opinion

The instability of Afghanistan has again become the focus of the international discourse not as the local issue but as a global crisis on the rise. In fact, the Afghan Taliban regained power in 2021. Since then, the nation has steadily fallen into unrestrained anarchy that provides a breeding ground for extremist organizations, drug dealers, and systematic violators of human rights. It is not a plunge into Kabul or Kandahar alone, but it pours beyond borders and influences regional games and even surpasses continent. It is now time that the world recognizes that the crisis that plagues Afghanistan is a security issue of a global nature. Since all the aspects of the crisis are interdependent and all together connected in a network of terror groups, drug trafficking systems and humanitarian catastrophes.

The most imminent of them all would be the unabated revival of the terrorist groups in Afghanistan. The lawless borders have been used by such groups as Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP), Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) which took advantage of Taliban weaknesses. Such networks do not remain limited to the territory of Afghanistan.

Indeed, they plan cross-border strikes that undermine stability in Pakistan, menace the Xinjiang province of China and even spark individuals in wolf attacks in Europe. A danger of such strategic mistakes is the likelihood of Afghanistan being the breeding ground again as it used to be in the pre-9/11 era when extremists trained and operated freely. In absence of control this revival would further spread terror once more all over the world.

The aspect of the crisis that could not be overlooked is narcotics production. Among them is Afghanistan whose establishment as the largest producer of opium in the world is now giving place to its emergence as a new source of synthetic drugs like methamphetamine. UNODC reports this growth puts an intimidating twist. In contrast to classic opiates which have predominated in Afghanistan drug markets over the past decades, methamphetamine is simple to manufacture, transport and even more addictive.

Drug use has increased by 23 percent in the last 10 years with 296 million new users on a global scale. The situation which worsened is the incidence of individuals with drug use disorders increased to 39.5 million with a 45 percent increase (UNODC). These numbers prove that the Afghan instability is not a localized problem, and they are contributing to a growing global narcotics industry one that emboldens organized crime and funds terrorism.

Amid the overarching reality of terrorism and drugs the population in Afghanistan particularly women and minorities are confronted by a crisis too. After the Taliban seized power they deprived women of education, did not allow them to go to workplaces, and deprived them of such fundamental rights as freedom of movement. The systematic undermining of purity and prospects has gone on to create a humanitarian disaster. There is targeted discrimination and violence against minority communities that deteriorate the social fabric of Afghanistan. The human rights groups fear that such policies will drive generations of Afghans into despair, poverty and enforced migration. Such a lack of opportunity will just expose vulnerable groups to the recruitment of extremist recruiters and traffickers.

The insecurity that emanates out of Afghanistan is not geographically localizable. Pakistan on its other side is dealing with an empowered TTP which carries out attacks across the border and Central Asian countries fear infiltration by militants. China is faced with risks to its Belt and Road Initiative investments, and Iran works against more refugee flows and trafficking routes. Europe has already reported the threat of so-called narcoterrorism seeping west putting whole regions of the world in turmoil and ultimately onto European streets and European markets. Resigning these red flags can result in recurring the historical mistakes, i.e., making Afghanistan a global insecurity centre in the 1990s.

No complacency can be afforded by the international community. Afghanistan is a poisonous cocktail of extremism, drug trafficking and gross human rights violations that is a direct threat to international security. There should be a global response an integrated approach to counterterrorism, sanctions against drug traffickers, the humanitarian assistance to the Afghan civilians and the pressure on the Taliban to respect the basic rights. The regional stakeholders Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia and Central Asia will have to come on board with the Western powers and international organizations and design a strategy forms. Turning a blind eye to Afghanistan is no longer an option the consequences of inaction will be felt in South Asia and in Europe and beyond.

The chaos that Afghanistan is going through is not a far-fetched war but a definite threat to international peace and security. Everyday challenges to counteract this crisis remain unacted, terrorist networks prosper, and narcotics industries seize new land and human suffering grows. Unless the world is willing to open its eyes Afghanistan is in grave danger of becoming an international permanent source of destabilization and of a bad form between terror, drugs and repression that will become a lasting worldwide crisis. It is much cheaper and better to prevent action today than to pay the cost of regret tomorrow. 

Japan has one combined distinctive goal on the African agenda—investment, trade, and development. This was indicated explicitly in most all speeches and presentations at the three-day development conference, from August 20 to 22, in Japan, attended by African leaders and top-level entrepreneurs, where Tokyo offered a multifaceted agenda as an alternative to other key players competing for spots across the continent, which is described as wealthy in untapped natural resources. Africa’s human resource is huge, while the estimated population of 1.4 billion people constitutes the largest consumer market in the Global South.

In the simple words of UN head Antonio Guterres, Africa has everything it takes to become the latest economic power, as he assertively called for greater investment, especially in the economic sectors across the resource-rich continent. Guterres, in his speech, underlined the fact that Africa needed increased concessional finance and greater lending capacity from multilateral development banks.

“Africa must have a stronger voice in shaping the decisions that affect its own future. We must mobilize finance and technology so that Africa’s natural wealth benefits African people; we must build a thriving renewables and manufacturing base across the continent,” Guterres said at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD).

Over the past decade, the United States’ and Europe’s investments have drastically fallen, while Russia, as a latecomer with tectonic anti-Western criticism, is currently struggling to locate its roadmap into the continent. For years, China has invested heavily in Africa, with many of its companies already there having signed deals worth hundreds of billions of dollars to finance several projects under Beijing’s Belt and Road global infrastructure initiative.

As expected, African countries grappling with rapid geopolitical changes are at the same time making the right pragmatic choices from among the tremendous emerging opportunities. African leaders are indiscriminately searching for sustainable investment and trade relations, even with the United States after Donald Trump slapped on them trade tariffs. Further to that, many African leaders, including Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, and Kenyan President William Ruto, are feverishly negotiating for the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

In his opening address at the forum on August 20, Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba announced a plan to train 30,000 people in artificial intelligence in Africa over three years and to study the idea of a Japan-Africa Economic Partnership. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba also announced a vision for a distribution network to link African and Indian Ocean nations. Under the Indian Ocean Africa economic zone initiative, Japan aims to bring investment into Africa from Japanese companies operating in India and the Middle East.

The Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) has strengthened business and investment in the region and promoted free trade by connecting the Indian Ocean region to the African continent. “Japan believes in Africa’s future,” Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said. “Japan backs the concept of the African Continental Free Trade Area,” which aims to bolster the region’s competitiveness.

As part of practical steps toward strengthening economic partnership, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said Japan would extend loans of up to $5.5 billion in coordination with the African Development Bank to promote Africa’s sustainable development and to address their debt problems. Amid the current intensifying global competition for influence, Japan’s concrete allocation of funds demonstrated its presence as a long-term reliable partner ready to invest, and more importantly with credibility, across Africa. It is noticeable that Japanese firms are promoting resonating large-scale investment in infrastructure, technology, and industrial development. 

According to the August edition of the Diplomat magazine, Japanese officials have signed major agreements in Angola, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), including a $1 billion commitment to mineral exploration and production. Tokyo plans to expand its network of bilateral investment treaties to provide greater legal certainty for Japanese investors. Ultimately these agreements, combined with Africa’s ongoing efforts to implement the African Continental Free Trade Area, could unlock significant new flows of capital and trade. The magazine’s article indicated that at TICAD 8, held in 2022 in Tokyo, mostly operating through a model of partnered engagement, Tokyo offered Africa an amount of $30 billion in investment under a ‘three-year period’ that ended in 2025.

On the future free-trade deals between Japan and African countries, Japan’s biggest business lobby, Keidanren, noted that Tokyo must work to win the trust of developing countries with loan guarantees and investment incentives for Japanese firms. “By actively contributing to solving the social issues faced by countries in the Global South, Japan must be chosen as a trustworthy partner,” Keidanren said in a policy recommendation in June.

“The debt and liquidity crisis on the African continent is worsening the challenging socio-economic environment and constraining the fiscal space for governments to cast a safety net over their citizens,” Ramaphosa’s office said in an official statement coinciding with the conference.

The three-day high-level summit held in Yokohama, near Tokyo, focused on the economy as well as peace and stability, health, climate change, and education. Leaders and representatives from about 50 countries from the African continent, as well as officials from international organizations, stakeholders, non-profit enterprises, and business executives, participated. The summit participants adopted the “Yokohama declaration,” which was announced as part of the final summit outcomes at the media conference. The TICAD summit was last held in Tunisia in 2022. According to historical documents, Japan launched the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in 1993.

“A nation that destroy its soils, destroy itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.” _ Franklin D. Roosevelt

Human activities are causing climate change, which is certainly a sad reality. Through our own hands, we are all equally responsible for destroying our motherland, like burning fossil fuels, which is causing a long-term shift in Earth’s average weather patterns. Numerous other acts are leading to a range of influences, including rising sea levels, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and disturbances to ecosystems and human social order. Scientists predicted that global temperature will increase from human-made greenhouse gases, which will increase and intensify severe weather damage. What? Scientists predicted a long time ago we are seeing its effects already, such as sea level rise, the loss of sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, and more intense heat waves. The possible future effects of worldwide climate change consist of an increase in the wind intensity and rainfall from tropical cyclones, longer periods of drought in some areas, and more frequent wildfires. The more concerning fact is that some changes, such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall, are happening quicker than what scientists have assessed previously. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body established to assess the science associated with climate change, today’s generation has never observed changes like this in their global climate before, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

“The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human well-being and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a livable future.” _ (INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE)

Scientists show their concern over climate; if it continues to warm, then the intensity of hurricane-associated rainfall rate will increase. We will see in upcoming years that drought and heat waves are expected to become more penetrating and cold waves less penetrating and less frequent. If the current projection holds, the Arctic Ocean will likely become essentially ice-free in late summer due to the sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean being expected to continue decreasing. While scientific models are powerful tools for predicting future climate scenarios, uncertainties remain. Factors such as natural climate variability, solar activity, and oceanic cycles sometimes make long-term predictions challenging. These uncertainties highlight the need for continued research to refine models and improve their accuracy. Climate change threatens biodiversity at an unprecedented rate. Rising temperatures and shifting weather patterns are altering habitats, pushing many species toward extinction. The collapse of ecosystems like coral reefs and rainforests could have far-reaching consequences for food chains and human livelihoods. Despite scientific warnings, achieving global consensus on emission reductions remains difficult. Delays in policy implementation risk locking the planet into higher levels of warming, making adaptation more costly and less effective in the future.

“Climate change does not respect borders; it does not respect who you are—rich or poor, small or big. Therefore, this is what we call global challenges, which require global solidarity.” _ BAN KI-MOON

To prevent our planet from global warming and heal it, we all need to work in solidarity, as Ban Ki-moon said in his quote. We need to switch to renewable energy like solar, wind, and hydropower instead of fossil fuels. It is important to protect existing forests to maintain biodiversity and carbon sinks. Need to restore wetlands and mangroves, as they store large amounts of carbon and protect coastlines. It is better to adopt climate-smart farming practices like crop rotation and organic farming. We need to minimize single-use plastics and promote recycling. Use energy-efficient buildings with proper insulation and green rooftops. Methods such as geoengineering should be used for solar radiation management but with great caution. For a clean fuel alternative, the use of green hydrogen would be a much better option. The international agreements, like the Paris Accord, set global emission targets. To support climate research for better solutions and innovations.

CONCLUSION

The scientific concerns regarding climate change go beyond rising temperatures; they encompass melting ice sheets, biodiversity loss, extreme weather, and uncertainties in predicting future impacts. While progress has been made in understanding the crisis, the growing evidence suggests that immediate, collective, and science-driven action is essential. Climate change is not just an environmental issue—it is a global challenge demanding urgent attention from policymakers, scientists, and societies worldwide. Individual efforts to reduce global warming are that we should conserve energy by switching off lights and electronics when not in use. Also, using energy-efficient appliances, such as LEDs, solar panels, etc. We can use sustainable transport like public transport or cycle, carpool, or walk if distances are not too long. We all need to participate in afforestation or community gardening projects. Plus, eat more plant-based foods and reduce meat and dairy consumption to lower methane emissions. The most important thing that we all need to do is to spread awareness by educating others about climate change and supporting eco-friendly policies.

From NATO’s eastern frontier to the energy corridors of the Baltic, the partnership between Poland and the United States has become one of the most strategically consequential alliances of the 21st century. Forged through shared values and hardened by crisis, it’s a relationship that transcends party politics in both nations and speaks to a larger truth—namely, that while alliances can lead to instability and war, as shown by the interlocking obligations before World War I, alliances, whether bilateral or multilateral, can also promote international stability by deterring conflicts, enabling collective defense, and fostering cooperation and trade among member states.

Poland proves the point. Its journey from Soviet satellite to NATO membership in 1999 and European Union accession in 2004, following a decade-long process of integration and negotiation involving extensive political, economic, and legal preparations, is a story of determination and alignment with Western democratic principles. The drive toward NATO membership was reinforced by citizen advocacy and steady diplomacy, with the Polish-American community playing a quiet but influential role in building bridges between Warsaw and Washington. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates there are nearly nine million Americans of Polish ancestry, making it one of the largest ethnic groups in the country.

From the outset, Poland understood that sovereignty in the modern era requires not only democratic governance but also a credible place within a collective security framework. Joining NATO was a strategic declaration that Poland’s future was bound to the transatlantic community. And it is precisely through NATO that the U.S.–Polish relationship contributes most visibly to international stability.

Response to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Poland responded with clarity and speed, welcoming millions of Ukrainian refugees, supplying critical military aid, and urging allies to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. Due to its geographic location bordering Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian exclave Kaliningrad, Poland took a proactive stance to bolster its defenses and NATO’s regional presence. Poland launched a $2.5 billion national defense initiative called the “East Shield” that was specifically aimed at strengthening the country’s roughly 418-kilometer border with Belarus and 232-kilometer border with Kaliningrad—representing some of the EU’s easternmost external boundaries—which serve as key frontlines for the bloc’s security and border control.

 By shoring up NATO’s credibility and demonstrating readiness to act, Poland helped reduce the risk of wider escalation across Europe.

The U.S.–Poland defense relationship deepened accordingly. American troops are now a permanent presence on Polish soil. The U.S. Army’s V Corps forward command in Poznań, which operates from Camp Kościuszko—named for Tadeuscz Kościuszko, a national hero in both Poland and the U.S.—is responsible for coordinating and overseeing U.S. ground forces deployed in Europe. Missile defense systems such as Aegis Ashore strengthen NATO’s deterrent posture, and joint training exercises have become routine. These measures bind U.S. power to Poland’s geography, creating predictability in Europe’s most volatile region.

Poland’s overall defense spending speaks volumes. It’s approaching five percent of national GDP—more than double NATO’s longstanding benchmark of two percent of GDP for defense expenditures—and Poland’s procurement of Abrams tanks, “shoot-and-scoot” HIMARS rocket systems that are designed for rapid deployment relocation, and F-35 fighter jets ensures interoperability with U.S. forces. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put it during a February 2025 press conference in Warsaw, Poland is a “model ally on the continent, willing to invest not just in their defense, but in our shared defense and defense of the continent.”

Transcending Party Politics

The relationship transcends party politics in both capitals, having remained robust under Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington—Trump, Biden, and now Trump’s second term—as well as across successive Polish governments of differing political orientations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has reaffirmed that “Poland’s commitment to transatlantic relations and NATO must remain unquestionable,” regardless of political shifts in the U.S.

National security isn’t confined to the battlefield. Poland recognized early on that energy independence is a cornerstone of sovereignty, and it has acted decisively to cut reliance on Russian natural gas. The liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Świnoujście, which is named after Polish President Lech Kaczyński, who prioritized energy security, now receives regular LNG shipments from the U.S., while the Baltic Pipe project brings natural gas from Norway and strengthens regional supply diversity. Looking ahead, nuclear energy partnerships with American firms promise long-term stability and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

This alignment in energy policy enhances Poland’s resilience while advancing broader U.S. goals of promoting secure, market-based energy in Europe. In strategic terms, an LNG tanker docking in Świnoujście is more than commerce. It’s a visible symbol of transatlantic solidarity.

Contrasting Russian Reactions

Russia’s reaction to Poland’s NATO membership stands in striking contrast to its view of Ukraine’s Western aspirations. When Poland joined NATO in 1999, Moscow voiced strong opposition, arguing that NATO’s eastward expansion threatened Russian security. Apart from diplomatic protests and some hostile rhetoric, however, Russia ultimately conceded Poland’s accession as a fait accompli. Moscow maintained cooperative channels with NATO and Poland, even as relations were strained. Poland, with its long history of independence struggles and clear Western orientation, was not seen as part of Russia’s cultural or political sphere. Moreover, by the time Central Europe was firmly integrated into NATO, Russia had little leverage to reverse the process.

Ukraine, however, occupies a different place in Moscow’s worldview. Russia regards Ukraine not only as a strategic buffer on its border but also as central to its own identity and history. Unlike Poland, Ukraine is portrayed in Russian narratives as a “brother nation” whose alignment with the West represents a profound geopolitical and cultural loss. For this reason, Russia tolerated NATO’s enlargement to Poland and the Baltics but drew the line at Ukraine, seeing its aspirations for NATO and EU membership as a direct existential threat, responding with annexation, proxy wars, and, ultimately, full-scale invasion. The contrast underscores the strategic weight of Poland’s alliance with the United States.

For Poland, it’s a relationship rooted in hard history: the loss of independence from 1795 to 1918, when the country was partitioned among Prussia, the Hapsburg monarchy, and Russia; the devastation of Nazi occupation; the long shadow of Soviet domination; and decades of Communist rule. That experience forged a national resolve that sovereignty can never be taken for granted and must be anchored in strong alliances. Today those alliances—most of all with the United States—are essential pillars of stability in Europe.

In a span of a week, global politics had gotten some big headlines. Last Friday, Putin and Trump met in Alaska. The anticipated summit was the talk of the world for quite a while. Speculations to determination, the summit was an icebreaking summit for US and Russian relations. Especially the way President Donald Trump was dealing with Putin with threats and showing a little turn towards a hard line against Putin; however, that hard line again turned into “Brozone” in a three-hour meeting. Initially, it was meant to happen for seven hours. The meeting happened to end the war in Ukraine. After the meeting, nevertheless, there was no peace deal and no commitment. Trump deliberately passed the ball into Ukraine and Europe’s court.

Fast forward to Monday, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, with his European counterparts, arrived at the White House. Five European leaders and the secretary general of NATO, along with European Commission leaders, were the participants in this summit. What was the result this time? Well, unlike the last time, when Trump hosted Zelensky in the White House back in February, this time, Zelensky wasn’t bashed for any reason. The meeting was held with all the big names without any disruption, and European leaders knew just the weapon to use against Trump to keep Trump on their side: the art of diplomacy through “flattery.” Still, there was no peace deal or anything. The European leaders thought this time they might sway Trump to go harsh against Putin, which ultimately failed.

Trump, from the very beginning, was determined about some parts in the deal. Ukraine won’t be taken into NATO, and Ukraine must forget about Crimea, which he sees as a fault of the Obama administration. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s appointed special envoy in the Middle East, who basically arrives in every conflicting part of the world as a peace-bringer as Trump’s ambassador, mentioned a part that’s now a cornerstone of the security agenda. Witkoff mentioned “something like NATO’s Article 5.” NATO Article 5 states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all members, obligating each ally to take necessary action, including armed force, to assist the attacked party and restore security. It’s a profound part of NATO and what makes this military alliance different from every other alliance that’s out there. In the Alaska summit, Putin has agreed on some kind of “robust security arrangements” to secure the peace deal. So basically, Ukraine might secure its security by not joining NATO; however, there’s a catch. When Witkoff said something like “Article 5,” does it necessarily mean they are going to implement Article 5?

Here the debate comes. Something like Article 5 and implementing Article 5 don’t mean the same thing. And Witkoff wants European contribution to this security to play a bigger role. As Trump mostly follows a “unilateralist policy,” he doesn’t want to be the firsthand guarantor in the security arrangements. Whereas, the European leaders want to see Donald Trump playing a bigger role in this context. The EU already took a big initiative to spend on a military budget higher than ever, reaching 5% of the whole budget for every country before 2031. Back in March, the EU proposed “Sky Shield” for Ukraine. The European Sky Shield for Ukraine is a proposed European-led air protection strategy designed to defend western and central Ukraine from Russian missile and drone attacks during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “Sky Shield” aims to protect critical infrastructure, including Ukraine’s operational nuclear power plants, major cities like Kyiv, Lviv, and Odessa, and vital economic corridors. The plan would not include operations in the eastern parts of Ukraine; however, it hasn’t materialized yet.

Trump saw the Russia-Ukraine war as Biden’s war, which he never wanted to drag on in the first place. Before being elected, he boasted about ending the war in Ukraine. Though, he couldn’t stop the war after seven months. This is quite a stigma on his “Peacemaker” appearance. Trump was seen to have fallen out with Putin, even tariffing a major ally, India, for buying Russian crude oil. From almost falling out, the Alaska summit again showed Trump’s humility with Vladimir Putin.

European leaders couldn’t budge Trump from his unwillingness to get involved in the Russia and Ukraine war. There was a motion to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine from the UK and France. But they couldn’t find their other allies beside them. Germany, Italy, and even Poland rejected the idea of sending their troops to Ukraine, not even as peacekeepers. The US isn’t backing up Ukraine with military and financial aid, likewise the Biden era. Europe has already surpassed the US’s financial aid to Ukraine and is soon going to surpass it in the military sector. In any of the scenarios, there is no sign of a security deal or any comprehensive peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine. And every week, Russia is taking up more land in the Donbass region. It already occupies 20% of the land in Ukraine, and there is no sign that they want to give the land back to Ukraine. Experts are rigid in the idea that Putin won’t give the lands back it occupied. Neither will Ukraine accept a Russian-compelling peace treaty. So the stalemate is firm.

Trump has announced there will be a trilateral summit with the Ukrainian president and Russian president. As the security guarantee fades away and the Russian army occupies more lands every week, the war looks far away from ending. A treaty like the 1994 “Budapest Memorandum” won’t be accepted by the Ukrainian side; likewise, the Minsk agreement won’t be accepted by Ukraine and the EU. The demand is something solid and binding. Some are talking about a “Reassurance Force” that will secure Ukraine and Europe too, or an “Ironclad” agreement like the US-Japan and the US-South Korea security mechanisms. Till the next summit, the world awaits to see a peace deal being activated at the border of Europe.

 Tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration on Southeast Asian nations—effective August 7, 2025—are likely to have a significant impact on the economies of the region. The second-quarter growth figures of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam would have brought some relief for all these countries. For long, ASEAN countries have benefited immensely from globalization and reasonable global geopolitical stability—especially stable ties between China and the US—and in recent years even from the China+1 policy of several companies—especially western ones—which sought to reduce their dependence upon China.

In the current economic and geopolitical situation, however, the ASEAN region faces multiple challenges due to the global turbulence, and countries in the region are devising tools to deal with the economic uncertainty.

Apart from diversifying economic relations, countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam are all focusing heavily on domestic spending. While Vietnam is focusing on infrastructure, Indonesia, under the leadership of Prabowo Subianto, is focusing heavily on welfare schemes, which include an ambitious free nutritious meal program, setting up of rural cooperatives, free health check-ups, and the construction of three million homes. During his first state of the nation address, the Indonesian president said:

‘Our goal of independence is to be free from poverty, free from hunger, and free from suffering.’

For 2026, Indonesia is likely to raise public spending to $233.92 billion. The free meal program will receive $20.7 billion. Prabowo’s ambitious plan to develop 80,000 rural cooperatives is also likely to incur massive public expenditures.

Focus on welfare and the impact of infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

In the case of Indonesia, the spending on welfare schemes has also resulted in lesser allocation towards Nusantara—the new administrative capital proposed by Prabowo’s predecessor, Joko Widodo, referred to as Jokowi. The reason for setting up a new capital was infrastructural and logistical problems in the current Indonesian capital—Jakarta. Nusantara, located in the East Kalimantan region of Indonesia, was chosen due to its geographical location and the fact that it may help in addressing disparities between the eastern and western parts of the country. While Jokowi had committed over $5 billion for the development of Nusantara, between 2022 and 2024, his successor has committed a little more than half the amount for the period between 2025 and 2029.

Unlike Jokowi, who focused heavily on the infrastructure sector, Prabowo Subianto is focused more on welfare. This is a major departure in terms of economic policy. Lesser focus on Nusantara could have several implications. First, according to many observers, it could send the wrong message to investors. Second, it may have domestic political ramifications. The Nusantara project was a brainchild of Jokowi, and it remains to be seen how the former president views the slowing down of the project.

In conclusion, ASEAN countries are being forced to explore new economic approaches and focus more on spending. As mentioned earlier, some ASEAN countries like Vietnam are focusing heavily on infrastructure, while Indonesia is expanding welfare programs. While focusing on the same is important, it remains to be seen what approach the current dispensation adopts vis-à-vis the Nusantara project, which is very important in terms of messaging to investors. It also remains to be seen whether the slowing down of the project will have any impact on Indonesia’s domestic politics.

At the invitation of India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi paid an official visit to India on August 18th and 19th. The visit is being considered as a significant step for the restoration of Sino-Indian bilateral relations. On the first day of his visit, Wang Yi sat for a meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. In the meeting, Jaishankar stressed building a stable, cooperative, and forward-looking relationship between India and China, and differences between the two states must not turn into disputes. Then Wang Yi stressed that China and India should strengthen the momentum of improving bilateral relations, expand cooperation, and provide much-needed certainty and stability. The next day, Wang Yi met Ajit Doval to attend the 24th round of Border Talks. Both Doval and Wang emphasized maintaining peace and tranquility in the border areas for the well-being of the Sino-Indian bilateral relations. Before departure, Wang Yi called on the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and handed over the invitation from China’s president to India’s prime minister for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit being held in Tianjin, China.

For some years, due to some issues, including border tensions, there has been a kind of coldness in the bilateral relations between the two states. Especially after the Galwan border clash in 2020, the bilateral relations between the two states turned highly complicated. Then both states had deployed a large military presence close to the border. In addition, both states imposed several sanctions on one another, including cutting off direct flights, visa restrictions, banning social media apps, etc.

The situation started to change last year when India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and China’s President Xi Jinping held a direct bilateral meeting at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia. This was the first direct meeting between the heads of the governments of the two states after the Galwan border clash. Since the meeting, both states have started withdrawing their troops from sensitive areas of the border. Some meetings have been held between officials from the foreign and security affairs of both states. Both parties have emphasized normalizing the relations between the two states and increasing cooperation. This was the first major move for the realignment of the Sino-Indian bilateral relations.

For the second major move, US President Donald Trump has played a big role. His reciprocal tariff policy has encouraged both India and China to come close. Trump imposed a 50% tariff on several key Indian products. On the other hand, China is also in discomfort with Trump’s trade policy, though negotiation with the US is still going on regarding tariff issues. It is creating pressure on the Chinese economy.

Despite the economy, Trump’s geopolitical strategy is also pushing India and China to walk in an aligned way. After the Pahelgam attack, India did not get expected support from the US. Rather, Pakistan has gotten an advantage from the US, including a lower tariff than India and a warm reception of Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, in Washington and Tampa back-to-back within two months after the Pahelgam attack. 

On the other hand, China has huge discomfort with the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) of the US. Through the Quad alliance, the US is trying to create pressure on China’s supply chain in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s dispute with the US over Taiwan is on the way to growing. In addition, the growing US military presence in the South China Sea has become a major concern for China.

From there, it can be well understood that the US’s tariff policy and geopolitical strategy have become a common issue of discomfort for both India and China at this moment. As a result of all of these, the two immediate neighboring states have started to realize that partnership rather than rivalry between them can be useful for their mutual benefit.

As part of the partnership, both states have already started to take several initiatives. Both states have agreed to operate direct flights between them. Visa restriction is taking back from both sides. China has agreed to supply fertilizer and a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) to India. Recently China has allowed resuming the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra for Indian pilgrims. India has agreed to open its market for Chinese investment. According to a Reuters report, China promises to address India’s rare earth mineral needs.

Last month Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaisankar visited China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization foreign ministers’ summit. This was Jaisankar’s first China visit after the border clash.Now China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi has made a visit to India. In the call with Wang Yi, Narendra Modi confirmed that he will visit China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit at the end of August.High officials’ visits like these indicate the intention and effort to normalize relations from both sides.

While the apparent initiatives taken by the two states for the realignment of the bilateral relations should be considered in a positive way. But it must be kept in mind that there are several major and complex obstacles standing in the way of a complete stabilization of the relationship between the two states. For example, just as India is uneasy about China’s Dalai Lama and Pakistan policy, on the other hand, China is also uneasy about India’s expansion of regional influence and effective involvement in the Quad alliance. In addition, there is still no stable solution to the border problem. In this scenario, both states have to come forward with equal effort and willingness for their mutual benefit. 

A stable and cooperative Sino-Indian relationship has far-reaching benefits not only for both states but also beyond. Regional and global economic growth, security, and connectivity are deeply intertwined with the activities of these two states. Economically, China is the world’s second largest economy, and India is the fifth largest. In terms of military strength, China is the third and India is the fourth. Besides, both states are the most populous states in the world. Therefore, if these two states can resolve their differences through diplomatic means and move forward together in partnership, it will bring mutual prosperity not only to them but also to the regional and global scales. For this, realignment between the bilateral relations of the two states is highly required. Recent visits and several initiatives taken by the two states can be considered as significant moves of the realignment. And if the realignment takes place properly, then Dragon and Elephant can dance together.

The viral claim that ASEAN warned Indonesia of possible disintegration by 2030 due to endemic corruption was swiftly debunked. No such statement appeared in the May 2025 ASEAN Summit documents nor in the World Bank’s official publications. However, its widespread circulation exposes a deeper unease—one rooted in the undeniable truth that corruption remains a corrosive force, weakening Indonesia’s economic foundations, threatening public trust, and undermining regional integrity.

This episode is more than a fact-checking exercise. It underscores a sobering reality: while Indonesia remains Southeast Asia’s largest democracy, its governance architecture is visibly strained. From chronic procurement fraud to weakened anti-graft institutions, the Indonesian state has yet to tame the entrenched networks of clientelism and political patronage that siphon national wealth and public trust alike.

The 46th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur instead highlighted ‘Inclusivity and Sustainability’ as its 2045 vision—aspirations that cannot be realised unless the region tackles systemic governance failures. And nowhere is this more urgent than in Indonesia, where economic leakage, institutional decay, and digital disinformation form a toxic triangle.

Recent research paints a stark picture. Corruption is estimated to drain Indonesia of 2–3% of its GDP annually, amounting to tens of billions in lost services, distorted investments, and inflated procurement budgets. Inflation eased to 1.6% by year-end 2024 (2.3% average) and remained within the 2.5 ± 1% target corridor in 2025—testimony to tight policy coordination between Bank Indonesia and the government. Transparency International ranked Indonesia 37 out of 100 in its 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index—lagging behind ASEAN peers such as Vietnam and Malaysia. The World Bank’s Control of Corruption indicator placed Indonesia at –0.49, well below the global average.

The local impact is even more severe. Field studies show that in provinces where corruption exceeds certain thresholds, economic growth slows dramatically. Procurement funds vanish. Schools and hospitals are underbuilt or shoddily provided. Meanwhile, decentralisation reforms, intended to empower local government, have instead multiplied the number of hands skimming public budgets.

What does this mean geopolitically?

First, Indonesia’s capacity to lead the region as ASEAN’s de facto heavyweight is compromised by domestic governance weaknesses. Political capture by economic elites stifles reform. Recurrent scandals—some reaching into defence procurement and public infrastructure—fuel public cynicism and blunt Jakarta’s credibility when promoting regional norms of transparency and the rule of law.

Second, ASEAN’s credibility suffers. For all the talk of a rules-based order, corruption undermines the region’s soft power. If democratic erosion and institutional decline persist in member states, ASEAN risks becoming a hollow vessel for lofty declarations. The disinformation surrounding Indonesia’s supposed 2030 ‘collapse’ may be false, but its virality hints at waning confidence in ASEAN’s integrity.

Third, the digital ecosystem accelerates distrust. The viral ‘ASEAN warning’ narrative spread rapidly across Southeast Asian platforms. While easily disproven by reading the summit communiqué, few do. This reveals the new battleground: disinformation thrives when formal institutions lose moral authority. Where trust erodes, conspiracies take root.

What’s needed is not another ASEAN statement, but tangible action on governance resilience. Three avenues stand out.

ASEAN must initiate a Regional Integrity Compact—a binding, independently monitored governance framework that benchmarks anti-corruption reforms across member states. Inspired by the OECD’s Anti-Corruption Network, this compact should integrate real-time procurement tracking, sectoral red-flag indicators, and transparency scorecards linked to UNCAC compliance. A designated unit within the ASEAN Secretariat, working alongside neutral data partners, must publish annual reports accessible to civil society, investors, and member parliaments alike. Only through enforceable metrics—not rhetorical declarations—can ASEAN restore credibility in its governance ambitions.

Indonesia’s leadership in ASEAN hinges on the restoration of independent prosecutorial authority. The rollback of the Corruption Eradication Commission’s (KPK) powers since 2019 has severely compromised public trust. This must be reversed through emergency legislative amendment to reinstate its wiretapping capacity, shield it from executive interference, and ensure prosecutorial continuity. Pilot programs should be deployed for independent project audits in high-risk sectors like infrastructure and defence, backed by civic oversight dashboards. No ASEAN leadership claim can be sustained if Indonesia cannot clean its own house.

Australia and Japan—both leading ASEAN dialogue partners—must anchor a new Strategic Governance Partnership for the Indo-Pacific. This initiative should target forensic accounting training, secure whistleblower systems, and regional ombuds institutional support, particularly in fragile democracies. By aligning with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, such a partnership would counteract opaque foreign investment and safeguard institutional resilience. As Beijing’s economic influence grows, a values-based governance bulwark is not merely ideal—it is indispensable.

Indonesia is not Sri Lanka. It retains a pluralist system, growing GDP, and an active civil society. But the Sri Lankan collapse remains a cautionary tale: corruption-fueled inequality, elite impunity, and opaque debt deals led to mass revolt and institutional failure. The same fault lines—if left unaddressed—exist in Indonesia.

Moreover, as Southeast Asia navigates a more contested Indo-Pacific, governance is no longer a domestic issue; it is strategic. Poor governance undermines resilience, emboldens foreign interference, and weakens regional cohesion. To dismiss the viral ‘disintegration’ claim as mere misinformation is to miss the signal in the noise.

ASEAN’s 2045 vision will be built not in summits but in procurement offices, audit bureaus, and independent courts. Indonesia’s leadership depends not only on its economy or geography, but on its willingness to confront the rot within. The disinformation storm is a symptom. The cure is integrity.

In 2012, when President Xi Jinping first coined the term “Chinese Dream”, it was seen as a patriotic call for national revival, a promise was made to restore China’s lost historical pride after a century of humiliation. The narrative of this analogy was powerful and emotionally resonant. Domestically, it stirred unity, strength and pride. Internationally, it was framed as a peaceful vision of shared prosperity in the foreseeable future..

Surprisingly, a decade later, the Chinese Dream has transformed into something far more tangled and complex, and very contradictory. Although Beijing continues to  promote the notion of Chinese Dream as an amiable blueprint for progress and development, nevertheless it also projects a growing assertive foreign policy that raises questions about the true intent of the Dream i-e: Is China’s vision one of joint development, or does it cloak a strategic push for dominance?

China’s ambitions regarding the tensions between peaceful rise and nationalistic assertion are now the heart of global unease. This analogy of Chinese dream might have still inspired many Chinese, but for the world outside China, it is beginning to look more like a dilemma. Moreover these contradictions are no longer just theoretical they are unfolding in real time. For instance, China’s increased military activity off late (2025) near Taiwan and its expanding assertiveness in the South China Sea have clanked the Indo-Pacific. Fears of confrontation are ignited by naval incursions, coast guard problems and air defense drills, while the Philippines and Japan are seeking broadened security ties with the US. Meanwhile, the China–US rivalry ended up intensifying on new fronts, especially in AI, quantum computing, and semiconductor supply chains, signaling that technological dominance has become a new battle ground for China to pursue its strategic vision of rejuvenation, whether it’s the recent American export limitations on advanced chips or Beijing’s retaliatory curtailment on rare earth elements.

In order to completely comprehend the Chinese Dream and its motives, one must trace back to its historical roots. The “century of humiliation” that is identified by colonial invasions, unjust ententes, and foreign assertiveness left a deep imprint on China’s collective consciousness. Communist Party of China (CPC) has marked itself as the soldier that would restore China’s once lost dignity since 1949. But under President Xi, this narrative has been positioned as a  national mission for a longer time: rejuvenation/ rebirth.

However, rejuvenation in this context isn’t just about China’s lost pride and economic growth but it’s more about being on top of the global hierarchy because it’s China’s right to be a global leader. This dream was initially confined to national revival but now it’s propagating beyond its traditional spheres, and this new dimension of this Dream has profound implications for foreign policy. China’s claim of a “Near Arctic State”, it’s leadership role in AIIB and BRICS, investment in Latin America and Africa lately sheds light on it’s global ambitions and the deliberate effort to shape global governance structures and asserting influence internationally. 

The question that arises here is that, whether this Dream actually aligns with global peace as claimed by China or not. Xi has consistently emphasized on “win-win cooperation,” for  a shared and cooperating future of the world system. Global endeavors like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are marked as tools for connectivity, collective progress and development.

Yet behind the literal meaning of this language lies a more complex and calculated strategy. For instance, the BRI has been lagging due to the constant criticism for opaque deals and debt traps etc. This criticism has deeply sharpened recently. In 2024–25, certain countries like Kenya, Malaysia, and Italy either rearranged or withdrawn from the BRI projects, due to obscurity and debt sustainability. There’s a growing discomfort regarding China’s approach to infrastructure diplomacy globally. China’s increasing propagation towards different continents often brings not only infrastructure but also an expanding political influence and economic dependence.

Another worrying aspect of this increasing global dominion by China is it’s actions in the South China Sea, and it’s policies towards ethnic minorities and the brutality in Uyghurs, and the way China has been handling dissent at home is contrary to the harmonious image it seeks to  project in the international arena. The questions is, Is the Chinese Dream of national revival merely a soft power element layered over hard power objectives? Most know the answer.

Neo-realism makes this trajectory of China’s foreign policy seem less ambiguous. It’s the same old tale of survival and power maximization in an anarchic global system.In this sense, the Chinese dream is a strategic doctrine disguised in cultural rhetoric. 

China’s military advancement, tech capabilities, aggressive border posturing and parallel global organizations I-e: AIIB all reflects a far more significant goal: reshaping the global BOP in China’s favor, which is not illegitimate as that’s how all the great powers operate in the international system to gain influence, however, it does challenges China’s notion of a peaceful actor. 

Here the dream becomes a dual use instrument, internationally it justifies China’s strategic expansion and domestically consolidates legitimacy for the CPC.  For instance, the on going AI and semi conductor war with the US, along with the naval brinkmanship near Taiwan sheds light on China enforcing it’s Dream through deterrence rather than diplomacy.

There’s another contradiction i-e: reconciling nationalism at home and claims of cooperation and development abroad. To explain this further, the Dream is a reassembling cry for unity, historical justice and strength. President Xi has positioned himself as the defender of this vision, and in order to do so, has tapped into springing up nationalist sentiments. And any discerned compromise with the international powers would be seen as a weakness- by the Chinese. Nevertheless, China is chanting the melodies of multilateralism and peace, by speaking the language of diplomacy while practicing coercion. This duality of the Chinese dreams inspires citizens at home but at the same time alarms foreign policy makers. Hence the widening credibility gap.

China’s Dream has often been met with caution and skepticism in the international arena. US has openly called this Dream a “strategic competition”. Moreover, EU has always been open to engagement and partnerships but now empathizes “de-risking”, while India, Japan, ASEAN countries and Australia are strengthening their ties and diversifying their supply chains.  Even, from Pakistan, the so called iron brother of China, resistance has risen. The 2025 protests in Baluchistan specially Gwadar over economic segregation and security risks has challenged the entire motto of CPEC as a mutual win. 

Africa and Central Asia has shown growing concerns as well regarding the consequences of long term dependency on Beijing beside the fact that these states are China’s traditional partners. China so far has stood its ground and retained influence through development and diplomacy but its assertive posture is, in the meantime eroding the trust genuine leaderships requires.