From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye
Today’s about: Australia, China, China-Taiwan, Climate Action, Europe, Gaza, India, India-Chagos, Japan-Europe, Middle Corridor, Pakistan, Russia’s War of Aggression on Ukraine (and beyond), Slovakia, UK-China, US-Asia, US-Houthis, US-Saudi Arabia
Australia
(Daniel Flitton – The Interpreter) Australia’s election campaign formally kicked off today, with a vote to be held on 3 May. Labor, under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, presently holds a narrow majority in parliament, with Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s Liberal-Nationals Coalition aiming to make it the first government since the 1930s to lose after a single term. But a swathe of independents could also push Australia towards the unusual, although not unprecedented, position of minority rule. A tense international scene forms the backdrop to this campaign. US President Donald Trump’s tariffs will be one debating point, especially if Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme is targeted. But I wouldn’t expect anything as extraordinary as Canada’s overnight declaration from new Prime Minister Mark Carney, also in the midst of an election campaign, that “the relationship Canada had with the United States … is over.”. Foreign diplomats in Canberra will be scrambling over the coming five weeks to chart the contours of the campaign and report to their home countries. While they don’t get a vote, they will have preferences about which party they prefer to govern Australia. – If foreign countries could vote in Australia’s election, which box would they tick? | Lowy Institute
(William Leben – The Strategist) How Australia funds development and defence was front of mind before Tuesday’s federal budget. US President Donald Trump’s demands for a dramatic lift in allied military spending and brutal cuts to US foreign assistance meant that a discussion was unavoidable. The difficult politics of increasing defence spending in Europe continues, and the British government has cut aid to pay for a rise in its defence budget. This is an important discussion, but we ought to be considering investment in Australia’s strategic posture as a whole. – Australia’s international spending reveals uneven ambition | The Strategist
(Raelene Lockhorst – The Strategist) Two blueprints that could redefine the Northern Territory’s economic future were launched last week. The first was a government-led economic strategy and the other an industry-driven economic roadmap. Both highlight that supporting the Northern Territory is not just an economic necessity; it is a national security imperative. By aligning defence priorities and economic development, Australia can ensure the Northern Territory is a resilient and self-sufficient pillar of our national defence strategy. – Northern Australia’s economic revival can support defence readiness | The Strategist
China
(Cheryl Yu – The Jamestown Foundation) The People’s Republic of China (PRC) frames people-to-people exchange programs as benign cultural and educational efforts, but in reality, they serve to advance the Chinese Communist Party’s agendas—such as the “community of common destiny for mankind”—and bolster the PRC’s geopolitical aims. While the United States typically encourages open, pluralistic participation in exchange programs, its PRC counterparts are vetted, trained, and guided by state-controlled narratives, creating an asymmetry that places U.S. institutions at a disadvantage. Programs like “100,000 Strong” and entities such as the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) illustrate how PRC-linked individuals and organizations embed themselves in U.S.-PRC exchanges, promoting the Party’s message while maintaining a veneer of independence. The Party’s whole-society approach—integrating government, academia, business, and non-governmental organizations—underscores the political nature of these exchanges. Recognizing the coordinated, strategic intent behind them is crucial for a more balanced and transparent framework of engagement. – The Party’s One-Way Approach to People-to-People Exchanges – Jamestown
China – Taiwan
(William Matthews – Chatham House) There is a storm brewing across the Taiwan Strait. China has increased its military activity around Taiwan and deployed new landing barges in the South China Sea, while the counter-influence policies of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te and shifts in US rhetoric are viewed as provocations by Beijing – fuelling a vicious circle of tensions. Beijing has long hoped for the ‘peaceful reunification’ of Taiwan with mainland China, but has repeatedly stated that it will not renounce the use of force to achieve unification if necessary. While Beijing’s ideal long-term strategy is to pressure Taiwan to unify without the need for conflict, the emerging pattern of its actions suggests that it increasingly believes that forceful intervention could be necessary. – China’s military build-up indicates it is serious about taking Taiwan | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
(Nathan Attrill – The Strategist) The threat of a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan dominates global discussion about the Taiwan Strait. Far less attention is paid to what is already happening—Beijing is slowly squeezing Taiwan into submission without firing a shot. Instead of launching a full-blown attack, China is ramping up a full spectrum of coercion: political meddling, economic pressure, information operations, legal manoeuvres, cyberattacks and diplomatic isolation, all conducted within the pressure cooker of constant military threats. The goal? Wear Taiwan down bit by bit until it has no choice but to give in to Beijing’s demand for unification. – To counter China’s coercion of Taiwan, we must track it better | The Strategist
Climate Action
(Nilanjan Ghosh, Sharon Sarah Thawaney – Observer Research Foundation) Despite the growing acknowledgement of the importance of climate adaptation in the Global South, adaptation finance still receives unequal treatment in the climate action financing portfolio, especially compared to mitigation finance. The importance of adaptation, therefore, needs to be continuously reiterated in various forums. While the net-zero target years are in the far distance and lag far behind the intensifying climate impacts, it is becoming increasingly crucial for the Global South, bearing the brunt of the climate crisis, to adapt or build resilience. The 2024 Adaptation Gap Report reveals that the global annual financial gap for adaptation is in the range of US$215-387 billion annually, contrasting with the US$28 billion mobilised till 2022. This persistent gap stems from how adaptation is largely perceived as a “public good”, wherein investments would yield low economic returns on investment. This perception fails to account for the far-reaching social rate of return associated with adaptation projects, which include safeguarding communities, reducing disaster recovery costs, and bolstering long-term economic resilience. A higher adaptive capacity increases community resilience and, thus, reduces loss and damage, which is a fact hardly acknowledged by the market framework, leading to grave market failures. – Leveraging Philanthropy to Strengthen Climate Resilience
(Melanie Pill – The Interpreter) It is astounding what Donald Trump gets away with by using a ball pen and some ink. But it came as no surprise that immediately on returning to office Trump signed an executive order and withdrew his country, once more, from the Paris climate change agreement. Many feared it would create an avalanche of countries following suit and maybe that is what the US president hoped for. If so, it doesn’t seem to have gone his way. In fact, the US withdrawal might be the best thing that could happen for the annual climate change negotiations. It officially removes from the talks a party that has been actively preventing progress on a pathway out of fossil fuel use and which has deployed delaying tactics, hindering the achievement of crucial milestones. The United States has always been influential, but not the most reliable or ambitious actor when it comes to fulfilling its climate finance promises or committing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Reactions to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement have been mixed. – Paris without Trump: A win for the planet? | Lowy Institute
Europe
(Chatham House) In this week’s episode of Independent Thinking, Bronwen Maddox discusses whether Europe can take up the mantle of the US, and lead the world as an economic and political powerhouse. Can Europe can fill the vacuum caused by America’s shifting foreign policy, and in doing so, become more of an economic force? Bronwen explores this topic with three Chatham House experts: Creon Butler, director of the Global Economy and Finance Programme, Olivia O’Sullivan, director of the UK in the World Programme, and Nicolai von Ondarza, an associate fellow in our Europe Programme. – Independent Thinking: Can Europe replace the US as a global power? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
Gaza
(Shelly Culbertson, Kobi Ruthenberg, Robert Lane, Nitay Lehrer, Mary E. Vaiana, C. Ross Anthony – RAND Corporation) To address significant housing destruction in Gaza after the Israel-Hamas war, the authors propose a way to plan post-conflict shelter in Gaza and rebuild its communities. Recognizing that reconstruction will be a long-term, multidecade process, they propose a multifaceted approach to shelter in ways that create well-planned, sensible future urban footprints; restore communities; enable people to live in decent conditions during reconstruction; and reduce the risks of long-term encampment. To do so, they integrate lessons learned from post-conflict and post-disaster recoveries, analysis of the destruction and built environment in Gaza, and urban planning methods. – From Camps to Communities: Post-Conflict Shelter in Gaza | RAND
India
(Soumya Bhowmick – Observer Research Foundation) India’s recent progress on bilateral trade agreements with Western nations are about more than just economic interests – India is undergoing a considerable geoeconomic reorientation in the face of emerging trends. Protectionist waves, supply chain vulnerabilities, and rising geopolitical competition have severely disrupted international trade in recent years. These changes have compelled countries to rethink trade dependencies and rebalance alliances for resilience and strategic advantage. India has been proactive by signing new trade pacts and reactivating dormant ones to become a key node in new global value chains. – India’s Trade Recalibrations in the Age of Uncertainty
(Aditya Bhan – Observer Research Foundation) Microfinance, which began in India 50 years ago, extends credit, insurance, loans, access to savings accounts, and money transfers to small business owners and entrepreneurs, especially those not served by the conventional banking system, or indeed the rest of the financial sector. This paper traces the history of microfinance in India and evaluates its impact. It finds that although the microfinance sector has emerged as a salient player in India’s financial landscape, its footprint remains constrained by scarcity of cost-effective credit, limited financial and digital literacy among debtors, risks pertaining to customer data security, over-indebtedness of borrowers, and a lack of innovative customer-centric offerings by microfinance service providers. It makes a case for a multi-tiered strategy that includes a strengthened regulatory framework, innovative financial solutions tailored to the needs of the poor, and improved financial literacy propositions. – Fifty Years of Indian Microfinance: Challenges to Making a More Profound Impact
India – Chagos
(Sanchari Ghosh – The Interpreter) As one of the last remnants of British colonial control in the Indian Ocean, and host to a major US military base, the Chagos Archipelago has long been entangled in a fraught geopolitical contest. So the visit this month of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Mauritius to mark his country’s explicit support for Mauritius’ sovereignty over Chagos is significant. Originally part of Mauritius, the United Kingdom detached Chagos in 1965 before Mauritius’ independence and later leased Diego Garcia to the United States for a military base. The native Chagossians were forcibly displaced, and Mauritius has since waged a diplomatic and legal battle for the archipelago’s return. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that British control was illegal and called for the archipelago’s return to Mauritius, a stance reaffirmed by a UN General Assembly resolution to which the United Kingdom did not initially comply. However, in 2024, the UK Labour government entered into an agreement with Mauritius to return the Chagos Archipelago, recognising the international pressure. This was seen as part of the UK’s broader efforts to address colonial-era territorial disputes. – India’s support for Chagos sovereignty speaks volumes | Lowy Institute
Japan – Europe
(Keizo Kitagawa – RUSI) Against a background of increased military spending that could see Japan attain the third largest military in the world within a few years, the nation’s relationships with Europe and the US are being defined by mutual threats. – Bridging the Two Sides of the Continent: Japan’s Role in Europe | Royal United Services Institute
Middle Corridor
(Arzu Abbasova, Olivia Allison – RUSI) The Middle Corridor, officially known as the Trans-Caspian International Trade Route, is often touted as the shortest trade route connecting China to Europe – an alternative to both Russia’s Northern Corridor and the Suez Canal. On paper, it is a game-changer. And if you follow regional news, you will see a near-weekly stream of announcements celebrating milestones along the route. Just in the past few weeks, Kazakhstan pledged to boost cargo shipments to 10 million tons, Maersk- a Danish shipping company- completed its first trial shipment from Japan to Europe via Middle Corridor, and Bulgaria announced a $1.8 billion investment in the Middle Corridor railway network- the list goes on. As these developments accelerate, the potential of the Middle Corridor is becoming increasingly apparent, calling for a closer analysis of how Europe should engage. In today’s complex geopolitical climate, it is in Europe’s interest to diversify its trade routes to strengthen its global connectivity. But doing so requires more than just strategic ambition – it demands a nuanced understanding of the practical realities and security risks along the trade routes. To play a meaningful role, Europe must engage with trade routes not just as an observer but as a committed partner, fostering cooperation and supporting their development, when and where the potential is obvious. – Can the Middle Corridor be Europe’s Middle Ground? | Royal United Services Institute
Pakistan
(Sushant Sareen – Observer Research Foundation) The Pakistani human rights activist I.A. Rehman once told this author: India uses politics to resolve its militancy problems; Pakistan uses the military to solve its political problems. In 1971, the Pakistan military establishment was convinced that instead of political accommodation, the only way to solve the political crisis in the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was to use genocidal tactics to crush Bengali aspirations. More than half a century later, the playbook of the Pakistan Army has not changed much. Back then, it was ‘kill 20,000 Bengalis and all will be well’. Today, the focus remains on using hard power to crush the Baloch resistance. In the words of the Pakistan Army-backed Chief Minister, Sarfaraz Bugti, “It is time to leave behind any confusion and launch a full-scale operation against terrorism.” He has issued orders that, if implemented, will convert Balochistan into a full-fledged police state. Following the rather audacious hijacking of the Jaffar Express train by guerrillas of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), a brutal crackdown on political activists in Balochistan was imminent. The Pakistan military’s spokesperson declared that the “rules of the game had changed” after the train hijacking. That the Pakistan security forces never really played by any rule in Balochistan and blithely and with complete impunity violated all laws, regulations, and constitutional rights given to citizens was conveniently forgotten by the Pakistani media. The Punjabi-dominated military sees unrestrained repression as the only solution to restiveness in the troubled province. This became clear after the Parliamentary Committee on National Security met, which was also ‘briefed’ by the military’s top brass. – Pakistan’s ‘Hard State’ Strategy: Repression Over Resolution
Russia’s War of Aggression on Ukraine (and beyond)
(Vladimir Socor – The Jamestown Foundation) Consultations among the United States, Russia, and Ukraine are dealing piecemeal with narrow aspects of a putative ceasefire. Moscow stonewalls the quick, comprehensive ceasefire that the Trump administration pursues. A maritime ceasefire (moratorium on firing at sea) could result in banning Ukrainian naval drone actions and allow Russia’s remaining Black Sea Fleet to return undisturbed to Sevastopol, potentially interfering with commercial shipping again in that case. The Kremlin appears pleased with the White House’s purported offer to renew parts of the 2022–2023 Black Sea Grain Initiative. Moscow, nevertheless, seeks to reinstate its earlier, self-assigned right to inspect vessels in the Black Sea under that defunct scheme. – U.S. Preemptive Concessions Gain Nothing From Russia in Ukraine Ceasefire Talks (Part One) – Jamestown
(Rajoli Siddharth Jayaprakash – Observer Research Foundation) With growing interest in a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine, especially in light of proposals emanating for a partial ceasefire from the West, the conflict appears to be entering a new phase. This is further highlighted by the two-hour phone call on March 18 between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, during which they discussed the possible roadmap for ending hostilities. Despite the optimism that the war would likely end on its terms, Moscow is treading cautiously. Russia has reiterated its commitment to bringing lasting peace to the war, all while its stance remains unchanged since the conflict first began in 2022. Despite the growing interest, the road to bringing lasting peace is mired with its complexities, as there is a fundamental contradiction in the perception(s) of sovereignty and regional security. With an added variable of the improved diplomatic communication between Russia and the US, it will be interesting to chart the future trajectory of the conflict and, more importantly, make sense of Moscow’s understanding of an endgame. – Push for peace in Ukraine shows how Russia has nuanced its position
Slovakia
(Abhishek Khajuria, Rajoli Siddharth Jayaprakash – Observer Research Foundation) In January 2025, the Ukraine gas transit agreement expired, halting the Russian piped natural gas to Europe via Ukraine. The gas transit agreement was renewed in 2019 for five years, which was initially signed in 2009 for 10 years. Kyiv refused to renew it, arguing that the transit of Russian natural gas to Europe was aiding Moscow in financing its war against Ukraine, leading to a spike in the price of gas. This has impacted several European countries to varying degrees. While Western European nations managed to offset the loss of Russian gas with LNG imports from the US, Qatar, and Norway, Central and Southern Europe felt the impact more acutely. Among them, Slovakia—a landlocked Central European republic—has been the hardest hit by the halt in gas transit through Ukraine. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has vehemently opposed Ukraine’s decision and has threatened to halt aid to Ukrainian refugees living in Slovakia and stop the sale of electricity. – Slovakia and the Ukraine Gas Deal
UK – China
(Andrew Cainey – RUSI) This paper profiles subnational diplomacy between the UK and China, with a focus on the direct engagement of UK local authorities with Chinese diplomats and local governments. It draws on extensive interviews with these UK authorities. The paper assesses the preparedness of local authorities to capture the benefits and mitigate the risks of engaging with China and proposes actions to improve their effectiveness and resilience. Around the world, city, state and local governments engage in subnational diplomacy to advance their policy agenda, against the backdrop of national policy and their role in their country’s overall governance. In China too, cities and provinces pursue international engagement to support trade and investment, to learn, to enhance civic pride and to project soft power on the world stage in a context where subnational diplomacy is more tightly linked to national policy objectives than in the UK. The role of the Chinese Communist Party and its United Front Work Department, which seeks to shape opinion at home and abroad, are important additional considerations that influence and, at times, constrain or determine how China’s cities and provinces engage with the UK. – Subnational Diplomacy Between the UK and China | Royal United Services Institute
US – Asia
(Lee Jong-Wha – The Strategist) US President Donald Trump has raised the spectre of economic and geopolitical turmoil in Asia. While individual countries have few options for pushing back against Trump’s transactional diplomacy, protectionist trade policies and erratic decision-making, a unified region has a fighting chance. The challenges are formidable. Trump’s crude, bullying approach to long-term allies is casting serious doubt on the viability of the United States’ decades-old security commitments, on which many Asian countries depend. Worse, the US’s treaty allies (Japan, South Korea and the Philippines) and its strategic partner (Taiwan) fear that Trump could actively undermine their security, such as by offering concessions to China or North Korea. – Trump could make Asia more united | The Strategist
US – Houthis
(Mark O’Neill – The Interpreter) The Houthis have proven resilient in the face of strikes. The Trump administration’s strikes this month on Yemen are not the first effort to disrupt the ongoing attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. The Biden administration launched Operation Prosperity Guardian in December 2023, a multinational effort involving 10 nations to ensure freedom of navigation, targeting the Houthis with strikes and created a multinational naval task force in the Red Sea to protect shipping. Neither action have been a deterrent – as seen in the Houthis allegedly launching two retaliatory attacks against the US aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman within a few hours of the 16 March strike. “More of the same” will not deliver a different outcome. – Breaking Houthi resolve: Why Trump’s strikes won’t work any better than Biden’s | Lowy Institute
US – Saudi Arabia
(Kirsten Fontenrose – Atlantic Council) For years, the outlines of a potentially groundbreaking deal involving the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have been well known. US President Donald Trump deputized a team to pursue this deal even before his inauguration, signaling the Abraham Accords’ top-tier position among his administration’s priorities. But the dramatically and continually shifting political winds in Israel, the kingdom, and among Palestinians may mean Saudi Arabia continues to press for a different kind of compact between just Riyadh and Washington. The agreement that was under discussion with the Biden administration would have guaranteed that the United States would open the valve on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and maintain a troop and equipment presence to deter Iran-backed action against the kingdom. It would also have started a US-Saudi partnership to develop Saudi Arabia’s civil nuclear energy program (enrichment was still a point of debate) and to cooperate on artificial intelligence and emerging technology. These discussions seemed oddly devoid of benefits to the United States. One benefit touted was locking Saudi Arabia into a commitment to buy weapons platforms from the United States instead of from China. However, achieving this does not require a commitment of US troops in the region nor a joint nuclear program. It only requires that the United States approve its own arms sales and speed up its own epically slow foreign military sales process. – A US-Saudi deal without Israel? Here’s what the US should ask for. – Atlantic Council
