Germany’s Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz has proposed what is being interpreted as a seismic shift in his country’s government spending that seeks to bypass legal restrictions on government debt. All this is intended to allow change in defence spending for years to come. The aim is to put Germany in a leadership position as Europe is desperately trying to get strategic autonomy from the United States. Significantly, this would not be done at the expense of vital investments in other areas. The proposed deal, if passed by the outgoing Bundestag this week, would also accommodate the Social Democratic party’s (SPD) demands for spending on economic and social infrastructure. This would be channelled through a €500bn special fund, also to be financed by borrowing.

This is in a way a revolutionary step since Merz, a former investment banker, has been a deficit hawk and economic liberal throughout his career. It is, indeed, an irony of history that he has to pilot a proposal to challenge the debt-aversion that has crippled Germany’s ability to respond to new geopolitical realities. But the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader has decided to rise to the occasion admirably and show the political courage to read the writings on the wall.

The proposal has come at a time when poorly performing economies across Europe and a lack of investment have caused an erosion of people’s faith in mainstream politics and facilitated the dangerous rise of Far-Right forces getting further strengthened by the Trumpian version of the supremacist politics. Germany enshrined in its constitution “debt brake” as a legal requirement to balance budgets for protecting younger generations from the consequences of risky borrowing. However, by rigidly and mechanically following the mechanism in the current tumultuous times faced with costly challenges, Germany has instead stifled investment for its future generations.

The EU summit scheduled to meet in the middle of this week in Brussels is likely to give the green light for greater national spending on defence. This is, as experts point out, the need of the hour considering threats at home and abroad by Far-Right forces. The formula agreed by Merz and the SPD changing the overall approach to debt and deficits could be a model for the EU too. Merz pledged recently to do “whatever it takes” to protect freedom and peace. He will need the support of the Greens, as well as the SPD, to push his game changing proposals through.

In fact, it was the outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz who created a €100bn special fund to modernise Germany’s armed forces three days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression, he told a shocked Bundestag, meant that Europe was living through a Zeitenwende, or turning point.

However, it has taken the return of Donald Trump to the White House to understand the enormity of the emerging threat to European values, security and economic interests. What is important now is the fact that Scholz’s Centre-Right successor-in-waiting seems ready to act accordingly. His election manifesto for February’s snap poll pledged reduced spending on both defence and a stagnating economy. His U-turn now is being appreciated as a proposal to change Germany’s Basic Law to permit huge debt-financed investment in the military and the economy. The measure removes a German political taboo and goes hand in hand with the creation of a special fund of €500 billion over 10 years to modernise infrastructure such as roads, trains and schools.

The two-pronged policy aims at reviving German economic growth, which has been in recession for two years following the shock of the war in Ukraine and enabling Berlin to regain the leadership role on the European stage that the country lost because of the weakness of Merz’s predecessor.

The decision must still be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag 18 March. For this the new Chancellor has to muster the numbers as his majority in the future parliament is too small to reach the two-thirds mark. His hope stems from the fact that he has chosen to submit his plan to the outgoing Bundestag, where his Social Democrat partners still have large numbers.

The gamble may pay off and in that event Trump and his aggressive team with Far-Right leanings will face the challenge of implementing policies threatening to overturn well established norms of diplomacy and international economic order. That is most needed now.

Also Read: Look at India, 150% tariff on American alcohol: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

The other critical learning from all that is happening in Europe today is how individuals impact international politics and economy. Germany’s economic and military growth has a frightening past as seen both in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. The re-emergence of that situation per force has been necessitated by the acts of two individuals. First, Putin leading Russia into a long drawn war against Ukraine made the whole of Europe shaky. The presence of the American forces and NATO was viewed as a balm on the wounds. Second, the return of Donald Trump as POTUS upset all previous calculations of most European politicians. Both Putin and Trump being together at one time could be the harbingers of great change that would have long term effect on Europe and the world.

The north-south divide in India has got a fresh lease of life due to the rekindling of the issue of delimitation by the BJP led Central government. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has taken the lead on behalf of the southern states to oppose the Centre’s proposed delimitation exercise using post-2026 census to redraw the Lok Sabha constituencies on the basis of population. Though Stalin has his own electoral calculations with the coming Assembly polls in Tamil Nadu, the Centre’s move does cause concern for fair parliamentary election process. The Tamil Nadu CM on decided 9 March to send senior functionaries of his party – DMK – to meet Chief Ministers and senior politicians from seven states, including Orissa and West Bengal, to rally support for his campaign against the Centre’s planned delimitation exercise. Similar delegations will be sent to AAP-governed Punjab and Congress-run Telangana and Karnataka.

Stalin had last week written to the CMs and other key politicians of these seven states, explaining the TN govt’s position against population-based delimitation. Calling it “an unfair exercise,” he had stated the Centre’s plan was a “blatant assault on federalism, punishing states that ensured population control and good governance by stripping away our rightful voice in Parliament.”

The concern is that the proposed delimitation will reshape the country’s power map, reducing the political might of southern states at the Centre. The concern is not simply restricted to Tamil Nadu and other southern states. It will affect states like Orissa too. There are speculations that most of these states may not see decrease in the number of Lok Sabha seats existing in their respective states. Their number of Lok Sabha seats may remain static. What is expected is that the new Census will be tampered to show a phenomenal rise in population in the states where the BJP feels comfortable with Hindi and Hindutva. That could mean a big rise in the number of Lok Sabha seats in those states. In turn this could imply that the southern states will be politically marginalized and under privileged and can be safely neglected.

When the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won a narrow majority in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, it was tell-tale evidence of its waning popularity after a decade in power. This seems to have infused fear into the BJP that a victory in 2029 may elude it. In its desperation to hold on to power, the government’s push to redraw parliamentary constituencies using post-2026 census data is being interpreted as an attempt to tilt the electoral field in its favour. The process ensures each Member of Parliament represents an equal number of voters. Since 1976, however, it has been frozen to avoid penalising Indian states that curbed population growth. If delimitation proceeds, the BJP’s populous northern strongholds will gain seats, weakening the political power of the country’s economically dynamic and culturally distinct southern states governed by different regional parties. The southern states have accused the Modi government of bias in federal funding and project approvals.

The six largest northern states have over 60 crore people – twice the south’s population – but lag far behind in education, health, industry and economic development. Tamil Nadu thrives on industry, education and social mobility, with only 6 per cent in poverty compared with 23 per cent in Bihar. A child in Kerala has better survival chances than any other state. UP’s record on this score is among the worst in the country. On the other hand, UP alone receives more federal tax revenue than all five southern states put together. In this sense for southern India delimitation represents both economic and political marginalisation – being taxed more, represented less and sidelined in national policymaking.

A recent paper by Paris’ Institut Montaigne think-tank highlights how India’s north-south divide is deepening due to economic, demographic and political disparities causing concern for the southern states. It compares the situation to the EU’s Greek debt crisis, where wealthier northern countries expressed their fury over subsidising the poorer southern ones. The report considers Modi’s home state of Gujarat – a wealthy but highly unequal western state with slow population growth – but warns that the Hindi speaking north’s larger populace and lack of socioeconomic progress will deepen tensions and drag the country down.

The Indian economist Jean Drèze has opined if seats were redistributed by population while maintaining state-wise party shares, the BJP alliance would have won 309 MPs, not 294, in the 2024 LS polls. The Centre’s push for delimitation appears to be geared to that objective for the 2029 LS polls, when rising discontent could further ruin the prospect of the BJP retaining power.

This type of delimitation exercise resorted to by ruling political parties is known as gerrymandering. The term, rooted in US politics, describes the practice of redrawing electoral district boundaries to provide one political party with an unfair advantage over its competitors (known as political or partisan gerrymandering) or to weaken the voting power of ethnic or linguistic minority groups (referred to as racial gerrymandering). The term originates from Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration implemented a law in 1812 that established new state senatorial districts.

The irony is, as experts point out, such gerrymandering exercise does have chances to backfire. But, the risk is seen by ruling parties as being worth taking. There lies the rub which could weaken and damage India for a long time to come.

Three months after Islamist insurgents seized control of Syria, toppling the long-standing regime of Bashar al-Assad, terrible violence seems to have returned to haunt the West Asian country, this time the focus is against a particular minority group. The country has descended into one of its most lethal periods of conflict in years, with more than 1,000 deaths reported within just two days amid clashes between government security forces and loyalists of the deposed president. What started as a confrontation between security forces and pro-Assad fighters rapidly transformed into widespread sectarian violence, as Sunni militants launched revenge attacks against Alawite civilians.

The Alawites make up for about 12 per cent of Syria’s population. They trace their roots to Shia Islam but have their unique beliefs and practices. The Assad family, (Hafez al-Assad ruled from 1971 until his death in 2000 and then his son, Bashar al-Assad ruled from 2000 to 2024) belongs to this minority sect. According to Syrian security sources, at least two hundred of their personnel lost their lives in confrontations with former army soldiers loyal to Assad but now de-enlisted, following a series of coordinated attacks and ambushes on their forces on 6 March. The situation escalated into a spiral of revenge killings as thousands of armed supporters of Syria’s new leadership from various regions converged on the coastal areas to bolster the struggling forces of the new administration.

On 8 March, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that since the outbreak of fighting, 745 Alawite civilians have been killed by security forces and allied groups. The war monitor indicated that these individuals were executed by security personnel or pro-government fighters, who also engaged in the looting of homes and properties. Overall, the death toll since 6 March has risen to 1,018, which includes 125 security personnel and 148 fighters loyal to Assad. The recent wave of revenge killings initiated by Sunni Muslim gunmen aligned with the government against members of Assad’s minority Alawite sect represents a significant setback for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that played a key role in toppling the previous regime.

For decades, Alawites constituted a substantial chunk of Assad’s support base, holding prominent positions within the military and security services. The new government has accused Assad’s loyalists of carrying out attacks against the country’s newly established security forces in recent weeks. HTS, which has its origins in extremist factions, has raised concerns since December about potential persecution of minorities by the Sunni Islamist political and paramilitary group. Nevertheless, its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, a designated terrorist in the US, has swiftly taken steps to project a new image for Damascus.

The fact is that the new government in Damascus is encountering its first significant challenge. It has already dealt with several smaller issues, including navigating relations with the Druze minority in southern Syria, managing interactions with the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), and engaging in discussions with the US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces.

One thing remains the same in Syria and that is the endless cycle of violence and its victim also remains the same — the average Syrian. The brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez al-Assad that lasted almost half a century was infamous for the torture it inflicted on every dissenting voice in the country of multiple religions and ethnicities. Bashar, who followed in his father’s footsteps, grew into an autocratic figure even as a civil war raged in the country since March 2011, claiming over 622,000 lives and displacing more than 14 million people. While the Syrians celebrated the ousting of the Assad regime on the streets of Damascus and Aleppo in December last year, little did they expect that violence would return to their lives so soon. Anyone looking back at the history of this region of West Asia, the land that gave birth to Islam, Christianity and many other religions, might be able to somewhat understand the average citizens and their innate violent outlook on life. From a distance it seems, like no other place on this earth, the people living in this part of the world look and search for mindless violence. Therefore, the Gods they had created offer them, the people, what they crave for.

Some problems humanity has created together and must tackle together. Some problems are created locally. Climate change is something that the world has to solve as a whole. If half the world lessens its emissions while the other half increases them, climate change will not be solved. The earth’s atmosphere and the oceans bind humanity.

Local problems are created because of an imbalance in power and the desire to stir up trouble. Ukraine is one such example and Gaza is another. It is hard to understand why apartheid, ethnic cleansing and indeed genocide are acceptable in the world of 2025.

Then there are other problems that might not even be thought of as problems at all, but punitive solutions emanating from them are still inflicted on the world. One such solution that we are dealing with is regarding the problem of the United States’ trade deficit and the desire to level it out through tariffs. These are required, according to the American president, because the system is grossly unfair to the US and other nations have been “ripping us off,” in his words. Have they? If they have this ripping off has been mostly to their detriment.

The average per person GDP of the world is $13,000, according to the World Bank. Most countries are considerably lower than that. These include India ($2500), Indonesia ($4800), Iran ($4400), Iraq ($5500), Thailand ($7100) and Vietnam ($4200). Sub-Saharan Africa, which has a population a little smaller than India’s, is at $1600. Of our fellow BRICS members, Brazil is $10,200, Russia $13,800, South Africa $6000 and China is at $12,600.

A few countries have a per person GDP considerably higher than the global average. The Euro area average is $45,000 with Germany at $54,000, France at $44,000 and Italy at $39,000. The UK is similar to France. The United States of America is at $82,000, meaning it is more than six times the global average and more than 30 times India’s per person GDP. The US is by far the wealthiest large nation. Its position has made the dollar the world’s reserve currency, meaning most trade globally happens in US dollars, and it is the most attractive destination for the world’s talented people. Its population growth is bolstered by this migration and its corporate and academic elites are studded with those who were born abroad. Its future is assured because of this enormous corps of talent. US per person GDP has doubled since 2004, which is incredible given how high the base already was. This has not been the case for Europe and the Euro area’s per person GDP has stagnated since 2004. Of course there is the problem of inequality in the US, as there is elsewhere, but that is an issue for the US to sort out internally, and not inflict it on a world that is much poorer than the average American.

This weekend, Donald Trump said about us that: “India charges us massive tariffs. Massive. You can’t even sell anything in India… They have agreed, by the way; they want to cut their tariffs way down now because somebody is finally exposing them for what they have done.” Whatever position one has on free trade, it is hard to blame India and its government for trying to protect the interests of its people and to advance its economy. In a nation where a billion people cannot buy anything discretionary and must spend all their earnings on survival, what is there to buy from advanced nations?

Economists suggest that the US trade deficit is a reflection of the country’s budget deficit. The US government spends more than it earns and so it has to borrow. In 2024, this deficit was $1.8 trillion. This borrowing means capital inflows into the US, raising the demand for the dollar and keeping it strong. The strong dollar in turn makes it difficult for the US to export its products and easier to import, which explains the deficit in the trade balance. If the US were to balance its budget and borrow less, according to this “twin deficits” theory, it would not have a trade deficit as wide as it does. This is not going to happen, especially when Trump is going to continue and deepen tax cuts that will reduce his government’s income.

Mexico has a per person GDP of $13,790, meaning it is around the global average. Canada is $53,000, meaning about $30,000 per person per year lower than the US. It is not easy to make out the case as Trump is trying to do that these countries are engaging with the US on trade in bad faith. If they were the numbers, they would not be what they are. It is strange that someone is making the case that they are ripping the US off.

Take a look at the markets around the world and we see the turbulence that has been deliberately created by one man in a powerful nation.

Some problems we have to hunker down and face and resolve as a species, and there are enough of these, and these are problems of sufficient difficulty, to require our full attention. And then we have these ones that are being gratuitously thrust on us, ones that we did not have till a few weeks or months ago, but are now keeping a large part of the world occupied.

By Aakar Patel

Well, here’s a financial thriller twist no one saw coming—a Mumbai court has ordered an FIR against former SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch over alleged regulatory lapses in a case that dates back to 1994! Talk about digging deep. But this isn’t just about an old IPO listing. Buch has been in the limelight recently for all the wrong reasons. First, Hindenburg Research alleged that she and her husband held stakes in offshore entities linked to the Adani Group—raising questions about whether SEBI’s investigations into the conglomerate were truly independent. She called the allegations baseless. Then came fresh political heat. The Congress claimed Buch earned rental income from a company under SEBI’s scrutiny while still benefi ting from ICICI Bank stock options long after leaving the bank. ICICI quickly denied making any payments beyond standard retirement benefi ts. And even inside SEBI, things weren’t exactly smooth sailing. Reports suggest that towards the end of her tenure, employees staged protests over “unfair work practices,” and when she left, there was no farewell—just the door. So, is this FIR a long-overdue reckoning or a convenient distraction? Why unearth a 30-year-old case now? And how much of this is about regulatory lapses versus the bigger power struggles at play?

Delhi’s power shift

Delhi’s corridors of power just got a fresh dynamic— Chief Minister Rekha Gupta now has IAS officer Madhu Rani Teotia as her Secretary. With two women in key leadership roles, does this signal a shift in governance style? Or will the city’s political and bureaucratic machinery continue business as usual? Strong leadership is key for a city as complex as Delhi, where governance has often been a battleground between the state and the Centre. That may not be an issue now with a BJP “double-engine” sarkar. Also, Rekha Gupta, known for her sharp political instincts, now has an experienced bureaucrat by her side. Teotia’s track record in public administration, particularly in health policy, could bring a more hands-on, policy-driven approach to governance. But will that translate into real change? Historically, the presence of women in leadership has been linked to better policy outcomes in areas like healthcare, education, and social welfare. Will this duo prioritize these issues, or will the daily tug-of-war of Delhi politics dilute any potential impact? Also, will their leadership style differ from their predecessors? Women in power are often expected to bring a collaborative, inclusive approach, but politics doesn’t always reward that. Another question looms: will having two women in charge challenge entrenched bureaucratic and political hierarchies, or will it reinforce them? Leadership in Delhi is as much about navigating power struggles as it is about policy. Gupta and Teotia may set a new precedent—or they may find themselves playing the same old game, just with new players. For now, Delhi watches.

Also Read: Ice may exist on Moon at more locations than previously thought, Chandrayaan-3 data suggests

What’s PMO’s game plan?

The appointment of former RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das as Principal Secretary-2 (PS-2) to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alongside Dr. PK Mishra as Principal Secretary-1 (PS-1), has set babu circles abuzz. Seasoned babus are wondering whether this signals a gradual transition, with Das eventually stepping into Mishra’s shoes, or if it simply reinforces Mishra’s position as the key figure in personnel affairs, with Das as a trusted lieutenant. Despite its opacity, so-called pundits believe the move strengthens the PMO by bringing in a macroeconomic expert with a solid track record in finance and administration. Das’ linguistic versatility may also help navigate the complex power dynamics at the top. While some speculate that this could dilute the Finance Ministry’s influence, others suggest that with Das and Cabinet Secretary Dr. TV Somanathan—both from the Tamil Nadu cadre—working in tandem, coordination between the PMO and the bureaucracy may only improve. As for the PMO’s advisers, their role is unlikely to be diminished, though there may be a realignment of responsibilities. In the larger scheme of things, this development appears to be part of the Modi government’s ongoing efforts to streamline and consolidate governance within the PMO, ensuring that efficiency takes precedence over individual positioning.

Dilip Cherian

The end of Pax Americana is clearly in sight. While this has long been the goal of many leftists battling “American imperialism,” it is not really all that strange that a US government of right-wing zealots ultimately took a wrecking ball to the world order. America’s far right was always more isolationist than its liberal establishment. The question is how America’s main allies in Europe and East Asia, dependent on the United States for their security, will react. European leaders have hastily convened meetings where many brave words were spoken. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, wrote on X that the “free world needs a new leader,” and that “it’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke of a “once-in-a-generation moment,” and promised to work with France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, to help reach a just ceasefire for Ukraine. Most remarkable of all was the statement by Friedrich Merz, Germany’s presumptive chancellor and formerly a staunch Atlanticist, that Europe needed “to achieve independence from the US.” The best we can hope for is that US President Donald Trump’s betrayal of America’s traditional allies, humiliation of Ukraine, encouragement of right-wing extremism, and embrace of belligerent autocrats will push European and East Asian democracies to form new defense alliances. The need for a new order is indisputable. But so, too, are the hurdles.

The EU is not a military power, and it is doubtful that a “coalition of the willing” led by the United Kingdom and France can make up for the withdrawal of US security guarantees. Even if European countries fi nd a way to build a military alliance capable of replacing the US-led NATO, doing so will take years. And this won’t succeed without the leadership of Germany, the bloc’s largest economy. In 2011, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told a German audience in Berlin that he feared “German power less than German inaction.” Many Europeans in countries that once suffered a brutal Nazi occupation would probably agree with that sentiment. But it might not be shared by enough Germans, who are still nervous about reviving a military disposition that ruined much of Europe – including Germany itself – not so long ago. Others in the country have embraced a pro-Russia stance. In Germany’s recent federal election, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, which is sympathetic to Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and opposed to supporting Ukraine, finished second. In East and Southeast Asia, the situation is even more fraught. Unlike Britain and France, none of America’s Asian allies has nuclear weapons. And there is no equivalent of NATO to protect against China’s increasing dominance. America’s richest ally, Japan, is utterly dependent on US security guarantees, as is South Korea, which is under constant threat from the nuclear-armed dictatorship in North Korea. America’s backing is also crucial for Southeast Asian countries seeking to shield themselves from Chinese aggression. And then there is Taiwan, which has no formal security pact with the US at all. If Trump is prepared to sacrifice Ukraine to make a deal with Putin, he might be just as inclined to barter away Taiwan’s democracy to do business with Chinese President Xi Jinping. If Pax Americana were to end in East and Southeast Asia, the only way to stop China from turning its neighbors into vassals would be to create an Asian NATO. This would include democracies such as South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, but also some semi-democracies (Singapore and Thailand) and perhaps even some autocracies (Vietnam). But this organisation would encounter a problem similar to the one facing a European alliance. Japan is the only country powerful enough to lead such a disparate coalition. But many in Asia are wary of giving such a large role to a country long governed by a conservative party whose leaders have been reluctant to acknowledge their forebears’ horrific actions in World War II.

And most Japanese – like many Germans – are not quite ready to trust themselves. Pax Americana in Asia and Europe had to end at some point. An arrangement whereby many wealthy countries depend wholly on one superpower for their security was never a healthy long-term arrangement. But the timing and manner of its demise could not be worse.

Also Read: ‘Not a single Hamas member will be safe’: Trump’s last warning to Hamas

Just as European and Asian democracies must confront a hostile coalition of autocracies – Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – their protector threatens to withdraw its backing, leaving little time to rebuild a solid defense. What might happen instead, despite all the fine sentiments, is that America’s forsaken allies will panic and run for cover, pleading for protection from one the great powers. The South Koreans and Southeast Asians might look to China. The British could lean into their “special relationship” with the US, whereas the Germans – and perhaps even the French, if Marine Le Pen wins the next presidential election – might appeal to Russia. And Japan, left high and dry, could overcome its post-Hiroshima allergy to nuclear armament.

None of this is a given. Perhaps the Europeans will get their act together. Perhaps Trump’s bark is worse than his bite. Perhaps the Americans won’t withdraw from Asia. But no one should count on any of this happening. The major democracies in Europe and Asia are now the only bulwark against authoritarianism. And the onus of defending political freedom will be placed largely on the two countries, Germany and Japan, that once did so much to destroy them.

Europe has made it clear that it will not accept a so-called peace deal for Ukraine clinched by the US (and as proposed by Russia) in so many words by President Donald Trump. The mood of the European leaders was summed up in the words of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer who told a London summit on 2 March that Europe has got its “once-in-a-generation moment” for its security. The announcement came only three days after Trump and Vice President JD Vance had given a complete dressing down to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for virtually challenging the ceasefire plan that Trump drew up after talking to the “aggressor” Russian President Vladimir Putin. Starmer explained at the summit that the meeting had three goals – Ukraine’s short-term needs, securing a lasting deal to end the conflict and planning for strong security guarantees. Trump had shot down Zelenskyy’s fervent plea during their televised interactions for the US providing security guarantees to his country before a ceasefire deal with Putin. The US President insisted that the business deal between the US and Ukraine for extracting precious minerals for the US from Ukraine was itself the security guarantee, while Zelenskyy explained Putin had violated ceasefire agreements “25 times since 2014 and nobody did anything” to stop him. He made it clear to Trump that a ceasefire without security guarantees from the US would be meaningless, going by past experiences.

As Zelenskyy left Washington crest-fallen, he needed European countries to rally behind his country and defend it against the Russian might. The UK, France, Italy and some other countries of Europe did not waste time and assured Ukraine of their support not simply in words, but also in concrete terms through signing multi-million pounds worth deals to supply arms and materials from the UK to Ukraine. In his opening remarks at the summit, Starmer told Zelenskyy: “I hope you know that we are all with you and the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes, everyone around this table.” This was music to Ukraine’s ears and alarm for Russia which had hailed Trump and Vance for berating Zelenskyy.

French President Emmanuel Macron, Canada’s outgoing leader Justin Trudeau and the heads of several European countries, the European Union and NATO were all present at the summit. The way these leaders closed ranks in defence of Ukraine brought a smile to the face of Zelenskyy. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told Starmer it was of utmost importance that “we avoid the risk that the West divides” over the war in Ukraine. The two leaders may prove vital in formulating a peace process acceptable to both Trump and Europe since both have developed some kind of relationship with Trump.

Macron in his speech said no one should have any confusion about who the aggressor is. This is in sharp contrast to Trump’s conciliatory approach to Putin. Macron told the summit in no uncertain terms: “There is an aggressor: Russia.”

The British PM took it further when he said this is “not a moment for more talk, it’s time to act.” Accordingly, leaders on the continent went ahead with their plan to forge a path towards a ceasefire in Ukraine. He also told the media he was working with France and a small number of other nations to craft a plan to stop the fighting, which would then be presented to the US.

In an interview with a French daily, Macron drew the contours of the plan to propose a month-long limited ceasefire in Ukraine. The second phase, he said, would involve troops on the ground. The plan appears to torpedo the negotiation process that Trump’s administration opened with Russia last month. At the same time, it suggests Europe is well aware such a plan would be viable only if Trump gives his seal of approval. European leaders are understood to have resolved to persuade Trump to agree to their plan. As part of this strategy, Zelenskyy said at the London summit that he is ready to sign a deal with the US for extracting minerals from Ukraine. The deal was not signed after Trump and Vance bullied Zelenskyy.

Predictably, the Kremlin was not happy with the development in London as it expected Trump’s belligerence against Zelenskyy would make European leaders fall in line and accept the peace overtures of the US President that seemed to have been tailored by Russia, keeping its interests in the forefront. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the funding pledges from European leaders – including a $2 billion air-defence missiles deal from Britain – will cause the war to drag on. While no one can fault these European leaders of backing Ukraine, it must be understood that western powers are scared of Putin and his intentions. If Ukraine falls, Poland becomes the front line. Then comes Germany, which will open up the whole of Europe to the Russian army, and on how fast it can move forward. It is also true that war alone seems to bring these tall leaders together. They never seem to get united for peace.

Also Read: Trump announces reciprocal tariffs against India, China from April 2

This has made Russia’s frustration palpable, as visible in Peskov’s words that someone should force Zelenskyy to change his position as he doesn’t want peace. The wonderful aspect of the Trump era is that countries like Ukraine, UK, Poland, Taiwan, France, Italy, South Korea and Japan have now, perforce, are compelled to start thinking of creating an alternate force by themselves. Stop depending on the US. India too has to learn to play the cards properly now and in future.

The just published report of the top-level investigation by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) into the Israeli military’s failure to gauge the impending lethal attack by Hamas on 7 October, 2023 reveals the military intelligence was so complacent about its false assessment of Hamas that it did not act even when unusual movements had been seen in Gaza the night before catastrophe struck Israel. Some 5,000 Hamas-led terrorists from the Gaza Strip burst into southern Israel carrying out a murderous rampage of unprecedented intensity and scale. The IDF probes have come out with evidence that the force struggled to mount a response with bases closest to the border overrun and the chain of command broken amid the chaos. The attack claimed the lives of some 1,200 people in Israel, with another 251 people kidnapped and much of the area devastated. Most victims were civilians.

The material released by the IDF shows Hamas’ invasion was possible because of the colossal failure for years of the Israeli forces to properly keep track of Hamas’ preparations and analyse whatever credible information its intelligence wing collected. The Israeli military establishment deluded itself into the belief that Hamas did not have the nerve nor the intent to launch a ground offensive against Israel. At the most it could fire rockets which Israel’s sophisticated system of interception could easily neutralize. This was the assessment of the IDF that was far removed from reality.

What is even worse and scandalous for Israel is that the Israeli army was “defeated” for several hours at the hands of Hamas during the invasion. The chaos and confusion catastrophically slowed the fight back on the day.

The probes at the General Staff level are focused on four main topics. The IDF believed, prior to the 7 October onslaught, that the Hamas in Gaza did not pose a significant threat to Israel, it was uninterested in a large-scale war and any cross-border threat would be thwarted by Israel’s high-tech border fence. The investigation highlighted a widening gap between the IDF’s perceptions of Hamas and what the terror group was doing in reality. As part of its investigation, the IDF has now determined that Hamas had decided in April 2022 to launch such an attack. By September 2022, the terror group was at 85 per cent readiness and it decided in May 2023 to launch the assault on 7 October. This investigation also found that the IDF’s conduct, decision-making, and intelligence assessments on the night between 6 and 7 October were based on the result of years of false assessments about Hamas. As a result, intelligence officials at all levels failed to provide a warning for what would come.

Interestingly, even though the IDF probe has provided stark details of the holes in the famed intelligence service of Israel, there is not a word on the political establishment, especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Far-Right allies. While the latter were busy with their political goal of virtual ethnic cleansing to displace millions of Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and destroy their houses and infrastructure, they failed to oversee the work of their defence forces and intelligence apparatus. According to one school of opinion, Netanyahu was opposed to any cease-fire because he feared this would give an opportunity to his adversaries to raise the issue of his government’s intelligence failure and demand his resignation. It was to save his chair and his political future that he wanted the war with Hamas to drag on.

This raises the question of why the probe report has been made public now. The answer is the ruling establishment of Israel now feels safe as global and regional attention has shifted from the Hamas attack to US President Donald Trump’s plan to rebuild Gaza, forcing the Palestinians to leave their homes effectively, never to return. This seems to be the most opportune time to disclose the failure of the Israeli military and the government to anticipate Hamas’ invasion without attracting much public criticism.

Also Read: Trump suspends all military aid to Ukraine days after Oval Office showdown with Zelensky

Israel’s deadly intelligence and system’s failure should be a dire warning for India. Encircled by enemies on all sides since the failure of relations in the neighbourhood has collapsed, India is constantly prone to any kind of attack. Dependence on imported hardware for intelligence gathering and warfare, added with a lethargic and unwilling manpower, India has many hurdles to overcome that it has consistently been neglecting for decades. This should be a wake up call for the Indian political leadership.

The unprecedented showdown between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on 28 February at the Oval Office of the White House marked one of the most intense public confrontations between world leaders in recent memory. The world was kind of stunned to watch live the typically reserved nature of diplomacy give way to accusations, raised voices, finger pointing and exasperated gestures. The final 90 seconds of diplomatic meltdown at the end of the meeting that had lasted for nearly 139 minutes raised several key questions. One is whether Trump and Vice President JD Vance deliberately provoked Zelenskyy, whom Trump had recently referred to as a “dictator,” into a clash. Another equally important question is whether Zelenskyy’s response was overly emotional, potentially harming his country’s interests.

Regardless of these speculations, the heated exchange appeared to extinguish, at least for the time being, Ukraine’s hopes of securing the United States as a dependable ally in its efforts to repel and ultimately resolve Russia’s three-year aggression. The minerals agreement with Kyiv was framed by some as a means to compensate the US for future support to Ukraine; however, Trump remained notably ambiguous about whether Washington would provide solid security guarantees in return. Now, that mineral deal is seemingly put on hold for the foreseeable future. While Trump wants a pay back from Ukraine for the billions of dollars that the US has invested in this 3 year war, the words of Robert F Kennedy Jr should also not be ignored. According to RFK Jr, all those billions were merely money laundered by American multi-national arms manufacturing companies and Ukraine mostly had to buy American-made weapons to fight the war. That huge amount of money was taken back to America by companies like Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. “It’s a war that should have never happened. It’s a war the Russians tried repeatedly to settle on terms that were very, very beneficial to Ukraine and us. The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of Ukraine. The big military contractors want to add new countries to NATO all the time…,” RFK Jr said.

Following the Oval Office blowout, Ukraine’s European allies and several global leaders expressed their solidarity with Zelenskyy, while the White House emphasized its backing for President Trump’s “America First” policy. Zelenskyy’s timeline on social media platform ‘X’ was flooded with supportive messages from European allies and countries worldwide. In response to the outpouring of support, the Ukrainian leader replied, “Thank you for your support.” While many of Trump’s domestic supporters have expressed joy over the outcome of the meeting, the true celebration appeared to be emanating from the Kremlin. Since assuming the presidency, Trump has gravitated towards Russia, alarming traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere, and putting Ukraine in a precarious position. The Oval Office outburst marked the most overt indication of this shift. Regardless of Trump’s intentions, the situation appears highly favourable for Moscow. While Russia has been making gains on the battlefield, Ukraine finds itself in stark conflict with its primary supporter.

Any which way, Zelenskyy deserves accolades for the way he has led his country in the brutal war against a powerful aggressor all through these three years. Even after the dressing down in White House, he remains resolute in his commitment to the Ukrainian cause.

There is, however, one huge mistake that Zelenskyy committed as the leader of a nation. His campaigning in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania in 2024, as mentioned by JD Vance in the passing, seems to have not been taken kindly by the present US administration. Here’s a lesson for other countries, including India, that as the leader of a country, one should avoid taking sides in another country’s politics and especially never get involved in some other nation’s election. Worse is to go against the mood of the local population, something India did in the case of Bangladesh and is paying the price. It is doing the same thing in Myanmar too by siding with the junta and thereby, antagonising the people of Myanmar now. In future, when the military fails and falls in Burma, the citizens of that country will continue to view India as being a nation inimical to their common interests.

Meanwhile, a day following the White House blowout, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave a rousing reception to Zelenskyy in London, assuring him of the UK’s steadfast support. Britain, France, and Ukraine subsequently came together to develop a ceasefire proposal to present to the United States. All these countries know it very well that making any progress in resolving the Ukraine crisis will be impossible without US support.

Europe has been uneasy since Trump initiated direct peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had been isolated by most Western leaders since invading Ukraine three years ago. The scramble to remain relevant and protect European interests as their once stalwart ally appeared to be cosying up to Putin was even more troubling when Trump called Zelenskyy a dictator and falsely said that Ukraine started the war. Meetings in recent days, especially those involving Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had provided some hope — until Zelenskyy’s disastrous visit to the White House which proved to be the last straw.

Also Read: ‘We are grateful for all support we’ve received from US,’ says Zelensky

The Oval Office showdown marked yet another example of Trump’s sweeping attempts to alter longstanding American policy positions during his first six weeks back in office, signalling further uncertainty for traditional American allies and partners who are already feeling the pressure to prove their value in Trump’s view. This development follows closely on the heels of Trump’s suggestion to permanently relocate Palestinians from Gaza and consider an American takeover of the area, as well as his commitment to impose significant tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada starting this week.

The unfolding events since 20 January reaffirm once again what former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had famously said: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

What is one to write about hours after a day when the US president scolds Ukraine’s leader about gambling with world war? In November last year, which is to say only three months ago, it was reported that the Biden administration had ‘allowed’ Ukraine to use American-made missiles to attack deep inside Russia to escalate the war. After this, Reuters ran a report with the headline ‘Biden risking World War 3 with missile decision, says Russian lawmaker’.

The month before that, October 2024, the head of the United States’ largest bank was quoted in a headline which read ‘Western power is at risk and there could be a World War 3, says JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’. He was referring not only to the war in Ukraine but also the genocide in Gaza and the rise of China as being trigger events for something wider.

So the circus that unfolded at the famous Oval Office in the White House on Friday was not the only time that we have been discussing the potential obliteration of humankind. What is one to make of this? Let us try to see if some sense can be made of what is going on.

To begin, what does Donald Trump want? On the surface it is hard to tell because he talks so much and so casually about so many things. His detractors say this is because he is stupid and mercurial but it is difficult to square this with a person who won the US presidency twice. Let us assume that he knows what he is doing.

The view that appears to be most coherent is that the real target of the American president is China. He wants to handicap its rise so that it does not equal the US in power. He wants the dollar to remain the only reserve global currency and he wants China to cede some ground on manufacturing and exports back to the US.

And so all of his larger actions should be seen, according to this view, from the China lens.

China is scheduled to equal and then exceed the US economy over the next couple of decades if past growth rates hold. Trump does not want to allow that. His first term’s tariffs and other restrictions that came under Biden on China, such as the ban on high-end computer chips, with the naked desire that China not progress technologically are the largest part of that plan. In this term, Trump added 10 per cent additional tariff on all Chinese goods coming into the US, and then another 10 per cent that is scheduled to come into effect this week. He has said he could go as high as 60 per cent. This will introduce high levels of uncertainty and turbulence in China and also the US because many industries are intertwined. Several people have pointed out directly to Trump that this will affect American consumers as much as it will the Chinese companies, but he has repeatedly waved this concern off.

Also Read: ‘We stand with you’: Zelenskyy embraced by British PM day after Oval Office blowout

His open threat to BRICS against using currencies other than the dollar is another part of the plan to keep China under control.

Under this view, to continue its logic, the US involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East is a distraction which has to end quickly so that the main business of China can be focussed on. China is America’s only peer competitor, not Russia and not anybody else. Therefore, it makes little sense to be diverted from the overall mission.

The two years of continuous and murderous bombing of Gaza ended with a peace deal that Trump forced on Israel in January, and now it seems like Ukraine will have to capitulate to Russia after the ending of US backing. If this view is correct, after that happens, meaning after Russia has prevailed over Ukraine, there will be a sharper US focus on China. But if this is the case, then why is Trump also going after America’s largest trading partners and allies and Mexico and Canada?

Under this view that we have assumed to be Trump’s, the suggestion is that it is a continuation of his desire to keep America ahead of China. The tariffs have introduced a level of chaos and uncertainty in the global markets, and that always leads to a strengthening of the dollar, as we are witnessing. The only counter here is that a stronger dollar then makes it even harder for the US to export its manufactures and the trade deficits that Trump wants to reduce remain in place. Perhaps Trump has thought about this also, and perhaps he has not. We shall see: four years is a long time.

The larger question mark is how China will react. China has not reached the position it has today because it has been the beneficiary of external largesse. It has a large and talented population that has moved its economy and industry up the value chain faster than any nation in history over a period of just 40 years. It will defend its position and it will do what it can to fi rst equal and then overtake the US. China’s ambitions cannot be determined by America.

China’s leader cannot be summoned to the White House king’s court and scolded and forced to bend the knee as other allies have been made to do. And as recent developments in artifi cial intelligence, and the growth of Chinese exports to the rest of the world in 2024 show (China has a trillion dollar trade surplus), the tariffs by themselves may slow but not stop China.

So if this view that Trump’s primary quest is to ensure America retains its global dominance is correct, the ending of the Ukraine war will clear his Oval Office desk to focus on the task at hand. What comes next, whether world war or something else, absolutely nobody knows.

By Aakar Patel

Tesla’s intentions of establishing a manufacturing base in India are well-known and have sparked a debate, intertwining market expansion ambitions with the intricacies of global geopolitics. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is keen to position India as a hub for electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing, offering reduced import tariffs for automakers willing to make significant local investments. Sources have informed DKB that Tesla is actively scouting locations, with Maharashtra emerging as a frontrunner for its manufacturing plant. The company has also begun recruitment efforts, reinforcing its serious intent to establish a presence in the Indian market.

However, U.S. President Donald Trump has raised concerns over Tesla’s potential expansion into India. In a recent interview, he criticized India’s high import tariffs on EVs, calling them “very unfair.” Trump warned that setting up a Tesla factory in India could be detrimental to the U.S., particularly if it allows the company to sidestep these tariffs. His stance underscores a broader policy focus on reducing trade deficits and ensuring that American corporations prioritize domestic investments.

Amid this geopolitical tug-of-war, Indian babus fi nd themselves in a delicate balancing act. Hosting a global EV leader like Tesla aligns with India’s industrial and environmental goals, yet the implicit caution from Washington calls for a measured approach. India must weigh the economic benefits of Tesla’s entry against the potential strain on diplomatic ties with the U.S. This scenario exemplifies realpolitik, where economic ambitions must be carefully navigated alongside strategic international relations.

The next moves by the key stakeholders will be critical. India will not be looking to jeopardize its relationship with the U.S. without harming local manufacturers. Washington, in turn, must balance trade policy with the realities of global corporate expansion. In this high-stakes game, every decision will shape the future of EV manufacturing in India and global trade dynamics.

Babus, Bandobast and the Big Oath

Delhi’s recent swearing-in ceremony for Chief Minister Rekha Gupta was grand. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) marked its return to power in the capital after nearly three decades, and while the politicians soaked in the limelight, another set of professionals got their long-awaited moment to shine—the babus.

For Delhi’s government officials, the event was a rare throwback to the days of large-scale state functions where security, logistics, and sheer administrative muscle took centre stage. The swearing-in got the national babus back in action, doing what they love most—bandobast. Managing VIP movement, coordinating convoys, and ensuring no protocol was breached was the kind of assignment they had been waiting for. For months, they had been confi ned to files and policy papers, but here was a chance to orchestrate a full-blown administrative ballet.

The Ramlila Maidan was transformed into a high-security zone, with over 25,000 personnel deployed and 1,000 buses ferrying guests. It wasn’t just about security; it was about optics. Ensuring the Prime Minister, senior BJP leaders, and other dignitaries moved seamlessly through layers of protocol was a logistical marvel. The babus, many of whom pride themselves on their crisis-management skills, ensured everything ran like a well-rehearsed opera.

For some senior bureaucrats, the ceremony was also a moment of political recalibration. A change in power means new expectations, new chains of command, and a fresh playbook for survival in Delhi’s ever-evolving political chessboard. Some old hands at Raisina Hill likely viewed the event as a chance to showcase their efficiency and relevance to the new political leadership.

Of course, amidst all this, a question looms: Should the capital’s resources be channelled into such grandiose events, or could they be better used for pressing civic issues? While the return of the BJP to Delhi’s governance is a political milestone, the real work begins now. The babus, having enjoyed their moment of action, will soon return to the grind of governance.

A vote of confidence or just more of the same?

The recent appointment of Dr. V. Anantha Nageswaran as Chief Economic Adviser has sparked quite a chatter, especially given the current economic landscape in India. With GDP growth hitting a sluggish 5.40%, the slowest we’ve seen in nearly two years, it’s hard not to feel a bit uneasy about the future.

Now, extending Dr. Nageswaran’s tenure until March 2027 does come with its perks. Stability in leadership can be a good thing, especially when it comes to navigating tricky economic waters. The Economic Survey has projected growth numbers for the next fiscal year that sound optimistic 6.3% to 6.8% %—but it feels a bit like pie in the sky when the ground realities tell a different story.

What we need is a fresh approach, something that goes beyond just tweaking existing policies. The economy isn’t a machine you can just oil up and expect it to run smoothly. Dr. Nageswaran has the credentials, no doubt, but is he ready to shake things up? Are we going to see new ideas that can boost growth instead of just wishful thinking?

Experts and observers only hope that Dr Nageswaran will step up with some bold strategies. After all, the economy is not just about numbers. Hopefully, this extension isn’t just about keeping the seat warm but about igniting real change.

Public institutions worldwide are in crisis. Trust in them is declining, and US President Donald Trump’s administration, working hand in glove with the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, views them as enemies that need to be dismantled. In the face of funding cuts and geopolitical fragmentation, multilateral organizations look weaker than ever. The attacks by Trump and Musk, who boasted about “feeding” USAID “into the wood chipper” and preparing to abolish the Department of Education, may be ill-conceived and set to backfire. But they are reminding us that there is no good reason why public institutions have to be just as they were a half-century ago. Simply defending existing institutions looks ever less like an adequate response. Few of humanity’s biggest challenges – from shaping artificial intelligence and addressing mental health to managing energy transitions and industrial policy – are likely to be handled well without effective institutions. But today’s ministries, agencies, commissions, public services, and regulators often look ill-suited to meet these new needs. So, what should the alternatives look like? Governments have always depended on institutions to do their work – to enforce laws, educate children, collect taxes, or provide security – and they have often invented new ones for new tasks, like reducing carbon dioxide emissions or fighting organized crime. Amid the funding cuts and attacks, reformers must focus on creating better expressions of the public interest, making the most of new tools and technologies to improve efficiency, and restoring public trust. But the options for designing institutions today are very different from a generation ago. Global businesses like Alphabet, ByteDance, Amazon, and Alibaba have pioneered radically new business models and tapped into unprecedented economies of scale. A generation ago, few would have imagined that companies like Uber or Grab could provide a taxi service without owning any taxis. Meanwhile, civil society has also developed new models, such as Wikipedia, Ushahidi (data crowdsourcing), and Buurtzorg (home care), and there are many new forms of public-private partnerships, as well as thousands of B-corps (like Natura in Brazil) guided by social and environmental principles. There has also been some remarkable innovation within the public sector. Since its launch in 2009, India’s Aadhaar program has provided biometric IDs to more than one billion people and helped vastly expand access to financial services.

Over the past decade, Narendra Modi has been implementing his motto of “maximum governance and minimum government,” while China created the world’s first Cyberspace Administration in 2011, and its Government Guidance Funds have mobilized trillions of dollars for new technology since 2002. But, in much of the world, public institutions have hardly changed. Most are still pyramid structures, as they were a century ago, and are too often opaque and unresponsive. When new institutions are created, they are typically designed by committees of relatively elderly politicians or civil servants and tend to be siloed, hierarchical, and inflexible. Artificial intelligence shows starkly the gap between what’s there and what’s needed. It has been 20 years since AI started being widely used in some public services (including law enforcement and healthcare) and many private ones (such as credit scoring and search engines). But the world is only just starting to create institutions to govern it well – from procurement to maximize its value for public services to regulation to mitigate abuses, as well as multilateral institutions to pool global knowledge about the risks and opportunities associated with the technology. One reason for the delay was clever positioning by the industry, which discouraged governments from acting by framing AI as a fait accompli that should just be accepted. As Microsoft’s chief economist, Michael Schwarz, put it in 2023: “We shouldn’t regulate AI until we see some meaningful harm that is actually happening.” Such arguments are obviously favorable to private interests. But public institutions’ duty is to the public. And as Daron Acemoglu, one of last year’s Nobel laureate economists, and others have shown, it is institutions that determine why some countries prosper so much more than others.

Still, it is one thing to tout the successes of the Central Provident Fund and Temasek in Singapore, Brazil’s Ministry of Social Development, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Development Bank of Southern Africa. It is quite another to devise equivalents for our current needs. What will it take to create agile, flexible, and trustworthy institutions? What is the best design for making the most of AI, data, and collective intelligence (as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does for climate science)? Can we build on successes like Icarus, which mobilized satellite technology to build the “internet of animals” in an effort to help us track the state of animal populations on the planet? These crucial questions are already a major focus within global bodies like the United Nations Development Programme. Its Istanbul Innovation Days conference in late March will feature innovators who are pioneering new methods to improve how institutions function.

Also Read: 6.1 magnitude earthquake strikes Nepal; tremors felt in Siliguri, Patna and other places in India

These innovators are drawing as much from biology as from bureaucracy, thinking more in terms of mycelia (branching fungal networks) than pyramids. They are designing lighter mechanisms that can operate much faster during crises, and others that move more slowly and deliberately – like the establishment of a Future Generations Commissioner in Wales, which has inspired the creation of a similar post at the European Commission. Work is underway to build new institutions to protect against misinformation and election interference; to mobilize capital for urban energy transitions; to empower indigenous communities; and to help young people navigate the labor market during a period of turmoil and uncertainty. UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the challenge well in 2023: “We cannot effectively address problems as they are if institutions don’t reflect the world as it is. Instead of solving problems, they risk becoming part of the problem.” Institutions are like buildings: we shape them, but they then subtly influence us and how we operate. We may be in an era of dismantling, disruption, and disorder. But history suggests that such circumstances eventually lead to rebuilding and reinvention. When that time comes, we will need to have already done the work of exploring better options. As the Brazilian sociologist and politician Roberto Mangabeira Unger observes, “the world remains restless under the yoke of a dictatorship of no alternatives.” Fortunately, such restlessness can be fuel for imagination.

The United Nations Conferences on Financing for Development have been great occasions for building consensus on global financing issues. The next meeting, set for mid-2025 in Spain, will continue the progress made previously in Monterrey (2002), Doha (2008), and Addis Ababa (2015), and preparations are already underway with the launch of two major background documents. While a “Zero Draft” will serve as the basis for the negotiations, delegates also will consider a set of proposals from an international commission of experts that I had the honor of coordinating. Both reflect the ambition to build on the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

The central objective of this process is to support developing countries’ growth strategies. The commission of experts emphasized the need to restore and strengthen the transformative role of the state, envisioning it as a key driver of development and structural transformation. That means emphasizing the quality as well as the quantity of resources that are mobilized, and replacing a short-term project-focused agenda with one geared toward collectively defined longer-term goals. Each task calls for strengthening the currently weakened multilateral system and creating new regional platforms. A crucial issue is public-sector over-indebtedness, which affects about one-third of developing countries, while several others face high debt levels and interest costs. This problem stems from the large fiscal imbalances during the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in interest rates in recent years. Managing it will require an ambitious short-term renegotiation instrument, which can build on the G20’s 2020 Common Framework for Debt Treatments.

This time, however, the renegotiation process must be faster, and access should be extended to middle-income countries. In the long term, we need a permanent mechanism for sovereign debt restructuring, which could be housed either in the UN or the International Monetary Fund, provided, in the latter case, that it remains independent of the IMF Board. Another urgent objective is to reinvigorate development financing. An estimated $4 trillion more is needed annually to fund the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Mobilizing these resources will require official development assistance on the scale that high-income countries committed to decades ago: “0.7% of gross national income to developing countries and 0.15-0.20% of GNI to least developed countries.” Most developed countries have failed to hit these targets, and the funds directed to low-income countries have actually decreased in recent years.

A second priority in this area is to increase the financing available from multilateral development banks (MDBs) and support the expansion of national development banks’ activities (or the creation of such institutions in the developing countries lacking them). Such efforts must include more financing in local currencies to mitigate the risks of debt escalation from exchange-rate depreciation, and support for the development of domestic bond markets in these countries. Beyond traditional lending, these institutions also should support developing countries’ efforts to provide international public goods such as pandemic preparedness and prevention, climate-change mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity protection. Increasing environmentally sustainable financing is crucial. While the recent Conferences of the Parties on climate change and biodiversity agreed to more financing, their targets remain insufficient. This is particularly worrying now that biodiversity losses are mounting and global warming has already begun to exceed the 1.5o Celsius threshold set by the Paris climate agreement. In these areas, and in development financing in general, greater private-sector involvement should be mobilized with the help of credits for environmental investments or complementary mechanisms such as loan guarantees from development banks. Building adequate, progressive tax bases is also essential. We need to prevent multinationals from shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens, and ensure adequate tax payments by the wealthy. The first of these objectives requires adopting the principle of “signifi cant economic presence,” according to which multinationals pay a fair share of taxes in all countries where they operate, including through cross-border services. For rich individuals, a global asset registry based on benefi cial ownership is essential. The UN Tax Convention that is currently being negotiated could foster the international cooperation that these efforts require. But we also will need a coordinating institution, which could be created by transforming the current UN expert committee into an intergovernmental organ. To support developing countries, IMF credit facilities should be improved, and their conditionalities should be revised. But we also need two new Fund instruments: an international swap facility and a fund that can intervene in international markets for emerging and developing countries’ bonds during downswings. These changes should be complemented by more frequent and strategically timed issuances of special drawing rights (SDRs, the IMF’s reserve asset), with the funds fl owing into various mechanisms (including those within MDBs) to finance development or environmental goals while preserving their character as reserve assets. In institutional terms, the most urgent priority is to promote regional monetary arrangements in the developing world. This, one hopes, would lead to a denser system of global and regional institutions, like what one finds with the MDBs.

Also Read: Cabinet OKs proposed changes to Waqf Bill, clears decks for tabling in Parliament: Sources

In trade, the crucial issues are the need to uphold existing tariff commitments made at the World Trade Organization, and negotiating a new agreement to set the limits of industrial policies, but with special and differential treatment for developing countries. It is also essential to include exceptions for intellectual property rights related to health and environmental technologies. And to ensure fairness in the functioning of commodity markets, we must promote greater use of international and national buffer stocks. One issue that past Conferences on Financing for Development have not touched is international financial regulation. Still, several important matters belong on this year’s agenda, including how to design or strengthen regulation of digital financial assets, international credit rating agencies, and international commodity futures markets. A new global investment agreement is also desirable, and existing investment-protection agreements should be revisited to avoid demands against national provisions that protect social and environmental standards.

Finally, several institutional reforms warrant attention. In addition to establishing adequate institutions to manage renegotiation of sovereign debt, oversee international tax cooperation, and bolster international financial cooperation, the world must heed the developing world’s longstanding demand for greater “voice and participation” in the Bretton Woods institutions. That means establishing a fair allocation of capital shares, increasing these countries’ basic votes, and creating more open, inclusive processes for selecting each body’s leadership.

An unusual level of secrecy surrounds the high-level meeting of Arab leaders who got together in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s suggestion to move all Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip and let realtors do business on that strip of land. This was to be in the name of rebuilding the settlement destroyed by Israeli bombing for the past 15 months. There was no final communiqué, Presser or details of when the meeting started or ended. Instead, only a single photo showing the leaders standing shoulder to shoulder was released. This, however, shows how sensitive these talks are for Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, leaders from other Gulf states, Egypt’s President and Jordan’s king, who all attended. What is at stake is whether they can reach a consensus and unite around an Egyptian plan for Gaza that is starkly different to the one laid out by President Trump in recent weeks. Absolute silence could also imply that none of the leaders was willing to accept the horde of Gazans polluting their respective societies. Palestinians are the single source of immense unrest and trouble for that region.

In fact, Arab states are scrambling to address Trump’s vision for Gaza, in which he says the US should take ownership of the territory, displace all its 2 million Palestinians permanently to countries like Egypt and Jordan and turn this sliver of beachfront territory into a real estate project. Such a settlement proposal is contrary to all canons of diplomacy being followed by nations for the past eight decades. The plan poses a threat to an already shaky ceasefire in Gaza. Israeli airstrikes have decimated the territory and killed at least 48,000 people, most of them women and children as the men use them as shields while they themselves keep busy in terror activities. The war erupted when Hamas militants attacked an Israeli music concert dedicated, interestingly, to peace and killing around 1,200 people there and taking hostages back in October 2023.

Arab countries are keen to strengthen their ties with President Trump. But, that desire has not prevented them from verbally rejecting the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza while not directly condemning Trump’s idea. Egypt and Jordan view the plan as destabilizing to their own security. The UAE, which has close ties with Israel and opposes Hamas in Gaza, has insisted that reconstruction of Gaza must be linked to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Hamas and many Palestinians have called Trump’s plan “ethnic cleansing,” but Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed it.

Whatever Trump or Netanyahu think, the undeniable fact is that any post-war reconstruction of Gaza will also require Arab support to help shoulder the cost of rebuilding and the possible deployment of troops for security. While Egypt’s plan has not been made public, the state-run Al-Ahram newspaper in Cairo reported it includes carving out “safe areas” for Palestinians in Gaza to reside in as Egyptian and international companies remove rubble and rebuild infrastructure. There are also reports that the multiphase plan includes Hamas giving up governance of Gaza, though Hamas wants to have the right to maintain arms against Israel.

There is also speculation whether the plan goes far enough in addressing the concerns of Gulf Arab states which are unlikely to invest billions into rebuilding Gaza so long as the spectre of violence looms indefinitely and Israeli airstrikes remain a threat. The Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank also has its own vision of Gaza that will be presented in early March at a wider Arab League summit in Cairo.

Also Read: Brothers responsible for Kolkata triple murder, no outsiders involved

Meanwhile, what causes concern is the fact that there is a little over a week left in the current ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, while negotiations have not yet begun for the more complex second phase of the deal that includes full Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza, the release of all remaining Israeli hostages and a permanent end to the war. Far-Right ministers in Israel’s government want a return to war, saying Hamas has not been eliminated.

According to an assessment last week by the UN, World Bank and European Union, Gaza and the occupied West Bank need at least $53 billion for reconstruction and recovery over the next decade. A UN report says 95 per cent of Gaza’s schools have been damaged or destroyed, and 90 per cent homes and most hospitals, roads, water systems and agricultural land damaged during Israel’s military actions since October 2023.

Undoubtedly both Trump and Arab leaders need to find a common meeting ground so that a new plan of settlement brings peace in the Middle East instead of pushing it again into an unending spiral of bloodshed and destruction of life but the main thing to watch is the high level of reluctance amongst all neighbouring Moslem Arab countries towards accepting resettlement of primarily Moslem Gazans in their counties. The dislike for that bunch of people is very palpable.

Germans have just voted the conservative opposition to power in a general election that was dominated by worries about the years-long stagnation in Europe’s largest economy and a growing sentiment against immigrants. The Christian Democratic Union of Germany/Christian-Social Union (CDU/CSU) alliance led by Friedrich Merz has won 29 per cent votes, the most, while the Far-Right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has become the second largest party, securing 21 per cent of votes, nearly doubling its tally as against the last election.

The results indicated that Merz’s Christian Democrats and the centre-left Social Democrats secured a majority of seats in the national legislature, as smaller parties did not meet the electoral threshold. This positions Merz favourably for becoming the country’s next chancellor. He has, however, dismissed the idea of forming a coalition with the AfD. In fact, all the major parties have committed to upholding a “firewall” that prevents any formal collaboration with the anti-migrant, pro-Kremlin AfD. It is pertinent to note here that the AfD has received considerable endorsements from figures such as US President Donald Trump’s advisor, Elon Musk, and US Vice President JD Vance during the brief but intense campaign.

Merz’s conservative party secured 208 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag, while the AfD garnered 152 seats. The three parties that comprised the previous governing coalition experienced a loss of seats, with the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) led by outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz dropping to 120 and the Greens to 85. The pro-business Free Democrats, which instigated early elections by withdrawing from the coalition, did not achieve the 5 per cent of the vote necessary to gain any seats. The Left party obtained 64 seats, while the leftist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance fell just short of the 5 per cent threshold.

Incidentally, the German elections threw up two interesting contrasts. The 69-year-old Merz, who stands 6’5″ tall, is a known misogynist and has barely any women in his leadership group. Throughout his political career, Merz has consistently advocated for conservative values and emphasized the significance of family. In the 1990s, he opposed the liberalization of abortion laws and voted against pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Infamously, he also voted against the criminalization of marital rape in 1997. A lawyer by profession, Merz has faced delays in reaching the top position, largely due to former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s influence in the early 2000s. After leaving parliament in 2009, he stepped away from active politics for several years, during which he practised law and led the supervisory board of the German branch of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. Despite his extensive political background, Merz is approaching the chancellery without any prior experience in government.

Also Read: New FBI Director Kash Patel sworn in as acting ATF chief, say sources

On the other hand is Alice Weidel, the woman who heads the AfD. Weidel is in a same sex marriage with a Swiss citizen of Sri Lankan origin. The couple has two adopted sons and splits their time between Switzerland and Germany. Weidel is an economist by profession and has previously worked with Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China. Her grandfather, Hans Weidel, was a Nazi judge who was appointed directly by Adolf Hitler to pass judgments on those who opposed the Third Reich.

For now, under Merz’s leadership, it will be interesting to observe how Germany, a key NATO member, navigates the challenges posed by Russia and, more recently, by the United States, where Donald Trump’s return has created global turmoil. Merz has emphasized that his primary focus is to foster unity in Europe in response to these challenges. At a time when the US, under Trump’s influence, is disregarding established norms of international cooperation and international law, a robust and united Europe is more essential than ever. What remains to be seen is whether Merz, as the leader of the European Union’s most populous country, can ensure that.

24 February marks the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Kremlin’s strategy for a swift victory has faltered badly, leading to a protracted conflict where neither side has achieved significant advances on the battlefield. The initial goals of Russia’s invasion were to quickly capture Kyiv and seize control of the eastern half of Ukraine. However, Ukrainian forces successfully halted the Russian advance towards the capital, pushed them out of the north, and later executed effective counter-offensives in the east and south. In 2023, Ukraine attempted additional counter-offensives but faced challenges due to equipment shortages and robust Russian defensive positions. By 2024, the conflict had evolved into a war of attrition.

Throughout the war, Ukraine has fiercely resisted its larger and more powerful neighbour, but the situation now seems to be deteriorating significantly. Kyiv’s relationship with the United States, its primary military supporter since the onset of the war in 2022, has sharply declined in the wake of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. At present, the chances of receiving additional US military assistance appear bleak, and the possibility of a disadvantageous peace agreement—one that could compel Ukraine to cede territory to Russia—is becoming more likely.

Tensions escalated recently when US officials resumed discussions with their Russian counterparts, leaving Ukraine out of initial talks aimed at establishing peace. This development further strained the already fraught relationship between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who last week accused the US president of “living in a Russian disinformation bubble.” Hitting back, Trump described the Ukrainian president as a “dictator without elections” and warned him that he’d “better move fast” to negotiate an end to the war or risk not having a nation to lead.

Ukraine faces a potentially bleak outcome in the ongoing war, marked by significant loss of life and extensive damage estimated at up to $500 billion over three arduous years. With a military force of approximately 900,000 personnel compared to Russia’s 1.3 million, Ukraine has encountered challenges related to manpower. Since 2022, Ukraine has remained heavily reliant on Western weapons and munitions. The Trump administration has not pursued additional congressional funding for military support to Kyiv, raising concerns that the flow of US weapons may eventually halt, as occurred when funding expired in late 2023, adversely affecting Ukraine’s efforts.

Meanwhile, European governments, concerned about their limited involvement in discussions between high-ranking US and Russian officials, are taking steps to bolster support for Zelenskyy while also working to maintain strong transatlantic relations. On 21 February, European Union Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, the bloc’s top defence official, announced that the EU intends to deliver a significant message of support to Ukraine through a new aid package, coinciding with the third anniversary of the war.

Russia seems to be relishing the discord between the US and Ukraine. While it has long portrayed the US as its primary adversary, the Kremlin has notably shifted its rhetoric and public stance towards Washington ever since Trump took office. Trump and his team are cosying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a bid to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine. In the process, they are also willing to forego the decades-old transatlantic alliance with Europe. What the Trump administration doesn’t realise is that if Russia emerges victorious, whether through military success or a shoddy peace deal with Washington, it will become an even greater threat to Europe and ultimately, most likely, also hurt American interests. Trump, like many Americans, thinks the oceans on both sides protect mainland America. Poor in history, they forget Pearl Harbor.

The Union government says that the “Indian Census is the largest single source of various statistical information on various characteristics of the people of India. With a history of more than 130 years, this reliable, time-tested exercise is bringing in a real insight into the data every 10 years, beginning in the year 1872 when the first census was conducted non-synchronously in different parts of India.” And that the “Census has been an attractive source of data for scholars and researchers in demography, economics, anthropology, sociology, statistics and many other disciplines.

” The last census India conducted was in 2011, and after this, we do not have good data on many things not just the strength of our population. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living.

The United Nations assesses the health dimension by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension is measured by the mean of years of schooling and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by national income per person per year. The UN says HDI can be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts, the UN says, can stimulate debate about government policy priorities.

India’s 0.644 score on the HDI puts it below Iraq (0.673), Botswana (0.708) and Bangladesh (0.670) and significantly lower than the world average of 0.739. But Kerala’s score of 0.775 clubs it with Mexico (0.781), Cuba (0.764) and China (0.788) while the 30 crore people of Uttar Pradesh (0.592) and Bihar (0.551) can be grouped with Zimbabwe (0.550) and Pakistan (0.540). If they were in separate places Tamil Nadu (0.738) would be ranked more than 50 places above Bihar. The story is similar in the rest of our region. Within Pakistan also there exist considerable differences between provinces.

An internal Pakistani survey not comparable to the global one ranked Punjab’s HDI at 0.732, while Balochistan was 0.421 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was at only 0.216. In July 2023, India’s Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation posted state-wise data on per-person income. Telangana, at 3.08 lakh/year or `25,000/month was double that of Madhya Pradesh at `1.4 lakh, four times that of UP (`70,000 in 2022) and six times that of Bihar (`49,000 in 2022). Pakistan’s per capita was `1.2 lakh (also in INR) and Bangladesh’s was 2.1 lakh. If there is something essential about religion or national culture, it does not appear to show in this data, else UP and Bihar would not be poorer than Pakistan. Punjabis are more than half of Pakistani’s population.

In material terms, they are closer to Indian Punjab (per capita income of `1.7 lakh) than their compatriots. In his book “South vs North,” Nilakantan RS records the differences in the human development of Indians purely based on the circumstance of where one is born. We have not had a census in a decade and a half, but based on available data, he reports that someone born in Madhya Pradesh can expect to live eight years fewer than someone born in Uttarakhand, at 64 years versus 72. The number of deaths per 1000 births is six times higher in Uttar Pradesh than it is in Kerala. The rate of women dying in childbirth is four times higher in Assam than in Maharashtra. The number of children who are stunted (low height for age) is a quarter of all children in Punjab but half of all children in Bihar.

An Anganwadi (a rural creche and child care centre) in Haryana is 10 times more likely to be in a pucca building than one in West Bengal. Karnataka has 10 times the number of hospital beds per lakh people than Bihar and Maharashtra has eight times the number of doctors per lakh people than Odisha.

Himachalis are twice as likely to be enrolled in higher education than Gujaratis and Punjabis are three times more likely to be educated in English than Gujaratis (I have personal experience of the situation this has created). Nilakantan points out that in MP, agriculture’s share of economic output is five times that of Tamil Nadu’s while in Gujarat manufacturing’s share of GDP is three times that of Andhra Pradesh’s.

The participation of women in the labour force is 12 times higher in Himachal Pradesh than in Bihar and three times higher in Chhattisgarh than in UP. The Indian state itself manifests differently for citizens depending on where one is. The Manipuri complainant to the police is six times less likely to have her complaint resulting in a chargesheet than someone in Andhra Pradesh.

The rate of charge sheeting, marking the beginning of prosecution, is 92 per cent in AP but only 14 per cent in Manipur and this is from the government’s data for 2021, before the current troubles began. The rate of crimes registered in Kerala is 12 times higher per lakh population than in Karnataka (1075 versus 71).

Is it the case that there are that many times more crimes in one neighbouring state over another? What is more likely is that the registering of cases is done with more willingness in Kerala than in other states. Kerala records the lowest rate of murders in India, at 0.9 incidents per lakh population, half of Andhra Pradesh (1.8) and lower than Gujarat (1.4), Odisha (3.0) and Jharkhand (4.0). It will be interesting to see what shifts have been recorded in the last decade and a half — from the effects of demonetisation and COVID’s second wave to the drop in fertility and increase in farm workers — but we will only know this if and when the census is conducted.

With the AAP’s dramatic downfall and the BJP’s resounding victory, Delhi’s civil servants finally seem to be breathing easy. Having a ‘double-engine’ government—one that aligns both the Centre and Delhi—provides clarity in both means and objectives. Over the past decade, since AAP took charge in Delhi while the BJP held sway at the Centre, bureaucrats often found themselves in an uncomfortable limbo. Navigating the tense political dynamics between the two powerhouses wasn’t exactly a cakewalk. Now, with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) controlling the AGMUT Cadre offi cers, along with DANICS and DANIPS officers, bureaucrats have a more streamlined command structure. No more second-guessing which way the political winds are blowing. The Delhi government, likely to function as an extended arm of the Centre, may not have the autonomy it once claimed, but at least the bureaucrats can go about their work without walking a political tightrope. And with a fresh Pay Commission and income tax relief in the bag, there’s a tangible silver lining. Meanwhile, Delhi Chief Secretary Dharmendra has wasted no time in setting the ball rolling for a bureaucratic house cleaning. Even before the new government formally takes charge, all department heads have been ordered to compile a list of AAP-era appointments— specifically those who were allegedly handpicked party members and ministerial aides given cushy non-official posts in possible violation of rules. With a consolidated government in place, the message is clear: the days of political ambiguity for Delhi’s civil servants are over. Whether this ushers in an era of smoother governance or just another round of political manoeuvring remains to be seen.

NITI Aayog sticks to familiar

The Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) has decided to stick with experience, extending B.V.R. Subrahmanyam’s tenure as CEO of NITI Aayog for another year beyond February 2025. A veteran bureaucrat with a track record spanning governance, trade, and strategic policymaking, Subrahmanyam’s extension signals continuity at India’s top policy think tank. But is continuity always a good thing? On the one hand, his leadership ensures stability. Having handled complex policy challenges, from Jammu & Kashmir’s administration to India’s commerce strategy, he brings deep institutional knowledge. His supporters argue that in a rapidly evolving economic landscape, a steady hand at NITI Aayog is essential. On the other hand, some question whether this move stifl es fresh thinking. India’s policy ecosystem thrives on innovation, and a shake-up at the top sometimes brings in new energy. Critics argue that a more dynamic approach—perhaps someone from outside the bureaucratic machinery—could push NITI Aayog into new territory. Ultimately, the extension suggests the government is prioritising experience over experimentation. Whether that’s a masterstroke or a missed opportunity will unfold over the next year. The real test? Whether NITI Aayog can continue shaping policies that keep pace with India’s aspirations—or simply maintain the status quo.

Are babus losing touch?

Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy stirred the pot recently with his candid remarks about the state of the administration. Addressing a gathering at the IAS Officers’ Institute in Begumpet, he lamented that some district collectors today seem reluctant to step out of their air-conditioned offices and engage with the people they serve. It’s an unfortunate reality and one that raises serious concerns about the evolving role of civil servants. Gone are the days, Reddy pointed out, when IAS officers would thoroughly brief political leaders on the pros and cons of policy decisions. Instead, he suggested, many bureaucrats now prioritize pleasing their political bosses, sometimes even encouraging them down misguided paths. That’s not governance—it’s groupthink with a dangerous ripple effect. This shift begs the question: Have we institutionalised a culture where career progression trumps public service? Bureaucrats of an earlier era, like retired officer M. Gopalakrishna (in whose honour the book launch was held), were known for their hands-on approach. They spent time in the field, understood ground realities, and served as the bridge between the government and the governed. Today, many officers seem more at home with PowerPoint presentations than public grievances. Of course, not all babus fi t this mould. There are still those who walk the extra mile, defying the “file-pushing” stereotype. But Reddy’s remarks are meant to serve as a wake-up call. Governance isn’t about paperwork alone, it’s about people. And if the system rewards deference over diligence, then we have a bigger problem on our hands than just a few officers preferring their AC cabins over the summer heat.

Dilip Cherian

I was fortunate to participate in the recent AI Action Summit in Paris, where many discussions emphasized the need to steer AI in a more socially beneficial direction. At a time of increasingly loud calls for AI acceleration from Silicon Valley – and now from the US government – the opportunity to focus on what we want from the technology was like a breath of fresh air. As I noted in one of my speeches, we should start by asking what is valuable and worth amplifying in human societies. What makes us so special, or at least successful in evolutionary terms, is our ability to devise solutions to problems large and small, to try new things, and to find meaning in such efforts. We have a capacity not only to create knowledge, but also to share it. Though the human journey has not always been smooth – our capabilities, machines, and knowledge sometimes cause profound harms – constant inquiry and prolific sharing of information is essential to what we are. For more than 200,000 years, technology has been central to this story.

From the days of stone tools to the present, we have built the solutions to our challenges; and from oral storytelling and the invention of writing to the printing press and the internet, we have developed new and better ways of sharing knowledge. Within the past 200 years, we have also figured out how to experiment better and more freely, and we have communicated this knowledge, too. The scientific process gave us established facts, allowing each generation to build on its predecessors’ advances. It also underpinned spectacular growth in most countries over the past two centuries. While economic development has created tremendous inequality between and within countries, people almost everywhere today are healthier and more prosperous than they would have been in the eighteenth century. AI could invigorate this trend by complementing human skills, talents, and knowledge, improving our decision-making, experimentation, and applications of useful knowledge. Some may question whether we need AI for this purpose. After all, we already live in an age of information abundance; everything one might want – and much that one does not want – is technically accessible through the internet. But useful information is scarce. Good luck finding what you need to address a specific problem in a particular context, in a timely fashion. It is relevant practical knowledge, not mere information, that makes factory workers more productive; enables electricians to handle new equipment and perform more sophisticated tasks; helps nurses play a more critical decision-making role in health care; and generally allows workers of all skills and backgrounds to fill new and more productive roles. AI, properly developed and used, can indeed make us better – not just by providing “a bicycle for the mind,” but by truly expanding our ability to think and act with greater understanding, independent of coercion or manipulation. Yet owing to its profound potential, AI also represents one of the gravest threats that humanity has ever faced. The risk is not only (or even mainly) that superintelligent machines will someday rule over us; it is that AI will undermine our ability to learn, experiment, share knowledge, and derive meaning from our activities. AI will greatly diminish us if it ceaselessly eliminates tasks and jobs; overcentralises information and discourages human inquiry and experiential learning; empowers a few companies to rule over our lives; and creates a two-tier society with vast inequalities and status differences. It may even destroy democracy and human civilization as we know it. I fear this is the direction we are heading in. But nothing is preordained. We can devise better ways to govern our societies, and choose a direction for technology that boosts knowledge acquisition and maximizes human flourishing. We can also ensure that AI creates more good jobs and enhanced capabilities for everyone – regardless of their education and income level. But first, the public must recognize that this socially desirable path is technically feasible. AI will move in a pro-human direction only if technologists, engineers, and executives work together with democratic institutions, and if developers in the United States, Europe, and China listen to the five billion people who live in other parts of the world. We desperately need more thoughtful advice from experts and inspiring leadership from politicians, whose focus should be on incentivizing pro-human AI through policy and regulatory frameworks. But we also need more than regulation. One hopes that European AI companies and researchers can show that there are alternatives to the Silicon Valley model.

To achieve this demonstration effect, European society must encourage the more socially beneficial direction of AI and European leaders will need to invest in the necessary digital infrastructure, design regulations that do not discourage investment or drive away talented AI researchers, and create the kind of financing mechanisms that successful startups need to scale up. Without a robust AI industry of its own, Europe will have little to no infl uence on the direction of AI globally.

With only a few weeks to go before the federal election on 23 February, Germany experienced a political earthquake. For the first time, the main opposition party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), relied on the support of the extreme-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) to pass a motion in the national parliament. CDU leader Friedrich Merz, long seen as a shoo-in for the chancellorship, justified the move by blaming other parties for their unwillingness to address migration. But while the motion produced nothing concrete, the democratic political parties’ “firewall” against the far right was breached. No longer can Germany claim to be one of the last major European democracies not to have “normalized” the far right. But what exactly is normalization, and on what grounds should it be criticized? For starters, it is not the same thing as mainstreaming. Normalization is specifically about rationalizing a transgression of an existing norm – not collaborating with far-right parties that pose a threat to democracy, in this case – whereas “mainstream” is always relative. Like the notion of the political center, it has no objective content, but simply refers to what is most common or widely subscribed. Thus, entering a coalition with a farright party, or relying on it to pass laws, is a form of normalization, while copying the rhetoric of the far right is an example of mainstreaming. To mainstream an issue is to call attention to it and frame it the way the far right wants it to be framed. Hence, social scientists have long warned that if the issues the far right favors dominate in an election campaign, the far right will do well at the polls.

Since pro-democracy politicians do not want to be perceived as cynical opportunists, they usually seek ways to justify normalization. One option is simply to claim that the norm remains in force, and that one’s behavior does not qualify as a violation. Merz took this path when he stressed that his goal is to diminish AfD’s share of the vote. But this argument is unconvincing. Rival parties often end up in coalitions, and the fact that they have conflicting programs does not mean that they never cooperate. Another option is simply to declare the norm invalid. For decades, the Italian Social Movement (MSI), which cultivated nostalgia for Mussolini and Fascism, was deemed beyond the pale. Like the Communists, it was not considered to be a part of the arco costituzionale (“the constitutional arch”): the parties that basically accepted Italy’s post-war democratic constitution. But then came Silvio Berlusconi, a pioneer of normalization who suggested that the anti-fascist consensus was either obsolete or a left-wing plot against the right. His party proceeded to form a coalition with the MSI in 1994.

One other option is to retain the norm, while insisting either that it does not apply to a particular party, or that it is less important than other political imperatives. Think of Italy’s current Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, who got her political start in the MSI’s youth organizations. Plenty of politicians, both inside and outside Italy, have decided that her Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia) party – a direct descendent of the MSI – is a perfectly acceptable partner. Even those still hesitant to work with the most right-wing Italian government since World War II can invoke larger issues – such as the need to present a united front in support of Ukraine – to justify cooperation. A similar logic applies in Austria, where the center-right People’s Party had initially ruled out working with Herbert Kickl, the chair of the far-right Freedom Party. After coalition talks with the center-left had failed, the People’s Party proceeded to negotiate with Kickl’s party, all in the name of keeping Austria governable. These talks, too, have now failed, but, in the process, the People’s Party signaled to Austrians that Kickl was an acceptable choice after all (a signal that no doubt will help the Freedom Party in the next elections). It is reasonable to assume that many Austrians voted for the People’s Party in the most recent election precisely because it had vowed not to normalize the far right; it is unclear whether it will be trusted again after its glaring betrayal of that promise. Even more nefarious are situations where the far right calls the shots even as its leaders remain out of high office, and thus largely unaccountable. In Sweden, for example, the current minority government is supported by the far-right Sweden Democrats; in France, the government – which also lacks a majority – is ultimately at the mercy of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally; and in the Netherlands, the government includes the far right, but its leader, Geert Wilders – who completely controls his party as its only official member – remains in the background. Normalization is easier to detect than mainstreaming. But recognizing it as a problem requires a public that is paying attention, and prominent figures who will make norm-breaking a scandal, instead of normalizing it. Voters take their cues from elites; if a politician who is seen as mainstream treats a party as normal, public opinion will tend to follow.

Moreover, research has shown that such acceptance spreads beyond partisans of the mainstream party that started the process and eventually extends to the citizenry as a whole. Once normalization has happened, it is virtually impossible to undo. The significance of mainstreaming is somewhat different, because it remains up to politicians which topics to emphasize and how to treat them. It is high time they learned that uncritically adopting far-right talking points – often thinly veiled incitements to hatred – is not only immoral. It is also a losing proposition at the ballot box.