In 2025 China’s share of the UN’s regular budget will be 20%, just a shade less than the U.S, which has capped it’s share at 22% for years. Given the power game of nations that the UN is, the scale of assessment is about as de-jure an indicator of the rise of China and it’s rivalling the U.S as possible. In assessing the scale, the UN goes by two broad criterion – a country’s share of global GDP and a discount for low per-capita income countries. India avails the latter’s benefit and contributes just about 1% of the UN’s budget. Russia’s share is around 2%.
Since its inception, nearly 80 years back, the top contributors to the UN were the G7 and other European countries and this naturally saw them leading the thinking at the UN through the inevitable placement of their people at various key places in the UN Secretariat. Though its rise has been noted for years, China’s place at the global high table now goes beyond the Security Council veto and can challenge a certain U.S.-led hegemony – remember that it is not for nothing that both the UN and the IMF/World Bank are housed in the U.S.
Of course, the U.S, West Europe and Japan still account for over 50% of global GDP and together are far more than a match for China. But ‘together’ for the flagbearer of this cohort, the U.S, also means keeping allies on board and taking them along, e.g. in the Denmark/Greenland and Panama matters of concerns over Chinese activities. Rocking them only gives rise to feelings that the motivations are driven by economic interests of his friends. And, critically, not allowing large nation states to go across to the other side even if contestation with them will remain.
Russia is the big case in point with the Western actions in the Ukraine conflict having virtually pushed it into the Chinese orbit. Iran, which has faced western sanctions for years, is another case in point. It is worth noting that at the level of the people, both these countries have a huge fascination and, indeed, interest in all things western.
President Trump will be inaugurated on 20th January and has vowed to end all wars. The Russia-Ukraine conflict would appear likely to end if U.S support is severely curtailed, especially given the fact that the Europeans hardly have the capabilities to step up their support for Ukraine and plug the US gap. The Israel-Palestine-Iran issues are far more difficult even if one believes that Iran has been significantly diminished in recent months given that it has resilient civilisational and nation state characteristics. For India, things going awry in the Persian Gulf can only be a matter of major concern.
U.S policy of dealing with Russia for decades had had two approaches – one of ‘détente’ and containment and the other, the ‘neocon’ ideas of seriously diminishing it as a power of threat.
Viewed from these lenses, the Ukraine conflict is an outcome of the ascendancy of neocon ideas during Democrat administrations – in 2014, the happenings in Kiev can be said to have provoked Russia to take-back or annex, depending on how you view things, Crimea. And, in 2022, the continuing western push in Ukraine, including possible NATO membership, resulted in the Russians hugely pushing back and launching the conflict. They may have not succeeded super-power like, vanquishing Ukraine in days, but by now have established a solid hold on Russian speaking areas of Ukraine, no matter the huge Western military hardware support for Ukraine.
So, with the return of President Trump, are we likely to see a go-back to the days of ‘détente’ or continue the ‘neocon’ policies in vogue since the days of President Jimmy Carter, who passed away just days back? For many neocon policies unnecessarily threatened Russia and have given way to the rise of a far more formidable rival in China, also bolstered with economically and strategically important allies such as Russia.
A look at the figures would illustrate this more graphically. In 2021, before the start of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, a $2 trillion economy, the 11th largest in the world, U.S—Russia goods trade amounted to over $35 billion. In the period January-November 2024, this was down to $3 billion. With the EU things were even more different. Till 2021, the EU was Russia’s top economic partner and investor. EU—Russia goods trade amounted to €257 billion. This plummeted to €60 billion in 2023. On the other hand, Russia-China two-way trade in goods in 2021 was around $147 billion. The estimates for 2024 is $245 billion.
The children of Abraham have been at war for centuries while still dominating the world. But, whichever way one looks at it, the rise of China, a child of a different parentage, has brought about a new and very significant challenge to their hegemony. It shouldn’t be business as usual for President Trump, no matter his inherently transactional nature and amenability to ‘deals’.
Manjeev Singh Puri is an Adjunct Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House, and a Former Ambassador and Lead Negotiator for India at Climate Change negotiations.
This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.
For permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.
Support our work here.
©Copyright 2024 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorised copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.