Loading...

Tag: Asia Media

Tariffs and the Oil Trap: What Washington Isn’t Saying?

When Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on friendly nations, the official line was clear: punish Russia, protect Ukraine. But scratch beneath the surface, and a different story emerges—Ukraine may be the headline, but the real drivers of this aggressive trade posture are threefold:

Oil: America’s Comeback Commodity

In 1975, the United States imposed strict limits on crude oil exports to shield itself from global market volatility. For the next four decades, it played a quiet role in oil production, instead exerting influence through massive investments in the Middle East and military bases strategically placed near oil-rich regions.

Then came a seismic shift, in 2015, President Barack Obama signed legislation lifting the export ban. Fast forward to 2024–25, and the U.S. is now the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, pumping out 20,135 thousand barrels per day—nearly double the output of Saudi Arabia (10,856) and Russia (10,752).

But production is only half the battle. The world’s two biggest oil consumers—China and India—still source most of their crude from Russia, the Middle East, Nigeria, and other suppliers. Meanwhile, America’s oil exports have surged, with mineral fuels, oil, and oil products accounting for 16% of total U.S. exports in 2024–25, making it the country’s top export category.

Ukraine is loosing ground every day despite NATO support

Yet, cheap Russian oil and India’s refining prowess are undercutting American refineries. The threat isn’t just economic—it’s existential. The U.S. oil industry faces stiff competition, and Europe, with few alternatives, is nudged into alignment with Washington. The narrative of “saving Ukraine” masks a deeper motive: saving America’s own oil empire.

The Shrinking Circle of Wealth

For decades, the world’s top 10 economies—led by the U.S.—dictated global policy across trade, health, innovation, and defence. The G7 was once a powerhouse capable of shaping the fate of nations. In 1975, global GDP stood at $6.03 trillion, with the top 10 economies contributing $4.57 trillion—an overwhelming 75.7% share. The U.S. alone produced 27.8% of global GDP.

But the tides have turned. By 2025, the top 10 economies account for just 67% of global GDP. America’s share has dipped to 26.8%, and several of its traditional allies have slipped from the top ranks. In their place, China, India, and Brazil—backed by the BRICS alliance—have emerged as formidable challengers.

China now commands 16.8% of global GDP, positioning itself as a direct rival to U.S. dominance. The balance of power has shifted, and the era of unilateral decision-making is over. The last time America faced such a challenge was in 1985, when the Soviet Union held 16.8% of global GDP and the U.S. stood at 33%. That was the height of the Cold War. Today, the contest for economic control is just as fierce—even without the backdrop of a war in Ukraine.

China: Breathing Down America’s Neck

For half a century, the U.S. enjoyed uncontested leadership among the world’s top economies, especially after the Soviet Union’s collapse. In 1975, America produced $1.68 trillion—37.5% of the top 10 economies and 27.8% of global GDP. Between 1975 and 2020, the U.S. consistently contributed 35% to 40% of the top 10 GDP, peaking at 42.1% in 2000.

China, ranked ninth in 1975 with a modest $0.16 trillion GDP, was no threat and often seen as an ally. But after 2000, the landscape shifted, China climbed to sixth place, contributing 11.7% of the top 10 GDP. By 2020, its share had surged to 25.9%, and it has held above the 25% mark for five consecutive years. This dramatic rise disrupted America’s dominance within the elite economic club.

As of 2025, the U.S. economy stands at $30.5 trillion, while China trails closely at $19.2 trillion—63% of the U.S. total—with a higher growth rate. No nation has ever came this close to match U.S. economic power—not even the Soviet Union, whose economy in 1985 peaked at just 50.8% of America’s.

India’s rise to fourth place among global economies, coupled with its independent foreign policy, adds further complexity. The U.S. struggles to consolidate the influence of top economies to counter China’s momentum. The absence of domestic fossil fuels in both China and India makes them reliant on foreign energy markets—a vulnerability the U.S. seeks to exploit to regain control over global trade and protect its oil sector.

Meanwhile, millions of Ukrainians remain caught in a geopolitical crossfire, unaware that their suffering is part of a larger contest between global titans—not merely a war with Russia, but a struggle for economic supremacy.

Jai Kumar Sharma

Nepal: From Kingdom to Chaos

Nepal is currently in turmoil. The dramatic shift from a prosperous past to a politically turbulent present invites reflection. What has led to this upheaval in a country that once stood as a symbol of stability and charm?

Temples at Durbar Square are known for unique Hindu ArchitectureOnce an enchanting kingdom nestled in the Himalayas, Nepal has seen a remarkable evolution over the past few decades. In the 1970s and 80s, it was a beacon of prosperity and allure, particularly for Indians. With its bustling streets, casinos, vibrant pubs, and resorts, Kathmandu was a hotspot for the elite, offering foreign apparel, electronics, and unique goods that were hard to find in India. It was a place that felt more “happening” than many Indian cities at the time.

Today, however, the story is starkly different. Nepal is grappling with severe political unrest, with young people taking to the streets to demand change. In Kathmandu, the situation is intense; students have set fire to the national parliament, attacked government offices, and are holding political leaders accountable for widespread corruption.

The Personal Account

This present turmoil stands in sharp contrast to a visit I made in 2019. During that trip, which included training journalists, I met a senior editor of a leading Nepali newspaper and had eye-opening conversations with media professionals, politicians, and other influential people. While staying at one of Kathmandu’s oldest Himalaya hotel, I was surprised by frequent power cuts, a bizarre reality given Nepal’s vast hydroelectric potential of 85,000 MW, against a mere consumption of 3,000 MW.

Another revelation came during a training session with young journalists. When I asked them to choose a topic for a mock news story, their unanimous choice was making Nepal a Hindu nation again, a sentiment that was surprising since the country had been declared secular in 2008 after abolishing Hindu Monarchy.

The third surprise unfolded during a flight over Mount Everest—I noticed groups of Westerners in matching T-shirts with religious slogans waiting for flights to remote villages. I was told that these were missionaries helping with rehabilitation after the devastating Nepal earthquake in 2015. While their aid was appreciated, locals were concerned about the reported conversion of Hindus to Christianity, which had led to a noticeable decline in the Hindu population, a figure that was over 85% during the rule of the Shah dynasty. 

Strong Undercurrent in Support of Monarchy

In casual conversations in hotel lobbies and in the parties, I found a surprising longing for the monarchy. Many felt that the past stability and prosperity under the monarchy were superior to the current democratic setup, which has struggled with instability since the monarchy was abolished in 2008. A senior editor advised me not to draw parallels between Nepal and India, emphasizing that Nepalis take pride in their sovereignty and their history of never being colonized by the British. He pointed out that posters of King Prithvi Narayan Shah are still visible behind Nepal Army generals when they address the nation even today.

The bustling capital known for its Hindu architecture

Relations with India

Nepal’s relationship with India is layered and complex. During a visit in 2014, senior journalists told me that while Nepalis value their ties with India, they are sensitive about being perceived as an extension of it. This sensitivity was perfectly illustrated by Sahib Singh Varma, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, who caused discomfort by stating, “Both my cook and watchman are from Nepal.” Similarly, a leading Bollywood actress from the 1990s had to be escorted out of a hotel and put on the next flight to Delhi after saying on a live radio interview in Kathmandu: “Nepal is the most beautiful state of India.”

When it comes to development, while India has contributed to Nepal’s infrastructure, there is a growing appreciation for Chinese efficiency. Chinese companies completed the Pokhara airport and the ring road around Kathmandu ahead of schedule, a fact that has often been contrasted with the delays associated with Indian contractors. A senior journalist once made a light-hearted but telling joke: if India could just “shift Gujarat and Maharashtra to the Nepal border instead of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar,” infrastructure projects might progress faster.

Nepal stands at a crucial juncture today. The current unrest reflects deep-seated frustrations, and the call for a return to monarchy or a corruption free-system and a Hindu identity is a testament to the population’s yearning for change. How the government responds and whether it can address these concerns will undoubtedly shape the nation’s future.

 

Jai Kumar Sharma , Editor Asia Media

 

Can India Unite a ‘Divided’ G20?

Is G20 gaining relevance and G7 loosing shine?

Having first met in 1976, the G7 was an effective forum for almost five decades. At the time, the G7 countries represented roughly 50% of global GDP. However, as time went by, this share has been on a constant downward trend, especially due to the rise of China and India. Today, the G7 countries represent around 30% of global GDP, and the number will further contract.

As a consequence of this tectonic shift, it should come as no surprise that in 2008, when a global fiscal stimulus was needed to counteract the Great Recession, the matter could not be dealt with within this setting, and the G20 was first established.

The G20 members represent around 85% of the global GDP, over 75% of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population.

The G20’s importance lies in the fact that it is more reflective of the world as a whole since its members also include developing nations from Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Is there a rift between ‘the West’ and the ‘Global South? 

There is a wider feeling that the concerns of the Global South are ignored, and that international organisations like the UN, the IMF and the World Bank are rooted in the post-World War II period, dominated by a small number of countries.

Many experts felt that The Global South has its problems, and they should be heard. It’s not good enough to just hear issues of concern to the Americans and the Europeans.

This is further compounded by the fact that the G20, which is primarily supposed to deal with issues like climate change, development, global governance and green technology, among others, is being pulled into global security debates like the war in Ukraine.

The Indian government is recognising that global governance led by the UN system has failed and there are alternative, non-Western forums or a mix of the two that have to take up some of those responsibilities.

A big percentage of population in the world is of the opinion that the West is focused on the Russia-Ukraine war, and it believes that its conflict is the world’s conflict, but it (the West) has been absent when the Global South has needed help such as with a climate adjustment fund or when Sri Lanka was undergoing its worst financial crisis.

Why Xi and Putin are absent?

President Xi Jinping began his third term with a diplomatic blitz that bolstered his image as a global statesman and attended every G20 leaders’ summit since taking power in 2012. Now Mr. Xi seems to be taking a different approach, dodging an event where he could have likely face thorny questions over China’s economic trajectory, Beijing’s military aggression toward Taiwan and his support for Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Mr. Xi is now in an “emperor mindset” and expects dignitaries to come to him, according to Alfred Wu, associate professor at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.  “Xi also received special treatment at the BRICS summit which was unlikely to receive at G20” Wu added.

Media analysts in New Delhi suspected Mr. Xi had little interest in participating in an event aimed at bolstering the global profile of a rival with whom China has territorial disputes.

Putin has clear reasons for skipping the summit because Russia has rejected the validity of discussing the war at the G20, arguing that as an economic body it has no business considering security matters.

Deep divisions raise questions

In the middle of the high-octane summit, one question hovers over New Delhi’s hazy air: Does this annual meeting still serve any purpose when the US and allies are there under the same tent as China and Russia.

The absence of President Putin and Chinese President at the summit made this more complicated. However, the two countries are represented by senior officials: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov from Russia and Chinese Premier Li Qiang.

A foreign policy observer in Delhi shared his views that China’s reactions signaled that Beijing has reservations against India’s leadership of the Global South.

Jai Kumar Sharma at New Delhi

Differences are also emerging between the US-aligned G7 and the wider G20 over a new commitment of funding for developing countries to meet United Nations-backed targets on everything from hunger and education to clean energy and climate change.

There are several issues with deep disagreements. Since the joint declaration is often a last-minute affair involving a lot of hard bargaining, India has little time to create a consensus. But the question is: Will China allow India its moment of global leadership when the two countries are locked in a border face-off and India is trying to emerge as an economic alternative to China?

The possible outcome

Russia has rejected the validity of discussing the war at the G20, this has been China’s position too, as it draws closer to Russia. The Western states insisted that it condemns Russia and the invasion in the strongest terms.

However majority of the membership from the Global South has tried to stay neutral in the conflict. They are more concerned about the war’s consequences, including its effect on food and energy prices, which particularly affect developing economies.

Despite these disagreements, the G20 has managed to make progress on some issues. G20 meetings have been one of the main forums through which reform of the Multilateral Development Banks has been discussed. The proposals include reforming the internal policies of the World Bank and other development banks to allow them to borrow more capital and lend it at concessional rates—especially for climate projects.

Another ray of hope is that over the past two years, the G20 has been chaired by developing economies: Indonesia and India. Because of their neutrality, these countries have greater credibility when they try to manage the stand-off between the West and Russia, so the G20 can function in some way.

With the next two hosts, South Africa and Brazil, sharing a similar inclination, the G20 might continue to function, even if the thornier global problems prove beyond its capacity to address.

In an era of fragmenting global governance, that might be the best that can be achieved.

Jai Kumar Sharma, Editor Asia Media, Consultant Editor, Fiji Sun.

Published in Fiji Sun https://fijisun.com.fj/2023/09/09/can-india-unite-a-divided-g20/[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SODELPA Should Act Mature, Responsible

This is a crucial time for Fiji to shape the future of the nation, especially after the elections.

SODELPA, including all political parties, should act like mature and responsible forces. They should not look at the Indo-Fijian population and India through same prism, India is a neutral country and addressing joint parliament session is a common practice. Country heads address joint parliament sessions of other countries. Mr Modi as well as other Prime Minsters did this several times in the past. In fact Fiji should take maximum benefit from India and China which are the biggest emerging economies. These countries can play a major role in overall development of Fiji.

Political parties should keep their local ethnic issues aside because if something constructive comes out of co-operation between the two countries (India and Fiji) it will be beneficial for every Fijian.

The Asia-Pacific region is another area where the two Asians economies are sitting with tele-lenses. Fiji is focal point for 12-13 island countries in this part of the world

So far Indians have high regards for every Fijian. This may be because of presence of ethnic Indian population, no one in India knows about ethnic differences here. For example I can relate more with my iTaukei Fijian friends compared to anyone else in Suva.

Tourist destination

Fiji is a good tourist destination for Asians. In fact both India and China are biggest emerging economies and both are short of energy resources locally, both countries import over 70-80 per cent of oil from other countries. The prime requirement of both the countries is to secure oil routes and explore new oil fields.

This is where Fiji comes into the picture. China’s disputes with neighbours in East and South China Sea are known in this regard, India is helping Vietnam to counter China in the Asia-Pacific region and India’s ONGC Overseas Ltd. is exploring new oil blocks with Vietnam despite Chinese warnings. The presence of Indian and Chinese navy ships in the region is a known fact.

Asian Giants

China’s 80 per cent oil comes through Indian Ocean where Indian Navy has an upper hand with two aircraft carriers but China is fast making its presence in the region with the development of Gwadar Port in Pakistan, Habantota in Sri Lanka and installing radar facilities in Coco Island of Myanmar. India is also trying to counter China by developing a crucial port in Iran, by making strong presence in Afghanistan, improving strategic relations with Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. Both Asian giants are in competition with each other in Africa for oil and mineral resources. China is building metro line and working on various infrastructure projects under “Oil for Infrastructure” scheme in Nigeria. India setting up number of industries and hospitals in Nigeria and imports eight per cent of oil of its total requirement from Nigeria. Both India and China are proactive in other countries of West and East Africa as well.

The Asia-Pacific region is another area where the two Asians economies are sitting with tele-lenses. Fiji is focal point for 12-13 island countries in this part of the world.

Now it becomes the duty of Fijian leaders to calculate maths in favour or their country. They shouldn’t show extra proximity or distance from either of the two. Both India and China can offer great opportunities for Fijians. China with a fatter wallet can invest in various infrastructure projects in Fiji. Tourists from China can increase revenue manifold till they start exploring other parts of the world. It will be great for the country if China transfers affordable technology for local manufacturing. Although it’s a great challenge for Fijians to settle in China for better education and skill development, China prefers export of its low- cost products rather than setting up industries locally or capacity building of locals.

India on the other hand prefers to set-up industries in other countries and is comparatively less hesitant in technology transfers. Skill development is one area where India can play a bigger role for Fijians. Fiji can have a great yield if India can help in development of software industry in the country with the help of close to a million English- speaking population of Fiji. Road building in the interior parts of the country and setting up technology institutions could be other expectations from India.

There are cultural and ethnic issues in almost every country but these should not come in the way of overall development. It’s time for Fijians to push aside internal issues. They should realise heads of India and China are not here for their love for any ethnic group; their goal is bigger and in the interest of their own country.

Fijian leaders should also understand this and try to gain maximum for the country by inviting more and more investment and benefits for Fijians. Showing distance or proximity to either of these is not in the interest of Fiji. With wise diplomacy, Fiji should become the regional leader and emerge as the most flourishing economy in the Pacific Islands.

Article appeared in Fiji Sun