelenskyy said after the meeting that he had told the remaining G7 leaders that “diplomacy is now in a state of crisis”, and asked them to continue calling on Trump “to use his real influence” to press for an end to the war, according to a post on his official Telegram account.

Statement on US resistance retracted

A Canadian official initially told reporters on the sidelines of the summit that plans for a joint statement on Ukraine had been dropped after meeting resistance from the US, which wanted to water down the content, news agencies reported.

But Emily Williams, a spokesperson for Canada’s prime minister, later retracted the briefing statement and said “no proposed statement regarding Ukraine was distributed to other leaders”, agencies reported.

A Canadian official said there had never been an attempt to issue a joint statement on Ukraine because of Trump’s wishes to continue negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the AFP news agency reported.

“It was clear that it would not have been feasible to find detailed language that all G7 partners could agree to in that context,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

Trump had underlined the differences in views towards Russia within the group on Monday, when he said it had been a mistake to expel Moscow from what was formerly the G8 in response to its invasion and annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014.

Canada pledges military support

Zelenskyy had arrived at the summit calling for support from Ukraine’s allies, and declaring he was ready for peace negotiations.

“We are ready for the peace negotiations, unconditional ceasefire,” he said. “But for this, we need pressure.”

He left with a pledge from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to provide 2 billion Canadian dollars ($1.47bn) in new military assistance for Kyiv, as well as to impose new financial sanctions on Russia.

Trump did agree to a group statement before his departure, calling for a resolution of the Israel-Iran conflict. The statement, issued on Monday, backed Israel, calling Iran the principal source of regional instability and terror, and asserting that Israel has the right to defend itself.

The statement called for a “de-escalation of hostilities”, despite some bellicose social media posts from Trump hinting at greater US military involvement in the conflict.

In late March, a devastating earthquake hit Myanmar’s Mandalay region, claiming thousands of lives and worsening an already severe humanitarian and political crisis. Since the February 2021 military coup, the country has faced escalating insecurity, economic paralysis, and failing healthcare systems. While military leader Min Aung Hlaing has pledged elections by the end of 2025, doubts persist over whether such a vote would be either credible or inclusive.

The catastrophe has drawn comparisons to Cyclone Nargis, which tore through the Irrawaddy Delta in May 2008 and left over 130,000 people dead or missing. Back then, the ruling junta, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), delayed aid, blocked international relief workers, and diverted supplies intended for victims.

The World Food Programme temporarily halted operations after its assistance was seized. Even as the humanitarian emergency deepened, the regime proceeded with a constitutional referendum, prompting widespread condemnation abroad.

Mounting global pressure led to limited concessions. Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, traveled to Myanmar and secured a narrow opening for foreign relief workers. Still, international military or direct emergency teams were barred from operating on the ground. That episode remains a powerful example of how authoritarian systems can worsen natural disasters through political control.

In contrast, the current leadership responded to the 2025 earthquake with a rare public appeal for international help. Governments quickly signaled support, and messages of solidarity circulated on social platforms.

Yet many inside Myanmar, particularly resistance groups and civil society, remain suspicious of any cooperation with the military regime. Carefully coordinated humanitarian aid, if transparent and neutral, might serve as leverage to demand more accountable governance, including fair elections.

However, access to the most affected zones—especially those under opposition control—remains highly restricted. Allegations of aid obstruction continue to surface. Meanwhile, military strikes in quake-stricken regions have drawn sharp rebukes from rights monitors.

The military’s election pledge has raised concern, not least because it maintains limited territorial control. Opposition entities like the National Unity Government (NUG) have rejected any vote managed by the junta as illegitimate.

Within the country, tensions are intensifying. Public distrust of international engagement with the regime is widespread, even when it’s justified by humanitarian intent. For donors and NGOs, the challenge is to support the people without reinforcing military authority.

ASEAN, long hesitant to interfere in member states’ domestic affairs, now faces a pivotal moment. The scale of suffering and regional instability is testing that principle. Frustration with Myanmar’s defiance is growing, particularly in Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

Despite the tragedy, the earthquake may present a diplomatic opening—one where humanitarian priorities could help unlock political change. But that opportunity hinges on bold and coordinated pressure by regional and international stakeholders. Myanmar’s suffering demands more than sympathy—it demands strategy.

Saint Catherine’s Monastery of Sinai, perched amid the stark landscape of the Sinai Peninsula, is more than a monument of Christian antiquity. It stands today as a living testament to the enduring spiritual and diplomatic role of Greece within the Orthodox world, a quiet but formidable projection of Greek soft power that resonates across the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.

A silent beacon of Greek diplomacy

Far removed from the centers of modern diplomacy, the monastery’s Greek-speaking monastic community and steadfast commitment to Byzantine liturgical tradition transform it into a unique spiritual and cultural outpost. It exemplifies the principle that soft power does not always emerge through overt political maneuvering but often through the quiet constancy of spiritual guardianship and cultural authenticity.

This presence enables Greece to project a moral authority and cultural leadership that transcend national boundaries. As a spiritual bridge linking the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, the monastery fosters relationships of trust and mutual respect, relationships built not on political expediency but on the bonds of faith and tradition. This role is particularly significant in an era marked by shifting alliances and the increasing entanglement of religious and geopolitical interests.

Through the Monastery, Greece affirms its position as a custodian of Orthodox heritage and as a stabilizing force in the region. Its spiritual authority and cultural resonance serve as subtle yet powerful tools of statecraft, enabling Greece to foster dialogue, unity, and a sense of continuity within the Orthodox landscape.

The challenge of the Russian Exarchate

The relevance of the monastery’s soft power role has grown even more pronounced in recent years, as new challenges emerge within the Orthodox world. Foremost among these is the creation of the Russian Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa, an assertive move by the Russian Orthodox Church to expand its jurisdiction into territories historically aligned with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Although this development does not directly involve Saint Catherine’s Monastery, it reshapes the broader Orthodox environment, highlighting the use of ecclesiastical structures as instruments of geopolitical influence. The Russian initiative underscores how religious identity and geopolitical strategy have become deeply intertwined—posing challenges for Greece as it seeks to maintain a stabilizing and mediating role within Orthodoxy.

For Greece, this underscores the urgency of preserving the monastery’s autonomy and Greek character. It is a reminder that spiritual heritage can be both a shield and a platform for diplomatic engagement. a means of counterbalancing external interventions that risk deepening divisions within Orthodoxy.

A strategic spiritual outpost for a fractured world

Saint Catherine’s Monastery thus emerges as a linchpin in Greece’s ecclesiastical diplomacy, a discreet yet resilient bastion of Hellenic presence and Orthodox unity. Its continued independence is not merely a matter of cultural preservation; it is a strategic necessity. In a region where spiritual and geopolitical rivalries increasingly overlap, the monastery’s enduring witness to faith and Greek identity becomes a vital asset for Athens.

The recent diplomatic initiatives, including the visit of Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis to Egypt, underscore this recognition. By reaffirming its commitment to the monastery’s unique status, Greece sends a broader message that it remains a quiet but influential actor, leveraging spiritual heritage to foster stability and to protect the fragile balance of the Orthodox world.

Saint Catherine’s Monastery is far more than a relic of the past. It is a living expression of Greece’s diplomatic and spiritual mission in the Orthodox East, a mission that transcends temporal concerns and speaks to the heart of Hellenic identity. Amid emerging challenges such as the Russian Exarchate and broader regional volatility, the monastery’s quiet testimony to spiritual continuity and Greek cultural presence affirms Greece’s enduring mission: to serve as a custodian of Orthodoxy and as a bridge of stability in a fractured world.

In the lexicon of modern diplomacy, Saint Catherine’s Monastery stands as both a symbol and an instrument—projecting an image of a nation that values spiritual heritage, cultural authenticity, and the deep bonds of Orthodoxy that connect peoples across borders.

The Personal and the Spiritual

In a world that is increasingly interconnected, how we understand and respond to gender roles is more than a cultural footnote—it is central to our spiritual journey, governance, development, and personal relationships. Gender roles, as outlined in the Bible, are not fixed ideologies etched in stone; they are dynamic, evolving, and deeply contextual.

My own experience is proof of this paradox. In my family, gender roles have profoundly shaped the way we relate to one another. The traditional expectations we inherit dictate our responsibilities and aspirations, yet an underlying discord remains: each of us operates within the cusp of our acceptance and understanding. This limitation constrains our ability to evolve beyond preordained roles—yet the capacity for change exists, if only we make space for it.

A Brief Historical Backdrop

Historically, gender roles have been constructed through a complex web of religion, economics, war, labor, and culture. Ancient matrilineal societies like the Minangkabau in Indonesia or the Iroquois Confederacy in North America stood in contrast to the patriarchal structures of ancient Rome or feudal Europe. With the Industrial Revolution came a rigid divide: the public sphere for men, the domestic for women.

The 20th century shattered many of these binaries. World Wars I and II saw women entering the workforce en masse. The feminist movements—from the suffragists of the early 1900s to the second-wave feminism of the 1960s and intersectional feminism of today—challenged inherited norms and demanded new paradigms of equality and representation.

But progress is not linear. In some families and communities—including my own—tradition persists, creating tensions between progress and resistance.

Personal Reflections: The Limitations of Acceptance

Growing up, gender roles shaped my family’s dynamics in ways that often felt immovable. There were clear expectations—who was responsible for earning, who managed household affairs, who was granted emotional space, and who bore the invisible weight of cultural obligations. Yet, as our world evolved, these once-fixed roles felt increasingly impractical, if not outright restrictive.

At times, I saw my father wrestle with the idea that nurturing was not solely a maternal trait. I observed my mother balance professional aspirations against unspoken pressures to maintain domestic harmony. My siblings and I, in different ways, have questioned why we must conform to roles dictated by tradition rather than individual potential. This disconnect—between the roles we inherited and the realities we live—demands dialogue, effort, and an openness to change.

Case Studies: The Global Friction in Gender Roles

This struggle is not unique. Across the world, individuals and institutions grapple with the limits imposed by gender roles.

Example 1: The Japanese Corporate Landscape

Japan, a country known for both tradition and technological advancement, continues to struggle with gender equality in the workplace. Despite progress, corporate hierarchies often reinforce expectations that women should prioritize family over career. The result? Women frequently face the “M-shaped curve”—leaving the workforce after childbirth with limited re-entry opportunities. But change is happening policies advocating for parental leave and inclusive work environments are slowly reshaping these structures.

Example 2: South Africa’s Shift in Household Dynamics

In South Africa, gender roles intersect with economic realities. Historically, patriarchal structures placed men as primary providers. Yet, with shifts in employment trends and societal expectations, women increasingly assume financial leadership in families. This transition is not always met with acceptance, leading to conflicts where traditional masculinity clashes with contemporary survival needs.

Example 3: The Rise of Nonbinary Identities in Legal Frameworks

The recognition of nonbinary identities in countries such as Canada, India, and Germany marks a significant departure from historical gender binaries. However, legal acknowledgment does not automatically translate to social acceptance. Individuals navigating gender fluidity often encounter resistance—not due to inherent opposition, but because established frameworks struggle to adapt.

Why Keeping an Open Mind Matters

Open-mindedness is not about abandoning one’s values—it’s about making room for other realities. In diplomacy, this is especially vital. Misunderstanding gender roles in a host country can derail peace talks, foreign aid programs, or education campaigns. In everyday life, failing to listen to different experiences creates exclusion and resentment.

In my own family, I’ve seen that the mere act of listening—without immediate rebuttal—creates opportunities for dialogue that were once impossible. Understanding precedes transformation.

Five Ways to Keep an Open Mind About Gender Roles

Interrogate Your Assumptions

Ask yourself where your beliefs about gender roles come from—family, religion, media—and whether they still hold true in the face of new evidence.

Listen Without Rebuttal

Let people speak about their experiences without preparing a counterpoint. Listening is not the same as agreeing, but it opens the door to understanding.

Consume Diverse Narratives

Read books, watch films, and follow thought leaders from different genders, cultures, and identities. Empathy grows through exposure.

Be Comfortable with Discomfort

Growth often comes from discomfort. If something challenges your worldview, sit with it. Ask why it feels threatening.

Update, Don’t Cancel

You’re allowed to evolve. Holding a belief ten years ago doesn’t make you irredeemable—it makes you human. Be open to changing your mind.

Conclusion: The Diplomacy of the Self

Gender roles are no longer dictated solely by tradition or biology—they are in dialogue with economics, technology, global mobility, and generational change. In that dialogue, the most effective diplomats are those who can listen deeply, adapt respectfully, and think critically.

In my own life, I have seen that acceptance and understanding are the first steps toward change. A family, a workplace, a nation—none transform overnight. But a modicum of effort can create ripples that extend far beyond personal experience.

An open mind is not a passive one. It is a powerful tool for transformation—of policies, institutions, and most importantly, of ourselves.

In the world of international relations, foreign aid is not simply about altruism. It is a very complex thing, as Carol Lancaster points out in her fundamental work, Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, and Domestic Politics: Aid is not just about pure altruism or even pure development. It is also about a country’s diplomacy, its domestic politics, and other broader strategic interests. In today’s evolving global landscape, this diplomatic element has increased even further. Today, the world is no longer dominated by one or just two superpowers, but rather a new multipolar order has taken shape, giving rise to a phenomenon or concept that we can call “competitive aid.”

Aid is no longer about who gives more, but rather about a high-stakes game in which countries use it to compete, gain advantage, and consolidate their influence in a country or region. Under these conditions, what does this increased competition mean for recipient countries? Does it really lead to better outcomes for developing countries? Or is it just creating a mess of fragmented efforts, redundant projects, and inappropriate prioritization by geopolitical shifting rather than actual development needs?

Foreign Aid Diplomacy in the New Global Era

To better understand “competitive aid,” we can recall where foreign aid diplomacy came from. For decades after World War II, especially during the Cold War, aid was largely a Western affair, with the United States in the lead. The narrative was often about rebuilding war-ravaged economies or, most importantly, preventing the spread of communist ideology. Aid is a key component of soft power, building alliances and promoting a particular vision of the global order.

Jump forward to the 21st century; the situation seems completely different. We have seen the rise of new economic giants, most notably China, as well as increasingly influential players such as India, Brazil, and the Gulf states. These are not just new faces on the list of donor countries. They bring very different philosophies, historical experiences, and, most importantly, strategic interests. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a very clear example. It is a massive infrastructure financing project that often offers large-scale loans on easier political terms than the approach of traditional Western donors. On the other hand, the European Union emphasizes human rights and good governance in its development cooperation. Meanwhile, US aid often ties its assistance directly to national security concerns, such as stabilizing an unstable region or securing vital supply chains. This diversity of donors, each with their own geopolitical strategies, has undeniably increased competition for aid.

The Dynamics of “Competitive Aid”

So, what exactly does “competitive aid” look like on the ground? It is a complex form of diplomacy where development projects are likened to pawns on a global chessboard. Donor countries are not just writing checks; they are actively competing for influence by offering what they expect to be the most attractive terms, the most impactful projects, or the most strategically aligned visions. The most prominent example of this competitive dynamic is seen in the global scramble for infrastructure development and connectivity. China’s BRI, launched more than a decade ago, has poured massive investment into roads, railways, ports, and digital networks across the continent. While Beijing insists that it is purely about economic growth and trade, it is hard to disregard the undeniable geopolitical implications of expanding China’s economic reach and gaining political influence as a result. A simple example is the Hambantota port project in Sri Lanka. While the project has economic aspirations, its handover to Chinese control due to Sri Lanka’s debt problems has sparked a heated debate on “debt trap diplomacy” and potential strategic leverage for Beijing.

In response, Western powers did not remain silent. The G7’s “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” (PGII) and the EU’s “Global Gateway” are a direct response and counter-response. These initiatives explicitly aim to provide a “value-based” alternative to infrastructure financing, emphasizing transparency, environmental sustainability, and fair labor practices. It is a clear competition over who will build the next big highway or port, with recipient countries finding themselves persuaded by many different parties offering favors.

However, competitive aid goes beyond just concrete and steel alone. It is also fiercely played out in efforts to gain access to resources. Donors might sweeten the aid package with agreements that guarantee access to vital minerals—for example, cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo or lithium in Latin America—or other important energy supplies. This could manifest as direct investment in extractive industries or broader development programs designed to stabilize strategic resource-rich regions. And let’s not forget the drive to grow political influence and shape the international norm. This can involve financial support for democratic institutions, judicial reform, or civil society groups, all aimed at promoting the donor country’s preferred governance model. Sometimes, it is more transactional in nature, with aid subtly or overtly linked to the recipient country’s support for the donor country’s position on international forums, such as votes in the UN or alignment on key geopolitical issues. This competition is not just about physical assets; it is about hearts, minds, and diplomatic solidarity.

So, what does all this competition mean for aid effectiveness and how it is coordinated? To be honest, it’s a double-edged sword that offers both exciting possibilities and significant headaches for recipient countries. On the one hand, a diverse donor landscape can be a good thing. With many players offering aid, recipient countries may find themselves in a stronger bargaining position. They can potentially negotiate better terms, more flexible loan conditions, or projects that are truly aligned with their own development plans. This is a bit like a “buyer’s market” for development, which, in an ideal world, could lead to more aid flows and faster progress. Just imagine a country in need of a new national railroad, perhaps getting attractive bids from Chinese, European, and American consortiums, allowing them to choose the best fit. This competitive pressure may even encourage donors to be more responsive to local needs.

However, the drawbacks of competitive aid are often greater, creating real challenges for aid effectiveness. First, when donors focus primarily on their own strategic interests, it often leads to a lack of coordination that is ultimately underwhelming. Donors may ignore existing national development strategies or multilateral coordination mechanisms and prefer to work bilaterally to maximize their own visibility and influence. This can result in fragmented aid efforts, where projects are undertaken in isolation, without synergy or a cohesive approach to a country’s overall development. Imagine a scenario where multiple donors fund separate, unconnected health clinics in the same district, rather than collaborating to build a comprehensive and integrated healthcare system. This duplication of efforts and resources is simply very inefficient and certainly wasteful.

Second, competitive aid can easily lead to misplaced development priorities. Recipient countries, desperate for funds, may feel pressured to accept projects that primarily serve the donor’s strategic agenda, even if it is not the most urgent or beneficial for themselves. This can result in the infamous “white elephant” projects with large-scale infrastructure that look impressive but are economically unfeasible or poorly integrated into the local economy. They become more about donor prestige than real development goals. And then there is the obvious risk of an increased debt burden. While the “debt trap diplomacy” narrative (the idea that China deliberately traps countries in debt to seize assets) is the subject of ongoing academic debate, the reality is that large, non-transparent loans from multiple sources can pile up very quickly. If these projects do not generate sufficient economic returns, recipient countries can find themselves trapped in ongoing debt and forced to divert critical resources from social services to debt repayment.

Finally, this competitive dynamic could erode multilateralism and established international development norms. If powerful countries consistently prioritize interest-driven bilateral aid over collaborative efforts through multilateral bodies, it will undermine institutions designed to promote coordinated, principles-based development. This could erode trust, create parallel aid structures, and make it harder to address global challenges that truly require collective action, such as climate change or future pandemics, which demand a united front. The recent decline in official development assistance (ODA) from some traditional donors, partly due to domestic refugee costs and shifting geopolitical priorities, further underscores how fragile the aid landscape is in this competitive environment.

A Path Forward: Navigating the New Aid Landscape

It is clear that foreign aid diplomacy has undergone a profound transformation. What was once a tool for post-war reconstruction has become a central player in today’s complex geopolitical arena. The rise of new global powers has undeniably ushered in an era of “competitive aid,” where development assistance is increasingly becoming a strategic asset in the pursuit of influence and advantage. Despite the tempting promise that this competition might offer more choice and leverage to recipient countries, fragmentation, duplication, distorted priorities, and the continuing shadow of debt present formidable obstacles to proper and long-term development.

So, where do we go from here? Responsibility certainly lies on both sides. For recipient countries, it is crucial to develop strong strategic planning capacity and sharpen their negotiation skills. This is not just about receiving money but rather about ensuring that foreign aid actually serves their national development agenda rather than being a mere pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game. For donor countries, while national interest will always be a driving force, there is a strong argument for a renewed commitment to coordination, transparency, and adherence to internationally agreed principles of aid effectiveness. In conclusion, moving beyond a purely competitive mindset towards a more collaborative approach to foreign aid diplomacy is very essential. It’s not just about being generous. It is about how to effectively address global challenges together and build a more just and prosperous world for all. The shifting balance of power demands not only new strategies but also a careful re-evaluation of the purpose and practice of foreign aid itself.

As I write this in 2025, I find myself increasingly concerned about India’s manufacturing trajectory. While India celebrates digital prowess and service sector dominance, a stark reality confronts my country: our manufacturing exports as a percentage of global trade have remained stubbornly stagnant at around 1.7%, even as China commands over 15% and Vietnam has surged to capture significant market share in textiles, electronics, and manufacturing.

The time for incremental reforms has passed.

India needs a comprehensive overhaul of its export and entrepreneurship policies, strategically aligned with foreign policy objectives, to prevent what I believe could be a permanent relegation to service sector dependency while manufacturing opportunities slip away to more agile competitors.

The Manufacturing Imperative

The numbers paint a sobering picture. China’s manufacturing value-added reached $4.9 trillion in 2023, accounting for roughly 30% of global manufacturing output.

Vietnam, with a population less than 7% of India’s, achieved manufacturing exports of $370 billion in 2023, compared to India’s $450 billion total merchandise exports across all sectors.

More critically, India’s share in global manufacturing exports has declined from 1.8% in 2019 to 1.7% in 2024, while Vietnam’s share grew from 2.1% to 3.4% in the same period.

This isn’t just about absolute numbers; it’s about momentum and trajectory.

Countries like Bangladesh, Mexico, and Turkey are all gaining ground in manufacturing exports while India debates policy frameworks.

The demographic dividend we often celebrate is actually a ticking time bomb. With 12 million Indians entering the workforce annually, service sector jobs alone cannot provide sufficient employment. Manufacturing historically creates 3-4 jobs for every direct job, compared to 1.5-2 jobs in services. Without a manufacturing renaissance, we risk social instability and economic stagnation.

The Export-Foreign Policy Nexus: Learning from Successful Models

My analysis of successful export economies reveals a crucial insight: export policies cannot operate in isolation from foreign policy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative isn’t just infrastructure investment; it’s export market creation. Vietnam’s export success stems partly from its strategic positioning between US-China tensions, attracting supply chain diversification.

India needs to reimagine its foreign policy through an export lens. Our current approach treats trade and diplomacy as separate domains, resulting in missed opportunities. For instance, our Act East Policy has yielded modest results in manufacturing exports to ASEAN, partly because we haven’t aligned trade facilitation with diplomatic priorities.

Consider this data point: India’s bilateral trade with Africa was $98 billion in 2023, but only 25% consisted of manufactured goods exports. China’s Africa trade was $282 billion, with 45% being manufactured exports. This disparity isn’t just about market access; it reflects China’s systematic alignment of diplomatic engagement with export promotion.

The Compliance Raj: Quantifying the Regulatory Stranglehold

Our current export promotion architecture suffers from what I call “scheme fatigue,” but the deeper malady is what recent analysis terms the “Compliance Raj”—a” systematic regulatory stranglehold that makes Vietnam and China look like libertarian paradises by comparison.

The numbers are staggering: India experienced 9,420 compliance updates in 2024 alone, averaging 36 daily regulatory changes. To put this in perspective, Vietnamese manufacturers face approximately 12 major regulatory updates annually, while Chinese exporters operate under relatively stable regulatory frameworks with predictable annual changes.

The India Business Corruption Survey 2024 reveals that 66% of businesses admitted to paying bribes, with 54% coerced for permits, licenses, or approvals. This isn’t just about corruption; it’s about competitive disadvantage. While Indian exporters navigate bribery demands and regulatory uncertainty, Vietnamese competitors focus on production efficiency and market expansion.

The Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, while well-intentioned, allocated $26 billion across 14 sectors over five years. China spends more than this amount annually on manufacturing subsidies and export promotion. Vietnam’s foreign direct investment in manufacturing reached $22 billion in 2023 alone, compared to India’s $15 billion across all sectors.

The bureaucratic maze compounds these challenges beyond previous estimates. Businesses are required to manage 23 different identity numbers, including PAN, GSTIN, and CIN, resulting in excessive paperwork and frequent renewals.

A recent study by the Confederation of Indian Industry found that compliance costs for Indian exporters are 23% higher than Chinese competitors and 31% higher than Vietnamese exporters. But when we factor in time lost to regulatory uncertainty and bribery, the real competitive disadvantage reaches 45-50%.

Our export infrastructure remains fragmented. While China has 34 ports handling over 10 million TEU annually, India has only 12 major ports with combined capacity struggling to match Shanghai alone. Logistics costs consume 13-14% of GDP compared to 8-9% in developed economies, directly impacting export competitiveness.

The Libertarian Imperative

The evidence is overwhelming: countries that have embraced more libertarian approaches to business regulation consistently outperform India in manufacturing exports. This isn’t ideological positioning; it’s empirical reality backed by hard data.

Singapore, despite its small size, achieved $470 billion in total trade in 2023 with minimal regulatory complexity. Businesses can be registered in 15 minutes online, with most permits issued within 2-3 days. The regulatory framework is predictable, with major changes announced annually and implemented systematically.

Vietnam’s success partly stems from its increasingly libertarian approach to export manufacturing. Export processing zones operate under simplified regulations, with businesses facing minimal compliance burden once established. The contrast with India is stark: Vietnamese exporters spend 2-3% of their time on compliance activities, compared to 15-18% for Indian counterparts.

Even within India, states that have adopted more libertarian approaches show superior performance. Gujarat’s single-window clearance system, operational since 2009, has attracted significantly higher manufacturing FDI per capita compared to states with complex approval processes. Tamil Nadu’s simplified labor regulations for export industries have made it a preferred destination for automotive and textile manufacturing.

The Jan Vishwas Act 2023 decriminalized 180 provisions, reducing imprisonment risks for minor business violations. While this represents progress, it barely scratches the surface. With 20,000 imprisonment clauses still in place and the proposed Jan Vishwas 2.0 targeting only 100 additional provisions, we’re implementing incremental reforms when radical deregulation is required.

Consider the regulatory approach differences: A smartphone manufacturer in India faces 67 different approvals across 14 agencies, compared to 23 approvals across 6 agencies in Vietnam and just 12 approvals across 4 agencies in Singapore. This isn’t about maintaining standards; it’s about regulatory rent-seeking that destroys competitiveness.

The libertarian solution isn’t about abandoning all regulations; it’s about smart regulation focused on outcomes rather than processes. Export-oriented manufacturing should operate under presumptive compliance—businesses assume compliance unless proven otherwise, rather than seeking pre-approvals for every activity.

The Vietnam Model: Libertarian Agility Over Bureaucratic Scale

Vietnam’s transformation offers crucial lessons in libertarian reform applied to export manufacturing. Between 2010 and 2023, Vietnam increased its manufacturing exports from $72 billion to $370 billion, a 414% growth compared to India’s 185% growth from $178 billion to $450 billion in total merchandise exports.

Vietnam’s success stems from three key libertarian principles that India must embrace:

Regulatory Minimalism: Vietnam’s export sector operates under what economists call “libertarian” zones”—areas where businesses face minimal regulatory interference once basic standards are met. While India debates comprehensive labor law reforms, Vietnam implemented sector-specific deregulation for export manufacturing, allowing 24/7 operations, flexible hiring, and performance-based compensation without bureaucratic approvals.

Strategic FDI Targeting with Minimal Barriers: Vietnam attracted $108 billion in manufacturing FDI between 2015 and 2023, focusing on electronics, textiles, and automotive components with streamlined approval processes. India received $67 billion in manufacturing FDI in the same period, spread across too many sectors with complex approval requirements. Vietnamese authorities can approve major manufacturing investments within 45 days; Indian approvals take 8-12 months on average.

Export Processing Zone Efficiency: Vietnam operates 16 EPZs contributing 40% of total exports, with average clearance times of 8 hours and minimal compliance requirements once operational. India’s 265 SEZs contribute only 25% of exports with average clearance times of 72 hours and continuous compliance monitoring that disrupts operations.

Trade Agreement Leverage: Vietnam has 16 operational FTAs covering 58 countries, compared to India’s 13 FTAs covering 32 countries. More importantly, Vietnam utilizes these agreements effectively—67% of Vietnamese exports benefit from preferential access compared to 31% for Indian exports. The difference lies in implementation: Vietnam’s streamlined customs procedures make FTA utilization cost-effective, while India’s complex procedures often make preferential rates economically unviable.

The China Challenge

China’s manufacturing dominance isn’t accidental; it’s systematically built through what I observe as a four-pronged strategy: technology acquisition, market creation, supply chain control, and financial leverage.

China’s outbound FDI in manufacturing reached $145 billion in 2023, often creating captive markets for Chinese exports. India’s outbound manufacturing investment was $8.2 billion, focused primarily on resource extraction rather than market creation.

The technology dimension is particularly concerning. China spent $444 billion on R&D in 2023, with 78% focused on manufacturing and industrial applications. India’s R&D expenditure was $66 billion, with only 34% targeting manufacturing. This gap isn’t just about current competitiveness; it’s about future technological leadership.

Supply chain control represents another strategic advantage. Chinese companies control critical nodes in global supply chains—from rare earth processing to semiconductor assembly. India’s supply chain participation remains largely peripheral, missing opportunities for value addition and strategic positioning.

A Comprehensive Reform Blueprint

Based on my analysis of successful models and India’s unique advantages, I propose a five-pillar transformation strategy:

Pillar 1: Export-Foreign Policy Integration

Every diplomatic mission should function as an export promotion hub. Our embassies in 47 countries with bilateral trade exceeding $1 billion should have dedicated commercial sections with annual export targets. Currently, only 12 missions have adequate commercial infrastructure.

Trade facilitation must become a diplomatic priority. India should negotiate dedicated export corridors with key trading partners, similar to China’s economic corridors. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor should prioritize manufacturing export facilitation over general connectivity.

Strategic economic partnerships need restructuring around export complementarity. Our partnership with Japan, for instance, should focus on technology transfer for export-oriented manufacturing rather than domestic market access.

Pillar 2: Manufacturing Infrastructure Revolution

India needs 20 world-class manufacturing clusters in the next five years, each with integrated port connectivity, power supply, and digital infrastructure. Current industrial parks lack this integration, forcing manufacturers to create their own infrastructure at prohibitive costs.

Port modernization requires a $45 billion investment to match Chinese efficiency standards. This isn’t just about capacity; it’s about turnaround time, digital integration, and multimodal connectivity. Current port-to-factory connectivity adds 2-3 days to export timelines compared to Vietnamese competitors.

Digital infrastructure for manufacturing must move beyond basic connectivity to Industry 4.0 readiness. Only 12% of Indian manufacturers use advanced automation compared to 34% in China and 28% in Vietnam.

Pillar 3: Financial Architecture Redesign

Export financing needs fundamental restructuring. Current institutional lending covers only 23% of export credit needs, compared to 67% in China. We need specialized export development banks with $100 billion capitalization over five years.

Currency hedging mechanisms must evolve beyond current limited options. Vietnamese exporters access hedging products at 40% lower costs than Indian counterparts, directly impacting pricing competitiveness.

Investment promotion requires sector-specific targeting. Instead of generic FDI promotion, India needs dedicated agencies for electronics, textiles, automotive, and pharmaceuticals—sectors where we can realistically compete with China and Vietnam.

Pillar 4: Libertarian Regulatory Revolution

The current regulatory complexity creates what economists call “death by a thousand cuts,” but the solution requires embracing libertarian principles that prioritize business freedom over bureaucratic control. A smartphone manufacturer faces 67 different approvals across 14 agencies to start production, compared to 23 approvals across 6 agencies in Vietnam and just 12 in Singapore.

Presumptive Compliance Framework: Instead of seeking pre-approvals, export-oriented businesses should operate under presumptive compliance—assume businesses are compliant unless proven otherwise. This single change could reduce regulatory compliance time by 70% and eliminate opportunities for corruption in the approval process.

Single-Window Reality, Not Fiction: Real single-window systems require complete backend integration across agencies, not just common application forms. This technological integration needs a $2.8 billion investment but would save exporters $15 billion annually in compliance costs. More importantly, it should operate on risk-based assessment—low-risk activities get automatic clearance, medium-risk activities get fast-track approval, and only high-risk activities require detailed scrutiny.

Export Zone Libertarianism: Export-oriented manufacturing should operate under completely separate regulatory frameworks from domestic manufacturing. Singapore’s model demonstrates this: export manufacturers face minimal regulations, simplified labor laws, and tax incentives, while domestic manufacturers operate under standard frameworks. This isn’t about creating inequality; it’s about recognizing that export businesses face global competition and need regulatory advantages to remain viable.

Sunset Clauses for All Regulations: Every regulation affecting export businesses should have automatic sunset clauses requiring renewal every 3-5 years. This forces regulators to justify continued existence and prevents regulatory accumulation. Currently, regulations only get added, never removed, creating the 9,420 annual compliance updates that paralyze businesses.

One Nation, One Business Identity: The proposed consolidation of 23 different business identifiers into a single system represents a libertarian approach to reducing government interference. But it should go further—this single identity should provide access to all government services, eliminate renewal requirements, and operate on blockchain technology to prevent tampering and corruption.

Pillar 5: Technology and Skill Development

Manufacturing technology acquisition needs strategic focus. Current technology transfer agreements lack systematic knowledge absorption mechanisms. India should establish technology digestion centers in key manufacturing sectors, similar to China’s approach in the 1990s.

Skill development must align with export requirements rather than domestic needs. Current ITI and polytechnic curricula prepare students for local manufacturing, not global export standards. We need 500 export-oriented skill centers in the next three years.

Research and development for export competitiveness requires dedicated funding. The proposed National Manufacturing R&D Foundation should receive 1% of manufacturing exports annually—currently about $4.5 billion—to fund applied research for export enhancement.

Why Delay Is Dangerous

Global supply chains are undergoing fundamental restructuring. Companies are diversifying away from China-centric sourcing, creating a once-in-a-generation opportunity for countries like India. However, this window is narrowing rapidly.

Vietnam has already captured significant market share in textiles, electronics assembly, and furniture. Mexico is benefiting from nearshoring trends in North American markets. Bangladesh continues dominating low-cost textile manufacturing. Each day of policy delay allows competitors to strengthen their positions.

The demographic dividend argument also has a time limit. Current working-age population advantages will peak around 2035-2040. If we don’t create manufacturing jobs now, the demographic dividend becomes a demographic burden.

Technological evolution adds another urgency dimension. Manufacturing is becoming increasingly automated, potentially reducing labor cost advantages. Countries that establish manufacturing ecosystems now will benefit from technological upgrades, while late entrants may find fewer opportunities for labor-intensive manufacturing.

The Manufacturing Renaissance Imperative

India stands at a critical juncture. We can continue celebrating our digital achievements while manufacturing opportunities migrate to more decisive competitors, or we can undertake the comprehensive transformation our export potential demands.

The data is clear: manufacturing exports growth has stagnated while competitors surge ahead. The policy framework is fragmented while global supply chains seek reliable, efficient partners. The window of opportunity is narrowing while we debate incremental reforms.

This isn’t about choosing between services and manufacturing; it’s about leveraging our service sector strengths to build manufacturing competitiveness.

Our IT capabilities should power smart manufacturing, our financial sector should enable export growth, and our diplomatic networks should create market access.

The transformation I’ve outlined requires political will, financial commitment, and execution excellence.

But the cost of inaction—permanent manufacturing marginalization, employment crisis, and geopolitical irrelevance in global supply chains—far exceeds the investment required for transformation.

India’s manufacturing renaissance isn’t just an economic necessity; it’s a strategic imperative for sustained growth, employment generation, and global relevance. The question isn’t whether we can afford this transformation—it’s whether we can afford not to undertake it immediately.

The time for incremental reform has passed. India needs its manufacturing revolution now, before it’s too late to compete in the global economy of tomorrow.

Kenya’s role in global environmental diplomacy is becoming more important than ever. Now that climate change is having the harshest effect on vulnerable countries, Kenya has had its share of opportunity to make its environmental work a kind of soft power—both to safeguard its ecosystems and to improve its reputation abroad. Although Kenya may not be the most industrialized or the most economically developed country, it somehow has become a respected voice in global environmental talks. This isn’t by accident. It’s the fruit of decades of struggle for conservation, international partnership in promotion of conservation works, and recognition of the fact that environmental policy can also be utilized to fund foreign policies.

Kenya has a reputation for great natural beauty. From the savannah of the Maasai Mara to the Aberdare Forest, the country is a homeland to some of the world’s most iconic wildlife and ecosystems. Kenya isn’t just a safari destination, though; it’s also one of the countries that has genuinely done its best to protect the environment. This goes back decades. When the U.N. decided to build its global environmental headquarters, it settled on Nairobi. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) still lies there — an extraordinary tribute and a prestigious mark of Kenya’s old environmental credibility. What is so special about Kenya is not the biodiversity itself, but the fact that this state considers it to increase its influence and to earn international goodwill. Put differently, besides serving the conventional diplomacy purposes of Kenya, environmental diplomacy also plays a part in the promotion of public diplomacy, namely, as a device for demonstrating the country to other nations as responsible, peaceful, and willing to cooperate on a global scale. Through sustainable development, conservation, and climate justice, by so doing Kenya is not just making a policy statement; it is very deliberately forming views of itself held by other countries and the international institutions.

Over the recent years, this strategy has become more welcomed by the recently elected presidents of Kenya. For instance, President William Ruto has made it obvious that green growth and environmental protection are at the heart of Kenya’s future. He has attended climate conferences such as COP27 and put Kenya in pole position on renewable energy and adaptation to climate change. Already, the country produces more than three-quarters of the electricity from clean sources such as geothermal, wind, and hydropower—a feat very few rich countries can achieve. This clean energy record enables Kenya to talk the talk and walk the walk on its quest to have other countries act on climate. It is in doing this that Kenya will not only enlarge their voice in climate talks but also build confidence from other nations. This is at the heart of its public diplomacy: presenting to the world that it is behaving in good faith and assuming responsibility towards its future and towards the planet’s future. Environmental diplomacy becomes a space for dialogue and trust development and international recognition. It gives Kenya an opportunity to shape policy but still draw investment, tourists, and partnerships.

Simultaneously, Kenya is doing its best to save its environment from the worst consequences of climate change. The country records regular occurrences of drought, floods, and other extreme weather patterns affecting farming, driving people from their homes, and jeopardizing wildlife. In response, Kenya has launched efforts like national tree-planting campaigns, water conservation projects, and climate-smart farming. These actions not only create domestic resilience but also enhance Kenya’s credibility once talks on global standards begin. If a country talks the talk at home, it receives greater respect in the international arena.

One of the most visible examples of Kenya’s environmental diplomacy influencing others was the hosting of the Africa Climate Summit in 2023. Held in Nairobi, the summit gathered several African leaders to harmonize their climate policies and speak as one voice. The issued Nairobi declaration demanded immediate global reforms on climate finance and on the sharing of technologies. Kenya took advantage of this chance to not only determine continental climate action but also use the platform to present itself as a convening power and thought leader on climate policy. Other countries, such as Ethiopia, Rwanda, and South Africa, associated themselves with Kenya, thus showing that environmental diplomacy can lift a country’s regional floor.

Kenya has received massive green investment in the form of partnerships with countries such as Germany and members of the European Union. Among the major green investments is major renewable energy like the Lake Turkana Wind Power Plant. Germany has acknowledged Kenya’s initiative positively; it has provided the latter with technical and financial support to shift towards the use of cleaner energy. Kenya, at the same time, also succeeded in guiding Chinese investment to greener practices. For example, although there are concerns about the environment concerning the Standard Gauge Railway project, Kenya insists on environmental assessments and green standards so that China’s infrastructural deals are more climate aware. Kenya’s relationship with the United States has also been enhanced through cooperation in the environment. The U.S., via USAID and other bodies, has supported initiatives covering such areas as wildlife conservation, clean energy, and even climate-smart agriculture. This environmental partnership has enhanced Kenya’s image as a reliable friend in East Africa; they have opened more diplomatic and economic doors.

Kenya’s environmental credibility makes bridges for it both to the Western countries and also to the Global South. Through the active promotion of climate justice, particularly at times of significant climate confabulations such as COP27, Kenya has become a voice for the rest of the developing countries that suffer the effects of climate on them. This was evident in Kenya’s support for the establishment of a “Loss and Damage” fund that compensates the vulnerable countries—a call that was later adopted. Kenya is also diversifying its external cooperation from the traditional Western powers. It is collaborating with countries like India and Brazil and other emerging economies to jointly develop green economies. This spreads out Kenya’s alternatives, enhances its diplomatic clout, and argues for a more multipolar cooperation in climate leadership. Once more, this fits into its public diplomacy, as that makes Kenya a welcoming and collaborating nation ready to collaborate with many partners towards common environmental interests. Finally, Kenya’s environmental diplomacy is not only about savages from forests but also about wildlife and carbon emission cutting—it is all about the influence.

Kenya has managed to turn around its environmental activities into instruments of foreign policy and public diplomacy. Involving heavy nations such as Germany, China, the U.S., and Africa’s regional partners, Kenya is defining how other governments see climate justice, clean energy, and sustainable development. It is fighting for global reforms, setting the examples, organizing major summits, and appealing for justice on behalf of developing nations. Kenya’s green leadership is not only doing its environment good; it is a calculated policy to shape global discussions, draw other nations to its angle on climate, and gain respect, confidence, and collaboration in the world. In a nutshell, Kenya’s environmental diplomacy is about transforming the international agenda and (not by force but rather by the values, vision, and responsibility) demonstrating that even the midsized African nation can lead the world.

The digital battleground has become an increasingly critical theatre for modern geopolitical conflicts, and the Taliban’s recent social media campaign targeting the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia (KSA) underscores this shift. Following the UAE’s warm reception of former U.S. President Donald Trump, a surge of hostile online activity emerged, orchestrated by Taliban-linked accounts under the General Directorate of Intelligence (GDI). This campaign, executed through human-operated parody profiles, blends religious rhetoric, violent threats, and geopolitical grievances to undermine Gulf states’ legitimacy while reinforcing the Taliban’s ideological stance. The sophistication of this operation reveals not just a localized grievance but a broader strategy of asymmetric warfare, leveraging digital tools to exert influence beyond Afghanistan’s borders.

Central to the Taliban’s messaging is the accusation that the UAE has “disgraced Islam and the Ummah” by engaging with Trump, a figure historically criticized in the Muslim world for policies such as the travel ban on several Muslim-majority nations and his administration’s unwavering support for Israel. By framing the UAE’s diplomatic overtures as a betrayal of Islamic solidarity, the Taliban seeks to galvanize conservative Muslim audiences, casting Gulf states as Western collaborators. This narrative is not new, extremist groups have long employed religious rhetoric to isolate moderate Muslim nations, but the Taliban’s institutionalized use of social media amplifies its reach and potency.

Beyond ideological condemnation, the campaign escalates into explicit threats, with multiple accounts referencing the “yellow keg”, a signature Taliban improvised explosive device (IED) used extensively against US forces during the 2001–2021 conflict. The deliberate invocation of this imagery serves a dual purpose: it signals the Taliban’s continued embrace of violent tactics while psychologically intimidating its targets. Such threats, even if symbolic, carry the risk of inspiring lone actors or affiliated militant cells to pursue physical attacks, particularly given the historical precedent of Taliban-linked violence extending beyond Afghanistan’s borders.

While the UAE remains the primary target, the campaign’s inclusion of Saudi Arabia suggests a broader ideological offensive against Gulf monarchies perceived as aligning too closely with Western powers. The use of Pashto and Dari, languages dominant in Afghanistan but also understood among diaspora and regional jihadist circles, ensures localized resonance while maintaining plausible deniability for the Taliban’s central leadership. This linguistic choice, combined with the recycling of accounts historically used to promote Taliban edicts, reinforces the campaign’s authenticity within its intended audience.

The campaign’s timing, thematic coherence, and operational signatures point to centralized coordination, likely emanating from the Taliban’s GDI. Unlike fragmented extremist online activity, this effort displays a clear command structure, mirroring the Taliban’s disciplined approach to information warfare. The reuse of accounts previously associated with official Taliban narratives further underscores institutional involvement, distinguishing it from grassroots anti-UAE sentiment. This digital offensive aligns with the Taliban’s long-standing reliance on psychological operations, extending their influence without direct military confrontation.

The ramifications of this campaign extend far beyond social media vitriol. First, it seeks to erode the UAE’s and KSA’s religious legitimacy, particularly among conservative Muslim populations and transnational jihadist groups still active in Afghanistan. By casting these nations as apostates, the Taliban aims to fracture intra-Islamic solidarity, potentially driving recruitment for anti-Gulf militancy.

Second, the campaign reaffirms the Taliban’s commitment to asymmetric warfare. Despite their formal control of Afghanistan, the group continues to employ hybrid tactics, blending insurgency, propaganda, and diplomacy, to challenge adversaries indirectly. The digital domain offers a low-cost, high-impact arena to sustain pressure without provoking immediate military retaliation.

Most alarmingly, the explicit references to past IED tactics suggest a latent threat of physical escalation. While the Taliban may not directly orchestrate attacks on Gulf soil, the rhetoric could incite sympathizers or affiliate groups, such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), to act. The UAE and KSA, both vocal opponents of Islamist extremism, remain high-value targets for such elements.

To counter this evolving threat, a multi-faceted approach is essential:

• Gulf states should collaborate with international cybersecurity firms to identify and dismantle Taliban-linked networks, focusing on parody accounts and coordinated disinformation campaigns.
• Governments and religious institutions in the UAE and KSA must amplify moderate Islamic voices to delegitimize the Taliban’s extremist framing.
• Strengthening intelligence cooperation among Gulf nations and allies can pre-empt potential offline threats inspired by online incitement.
• Social media companies must enforce stricter verification processes to curb the proliferation of fake accounts disseminating violent propaganda.
• The international community should hold the Taliban accountable for digital incitement, linking sanctions relief to the cessation of hostile online campaigns.

“The internet is the first battlefield of the 21st century.” Wang Huning

The Taliban’s latest campaign exemplifies this reality, proving that in an interconnected world, ideological and physical conflicts are increasingly waged through pixels and propaganda. For the UAE and KSA, the challenge lies not only in defending their digital frontiers but in ensuring that online hostilities do not manifest in tangible violence. As the Taliban refines its hybrid warfare playbook, the global community must adapt, recognizing that the next threat may emerge not from a battlefield, but from a smartphone.

Amid the geopolitical reconfiguration, Russia’s invaluable support for multitude engagement with African countries and integration associations across the continent were aspects of the significant theme thoroughly discussed at the 4th “Russia-Africa Forum: What Next?” and the inaugural Forum of Young Diplomats Russia-Africa from 22nd-25th April, 2025, at the Moscow University of International Affairs (MGIMO), and that week-long event included a plenary session, roundtables, expert and panel discussions, business games, and many others in hybrid format.

As anticipated, the week-long activities, in their totality, gave a new impetus to strengthening Russian-African youth cooperation. More or less, it thus contributed to the preparation of the next second Russia-Africa Foreign Ministers Forum this fall, as well as the third Russia-Africa Summit.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated, in a video message, that the second ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum would take place in one of the African countries in 2025, while the third Russia-Africa summit is planned for 2026. Without a doubt, Russia has set the course for comprehensive interaction with Africa. It has created a new specialized department dedicated to partnership with Africa within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which underscores the importance Russia places on this diplomatic priority.

Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russian-African relations are on the rise, and Moscow would continue to help reinforce the continent’s position as an independent center of power in the emerging multipolar world order. Further, he explained that Russia endorses the desire of Africans to play an active role in world affairs. According to Sergey Lavrov, there would be more efforts toward practical cooperation in trade and economic spheres, which would continue to help Africans in their quest to possess advanced technologies in order to strengthen their political and economic sovereignty. 

Russian Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov, highlighted the potential of organizing a Youth Day within the framework of these meetings, calling the initiative promising. “Today, our country is firmly committed to the comprehensive strengthening of relations with African countries and their regional integration bodies. We look forward to aiming at elevating Russian-African cooperation to a new and higher level,” Mikhail Bogdanov stated.

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, said at the plenary session that African countries were taking steps, in the face of current drastic changes, to ensure their political freedom and sovereignty. In a video message to the participants, Nebenzya attributed the multiple crisis situations in many African countries predominantly as a consequence of long years of colonial dependence and consistent opposition to the manifestation of neo-colonial practices in Africa.

Vasily Nebenzya recalled that Russia, in its turn, consistently opposes modern practices of neocolonialism. “Trust in the collective West as a partner is declining everywhere, and there is a growing demand for fundamental changes in the modern system of international relations. Examples of successful cooperation on independent multilateral platforms, such as the Non-Aligned Movement, are multiplying,” he emphasized.

In order to bridge the information gap, Russia’s TASS news agency intends to strengthen its presence in African countries, according to the news agency’s Deputy Director General Mikhail Petrov. So far, compared to the Soviet period, the TASS news agency does not maintain such a large-scale presence in Africa — it currently works in only six African countries. That, however, Mikhail Petrov also highlighted the contributions of TASS First Deputy Director General Mikhail Gusman to fostering media ties with Africa, noting his long-running interview series Formula of Power. This allows African partners to better understand Russia with Africa and gives indications of building more productive interactions in the near future. The news agency was the general media partner during the Russia-Africa summits in 2019 and 2023.

The discussions on issues, such as the fight against neo-colonial practices to technological and sanctions challenges, continued in 2024 during a media forum held with TASS support on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit. “Such a multimedia dialogue, in our opinion, helps promote cooperation in other areas as well and builds mutual trust, which should form the foundation of sound and effective collaboration,” Deputy Director General Mikhail Petrov concluded his discussions with participants at the Moscow-based MGIMO University.

Africa is the continent of the future, and the future is created by young people. This applies fully to foreign policy. Therefore, the Russia-Africa Forum of Young Diplomats is an initiative by the Council of Young Diplomats of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Such a meeting fits in well with numerous MGIMO initiatives devoted to Africa, such as Africa in the Focus of Russian Interests, School of Young Africanists on Food Security, Africa Week, and the MGIMO Model African Union. 

In order to provide a multifaceted field of activity with the necessary resources, the Department for Partnership with Africa was created at the Foreign Ministry in January 2025. Its functions include promoting political, economic, scientific, educational, and cultural ties with the African integration associations. In conclusion, it is worth remembering that Russian-African friendship and partnership have a long history: in the past century, Russia selflessly helped Africans in their courageous struggle for freedom and independence. Advancing relations with the African countries is among Russia’s unconditional priorities, and this approach is enshrined in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation approved by President Vladimir Putin.

Anwar Ibrahim came to power in Malaysia soon after ex-PM Najib Razak was jailed for his role in the $4.5bn 1MDB financial scandal.

He has faced criticism after a royal pardon slashed Najib’s sentence while alleged 1MDB mastermind, Jho Low, remains at large.

Anwar leads ASEAN this year as it confronts Donald Trump’s tariffs and rising transnational crime, including a cyber-scam industry in Cambodia worth billions of dollars.

In a 101 East exclusive, Anwar Ibrahim speaks about politics and corruption in Malaysia and his conversations with Cambodia’s PM Hun Manet before the controversial deportation of domestic worker, Nuon Thoeun.

In the aftermath of the armed insurgency that erupted in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in 1989, the valley fell into what Basharat Peer called ‘Curfewed Night’—a’ prolonged nightmare. Three decades later, New Delhi revoked Article 370, apparently to spur investment and deepen integration in the valley. Yet, for Kashmiris, the nightmare has not ended. The recent attack in Pahalgam, which led to Operation Sindoor, serves as an unmuted episode in Kashmir’s nightmare.

Decades ago, Kashmiris inscribed ‘Q.K.’ (Quit Kashmir) on courtyard walls, and slogans like ‘Go India Go,’ ‘Al-Umar,’ and ‘Taeju’ echoed through the valley. During a 2008 visit to KASHMIR, Arundhati Roy recorded hearing chants such as ‘Dhoodh maango ge, kheer dein ge; Kashmir maango ge, cheer dein ge’ (Ask for milk, we’ll give you dessert; ask for Kashmir, we’ll tear you apart). Today, those slogans have faded. Headlines now highlight G20 meetings and post-2019 booms in tourism and investment. This raises a critical question: has the revocation of Article 370 erased half a century of resentment in just six years?

The Pahalgam attack challenges the narrative of Modi’s prosperous ‘Naya Kashmir.’ According to the managing editor of Kashmir Times, ‘normalcy has proved to be a mirage in Kashmir.’ After India’s 2019 clampdown silenced most headlines, KASHMIR faded away from the memory of the international community. But silence does not translate into peace. Within a month of the revocation of Article 370, more than 200 politicians, 100 community leaders, and many outspoken activists were imprisoned. There has been a systemic institutionalization of information control. Journalists and human rights defenders have been harassed, detained, and accused of ‘terrorism’ for reporting gross human rights violations in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmiris witness collective punishment. The human cost is profound: in 2022, a Kashmiri man lost his overseas job, faced financial hardship, and struggled with legal burdens because his brother, a journalist, was arrested for sharing a protest video on Twitter (now X).

Farah Bashir recounts in her memoir that every Kashmiri lives with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) or is described as being possessed by a djinn—a traditional way of expressing mental anguish. During crackdowns, soldiers storm homes, ransack belongings, and scatter staples like rice and flour across the floor. These crackdowns often lead to food shortages and, at times, starvation. Reigniting collective trauma, Indian security forces launched a sweeping crackdown following the Pahalgam attack across the valley. Kashmiri students in Jammu and across northern Indian states have faced a wave of violence, threats, and communal slurs. Around 1,500 Kashmiris have been placed under preventive detention. India’s response to the attack shows how the country continues to conflate security with collective punishment. For those born after 1990, fear and resistance have become normalized elements of daily life. Repression in Occupied Kashmir has migrated from open violence to more invisible, psychological forms of control. 

In 2021, the Russell Tribunal on Kashmir warned that the Valley had reached the brink of genocide, fueled by Hindutva-driven policies carried out with impunity. Yet, this reality remains largely invisible in both Indian and global media. The absence of independent reporting suggests that media bias is deeply entrenched, systematically sidelining accounts of state violence. It was only after the mass casualties of Indian tourists in the Pahalgam attack that global attention briefly redirected towards the situation in Occupied Kashmir, highlighting how the region’s persistent human rights crisis otherwise remains marginalized in international discourse.

Only a few Indian analysts have criticized their mainstream media for perpetuating the illusion of normalcy in the disputed territory, arguing that this portrayal masks the enduring reality of Jammu and Kashmir as a war zone. Thousands of Indian troops are omnipresent, and every Friday, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is placed under house arrest to prevent him from leading prayers. 

Since 2019, normalcy in Kashmir has been manufactured through repression, control of the media, and projection of economic development. As long as dissent is crushed, histories erased, and trauma left unhealed, Occupied Kashmir will remain a conflict unresolved—silenced, perhaps, but far from settled. 

In an era where technological paradigms shift with geopolitical winds, where design thinking must account for cultural diplomacy, and where engineering solutions intersect with national security concerns, India faces an epistemic crisis in higher education. The disciplinary silos that have long characterized our academic institutions—compartmentalizing knowledge into business, technology, design, and social sciences—have become intellectual anachronisms. This essay argues not merely for incremental curriculum reform but for a fundamental reconceptualization of knowledge production and transmission across disciplines, with particular emphasis on geopolitical literacy as an intellectual cornerstone for students of all academic backgrounds.

The Epistemological Divide: Empirical Evidence

The data regarding interdisciplinary education in India reveals a stark reality that demands urgent intellectual attention:

• Among India’s premier technological institutions, only 4.3% offer substantive coursework in international relations or geopolitical analysis (IIT Council Report, 2024).
• Within design schools, a mere 2.7% incorporate geopolitical considerations into their curriculum despite the growing importance of cultural diplomacy in global aesthetics (Design Education Review, 2023).
• Computer science programs show particular deficiency, with 91% offering no coursework on the geopolitics of technology, despite India’s positioning in the global digital economy (National Association of Software Companies, 2024).
• Engineering students receive, on average, less than 3.5 credit hours of humanities education throughout their entire degree program (All India Council for Technical Education, 2024).

When juxtaposed against global benchmarks—where leading institutions mandate cross-disciplinary exposure—this disciplinary isolation represents not merely a pedagogical oversight but an intellectual impoverishment with profound implications for India’s future.

The segregation of knowledge into discrete disciplines reflects a Cartesian reductionism increasingly at odds with contemporary epistemology. The complex problems facing modern societies—from climate adaptation to artificial intelligence governance—exist in what philosopher Horst Rittel termed the realm of “wicked problems,” resistant to solutions derived from any single knowledge domain.

Consider these intellectual frameworks that demand cross-disciplinary integration:

1. Systems Theory Perspective: Complex adaptive systems that characterize global affairs cannot be understood through linear causal models typical of siloed education. As philosopher Edgar Morin argues, understanding complexity requires transcending disciplinary boundaries.
2. Epistemic Justice: The privileging of certain knowledge forms (technical, financial) over others (geopolitical, cultural) represents what philosopher Miranda Fricker identifies as “hermeneutical injustice”—denying students conceptual resources needed to interpret their reality.
3. Constructivist Learning Theory: Knowledge constructed through interdisciplinary engagement leads to cognitive frameworks better suited to navigating complexity, as educational theorist Jean Piaget established.
4. Critical Realism Philosophy: The stratified nature of reality (physical, biological, social, geopolitical) means that reduction to any single analytical level produces incomplete understanding—a perspective advanced by philosopher Roy Bhaskar.

NEP 2020: Potential and Contradictions

India’s National Education Policy 2020 ostensibly embraces interdisciplinary education, calling for “holistic and multidisciplinary education” as a foundational principle. Yet a critical analysis reveals significant contradictions between rhetoric and implementation mechanisms:

The policy states, “There will be no hard separations between arts and sciences, between curricular and extracurricular activities, or between vocational and academic streams.”

However, structural implementations reveal persistent disciplinary segregation:

• Credit allocation systems still predominantly favor disciplinary depth over breadth.
• Faculty evaluation metrics continue to reward specialization over integration.
• Administrative structures maintain departmental silos instead of problem-focused organization.
• Funding mechanisms disproportionately support traditional disciplinary research.

What emerges is a form of what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would term “symbolic violence”—the appearance of change while reproducing existing knowledge hierarchies. True interdisciplinary education requires not merely allowing elective courses but fundamentally restructuring the epistemological foundations of higher education.

Geopolitics as Foundational Knowledge

The argument for geopolitical literacy extends beyond traditional international relations frameworks. Geopolitics offers essential intellectual scaffolding for understanding the context in which all disciplines operate:

For Design Students

Design does not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. Consider:

• The emergence of “strategic design” as a field addressing complex social problems requires understanding of geopolitical forces.
• Cultural diplomacy increasingly employs design as soft power—87% of nations have invested in design-forward cultural initiatives (UNESCO Cultural Indicators Report, 2023).
• Supply chain aesthetics are shaped by geopolitical realities—the movement of materials, labor, and production reflects power dynamics that designers must navigate.
• Design futures work must account for geopolitical scenarios—42% of failed design innovations demonstrated ignorance of geopolitical constraints (Design Management Institute, 2024).

For Technology Students

The bifurcation of global technology ecosystems along geopolitical lines demands attention:

• Semiconductor supply chains have become explicitly geopolitical, with India’s positioning requiring strategic understanding—the $10 billion India Semiconductor Mission operates in a geopolitical context students must comprehend.
• Data sovereignty regulations reflect geopolitical tensions—76% of new technology regulations in India’s key export markets derive from geopolitical considerations (MEITY Analysis, 2023).
• AI ethics frameworks diverge along geopolitical lines, with 63% of major differences attributable to geopolitical positioning rather than technical considerations (AI Ethics Global Review, 2024).
• Technology standards-setting processes have become battlegrounds for national influence—participation requires diplomatic as well as technical expertise.

For Other Non-Social Science Fields

• Agriculture students: 71% of agricultural market disruptions in the past decade stemmed from geopolitical events rather than climate or technology factors.
• Medical students: Global health security increasingly operates as a function of geopolitical relationships—pandemic response coordination shows an 84% correlation with geopolitical alliance structures.
• Architecture students: Urban resilience planning now incorporates geopolitical risk assessment in 67% of major global architectural firms.

Reimagining Interdisciplinary Education

Meaningful interdisciplinary education must transcend the tokenism of isolated courses to embrace what philosopher Hannah Arendt termed “praxis”—reflective action informed by theoretical understanding. This requires

Structural Reforms

1. Epistemic Integration: Core courses should integrate knowledge across disciplines rather than merely adding electives—for example, “Geopolitics of Design” rather than “Design” plus “Geopolitics.”
2. Faculty Development: Create joint appointments across departments and invest in faculty capacity to teach across disciplinary boundaries.
3. Assessment Revolution: Move beyond discipline-specific metrics to evaluate students’ ability to synthesize knowledge across domains.
4. Institutional Architecture: Reorganize academic units around problems rather than disciplines—establishing centers for “Technology Governance” rather than separate computer science and political science departments.

Pedagogical Innovations

1. Wicked Problem Studios: Project-based learning focused on complex challenges requiring multiple knowledge domains
2. Simulation-Based Learning: Complex geopolitical simulations where students from different disciplines must collaborate to address scenarios
3. Embedded Fieldwork: Place students in contexts where disciplinary knowledge must be applied within geopolitical complexities.
4. Collaborative Research: Structure research initiatives requiring teams spanning disciplines.

The resistance to interdisciplinary education reflects not merely administrative convenience but deeper intellectual commitments to particular forms of knowledge production. As sociologist Thomas Kuhn demonstrated, paradigm shifts in knowledge structures face resistance from established practitioners. This resistance takes several forms:

1. Epistemic Hierarchy: The implicit ranking of knowledge types that privileges technical over contextual understanding
2. Disciplinary Identity: Faculty self-conception rooted in disciplinary expertise rather than problem-solving capacity
3. Measurement Fetishism: Overreliance on discipline-specific metrics that cannot capture interdisciplinary competence
4. Resource Competition: Zero-sum thinking about curriculum space and faculty resources

Beyond Employability

While much discourse around education reform focuses on employability, the argument for interdisciplinary geopolitical education runs deeper. At stake is what philosopher Martha Nussbaum identifies as the “capability for critical thinking”—the intellectual capacity to comprehend and engage with complex realities.

The segregation of knowledge domains impoverishes not merely professional competence but civic capacity. In a democracy increasingly facing complex, interconnected challenges, citizens require integrated understanding. This represents what political philosopher Michael Sandel terms “civic education”—preparation not merely for economic contribution but for meaningful participation in collective self-governance.

Empirical Evidence of Interdisciplinary Impact

The case for interdisciplinary education is not merely philosophical but empirically grounded:

• Teams comprising members with diverse disciplinary backgrounds demonstrate 43% higher problem-solving efficacy for complex challenges (Harvard Interdisciplinary Research Initiative, 2023).
• Organizations led by individuals with interdisciplinary education show 37% greater adaptive capacity during geopolitical disruptions (McKinsey Global Institute, 2024).
• Patents filed by teams with interdisciplinary composition show 28% higher citation impact and 41% greater commercial application (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2024).
• National innovation systems with higher rates of interdisciplinary collaboration demonstrate 23% faster response to complex crises (OECD Innovation Policy Review, 2023).

Beyond NEP 2020: A Radical Reimagining

While NEP 2020 provides rhetorical support for interdisciplinary education, implementation requires more fundamental reconceptualization. True interdisciplinary education demands:

1. Philosophical Reconciliation: Acknowledging that the fragmentation of knowledge is itself a historical construct rather than an epistemological necessity
2. Structural Transformation: Moving beyond departmental structures to problem-focused organization
3. Pedagogical Revolution: Replacing linear curriculum models with networked knowledge structures
4. Assessment Reconception: Developing evaluation frameworks that value synthesis and integration
5. Faculty Transformation: Recruiting and developing scholars capable of transcending disciplinary boundaries

The Intellectual Imperative

The argument for interdisciplinary geopolitical education transcends instrumental concerns about career preparation. What is at stake is nothing less than our capacity to comprehend and address the defining challenges of our era.

For India’s position in the global knowledge economy—and more fundamentally, for its democratic vitality—the integration of geopolitical understanding across disciplines represents not a curricular luxury but an intellectual necessity. The continued segregation of knowledge domains reflects not merely administrative convenience but an impoverished conception of education itself.

As philosopher John Dewey argued, education must prepare students not merely for the world as it exists but for creating the world that could be. In an era of profound geopolitical transformation, this preparation requires not the reinforcement of intellectual silos but their transcendence. The question is not whether design students, technology students, and others should be “allowed” to learn international relations—it is whether we can afford the intellectual impoverishment that results from preventing them from doing so.