India fully committed to making constructive contributions together with BRICS countries: PM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Ahead Of New Talks, Iran Blames Europeans For Nuclear Deal Collapse
Tehran: Tehran blamed European powers on Monday for the failure of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal, accusing them of breaking commitments ahead of renewed talks in Istanbul with Britain, France and Germany. The 2015 agreement -- reached between Iran and UN Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany -- imposed curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. However, it unravelled in 2018 when the United States, during Donald Trump's first term as president, unilaterally withdrew and reimposed sweeping sanctions. Though Europe pledged continued support, a mechanism intended to offset US sanctions never effectively materialised, forcing many Western firms to exit Iran and deepening its economic crisis. "Iran holds the European parties responsible for negligence in implementing the agreement," said foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei ahead of Friday's talks in Istanbul with Britain, France and Germany on the deal's future. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan spoke by phone Monday to discuss the talks, Fidan's office said, confirming the date had been set for Friday. Iran will also host a trilateral meeting today with Chinese and Russian representatives to discuss the nuclear issue and potential sanctions. The Chinese foreign ministry said Beijing would "continue to play a constructive role in pushing relevant sides to restart dialogue and negotiations, and reach a solution that takes in account the legitimate concerns of all parties". In recent weeks, the three European powers have threatened to reimpose international sanctions on Tehran, accusing it of breaching its nuclear commitments. Germany said the Istanbul talks would be at the expert level, with the European trio, or E3, working "flat out" to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution. "If no solution is reached by the end of August... the snapback also remains an option for the E3," said its foreign ministry spokesman, Martin Giese. A clause in the 2015 agreement allows for UN sanctions on Iran to be reimposed through a "snapback" mechanism in the event of non-compliance. However, the agreement expires in October, leaving a tight deadline. - 'No intention of speaking with America' - The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed country currently enriching uranium to 60 percent -- far beyond the 3.67 percent cap set by the 2015 accord. That is a short step from the 90 percent enrichment required for a nuclear weapon. Using the snapback clause was "meaningless, unjustifiable and immoral", Baqaei told a news conference, arguing that Iran only began distancing itself from the agreement in response to Western non-compliance. "Iran's reduction of its commitments was carried out in accordance with the provisions outlined in the agreement," he said. Western powers -- led by the United States and backed by Israel -- have long accused Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly denied this, insisting its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes such as energy production. Tehran and Washington had held five rounds of nuclear talks starting in April, but a planned meeting on June 15 was cancelled after Israel launched strikes on Iran, triggering a 12-day conflict. "At this stage, we have no intention of speaking with America," Baqaei said Monday. Israel launched a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis on June 13, targeting key military and nuclear facilities. The United States launched its own strikes against Iran's nuclear programme on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz.
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Indian Express
How BRICS is chipping away at the Western order
The recent 2025 BRICS summit, held in Brazil, did not appear dramatic on the surface. There were no loud declarations or confrontations. However, the agenda was quietly ambitious, and the message it sent was unmistakable – the West no longer has a monopoly on how the world should work. BRICS is quietly rewriting some of the rules of global politics. From de-dollarisation to alternative development models, it is increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order. One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government. Countries can agree on rules, but no one can force them to follow them. This is what some international relations scholars call an 'anarchic system,' not because it's disorderly, but because there is no overarching authority to enforce rules. Countries act in their own interests. Cooperation happens, but it's often fragile. Power matters. Strong states often do what they can. Weak ones suffer what they must (Recall the Melian Dialogue from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War). Power is distributed unevenly, and when a few countries have more of it, they tend to shape the rules in their favour. The Western-led liberal international order grew out of this system after World War II. The US, along with its allies, built a network of institutions, like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, that reflected its values and priorities. This order was based on free markets, democracy, and above all, the dominance of the US dollar in global finance. For a while, that order worked – at least for the West. But now, the rest of the world is starting to ask why a system created in 1945 should still define the rules of the 21st century. For a long time, emerging powers like Brazil, China, India, and South Africa largely accepted this structure. However, with the global economic landscape shifting and the world becoming more multipolar, they are pushing back. BRICS is the most visible platform for that push. One of the loudest messages from the BRICS summit in Brazil was about de-dollarisation. It sounds technical, but it's deeply political. This idea has been gaining ground for some years, but recent events, especially the weaponisation of financial systems through sanctions, have brought it to the forefront. The issue is that most global trade and finance depend on the US dollar. When India buys oil from Russia, it usually has to pay in dollars. When Brazil takes a loan, it often does so in dollars. When China invests abroad, the transaction typically moves through dollar-based systems like SWIFT. This gives the US not just financial influence but also political leverage. At the Brazil summit, countries once again floated the idea of a BRICS currency – not an immediate project, but a signal of intent. In the meantime, they are promoting trade in local currencies. Russia and China already conduct over 80 per cent of their trade in Roubles and Yuan. India has begun using rupees for some transactions with Iran and Sri Lanka. India and the UAE have begun settling some oil deals in rupees and dirhams. The New Development Bank, created by BRICS, is now issuing loans in local currencies to avoid dollar exposure. This is not just about saving on transaction costs. It's about creating freedom from a system that many in the Global South see as tilted against them. This is not going to be easy. The US dollar dominates because it is stable, widely accepted, and backed by a deep financial system. But the fact that BRICS countries keep returning to this topic shows how deep the frustration runs. De-dollarisation may not happen overnight, but the intent is clear – reduce exposure to a system controlled by Washington. BRICS claims to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed. The group presents itself as a voice for the Global South. It talks about fairer development, more inclusive trade rules, and reforms in global institutions. It also backs concrete alternatives. The NDB offers loans without the political strings often attached to IMF or World Bank funding. BRICS countries are exploring joint investments in infrastructure and clean energy. There's talk of creating a BRICS rating agency to counter the dominance of Western credit rating firms. BRICS also pushes for reforms in the UN Security Council and the World Bank's voting rules to give more voice to emerging powers. Here, Brazil, India, and South Africa play a bridging role. They are democracies with growing economies, often seen as more acceptable faces of BRICS to other developing countries. China brings deep pockets and strategic weight. Russia, increasingly isolated from the West, is strengthening its ties with non-Western partners. This effort to build new platforms and institutions reflects a shared frustration that the rules of the global system are often written elsewhere, by people who don't face the same challenges as those in the Global South. Together, BRICS is trying to change not just policies but also the narrative about what kind of development is legitimate and who should lead. Notably, international relations theory can help us understand why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why it matters. Realism Realism, one of the oldest schools of international relations, sees power as the main force shaping global affairs. States act primarily in their own interest. Institutions and alliances matter only if they help countries protect or expand their power. From this perspective, BRICS is not a community of like-minded nations but a strategic arrangement – a balancing act against Western dominance. When Russia promotes de-dollarisation or China supports the NDB, they are not guided by ideals of fairness or cooperation. They are responding to the realities of power politics. A good example of this logic came after the US froze Russian central bank assets following the Ukraine war. Many countries saw how exposed they were if their reserves were held in dollars. The concern wasn't ethical. It was practical. It was about survival. Liber theory On the other hand, liberal theory, which posits that cooperation is possible and institutions matter, would argue that if the global order is unfair, countries will attempt to establish new institutions. That's exactly what BRICS is doing by creating alternatives to Western-run systems, not through war, but through investment, banking, and trade. It believes that the way to change the system is to create better alternatives within it. The NDB isn't just a protest against the World Bank. It's a real bank giving loans, financing projects, and developing regulations. That's classic liberal theory in action – solving global problems through cooperative institutions. Constructivism Constructivist theorists go a step further. They argue that power is not just about money or military strength, but about ideas. It's also about whose story is seen as legitimate. BRICS challenges the idea that Western liberal democracy is the only valid model of progress. It says there are many ways to grow and that the West doesn't have a moral monopoly. BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. When BRICS leaders speak of 'mutual respect' and 'non-interference,' they are offering a different political culture – one that appeals to countries tired of lectures from the West about democracy and governance. Whether this rhetoric matches reality is debatable, but the narrative matters. These theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive views. They all help explain why BRICS is doing what it's doing and why the West is starting to take it more seriously. However, none of this means that the Western-led order is collapsing. The US dollar still dominates global trade and finance. Western-led institutions still make the rules. The US still has unmatched military power. Western technology and capital continue to dominate global supply chains. At the same time, BRICS has its own internal differences. China and India are locked in border tensions. Russia is diplomatically isolated. Brazil and South Africa are wary of being seen as backing an anti-Western front. The NDB is still small compared to the World Bank. However, the system is no longer a one-way street. Something is shifting. The fact that major economies are even talking about bypassing the dollar or creating their own financial systems was unthinkable two decades ago. The fact that they are acting on it, even though cautiously, means the world is entering a new phase. This isn't about tearing down the West. It's about making space for the rest. The BRICS summit in Brazil didn't create headlines because it didn't need to. It was not designed to shock. It was designed to show that the world is no longer waiting for change from the West. It is building change elsewhere. One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government, prompting some international relations scholars to call the international system 'anarchic'. Comment. How is BRICS rewriting some of the rules of global politics, and increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order? BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. Evaluate. By claiming to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed, BRICS presents itself as a voice for the Global South. Do you agree? How do theoretical perspectives, realist, liberal, and constructivist, help explain why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why the West is starting to take it more seriously? (The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Economic Times
12 hours ago
- Economic Times
Debt-ridden Pakistan is about to face a PKR 6,552,700,000,000 bomb in a few months
Pak in Debt: Pakistan is facing a $23 billion external debt repayment bill this fiscal year, the highest in its history. Nearly half of the federal budget is now going to debt servicing. Even as Islamabad seeks bailouts and rollovers from allies like Saudi Arabia and China, the government continues to spend billions on defence deals. With no guaranteed relief and increasing pressure from lenders, Pakistan's financial future is hanging by a thread. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Lifeline or liability? $12 billion in temporary deposits $5 billion from Saudi Arabia $4 billion from China $2 billion from the UAE $1 billion from Qatar Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads $11 billion still to pay regardless $1.7 billion in international bond repayments $2.3 billion in commercial loan payments $2.8 billion to multilateral creditors including the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank $1.8 billion in bilateral loan repayments Debt now consumes nearly half of federal budget Military spending continues despite fiscal strain Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A crisis years in the making Pakistan has kicked off its new fiscal year with a massive repayment bill of over $23 billion in external debt, The News reported, citing the Pakistan Economic Survey 2024–25. The government must settle these payments during 2025–26, and failure to do so could place the country on the edge of the end of March 2025, the country's total public debt stood at Rs 76.01 trillion. That includes Rs 51.52 trillion in domestic borrowing (roughly $180 billion) and Rs 24.49 trillion (around $87.4 billion) in external loans. The external debt is made up of two parts: money borrowed by the government and funds drawn from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).This debt has built up over years of economic mismanagement, stop-gap funding, and repeated bailouts. But this year's repayment demand has exposed just how little room the government has left to the $23 billion Pakistan must repay this year, $12 billion comes in the form of temporary deposits from four so-called friendly nations, as reported by PTI. These are:These funds are not permanent and are only useful if rolled over. If any of these countries decide to pull out, Pakistan will be forced to pay them back in full this News cautioned, 'The situation can worsen if friendly countries refuse to grant rollovers on their deposits, which would make it compulsory for the government to make payments.'This leaves the government heavily dependent on diplomatic goodwill, not financial strength. And there are signs that even goodwill is wearing if all the temporary deposits are extended, Pakistan must still cough up around $11 billion in repayments to external creditors this year, as reported by PTI. This includes:This pressure comes at a time when Pakistan's foreign reserves are already under stress. The country has limited sources of fresh income and is still waiting for a new extended programme from the has earmarked Rs 8.2 trillion for domestic and external debt servicing in its 2025–26 budget. That figure makes up 46.7 per cent of the total federal budget of Rs 17.573 simply, nearly half the money Islamabad plans to spend this year is going towards repaying old is now less left for development, public services, or even basic maintenance of existing infrastructure. Education, health, and social welfare continue to take a backseat while interest payments dominate national this bleak financial outlook, Pakistan's defence expenditure has not slowed. While seeking bailouts and rollovers, the government has pressed ahead with large arms has finalised a strategic partnership with Turkey, which includes a $900 million drone deal and more than 700 loitering munitions. The partnership also covers intelligence sharing and broader security alliance has been described as one meant to 'do jihad against India' by military sources cited in reports. There are also ambitious trade goals of $5 billion tied into the Pakistan is reportedly acquiring 40 J-35A stealth fighter jets from China, supposedly at a discounted deals reflect the enduring priority given to military parity, particularly with India, even as the country's own economy remains current position is the result of decades of reckless borrowing, lack of fiscal discipline, and a powerful military establishment unwilling to scale military, which has long seen itself as the guardian of national stability, has also been a major recipient of foreign aid and loans. Much of that money, critics say, has gone not into productive assets or economic upliftment but into defence and result is a hollow economy, propped up by emergency funding, foreign deposits, and repeated IMF Pakistan hopes for another round of diplomatic backing, there's no guarantee this time. Saudi Arabia has already begun demanding more reform and transparency before offering further help. China, facing its own economic headwinds, is also proceeding more even one major depositor refuses to roll over its funds, Islamabad will have no choice but to pay. And with limited reserves and few avenues for quick capital, that could lead to further economic distress or forced now, Pakistan is racing the clock. The first repayments are due in a matter of months. And there's little sign of a long-term fix in sight.(With inputs from PTI, IMF)
