Among Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) numerous diplomatic initiatives is his aspiration to position China as the leader of the Global South, a goal that puts him in direct competition with India. Many nations in the Global South have received investments and trade from China, but their sentiments toward China and the US are not particularly favorable, perceiving them as overbearing partners.
In contrast, under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India offers a less domineering approach. Instead, it presents a willingness to listen to shared grievances, and a commitment to diversifying and influencing global policy.
One of Xi’s qualifications for the role of leader of the Global South is that he leads the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which encompasses at least 150 countries, including most of the Global South.
On Modi’s list of credentials is India’s presidency of the G20. His leadership at the G20 summit in New Delhi, attended by more than 100 developing nations, received acclaim. The BRI, by contrast, has been the target of criticism because of its Beijing-centric nature and the disproportionate benefits derived by China.
India has not only refused to join the BRI, but has also criticized it. Italy, the most developed member of the BRI, has officially pulled out, and many members, including developing countries, have stopped accepting loans or have rejected BRI projects.
The Hamas attack on Israel has tested both countries’ global leadership. Immediately after the attack, India released a statement supporting Israel. In contrast, China refused to condemn the attack and later condemned Israel’s retaliation. Consequently, the Middle East is a region where China is gaining ground.
Beijing normalized relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization, signing a strategic partnership in June.
Even before the Hamas attack on Israel, Beijing was growing closer to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Since the attack, Xi has condemned the US’ support for Israel, a stance designed to make China more popular among Muslim leaders.
China’s aggressive stance toward Taiwan has put a number of countries, including India, on edge, raising concerns of war with China. Additionally, China’s aggression in the South China Sea has driven countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines to strengthen their defense ties with India and the US. New Delhi has also increased its defense cooperation with Thailand and Japan.
The focus of India’s defense engagement with Japan is on building resilience against China in the East and South China seas. Working together with Japan, Australia and other allies, India is increasing maritime security initiatives directed at countering China’s militarization in the disputed zones, as well as preventing China’s resource exploitation in the Pacific.
ASEAN is the most important grouping in the developing world and, consequently, is crucial to China’s leadership, but China’s militarization has brought these nations closer to India. Last year marked the inaugural ASEAN India Maritime Exercise, which successfully concluded in the South China Sea.
Simultaneously with India gaining ground, China is also making territorial advances, employing force if necessary. Last year, China exerted pressure on Bhutan for an exclusive border agreement, potentially creating leverage against India in the event of a strategic setback in the contested Doklam plateau.
By the end of the year, satellite imagery revealed that China was occupying Bhutanese territory in the Jakarlung Valley, a part of the Beyul Khenpajong region. Beijing is also urging Bhutan to establish formal relations with China, disregarding Bhutan’s longstanding policy of not forming relations with permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Historically, Bhutan has allowed India to serve as an intermediary in its relations with the US, and India also functions as the tiny nation’s security guarantor. Consequently, Bhutan could become another direct point of conflict between New Delhi and Beijing, as Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops have already been deployed to the annexed territories and Bhutanese citizens have been barred from entry.
Given its proximity to the tri-junction point where the borders of Bhutan, China and India converge, the Jakarlung Valley is a critical area.
As India’s geopolitical importance expands, it is receiving invitations to join or lead international organizations and groups. India, along with the US, was the only external party invited to participate in the Pacific leaders’ meet-up, which included more than 18 Pacific nations and territories. This invitation holds significance as the US and India are members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which is focused on securing the Indo-Pacific region in response to China’s influence.
The US was once closer to Pakistan than to India, but a shift in Washington’s focus is apparent in its differing levels of engagement with the two South Asian nations. The White House has refrained from confronting India on human rights abuses in Kashmir and heightened state repression in the country. Instead, US President Joe Biden invited Modi to a community summit in Houston, Texas, in April last year.
A notable example of the differing nature of Washington’s engagement with the two South Asian nations became evident in the official Independence Day greetings issued by the US. The message to India was directly conveyed by Biden, reaffirming their shared commitment to advancing global peace and security. In contrast, the communication to Pakistan came from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, focusing solely on areas such as student exchanges, while omitting defense-related aspects.
As Pakistan aligns more closely with Beijing, China benefits from Islamabad’s shifting allegiance. Pakistan, burdened with significant debt to Beijing, is increasingly leaning on its relationship with China.
In addition to China’s economic support, the two countries are enhancing their defense cooperation.
Countries in the Global South find themselves at a crossroads, compelled to decide between aligning with China or India for leadership. China presents itself as an anti-colonial alternative to the West, which might resonate with certain nations.
However, critics argue that nations choosing China might be exchanging a perceived colonial influence for Beijing’s tangible economic dominance.
However, in Beijing’s favor is its ability to provide a substantial volume of economic assistance, trade and investment, which India cannot match.
On the other hand, countries seeking a mediator for negotiations with the developed world might lean toward New Delhi. Despite remaining somewhat outside the US sphere, India enjoys a more favorable relationship with the US and the West compared with China.
China’s aggressive foreign policies are causing a growing rift with the US, the EU and the G7, pushing countries aligning with China further away from the Western bloc. Opting for India, by contrast, represents a relatively benign decision that does not entail distancing from the West.
Antonio Graceffo, a China economic analyst who has a China MBA from Shanghai Jiaotong University, studies national defense at the American Military University in West Virginia.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS