economics

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) 25th summit, held early September in Tianjin, China, unprecedentedly redefined its diverse future ambitions; global governance, sustainable development, and security are emerging as the cornerstones—and China is at the forefront of this transition. With strategic alliances in the background, India and Russia, together with SCO’s regional members and the Global South, are unwaveringly playing complementary roles towards establishing a more inclusive, participatory, and fairer world. In other words, the SCO summit served as a space for dialogue and multilateral cooperation, working to strengthen regional security, economic development, and political collaboration.

Our latest insight into reports: Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed in his opening speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, that “the SCO represents a model for a new type of international relations, and that we must advocate for equal and orderly multipolarity in the world, inclusive economic globalization, and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech was unanimously approved by all participating leaders, especially with UN Secretary-General António Guterres also stating emphatically that “China plays a fundamental role in supporting global multilateralism.” From a multitude of different perspectives, Jinping’s strategic position to lead the new geopolitical architecture is primarily to challenge the prevailing western-controlled unipolar order. His “peace or war” narrative signals an effort to position China as a primary actor in global decision-making processes and to position China and its partners as influential drivers.

It’s worth noting that China is leveraging current global instability to advance a multipolar framework and further pursuing an assertive shift in global power dynamics, directly challenging the longstanding dominance of Western nations. Significantly, Xi Jinping’s proposal to pursue consistently a bold commitment to world peace and sustainable development, seeking a broad representation in multilateral institutions and organizations (including the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank), is explicitly grounded in renewing primary principles that respect diversity. A concrete example is the call for UN Security Council reform, where China supports expanding representation to better reflect today’s world, including countries from Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Why Multipolarity Matters to Russia

It is well-known and glaringly visible across the world that China has comparatively wider or broader consolidated economic clout and has displayed these past several years, indiscriminately strengthening its economic cooperation with Latin American, African, and Asian countries. On the other side, Russia seemed to be selecting its own ‘reliable partners,’ which offered some limitations despite the official position advocating for tectonic multipolarity. Russia’s world is, more or less, divided into ‘friends and enemies’ according to its definition and understanding of one world, one planet.

Following the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been exploring economic transformation, modernizing and upgrading its economy, as seen unfolding now. And of course, there have been challenges and obstacles. In practical terms, Russia has come a long way with its current perestroika and glasnost in the country and its relations with former Soviet neighbors and consolidating foreign policy around the world.

In conclusion of his official visit to the SCO summit in China, Vladimir Putin, at the final media conference on September 3rd, pointed out that most of the documents adopted by participants look to the SCO’s future in the emerging new world. “In this context, I would like to point out China’s global governance initiative. More importantly, this initiative is aimed at promoting positive sentiments between the countries that attended the summit in China and potential partners among the countries that are not willing today to proclaim their readiness for new partnership.”

As part of the partnership, Putin stressed that “Russia has always opposed Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But we have never questioned its right to conduct its economic and business activities as it wishes, including joining the European Union.” As for whether the multipolar world has formed or not—generally, its contours have certainly taken shape. Multipolarity does not mean the emergence of new hegemons. Among many other countries with similar perspectives, Russia and China consistently advocate for a fairer world order based on the global majority. There are economic powerhouses, such as India and China, and either within the SCO or within BRICS, all participants in international affairs should have equal rights, and all should be in the same position from the standpoint of international law. 

Putin’s expressions throughout the SCO summit, interlaced with candid viewpoints on the emerging world—in fact, the current world system—should concentrate on building relations and interactions on the basis of the world’s majority. “The idea—I mentioned this earlier—is that the world should be multipolar, meaning that all participants in international communication should be equal, and more equal than others should not exist, and the unipolar world must cease to exist, including in the interests of those, at least in the interests of the peoples of those countries, whose leadership still upholds this moribund and, one might even say, already obsolete system,” underscored Putin at the media conference.

China’s Comparative Advantages as Global Leader

China is situated in the Asian region. Despite its large population of 1.5 billion, which many have considered an impediment, China’s domestic economic reforms and collaborative strategic diplomacy with external countries have made it attain superpower status over the United States. While United States influence is rapidly fading away, China has indeed taken up both the challenges and unique opportunities to strengthen its position, especially its trade, investment, and economic muscles.

Arguably, China has worked on all aspects of its economy and external investment footprints; these combined are now recorded as its grandiose achievements. Still, for example, China is engaging in a long-term competition with the U.S., and that is the challenge for the United States. China’s global investment and trade are just unimaginable and give the country global power.

It has systematically transformed its economy at the same time and maintained the political structure. Its major cities and coastal areas are far more prosperous compared to rural and interior regions. Of course, the United States has also developed its individual states, while Russia’s regions look not too far different from the typical Soviet era.

Experts vehemently argue and vividly show how useful the population (demography) has been as a factor for China’s success down the years. It is a matter of how to get the population to support the growth of the economy. With the 1.5 billion population, China has brought more people out of extreme poverty than any other country in history. China reduced extreme poverty by 800 million. The United States has a population of 380 million, two times more than Russia, which has a meager 140 million in relation to the size of the country. In one of his previous speeches, Putin declared that Russia’s population could reach 146 million by 2025, mainly as a result of immigration. Russia has been expelling foreign labor out of the country instead of deploying this labor to the regions, in industries and agricultural fields, to increase its exportable presence in the countries in need and in the external markets.

It is highly likely that Russia would be missing its opportunity, especially due to a shortage of labor. It has to develop its regions and modernize most of the Soviet-era industries to produce export goods, not only for domestic consumption. Its investment and trade in consumables is only developing at a snail’s pace compared to China. While China’s Belt and Road Initiative has expanded significantly over the previous years, Russia is more focused significantly on oil and gas as export products. In recent years, Russia has significantly strengthened bilateral ties with Asian countries such as China, India, North Korea, and Vietnam. With new agreements signed at the 25th SCO summit, China and India would be extending their economic tentacles to Russia’s Far East, producing in the special industrial zones and exporting massively across, utilizing the northern transport corridor to the European Union. 

Certainly, superpower status has to be attained by practical, multifaceted, sustainable development and maintaining appreciably positive relations with the world. In a global context dominated by diverse tensions, Beijing already presents itself as a stable and reliable alternative for international collaboration. From the analysis, China is practically up to this world’s leadership.

Background: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Eurasian political, economic, and security bloc, has become a key platform for China and Russia to promote alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. Against the backdrop of strained ties with the United States and global economic turbulence, the bloc converged in Tianjin, China, with leaders from over 20 non-Western countries in attendance. 

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is steadily increasing its influence in addressing pressing international issues. It serves as a powerful driver of global development processes and the establishment of genuine multilateralism. As of today, in addition to its ten (10) full members, the SCO also engages two observer states—Mongolia and Afghanistan—as well as 15 dialogue partners. It was established in 2001 and has actively worked to promote peace, security, trust, and cooperation across the Eurasian continent. 

On August 31, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was in Tianjin, China, to attend the 25^th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Türkiye has begun to regularly attend SCO summits in recent years. President Erdoğan attended the Samarkand summit in 2022 for the first time as president. He then continued the tradition by attending the Astana summit in 2022 and the Tianjin summit this year. With Erdoğan’s participation in the SCO summit, the Turkish media’s coverage of the summit also increased. Especially when browsing news channels, I see that with Erdoğan’s arrival in Tianjin, various news stories and commentators are evaluating the importance of the SCO and the summit. However, as always, Turkish TV channels and news outlets continue to compare the SCO with the EU and NATO while covering SCO news. Comparing the SCO and the EU is like comparing apples and oranges; they are functionally different structures, yet this comparison comes up every year. On the other hand, while some TV commentators point out that there is no complete unity within the SCO and BRICS and that there are internal contradictions, they generally do not mention the rift within NATO. However, even their statement that Türkiye’s participation in the SCO summit is not a sign that it will break away from the West clearly shows how much of a dissenting voice Türkiye is within NATO. Furthermore, there is no mention of the rift between Trump and the EU within NATO following Donald Trump’s election as US President.

Erdoğan attended the SCO summit with a large delegation consisting of Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, National Intelligence Chief İbrahim Kalın, National Defense Minister Yaşar Güler, Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek, Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar, Industry and Technology Minister Mehmet Fatih Kacır, and Trade Minister Ömer Bolat, and held comprehensive bilateral talks at the summit. Throughout the summit, Erdoğan met with the heads of state of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and China for bilateral talks. In general, Türkiye has deep cooperation with SCO countries in the fields of energy, trade, tourism, and investment. In particular, Türkiye has a large trade volume with Russia and China. For instance, during his bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Erdoğan emphasized Türkiye’s cooperation with Russia in the fields of trade and energy and invited Putin to Türkiye, demonstrating the strength of bilateral relations. At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin also emphasized bilateral cooperation and thanked Erdoğan for his mediation and efforts towards peace regarding the Russia-Ukraine War. It should not be forgotten that Türkiye has not strained its relations with Russia since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine War, taking a different stance from NATO.

In his article titled “A Shared Path to Peace and Justice” published in the People’s Daily prior to his trip to China, Erdoğan emphasized that Türkiye was pursuing peace diplomacy on the Russia-Ukraine and Gaza issues and that China was playing a leading role in establishing a just world. The emphasis on a just world in Erdoğan’s article is always part of the multipolar world discourse. For many years, Erdoğan has used the expectation of a multipolar world order and the emphasis on “a just world” as his own unique discourse, saying that “the world is bigger than five.” While highlighting the same issues in both his speech at the SCO summit and his meeting with Xi Jinping, Erdoğan did not fail to emphasize Türkiye’s geostrategic position as an energy and transportation hub in the Middle Corridor.

Deepening Turkish-Chinese Relations in Recent Years

Erdoğan’s trip to China for the SCO Summit carries significance within the context of deepening Turkish-Chinese relations in recent years. With this visit, Erdoğan visited China for the first time in six years. Erdoğan last made an official visit to Beijing in 2019. The two heads of state last met in July 2024 at the SCO summit in Astana. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping last visited Türkiye in 2015 for the G20 Summit in Antalya, Türkiye has been hoping for Xi Jinping to make an official visit to Türkiye for many years. In fact, President Erdoğan indicated after the BRICS summit in Kazan that Xi Jinping would pay an official visit this year. Xi’s official visit to Türkiye may have positive repercussions for the bilateral relations that have developed in recent years.

There has also been a significant increase in visits to China by state officials and AKP strategists in recent years. Most recently, in June 2024, bilateral relations progressed positively with the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. After a long hiatus, Fidan became the first high-level official to visit Urumqi and Kashgar in Xinjiang. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and conveyed the messages that “Türkiye fully supports China’s territorial integrity” and “Urumqi and Kashgar are Turkish Islamic cities. They are a bridge between China and the Islamic world. The unity of the people is our wealth.” During his visit to China, Fidan also expressed Türkiye’s desire to join BRICS, and President Erdoğan emphasized his wish to attend the BRICS summit in Kazan. In our meetings with various diplomats and businesspeople following Fidan’s visit to China, they emphasized that China had a positive impact on Turkish businesspeople. Direct flights between Urumqi and Istanbul even began after Fidan’s visit to Xinjiang. Then, in June 2024, he visited the capital Beijing with AKP Deputy Chairman Efkan Ala and a delegation, and a “Memorandum of Understanding on Strategic Cooperation” was signed between the AKP and the CPC. In November 2024, Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek visited Beijing. In February 2025, a delegation led by Deputy Minister of Trade Mahmut Gürcan visited Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, and a Turkish Pavilion was opened in the Urumqi Free Trade Zone. On the other hand, it should be noted that Türkiye’s former Ambassador to Beijing, İsmail Hakkı Pekin, played a positive role in the development of Turkish-Chinese relations and was well-liked by the Chinese. For instance, Ambassador İsmail Hakkı Musa stated in an interview with Global Times that “Türkiye does not subscribe to anti-China rhetoric and hopes to enhance economic cooperation with China.”

Conclusion

All countries that are members and dialogue partners of the SCO are in favor of establishing a more just and multipolar world. In this regard, they follow a political line consistent with Türkiye’s interests and Erdoğan’s rhetoric of a fair world. Many countries, such as Russia, China, Iran, and India, are subject to Western and US tariffs. In this regard, the establishment of a more just financial system is the most significant demand. Although there are contradictions among the member states of the organization, they find common ground on the establishment of a more just order and financial system despite their differences. In particular, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s message in his speech that we should seek common ground while putting aside differences. In this case, it shows that they have put their differences aside and found common ground in multipolarity. On the other hand, countries such as China and India are both global production centers and energy and mineral-rich countries like Russia, Iran, and Kazakhstan, and Türkiye has deep relations with these countries. However, Türkiye’s predicament between BRICS and the SCO on one side and the EU and NATO on the other should not be left to Türkiye’s special position, historical alliance tradition, and the AKP’s indecisiveness in foreign policy. Türkiye should adopt a strategy of gaining effective positions in the SCO and BRICS institutions by leveraging its deepening relations with Russia and China in recent years and ensuring a solid position in the emerging multipolar world.

The 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, reflects a major display of solidarity among the countries of the Global South in the face of US and Western hegemony. Chinese President Xi Jinping called on the leaders and members of the SCO countries participating in the summit in China to play a greater role in protecting regional and global peace and stability, considering his country a stable global power that will support the developing world. Chinese President Xi Jinping urged all SCO members to take advantage of their huge market, and in his opening speech to the leaders participating in the summit, he revealed his ambition to establish a new global security and economic order that poses a direct challenge to the United States. President Xi’s statements during the summit come amid Beijing’s efforts to present itself as a major leader of the developing world, and considering that the summit in Tianjin, China, will provide China with an opportunity to build solidarity with the developing countries of the Global South. The international community, particularly the countries of the Global South, also has high hopes for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to play an important role in global security and economic governance in the face of American hegemonic policies and dictates.

  Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed in his opening speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, that “the SCO represents a model for a new type of international relations, and that we must advocate for equal and orderly multipolarity in the world, inclusive economic globalization, and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system.” Many leaders of developing countries in the Global South agreed with and endorsed Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech, most notably Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey), Min Aung Hlaing (Myanmar), KP Sharma Oli (Nepal), Prabowo Subianto (Indonesia), Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia), and Mohamed Ma’azo (Maldives), with the participation of UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Kaw Kim Horn.

  The 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China is the most important for the organization since its establishment in 2001. It is being held amid multiple crises that have directly affected its members, from the trade standoff between the United States, China, and India to the Russian war on Ukraine, the Iranian nuclear issue and Israeli and American military strikes on Tehran, the Gaza war, the Taiwan issue, and other burning international issues. This summit is subject to unprecedented and stringent security and military measures compared to previous summits. Armored vehicles have been deployed on many streets, blocking traffic in large parts of the Chinese city of Tianjin, where the summit is being held. Signs in both Mandarin and Russian have been posted on the streets, praising the Tianjin spirit and the mutual trust between Moscow and Beijing.

  It is important to understand China’s commitment this year, during the summit in Tianjin, China, to working diligently on three main tracks to assist developing countries of the Global South and the Third World. On the political front, the Tianjin Declaration and the Ten-Year Development Strategy will be adopted to establish a long-term vision for cooperation. On the security front, cooperation will be strengthened by strengthening joint arrangements to combat terrorism and support regional stability. Economically, cooperation will be advanced in the digital economy, green development, and smart cities, as well as promoting trade and investment as fundamental pillars for strengthening the cohesion of the “Shanghai Family.”

 Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Ping commented that the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, this year will be the largest in the organization’s history, stressing that the rapidly evolving international situation calls for enhanced solidarity and cooperation.With his veiled reference to the United States of America, he said that “the old mentalities of hegemony and power politics are still influential, as some countries try to prioritize their own interests at the expense of others, threatening global peace and stability.”

 It should be noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech was unanimously approved by all participating leaders, especially with the growing call by Chinese President “Xi” for all SCO partners at the Tianjin Summit to oppose the Cold War mentality and bloc-based confrontation, emphasizing the need to support multilateral trading systems. This message is a clear reference to US President Trump’s tariff war on China, which has disproportionately impacted the economies of developing countries, including India, a recent ally of Washington. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also stated that “China plays a fundamental role in supporting global multilateralism.”

  While Russia has succeeded in attracting the majority of members to its positions, India is attempting to balance its call for peace and maintaining relations with the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, at a time when New Delhi is purchasing large quantities of Russian oil. Ukraine has called on the organization’s members to take a clear stance and reject Russian aggression against it. During the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin described Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as his dear friend. Putin considered relations between the two countries to be developing dynamically and unprecedentedly. This all reflects a strong solidarity between the policies of developing countries of the Global South, led and supported by China and its close ally, Russia.

   Regarding the United States’ position on the gathering of developing countries of the Global South in the Chinese city of Tianjin, Washington considered the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin unwelcome, given US President Trump’s repeated attacks on the Global South blocs, his threats to paralyze and obstruct the BRICS group through punitive tariffs, and his description of it as anti-American policies.

  Therefore, we understand that the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, in 2025, presents a multilateral model designed by China, distinct from the models dominated by Western powers and the United States. Furthermore, the broad participation in the summit’s events demonstrates China’s growing influence and the SCO’s ability to attract non-Western countries capable of embracing Washington and its policies and monopolizing the West.

China and the United States have once again reached a crossroads in their relationship over bilateral trade issues. On April 2025, the US increased number of tariffs on Chinese imports under its “Liberation Day” policy, imposing duties of up to 145% on various Chinese products. Particularly on electronics, steel-based appliances, and chemicals. China on the other hand put a ban on exporting rare earth metals to the US. These measures disrupted supply chains in the U.S. as the U.S. market is heavily dependent on Chinese imports and the policy on tariffs increased costs for both nations. The US and other developed nations have put in great efforts to promote free trade practices but in recent times protectionist policies seem reversing all those efforts. International trade regimes were created to resolve issues related to trade conflicts but due to America’s unilateral approach, those regimes like WTO seem so fragile that they do not play any significant role in resolving trade related issues.  China is making efforts to implement the Geneva trade consensus. The Geneva trade consensus, which is an agreement to reduce trade barriers and restore supply chain trust, was hailed as a milestone. Nonetheless, the key question on everyone’s mind remains whether the United States will honour its commitments or revert to its conventional backchannel manoeuvres

Following the Geneva talks and subsequent meetings that were held in London on July 4, 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce confirmed that the nation would accelerate approvals for rare earth exports, along with reviewing applications for other controlled materials that are according to domestic law. Rare earth elements are crucial for many sectors that the US depends upon, such as Electronics, defense, and clean energy. China is not only continuing to export these materials, but they are doing so despite years of tariffs, trade restrictions, and political tensions with Washington.

The United States agreed that it would remove trade restrictions that have been damaging to Chinese companies. However, the United States has not been holding up its end of the bargain. Chinese experts claim that the US continues to “send signals that undermine economic cooperation”. This raises doubts as to whether the United States is willing to honour its deal.

This was made evident when the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced, following the London meetings, that both parties had reached an agreement to move faster in translating consensus into policy. China did just that almost immediately, speeding up a number of rare earth export applications. The US has been slow on follow-through, taking few steps toward eliminating restraints that were to be removed weeks earlier. For Chinese trade officials, the distance between words and deeds on the American side is growing too glaring to be ignored.

This isn’t new for America. In 2018, the United States introduced tariffs worth billions of dollars on Chinese goods. They justified it with vague claims of trade imbalances and national security. However, in the aftermath, the results were crystal clear. Prices didn’t just go up for American consumers, but businesses on both sides of the Pacific Ocean suffered. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis even reported that the American Economy has shrunk slightly in the first quarter of this year due to US foreign policy towards China.

This economic downturn was not a coincidence. It was caused by built-up tensions, shattered supply lines, and a vicious cycle of sanctions and counter-sanctions. Experts in China consider that if the United States keeps going this way, the repercussions will become even worse for its internal economy. Some American producers who rely on secure access to Chinese rare earths and parts are already experiencing higher costs and delays in production. This became evident when China temporarily restricted rare-earth magnet exports, forcing global manufacturers to seek alternative sources and deal with sharply increased costs.

Nonetheless, China continues to uphold its commitment to cooperation by welcoming American businesses into its country. At the recent Summer Davos forum in Tianjin, US companies showed great interest in the Chinese market. US exhibitors expected at the China International Supply Chain Expo have risen by 15%. These businesses know that trade with China is an opportunity, not a threat.

Chinese authorities claim, US participation is not an accident. Politicians in Washington may be posturing for the press. But American companies know China provides a fertile ground for business ventures. Some companies have gone so far as to say that they feel safer conducting business in China than in other markets due to China’s commitment to consistency, long-term planning, and open-door policy.

Beijing is urging Washington to “meet China halfway”. While China continues to follow through on the Geneva consensus. China isn’t being diplomatic. This is a genuine call for mutually beneficial cooperation. China is a country that bases its actions on international cooperation and being predictable.

Chinese policy experts also pointed out that China has nothing to gain from half-hearted agreements. Their support for the Geneva consensus is driven by practical concerns rather than political motives. They want predictability in trade, reliability in export channels, and fairness in economic ties. All of these require the United States to take initiative.

However, meaningful cooperation requires mutual effort from both parties.

If the United States continues to delay, it will not only risk damaging its relationship with China. They will end up eroding their credibility as a global economic leader. In today’s globalized world, where supply chains cross borders and economies are tied at the waist. Trust goes beyond mere goodwill. It’s strategic capital. And as of right now, China is the one building that capital.

Recent developments support this. Chinese authorities have simplified rare earth licensing and established a transparent application process, welcoming oversight from foreign businesses. Meanwhile, American trade policy continues to operate in grey zones. Many Chinese companies are experiencing unjustified scrutiny or barriers when entering the US market, even in sectors not linked to national security.

China consistently honors its commitments and provides stability to its partners. They are positioning themselves as a more dependable partner in Global trade. The US, in contrast, risks isolating itself through backtracking and hesitating. When trust is lost, partnerships will suffer, investments will slow down, and influence will fade.

There have been reports that last year saw foreign direct investment in China from European and Asian nations hold steady. But here is what is surprising: US investments have been slow-moving, not due to issues with China, but because Washington has been sending out confusing signals. That is costing American businesses their edge in one of the most critical markets in the world.

To keep that from happening, Washington must match China’s seriousness.

The Geneva consensus, as Chinese officials insist, was never an empty headline to start with. It was a structural change in trade relations, one that increases transparency and real outcomes. China is already living by that. The US has to either join this new direction or be left behind.

And there is a larger context here as well. With the world facing economic instability, no country can do it alone. China is indicating that it’s willing to contribute to global recovery and sustainable development. But it won’t do it if the US keeps putting obstacles in its path.

The window of co‑operation is open, but it will not remain open indefinitely. China’s message is unambiguously clear: We are delivering. Now it’s your turn.

Cooperation among leading non-Western countries is increasing. Russia and India will increase the scale of economic cooperation, including in the energy sector. This news has become especially relevant and important in light of recent geopolitical events. It reflects important trends in world politics.

Days before, the United States of America sharply criticized Delhi. Washington said that India should not continue to buy oil from Russia. President Donald Trump sharply criticized the Indian leadership and introduced additional large duties on imported goods. At the same time, the Indian authorities do not intend to take any retaliatory measures in connection with the increase in the size of duties on goods supplied to the United States from India. Earlier, a 25% duty on goods from India, introduced by US President Donald Trump in response to Russian oil purchases, came into force. Thus, goods from India are now subject to a duty of 50%, if we consider the previously introduced tariffs of 25% as part of the US administration’s revision of trade agreements with countries around the world. Tariffs on goods will affect more than half of India’s $87 billion exports. According to Reuters experts, the increase in tariffs by America will lead to a drop in Indian GDP growth by 0.8%. This will be a significant blow to the growing Indian economy and corporations that are actively exporting to the United States.

The cooling of US-Indian relations did not end there. The world press noted that President Donald Trump tried to talk to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the phone four times in recent weeks, but he refused to talk. This was reported by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, citing sources. In addition, there has been a certain tilt of the Trumpist American administration towards Pakistan, Delhi’s strategic and sworn enemy. The day before, President Trump said that the United States had made a deal with Pakistan on joint oil production. “We just agreed with Pakistan, according to which Pakistan and the United States will work together to develop their vast oil reserves. We are currently selecting an oil company to lead this partnership,” he wrote on his social media. The American leader suggested that Washington would one day sell oil to India. Let me remind you that Trump announced a sharp increase in tariffs on supplies from 185 countries in early April 2025.

In short, there is a serious cooling between the United States and India, which has the potential to significantly reduce the level of trust and contacts between the two countries. This circumstance is interesting from two sides. Firstly, India, located in South Asia, is of great strategic importance for Washington. In view of the global geopolitical and economic confrontation with powerful China, the United States attached great importance to the role of India. Delhi has quite tense relations and territorial disputes with Beijing. The acute phase of the conflict occurred in 2020. In America’s strategy, India must contain the growing power of China. However, Prime Minister Modi’s policy, which is aimed at protecting India’s sovereign interests, turned out to be more complex and multifactorial.

It was then that Indian and Chinese border guards clashed in the disputed Himalayan region, which both sides claim. The conflict had a fairly wide resonance in both countries. After that, both India and China began to increase their military presence in the region, stopped air traffic, and boycotted some goods. However, in 2025, significant changes occurred that began to bring the leaders of the non-Western world closer together. The parties resumed direct flights, agreed to simplify the visa regime, and also returned to border trade. “China and India should be partners, not enemies,” admitted Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Amid the discord with Washington, Prime Minister Modi visited Beijing for the first time in seven years and met with the Chinese leader. And on August 31, a trilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia, China, and India took place.

Secondly, the demonstration of India’s sovereignty became an important signal of the new international system that is just being built, where the United States is no longer the absolute hegemon. The “new countries” of Asia and the East are striving to pursue sovereign and more independent foreign policies. Patriotism, respect for their history, and their nation are growing stronger in these societies. And the political elites are striving to achieve a more respectful attitude towards themselves from the “golden billion.” At the same time, the West has ceased to be an indispensable part of the world economy and politics. Cooperation in trade and finance between the countries of Asia, the East, and Eurasia is strengthening. The economies of Russia, China, and India, enormous and colossal in their resources and potential, can well deepen cooperation with each other and achieve high economic results without deep cooperation with the countries of Europe and the United States. In a word, cooperation among leaders of the BRICS and the SCO is becoming stronger and more active. And this, in its potential, is capable of introducing significant transformations into the international system that is only just forming.

The SCO summit in Tianjin, China, was an important event. This forum with the participation of more than twenty world leaders showed that the world is not only larger than the West. This summit showed that the Non-West countries have the political will and desire to deepen cooperation in order to demonstrate their ambitions and sovereignty to the West. But it is not the number of leaders who took part in the forum that was important. The situation and atmosphere of the summit were important. The leaders of powerful and actively developing Russia, China, and India openly demonstrated colossal political will to change the global balance of power. But it is not only the will of the leaders that leads to global and very profound changes, but also objective factors that are almost impossible to reverse today. The economic, military, and technological power of Russia, India, and China is fascinating.

The fall of unipolarity is accomplished. The world is no longer unipolar. There is reason to believe that it will most likely never be so. Unipolarity is, in essence, a bright and short divergence. It became possible due to the loss of will, self-confidence, and potential of the Soviets. The Soviet Union itself, having laid hands on itself, led to unipolarity. In fact, it was not a victory of the United States in the literal sense of the word. Yes, the Soviets in the last period of their existence turned out to be uncompetitive, but they themselves disintegrated. But over the past quarter century, much has changed in the world. The growth of the West turned out to be much faster and more ambitious than many assumed. In the liberal capitals, it was believed that the development of Asia and the East would lead to rapprochement, democratization, and Westernization of the non-Western world. In reality, it turned out that this is not quite so, and in some cases, it is radically different.

In short, developing countries outside the West are actively developing and deepening cooperation with each other. The world is becoming larger and more diverse.

Factory activity in the Eurozone expanded for the first time since mid-2022 due to domestic demand offseting the impact of U.S. tariffs.

However, mixed signals were reported over the Chinese economy, with one survey suggesting modest expansion, contradicting an official readout that showed activity continuing to shrink. Export powerhouses Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all saw manufacturing activity shrink in August, underscoring the challenge Asia faces in weathering the hit from sharply higher trade barriers erected by U.S. President Donald Trump.

In Europe, Greece and Spain led factory growth, while manufacturing in Germany shrank at a slower pace. The HCOB Eurozone Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) rose to an over-three-year high of 50.7 in August from 49.8 in July.

However, the recovery is still fragile, with inventory levels continuing to decline and order backlogs dropping. Manufacturing in Germany rose to a 38-month high of 49.8, offering hope for the economy that shrank 0.3% last quarter on slowing demand from its top trading partner the U.S.

The EU and the U.S. struck a framework trade deal in late July, but only the baseline tariff of 15% has so far been implemented.

ASIA

The S&P Global Japan Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) and South Korea’s factory activity have both fallen for the seventh consecutive month due to higher US tariffs and competition from cheap Chinese exports.

Both countries have struck trade deals with the US, which have eased pressure on their export-reliant economies. This has led to a double-whammy for Asian economies, as they face higher tariffs and competition from cheap Chinese exports.

The RatingDog China General Manufacturing PMI unexpectedly rose to 50.5 in August, exceeding the 50-mark that separates growth from contraction. This contradicts an official survey that showed activity shrank for a fifth straight month due to weak domestic demand and uncertainty over Beijing’s trade deal with the US.

Trump extended his tariff truce with China for another 90 days, withholding imposition of three-digit duties until November 10. India, which grew at a much better-than-expected 7.8% in the last quarter, continues to be a significant outlier in the region, with manufacturing activity expanding at its fastest pace in over 17 years.

With information from Reuters

The two foreign ministers presented their argument in the letter directed at EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas. They contended that the EU should impose carefully planned sanctions on Israeli government ministers and settlers of the West Bank. In addition, they demanded simultaneously new sanctions against the Hamas leadership in Gaza. The letter was dated August 27. It called on the EU to act fast. The ministers emphasized that restrictions should be imposed on those people who will encourage illegal settlement activity. Moreover, they further cautioned that ministers who act against a two-state solution need to be held answerable.

The West Bank, which is left in a state of occupation, has seen Israelis perpetrating recurrent incursions against the Palestinians. Maria Malmer Stenergard, the Swedish Foreign Minister, has been talking about it for months. She has called for sanctions on far-right Israeli cabinet officials since May. A big number of them advocate apparent annexation of Palestinian territory. This was announced by Stenergard on Thursday in Swedish public radio:sanctions need to cause such ministers to face difficulties. Her words emphasize an augmented annoyance of the situation in Europe as Israel continues to advance settlements.

The Dutch standing too has become hard. But action was postponed by internal quibbling. Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp quit last week. He was unable to give national sanctions against Israel through his cabinet. He was recently superseded by Ruben Brekelmans, who co-signed the new letter.

The ministers went further. They insisted on cessation of the commercial part of the EU-Israel association deal. However, free trade in many areas such as agriculture and industry is allowed in this agreement. Falling victim to cutting off this benefit would cost Israel extremely economically. Over the years, opponents have claimed that Israel cannot be provided with preferential trade access as it continues to expand settlements on the occupied territory. Conserving this, the Swedish and Dutch ministers now want to make that argument into policy.

In the letter, the focus is not solely on Israel. The EU foreign services are required to present additional propositions to pressurize Hamas. The organization already managing the Gaza Strip is declared as a terrorist organization by the EU and a few of the Western states.

Nevertheless, the ministers insist there is still a need for further sanctions. They are worried that Hamas continues being an important factor in the struggle. They would like to add an additional stress layer by attacking the political hierarchy of Hamas.

Furthermore, the position adopted by Pakistan is unambiguous. Pakistan identifies with the entire community of states that champion humanity, justice, and long-term peace. The foreign policy has stood firmly behind the Palestinian cause, and the country has made numerous demands for a fair and peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is the country’s position that all countries should respect international law as well as humanitarianism. Besides, to assert this is the moral duty of the world community to act firmly for the innocent civilians that are being killed and starved.

The appeal of Pakistan to the EU to act immediately and in unison is by itself essential. It is said to be essential to this move to prevent constantly recurring atrocities and implement international humanitarian law. Pakistan also sincerely requests the EU to follow the appeal concerted by Sweden and the Netherlands. The era of contemplation is over; the call to act is on.

The timing of the letter is not random. There was an official announcement of famine in Gaza by the United Nations on Friday. The UN accuses Israel of what it terms systematic defiance on the facilitation of aid. The crisis is the result of over 22 months of war that led to considerable loss of civilian lives and the destruction of many properties.

The humanitarian catastrophe has brought the appeal for more forceful steps in Europe. It has been said that assistance cannot be delivered to the needy without pressure on Israel by the politicians. Others think that the strategies of Hamas also extend the suffering.

The problem this time will be brought to the EU foreign ministers on Saturday. Proposals will be debated there by the member states. The extent to which Sweden and the Netherlands will collect support is not certain. There are those governments in the EU that like conservative diplomacy. Others fear that quotas might carve up relationships with Israel or with the United States. Yet momentum is building. Notably, the urgency has been introduced through the famine declaration.

In the EU, Sweden and the Netherlands have frequently been active participants in Middle East debates. Their last move indicates that they are ready to go to greater extremes. Accountability of settlement expansion, in the case of Stenergard, is the question. In the case of Brekelmans, it is the policies of Israel as well as the activities of Hamas.

The way they did things reflects a broader European trend. Greater information is frustrating governments that the peace process is not forthcoming. Settlement expansion is seen by many as the greatest barrier to a two-state solution. It is also claimed by others that diplomacy is compromised by the constant attacks by Hamas.

Despite these cries, the EU has internal cracks. Such nations as Germany and Hungary have always feared sanctioning Israel. France and Spain have assumed more hardline stances, but they are also wary of trade measures. Getting consensus will not come easy.

Nevertheless, the Swedish Akademisk holändsk Bulletin is a telling sign. The pressure on Israel no longer remains a fringe concept in the EU. It is entering into mainstream debate. This is in the wake of United States and Israel negotiations on post-war Gaza. Washington has called on restraint, yet it is on the side of Israel militarily. On the same day, Tel Aviv reported that a complete evacuation of Gaza City is inevitable. These trends make EU decisions more important. The sanctions would become a landmark should they be passed. The Israeli settlement policy has received many criticisms from the EU, but very few measures have been taken by the body. The most powerful thing that could be done, however, is to suspend the trade deal.

The Netherlands and Sweden have gone bold. Their open letter to Kaja Kallas asks to target sanctions against violent settlers and monopolist Israeli ministers. It also requires additional actions against the political leadership of Hamas. Also, they desire that the EU-Israel trade agreement be suspended.

The proposals come at a time when Gaza struggles with famine and when the war will turn 23 months old. The EU foreign ministers meeting in Copenhagen will debate the issue. The result may remodel the policy of Europe in the Middle East. Somehow the sanctions may pass or not pass, but one thing is evident. Increasing pressure is within the EU. The humanitarian crisis and the continuing conflict are moving governments to action. With the strikes by Sweden and the Netherlands, the issue of sanctions now rests squarely on the European stage.

American warships edging closer to Venezuelan waters earlier this year barely made global headlines, overshadowed by louder crises in Ukraine and the South China Sea. Yet this quiet buildup is not accidental. It is part of Washington’s long pattern of targeting regimes that stand at the crossroads of energy and geopolitics. Venezuela, sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, remains an indispensable square on the global chessboard, despite years of economic decay. The question worth asking is: Why does the United States persist in exerting pressure on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia and even spar with rising oil consumers like India? The answer lies in a combination of old-fashioned energy security, the logic of sanctions, and a twenty-first-century version of tariff wars.

Energy, Empire, and the Logic of Control

From the early Cold War to the Gulf Wars, American power has been tethered to oil. Securing access to hydrocarbons was never about mere consumption; it was about leverage. Whoever controlled the flow of oil controlled the arteries of the global economy. Venezuela, like Iran and Russia, belongs to the category of states with energy abundance but frail political legitimacy in Washington’s eyes. These states could, in theory, undermine the U.S.-led order by weaponizing supply.

The Trump administration revived this logic with unusual bluntness. Sanctions on Venezuela’s PDVSA, Iran’s National Iranian Oil Company, and Russia’s energy giants were not simply punitive. They were instruments of economic siege, aimed at reducing rivals’ fiscal lifelines while simultaneously making American shale oil more competitive on the global market. The “tariff war” with China, and by extension India, fit the same pattern: weaken alternative energy partnerships and redirect trade flows toward U.S.-friendly networks.

Venezuela: A Pawn or a Prize?

Venezuela is not merely an oil state; it is a symbolic battleground. For Washington, Nicolás Maduro’s survival is a reminder that authoritarian regimes can withstand Western pressure when shielded by Moscow and Beijing. For Russia and China, supporting Caracas is inexpensive but symbolically priceless: it frustrates U.S. hegemony in its own hemisphere.

This symbolism has recently translated into direct diplomatic gestures. When Washington deployed warships off Venezuela’s coast, Beijing condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty and publicly reaffirmed its support for President Maduro. India, in contrast, has been more circumspect: while historically engaged with Venezuelan crude, New Delhi stepped back from oil imports earlier this year under U.S. tariff threats, signaling its preference for strategic neutrality. These divergent responses underscore how Venezuela has become a stage where multipolar fault lines are performed in real time.

The irony is that Venezuela’s oil industry today is a ghost of its former self. Decades of mismanagement and sanctions have collapsed production to levels unthinkable in the 1990s. And yet, the reserves beneath Venezuelan soil still represent untapped potential insurance against a future where Middle Eastern supply chains might be disrupted. U.S. naval maneuvers around Venezuela send a dual message: to Caracas, that Washington retains coercive power; to global markets, that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere is not up for negotiation.

Tariffs, Sanctions, and the Shifting Global Economy

Sanctions and tariffs are often portrayed as separate instruments, but in practice they converge. By sanctioning Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, Washington narrows the playing field for global oil suppliers. By imposing tariffs on India and China, it simultaneously curbs the bargaining power of large consumers. The effect is to reinforce the role of the United States as both an energy producer (through shale) and a gatekeeper of energy commerce (through financial sanctions and naval dominance).

This strategy, however, comes with risks. Sanctions have accelerated experiments in de-dollarization, as Russia and China expand oil trade in rubles and yuan. India, caught between cheap Russian crude and American pressure, finds itself hedging. Venezuela, despite its pariah status, has quietly courted Asian markets with barter-style deals. In short, the very pressure that once guaranteed U.S. leverage is now incubating alternatives.

History’s Echoes

To understand today’s maneuvers, one must recall history. Washington’s approach to oil-rich adversaries is not new; it is a recycled script. The 1953 coup in Iran, the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1990s, and even the naval blockades against Cuba: each reflects a doctrine that energy and ideology cannot be separated.

Yet, history also reminds us that such strategies rarely yield clean victories. Sanctions tend to harden regimes rather than topple them. Tariffs often spark retaliation rather than capitulation. Recent analyses have underscored this dynamic: for instance, an Investopedia study notes that overuse of dollar-based sanctions has accelerated global de-dollarization, with the dollar’s share of global reserves dropping below 47%—as nations increasingly shift into gold, yuan, and local currencies. Venezuela under Maduro looks less like a state on the verge of collapse than a state perpetually enduring collapse, too weak to recover, too stubborn to die.

Theoretical Lens: Realism with a Neoliberal Mask

International relations theory offers a useful lens. Realists would argue that Washington is simply acting in line with its structural interests: preventing rival powers from weaponizing energy. But a neoliberal reading highlights how this coercion is cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and market freedom. Sanctions are framed as moral instruments, when in reality they are economic tools of statecraft. Tariffs are justified as corrections for “unfair trade,” though their deeper function is to secure strategic dominance.

The United States, in effect, performs a balancing act: dressing realist power politics in neoliberal language. Venezuela becomes not just a state to be disciplined but a case study in how the American order sustains itself through economic pressure rather than outright invasion.

Conclusion: A Risky Bet

The naval encirclement of Venezuela may not escalate into open conflict, but it signals a broader pattern: Washington is unwilling to let go of energy geopolitics as the anchor of its global primacy. By targeting Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and by sparring with India and China over tariffs, the U.S. reasserts its role as the central broker of oil and trade.

The gamble, however, is whether this strategy is sustainable in a world edging toward multipolarity. Sanctions fatigue is growing; tariff wars strain alliances; and new financial infrastructures are slowly eroding the dollar’s monopoly. History teaches us that great powers can overextend. The United States risks learning that lesson the hard way, with Venezuela serving less as a pawn to be cornered and more as a mirror reflecting the limits of American power.

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has been a long-term strategic collaboration between China and Pakistan. It will now be in a second phase that marks a strong change towards smaller scale projects when it comes to large-scale infrastructure and energy projects towards smaller goals that are sustainable in nature. The agenda is now industrialization, modernization of agriculture, human development and regional integration. This move will take Pakistan as an important trade and economic centre. It aimed by getting new investments and generating millions of jobs. This will change the Pakistani economy into a modern dynamic system.

CPEC Phase II centres on turning the tide to industrialization. Special Economic Zones (SEZs) such as Allama Iqbal and Rashakai are coming up to attract local and foreign investment. Such areas have incentives such as tax relief, and special infrastructure to attract businesses into the zones. It is aimed at generating about 2.2 million new jobs by the year 2030. This will directly counter unemployment in Pakistan. Likewise, it will also enhance the country to develop its industrial Base and increase export capabilities. The moving of Chinese industries to these zones will be helpful to provide a positive technology and skill transfer. Not only will this make productivity to go up but will also help curb the trade imbalance experienced by Pakistan. In addition, modernization of agriculture is another pillar of this new era. Pakistan is a country with mainly agricultural industries and will be a great beneficiary.

Chinese technology and joint venture will assist in enhancing agricultural production and in securing food. This will boost field production and enable farmers to get new markets. As an illustration, the production of high-quality cotton and mangos is already in joint venture. This will also aid Pakistan to match its 5Es economic priorities with the economic priorities of that country. The agricultural sector of Pakistan can be more efficient and competitive through adopting modern practices by using facilities such as satellite imaging and data-driven farming.

Along with building industries and the agricultural sector, CPEC Phase II is also improving Pakistan core infrastructure. A big component of this is the $6.8 billion ML-1 railway modernization upgrade. It will modernize the railway system in the country, reducing the time and expenses of travelling and transportation logistics.

This will go a long way in easing movement of the goods within Pakistan and improving reliability in regional trade. It will also cause the railway to occupy a large share of freight traffic, limit the traffic pressure on roads. The project of Gwadar port is crucial. As, it is turning out to be a huge logistics hub that would link Pakistan with Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan. This will open new trade corridors which will establish Pakistan as a regional hub. It is noteworthy that very little proportion of the national debt of Pakistan is associated to CPEC projects that contradicts the debt trap narrative and points to the long-term sustainability of this project.

In addition, Phase II is concerned with human development. This is critical in the regard of making sure that the CPEC benefits will be inclusive. The plan contains schemes of poverty alleviation, education, healthcare systems expansion, and women employment. Such endeavours are meant to enhance the life of common Pakistanis. They will also give the locals the much-needed skills and the possibilities of engaging in and gaining advantage of the new economic activities. As another example, vocational training facilities will be set up in Gwadar Port to train locals in skills that are required in its operations. This concentration on human capital maintains that the increase discoursed by CPEC is not socio-economic alone but fair as well.

The project also addresses geopolitical issues by means of being transparent and diplomatic. Pakistan and China collaborate to eliminate the doubts and preserve the overall perception of the project having all the positive qualities of a reciprocally beneficial move. Special 12,000 strong security force and local outreach programs to resolve local grievances especially in Balochistan, are deployed to protect CPEC infrastructure. The multifaceted security approach enhances the project to be long term and successful. To sum up, CPEC Phase II is a cohesive plan to transform the Pakistan economy. It is a strategic alliance that will lead to long term growth, new jobs in millions of people, and lead to strengthening of Pakistani role in international trade and regional connectivity.

Phase II of CPEC is the new direction in the Pakistani business. It is now on the industrialization, modernizing the agriculture and human development. SEZ is aimed at providing attraction and creation of millions of jobs by attracting investment. Historic improvements in the ML-1 railway line and Gwadar Port will improve connectivity in the region. The new phase holds an opportunity of economic sovereignty and long-term sustainable and inclusive growth of Pakistan. It shows its long-time dedication toward healthy and successful future. This is an evident shift towards a contemporary dynamic economy.

Background

Norway heads to the polls on September 7-8, 2025, in a closely fought general election that could reshape both domestic economic policy, as well as the wider European energy landscape. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store’s Labour Party, in power since 2021, seeks to extend its rule after eight years of Conservative-led governments. Labour governs as a minority with backing from both the Socialist Left and Centre Party.

What Happened?

The election places the centre-left bloc led by the Labour Party against the centre right, dominated by the populist Progress Party and Conservatives.

Inequality and taxation top the list of Nordic voter concerns, followed by cost of living pressures, job security, and food price inflation (5.9% over the past calendar year).

Labour promises stable taxes, though allies push for higher rates on the wealthy; Conservatives and Progress advocate deep tax cuts across all income levels.

The campaign has also been shaped by debates surrounding Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, oil and gas exploration, and power exports to Europe.

Why It Matters:

Norway is Europe’s leading gas supplier, replacing Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The election outcome could determine whether new oil and gas fields are opened or restricted, with consequences for both domestic revenues and Europe’s energy security. In addition, political control over the sovereign wealth fund could reshape debates about Nordic investments, including calls from the Socialist Left to divest from companies with links to Israel’s actions in Gaza. Energy policy and fiscal direction will not only shape Norway’s future but also ripple across the European Union, where stability of gas flows and power exports are closely monitored and viewed as a key commodity.

Stakeholder Reactions:

Socialist Left Party: Urgently demands divestments tied to Israel’s war in Gaza as a condition for backing the Labour Party in the next government if they were to emerge victorious.

Labour Party: Rejected the demand but may face pressure to revisit it post-election depending on both the landscape of the Gaza conflict and overall party productivity in regards to addressing the concerns of the everyday Nordic citizen.

Smaller Parties (Liberals, Greens): Deeply divided on oil exploration, some pushing for expansion with controls to ensure domestic revenue inflows, others calling for tighter restrictions or eventual phase-outs to become a greener economy.

EU observers: Undoubtedly watching closely as Norway debates limiting electricity exports, which would breach single market rules established by the Union.

What’s Next/

Election days: September 7-8, with polls closing September 8th at 1900 GMT.

Results: Early exit polls expected the same evening; final outcome could possibly take until September 9th to be announced.

Likely Scenarios: A continued Labour-led minority government, or a centre-right coalition led by Conservatives or Progress Party.

Wider Implications: Coalition negotiations will decide Norway’s position on tax policy, sovereign wealth fund investments, oil and gas exploration, and electricity exports, with consequences for both domestic voters and European partners.

With information from Reuters

Resource competition has intensified between the two great powers, the US and China, due to trade and tariff wars. Recently, both the countries have made major policy shifts in the strategically significant rare earth sector.

China discreetly issued 2025 rare earth mining and smelting quotas to its state-owned enterprises, exhibiting deepening securitization of this sector. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) previously used to make the announcement public on their website.

The Pentagon became the largest shareholder in MP Materials after buying $400 million worth of stocks. It indicates expanding involvement of the US government in the domestic rare earth industry since MP Materials operates the sole mining facility in the US. This move faces severe backlash, with critics comparing it with China’s approach to market intervention.

Consequently, China has intensified its efforts to maintain overarching dominance over the global rare earth market, and the US strives to claw back its control over strategically important raw materials.

Quick guide to rare earth complexities

Rare earth elements (REEs) are a group of seventeen metallic elements. Their requirement in high-tech applications in medicine, the military, and green technologies is indispensable. The REEs are not so rare, as the name suggests. Yet the real limitation lies in locating them in clusters for economic viability. All the more difficult is smelting, separating, and processing these elements.

China is the net importer of REEs, mining 70%, with the rest being extracted by Myanmar, Australia, and the United States. However, China enjoys a near-monopoly in processing 90% of the rare earths globally.

Over the years, China has built self-sustaining rare earth supply chains domestically. That implies managing upstream extraction to midstream processing and, to a greater extent, even downstream manufacturing.

Just as access to oil shaped global geopolitics during the last century, access to rare earths is shaping current geopolitics in this great power competition. And China is weaponizing its preeminence over REE supply chains by tightening its control to offset the US.

China’s control over rare earths came with a huge brunt.

China discovered the strategic value of REEs in the formative years of building the country’s economic base. China has been investing heavily in the R&D since the discovery of rare earth deposits in Bayan Obo, Inner Mongolia, in 1927. Today, it holds the rank of largest known deposit of REEs and constitutes over 90% of China’s entire reserves.

Deng Xiaoping’s signature policy of 1978 is credited for kick-starting the opening up of the Chinese economy and integrating China into the global market. As a cherry on top for Chinese authorities came the “environmental decade” in the 1970s in the United States, marked by dozens of environmental legislations.

Rare earth extraction and processing have severe environmental repercussions. Certainly, US private firms were in search of a scapegoat to outsource environmental costs and exploit cheap labor.

Chinese authorities were willing to face the brunt of ecological damage for speedy economic growth. It turned out that the short-term economic interests overshadowed the long-term strategic interests of America. 

What exacerbated the matter was illegal and unregulated mining of rare earths. The parallel economy flourished as global consumption for rare earth multiplied year on year. Chinese authorities have taken cognizance but struggle to put a stop to these activities.

China has doubled down on its efforts to curb unlicensed extraction and harden the compliance systems facing immense pressure from Trump’s tariff war.

Chinese market manipulation tricks came in handy.

By the 1990s, bifurcating prices of rare earths for the Chinese domestic market and international market had compelled many US businesses to shut down.

China carried out price manipulation in two tiers. First, it made sure to service its domestic needs by selling at cheaper rates than the products that were being exported. Second, pricing it underneath the other global firms in the international market but higher than the domestic price levels.

In the beginning, this created incentive for international companies to establish their manufacturing units in China. But eventually almost all firms went bankrupt, losing their competitive edge against Chinese SOEs.

In addition, China has been consolidating its rare earth assets to raise its global competitiveness and pricing power. In Dec 2021, three mega SOEs were merged to form a megafirm, China Rare Earth Group. Today, only two mega conglomerates are operating: China Rare Earth Group and China Northern Rare Earth Group. In fact, export quotas are entrusted to only these two mega firms.

Export quotas introduced in 1999 have expanded and tightened over the years. Though year-wise mining and smelting quotas have increased, the annual growth rates see a downturn. This time not disclosing the quotas publicly for ‘security reasons’ will exacerbate uncertainties in the international market. It seems like a calculated strategy of Chinese authorities to maintain their stronghold over the global market of rare earths but making sure to provide enough to maintain dominance.

Some scholars do articulate China’s policies to clamp down on its rare earth industry from a different lens, essentially, to address domestic interests. The Chinese authoritarian state is caught up in securing control and increasing production efficiency.

Trump responding vigorously to counterbalance Chinese dominance

The Pentagon becoming the largest stakeholder of MP Materials to cushion a strategic sector is nothing unusual. The US government and its agencies have a history of getting involved in sectors of national and economic significance. This underscores the fact that great powers have historically used market distortions as a tool to uphold their supremacy.

Establishing a cutting-edge supply chain with like-minded states would take over a decade and cost well over a trillion dollars in that period. Americans have to catch up on the long road ahead that the Chinese took decades to build. Therefore, Trump initiated the first-of-their-kind policy measures to hasten up the catching-up process. These policy initiatives are aimed at enhancing collaboration for clean energy technologies, building resilient supply chains, and reducing dependencies.

On April 30, 2025, the US and Ukraine signed a long-awaited minerals deal. Trump’s ambition to gain control over Greenland, a strategically located island in the Arctic, to the extent of using military force wasn’t just about national security. Rather driven by desire to control rich untapped resources, including rare earth minerals, copper, gold, uranium, iron, oil, etc.

Trump’s efforts will take years to bear fruit. Prior to that, the US must build an investment-friendly environment. A report by consultancy S&P Global found that on average it takes nearly 29 years to build a new mine for the critical minerals in the US, the second-longest in the world. The process to obtain a mining permit is lengthy and confusing, which harms efforts to counterbalance China’s near-dominant positioning.

world of weaponized interdependence

Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman argue cold war animosity was replaced by a new world of networks that accentuated harmonious relationships. They suggest countries are more entwined than ever, but rather than easing hostilities, interdependence is used by states against their adversaries.

Great power competition is being increasingly impacted by what they called “weaponized interdependence.” China’s dominance over the supply lines of rare earths gives it the edge to fight this battle for long.

Background / Context
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers curbed Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The agreement has largely unraveled since the U.S. withdrawal in 2018, and with key provisions set to expire on Oct. 18, France, Britain and Germany ,the so-called E3,  have warned they may trigger the reimposition, or “snapback,” of U.N. sanctions unless Iran resumes compliance.

What Happened
Senior Iranian and E3 officials are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Tuesday.

The E3 have set conditions: a resumption of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), accounting for Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and renewed diplomatic engagement.

They have said they will decide by the end of August whether to revive sanctions, though a short extension remains possible if Iran shows progress.

The talks come after U.S. and Israeli strikes in June destroyed or damaged Iranian enrichment sites. Iran has since barred IAEA inspectors, citing safety concerns, and the status of its uranium stockpile remains unclear.

Why It Matters
The outcome could determine whether Iran faces the return of broad U.N. sanctions, deepening its economic isolation, or whether limited diplomacy revives the stalled nuclear framework. Western officials fear Tehran is edging closer to weapons-grade enrichment. Iran, while denying it seeks a bomb, had enriched uranium to 60% and held enough stock for several potential weapons before the strikes.

Stakeholder Reactions

E3 official: “We are going to see whether the Iranians are credible about an extension or whether they are messing us around. We want to see whether they have made any progress on the conditions we set.”

Iranian official: “Due to the damage to our nuclear sites, we need to agree on a new plan with the agency and we’ve conveyed that to IAEA officials.”

Western diplomats: Privately suspect Tehran is buying time and dragging talks out.

Tehran: Warned of a “harsh response” if sanctions are reimposed.

IAEA: Says it cannot confirm Iran’s program is peaceful, but has no credible indication of a coordinated weapons effort.

What’s Next
The Geneva talks will test whether Iran is prepared to resume inspections and engage diplomatically or risk a snapback of sanctions before the Oct. 18 deadline. The E3 are expected to decide by the end of this week whether to move forward with sanctions, grant a short extension, or continue talks.

With information from Reuters.