Ali1234
  • 0
الباحث
في: ,

Why was India called the US and Israel's 'Trojan Horse' within BRICS?

  • 0
شارك

    ‫أسئلة ذات صلة

    ‫1 إجابة

    1. الباحث

      The accusation of India being a "Trojan Horse" for the US and Israel within BRICS stems from observations about India's evolving foreign policy and its perceived balancing act between different global power blocs. Here's a breakdown of the reasons behind this perception: 1. Deepening Ties with the U‫اقرأ المزيد

      The accusation of India being a “Trojan Horse” for the US and Israel within BRICS stems from observations about India’s evolving foreign policy and its perceived balancing act between different global power blocs. Here’s a breakdown of the reasons behind this perception:

      1. Deepening Ties with the US and Israel:

      • Strategic Partnerships: Over the past two decades, India has significantly strengthened its strategic ties with the United States, particularly in defense, technology, and intelligence sharing. This is evident in platforms like the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) which includes the US, Japan, Australia, and India, often seen as a counter-balance to China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
      • Defense Cooperation: India has become a major buyer of US and Israeli defense equipment, and there’s increasing collaboration in defense production and technology transfer. For example, India has robust defense and technology partnerships with Israel, including joint ventures and arms exports from Israel to India.
      • Economic Alignment: India’s economic liberalization since the 1990s has led to deeper integration with the Western-led global economic system, including strong trade and investment ties with the US and its allies. India has also shown little interest in developing a common BRICS currency to replace the US dollar, preferring instead to promote trade in national currencies, which aligns with Washington’s interests.
      • Middle East Policy: India’s increasingly pro-Israel stance, particularly visible in its diplomatic positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (e.g., abstaining from certain UN resolutions condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza), is seen by some as aligning with US and Israeli interests and diverging from the more critical stance of many other Global South and BRICS nations. This has raised questions about India’s self-proclaimed leadership of the Global South.

      2. Divergence from BRICS’ Anti-Western Narrative:

      • BRICS’ Aims: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and its newer members) was formed, in part, to challenge the Western-dominated global order, including institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and to promote a more multipolar world. Some members, particularly Russia and China, view the bloc as a means to counter US hegemony.
      • India’s “Multi-Alignment” Strategy: India, however, pursues a foreign policy of “multi-alignment” or “strategic autonomy.” This means it seeks to maintain good relations with all major powers and groups, including the US, Russia, and China, without fully aligning with any single bloc. This approach allows India to pursue its national interests, but it can appear contradictory to those who see BRICS as an anti-Western front.
      • Slowing BRICS Expansion: India has been perceived as cautious about rapid BRICS expansion, partly to manage China’s influence within the bloc and to prevent it from becoming overly anti-Western.
      • Disputes within BRICS: There are inherent differences and rivalries within BRICS, particularly between India and China, regarding border disputes and regional influence. India’s active participation in US-led initiatives like the Quad can be seen as a hedge against China, which is a prominent member of BRICS.

      3. “Trojan Horse” Metaphor:

      The “Trojan Horse” metaphor implies that India, while ostensibly part of BRICS, is subtly working to further the interests of the US and Israel, potentially undermining the bloc’s stated goals of challenging Western hegemony or promoting a truly alternative global order. This perception often arises from:

      • India’s reluctance to condemn US/Israel: When BRICS declarations condemn actions by the US or Israel, India’s own official statements often tend to be more nuanced, milder, or even abstentions, leading some to believe it’s holding back due to its ties with these countries.
      • Pursuit of separate interests: While BRICS aims to foster a collective vision, India’s actions are often interpreted as prioritizing its bilateral relationships and strategic autonomy over a unified BRICS front, especially when those bilateral ties are with Western powers.

      It’s important to note that India views its foreign policy as one of strategic autonomy, aimed at maximizing its national interests in a complex global environment. It participates in BRICS to enhance its global leadership, promote multipolarity, and secure economic benefits, while also engaging with Western powers for security, technology, and economic opportunities. The “Trojan Horse” label reflects the tension and differing expectations among BRICS members regarding the bloc’s geopolitical orientation.

      ‫قراءة أقل
      • 0

    يجب عليك تسجيل الدخول لإضافة إجابة.

    تحتاج إلى عضوية،