Saturday, October 25, 2025

The AI-Robotics Revolution, China-US Rivalry And Southeast Asia – Analysis


October 24, 2025 
ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute
By John Lee


THE COMING ROBOT REVOLUTION

Over the past decade, robots have played a growing role in Southeast Asia, primarily in manufacturing. Singapore, which has had a national robotics programme promoting development of robots and ‘embodied artificial intelligence (AI)’, is the second-ranked country worldwide for robot density relative to workforce.[1] Malaysia has a National Robotics Roadmap 2021-2030, which aims to ‘extract the value of robotics as the key enabling technology and catalyst for the nation’s productivity (and) competitiveness’.[2]

Several ASEAN countries now have robotics startups supplying the manufacturing, logistics and service sectors.[3] Yet as in many fields, Southeast Asian capacities in robotics and ‘embodied AI’ are tied to supply chains and technical progress concentrated in the world’s largest economies.

Rapid advances in AI centred in the US and China now promise to expand the range of tasks and situations in which robots can viably replace humans. Combined with advances in supporting elements like sensing technologies and batteries, this has made 2025 “the year of proof that the robot can do it”.[4] Highlighting this trend are the humanoid robot demonstrations in China that have captured global media attention.[5]

Simultaneously, prominent voices in the Western world are steering public expectations away from the prospect of ‘artificial general intelligence’ (AGI) and towards more prosaic applications of AI. In July, the CEO of the EU’s most valuable company, software giant SAP, said that Europe will not reap AI’s benefits simply by building data centres, and should focus on applying AI to existing sectors such as automotive manufacturing.[6]

The same month, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Marc Andreesen urged a focus on using AI to transform manufacturing, saying that if the US does not lead a new AI-powered industrial revolution, it will fall behind in a world dominated by Chinese robots.[7] This concern about pending Chinese dominance echoes that expressed in April by Elon Musk, whose Tesla is among the global leaders in developing humanoid robots.[8]



And in August, Eric Schmidt – a former Google CEO and leading advocate that the US is in a sprint with China to reach AGI[9] – co-authored a piece declaring that Silicon Valley “needs to stop obsessing over superhuman AI.”[10] Schmidt now says that US industry must compete with China “on deploying existing [AI] technology across traditional and emerging sectors, from manufacturing and agriculture to robotics and drones.”

These comments stand out from a backdrop of growing doubts about how profits will be generated from the huge investments going into AI development and infrastructure, mainly high-end chips and the data centres that house them. Estimates for expenditure globally on data centres over the next 3-5 years range from 1.4 to 3 trillion USD.[11]

Such a vast spend is unlikely to generate a return on investment without major reductions in the human workforce, especially given the lack of profitable scaled applications for extant AI tools like ChatGPT.[12] In developed economies, this implies automating ‘white collar work’ rather than rapid adoption of robotics, even if the latter eventually follows. AI’s spread in these countries also faces growing public suspicion.[13]
CHINA’S DRIVE FOR ‘EMBODIED AI’

In China, the extent of the manufacturing sector, its larger share of the economy, and rapidly ageing demographics combine to favour mass deployment of AI-enabled robotics. The Chinese state has more industrial policy levers than any government in the developed economies, and is better able to drive policy against any public discontent that arises from job losses to robots.

China’s five-year robotics development strategy, issued in 2016, emphasised AI as a key technology.[14] In March 2025, ‘embodied AI’ was officially endorsed as a national development priority.[15] In August, a new ‘AI Plus’ policy set out goals for ‘broad and deep AI integration’ by 2027, describing various target applications including manufacturing, agriculture and healthcare.[16] Work to integrate AI with robots is now backed by copious capital from China’s stock markets and state-linked investment funds.[17]

‘Embodied AI’ fits into China’s wider national policy frameworks pushing development of ‘intelligent infrastructure’ that fuses digital technologies with the physical world.[18] City-scale implementations and pilots for applications like autonomous vehicles are running in multiple locations around China, in some cases already for many years.[19]

The focus is not on a “race to AGI” but on achieving “ubiquitous edge intelligence for applications” by employing AI in use cases with demanding requirements for information processing speed and power efficiency, such as mobile robots performing human tasks.[20] Recent on-the-ground reports suggest that a spectrum of Chinese firms are already implementing AI in commercial solutions, notably robotics.[21] For hardware solutions like robots, China provides a unique enabling environment for innovation.

Employing robots involves many elements besides AI. Also required are batteries, specialised materials, mechanical components, electronics, sensors, wireless data transmission, integrative software platforms, cybersecurity solutions, appropriately labelled training data, and human technicians to develop, implement and manage all the foregoing. All must be provided at a cost that allows for large-scale and profitable application.

All these elements have been targeted for decades by the Chinese industrial policies described above.[22] China’s approach has been distinct in promoting development of the ‘industrial internet’ as an ecosystem of disparate technologies.[23] For robotics, a similar approach has been followed, for example by concentrating R&D for technologies from computer numerical control machine tools to chip packaging in dedicated industrial zones.[24] A huge complex of state-affiliated research labs and academic institutions helps drive technological development, and China now produces huge numbers of tertiary graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) fields, perhaps eight times the US number by one estimate.[25]

This has created the enabling conditions for expanding use of robotics and ‘embodied AI’ by Chinese firms in established sectors like automotive manufacturing and emergent niches like humanoids.[26] By comparison, lack of state-led ecosystem development in the US is likely related to the relative stagnation of US manufacturing productivity.[27]

Training data for robots to operate in the physical world remains in short supply.[28] The data feedback loop created by large-scale real-world implementations of AI cannot yet be substituted by virtualised environments and AI-generated synthetic data. And applying AI to autonomous robots’ basic needs (for example, path planning) still faces challenges in translating simulated learning to reliable performance in dynamic physical environments.[29] Widespread real-world use of AI could also accelerate resolution of a key obstacle to further AI development and economic value creation:[30] continual and accumulative learning.[31]

Given all these factors, China’s vast manufacturing sector and hardware ecosystem provide ideal conditions for rapid deployment and iterative development of ‘embodied AI’. Despite the attention on humanoids, many obstacles remain to realising their potential.[32] More prosaic ‘industrial internet’ uses are a clearer short-term path to mass employment of AI-enabled robots and acceleration of their development process.

But even for humanoids, China provides a conducive development environment. For example, UBTech’s humanoids – including the latest self-charging model[33] – are reportedly being tested in several Chinese automakers’ factories and by Foxconn for iPhone assembly. Several Chinese cities are operating pilot zones for training robots in various contexts, and for developing intelligent driving for vehicles, which has many synergies with implementing robots in diverse real-world uses[34] Some American ‘embodied AI’ vendors may still lead on technical metrics, but Chinese firms are moving faster in deployment and task diversity.[35]

By 2023, China was accounting for half the world’s industrial robot installations.[36] By 2024, domestic vendors’ share of China’s robot market had passed 50%, and for certain categories like mobile robots is now around 90%.[37] Foreign robotics leaders still sell to China without export control restrictions, but some are now pivoting to other markets as they lose market share to domestic competitors.[38] Others are involved in state-sponsored cooperative projects with local industry,[39] or moving research & development (R&D) and production from their home countries to China.[40]

Chinese robot makers also benefit from purchases by large Chinese state-owned enterprises.[41] Private sector AI leaders like Huawei are partnered with Chinese robotics vendors to develop a range of use cases beyond manufacturing.[42] Broad demand supports production scaling, with six Chinese humanoid vendors aiming to make over a thousand units each in 2025.[43]

As in other sectors, this combination of factors in China is driving down costs. UniTree launched a humanoid model in May 2024 for US$16,000 outside China (less domestically) and now offers a model for US$5,900.[44] This compares with a projected US$20,000-30,000 for Tesla’s Optimus upon that product reaching scaled production, expected at the earliest in 2026.[45] UniTree is a low-cost specialist even within China, and reports that much of Optimus’ hardware is sourced from China underscore the country’s supply chain advantages.

Chinese firms account for around half the global total of publicly listed companies involved in component manufacture and system integration for humanoid robots, according to one survey published in February 2025.[46] Chinese firms are less represented in the ‘brain’ category (hardware and software to provide intelligence) but this could change rapidly, especially given the trends in AI development.
AI’S ‘EFFICIENCY TURN’

Increasing computational power is advantageous for AI model training, but subject to diminishing returns.[47] Accordingly, it will probably not be feasible for much longer to push forward AI development simply by building more and larger data centres filled with the cutting-edge processors that US export controls have sought to keep out of China. AI leaders’ reliance on compute scaling is approaching bottlenecks, perhaps the most important being electricity generation and distribution.[48] In this area, China’s national advantage is large and growing.[49]

These constraints explain the growing focus in AI development on optimising process techniques and design architecture for both software and hardware. These innovations are being led by Chinese companies, as highlighted by DeepSeek’s model releases in January 2025.[50] The release of Moonshot’s Kimi K2 in July led one foreign expert to proclaim that China had become the “centre of gravity for efficiency innovation” for AI.[51]

Both the above examples are ‘open’ AI models, which are proliferating in China. Developers of ‘open’ models provide permissive licensing conditions and critical information such as model weights, promoting adoption and the development pace of the wider AI ecosystem.[52] The performance metrics of various Chinese open models are comparable to the leading US proprietary models, which confine much of US industry’s AI progress to separate siloes.

The competitive pressure from Chinese open models is reflected in OpenAI’s release in August of open-weight models for the first time since 2019, which was expressly aimed at lowering barriers to adoption.[53] In September X-Square Robot, a Chinese startup focused on general purpose ‘embodied AI’, released an open AI foundation model aimed at providing an “out-of-the-box ‘brain’” for developers to use in developing robots and automated processes.[54]
CHINA IN POLE POSITION

In summary, comparable conditions to those that allowed Chinese firms to become global leaders in drones and electric vehicles now exist for ‘embodied AI’ and robotics. As one US expert wrote in July, ‘There is now a path for China to surpass the US in AI’.[55]

And while Chinese industry does still operate under the burden of constrained access to the most powerful AI chips due to US export controls, this burden may be reduced rapidly given observable progress in Chinese substitution of the targeted technologies.[56]

If a reported major expansion in China’s domestic chip fabrication capacity is realised next year, China will likely have access to more than enough AI hardware to exploit rapid progress in its AI software ecosystem.[57] These combined developments in China are now at the point where they could conceivably start to shape development directions for the global AI ecosystem. They are at least driving evolution of an essentially self-contained Chinese ‘AI stack’ that could plausibly provide a viable alternative to non-Chinese solutions.[58]

The foregoing adds up to a real prospect of China leading global economic value-add from AI in the near-future.[59] In response, US robotics leaders are pushing for a national robotics strategy to drive production scaling and adoption of robots, driven by federal government funding and procurement. Absent this, they claim, “the US will not only lose the robotics race but also the AI race.”[60]
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA

Even without the uncertainty around future trading relations with the US, the prospect of Chinese firms leading a global AI and robotics-enabled economic transformation must feed into decisions by Southeast Asian firms and governments. The matter is especially urgent given that China is the region’s largest external trading partner and increasingly a leading source of investment, technology transfers and inbound human capital.[61] China is also starting to attract ASEAN’s limited talent pool for robotics development.[62]

‘Embodied AI’ developed in China already has many direct entry vectors into Southeast Asia through the rapid build-up of manufacturing by Chinese firms.[63] China’s exports of factory robots in H1 2025 grew almost 60 percent year-on-year, the top three destinations being Vietnam, Mexico and Thailand .[64] Chinese manufacturers’ requirements are also adding more Japanese robots to ASEAN’s industrial footprint.[65] With Chinese component and automation solutions vendors establishing production in ASEAN to serve new sectors like electric vehicles, a Chinese industrial ecosystem integrating robots and AI is now taking root in Southeast Asia.[66]

Chinese robotics and AI vendors are increasingly involved in co-developing products with Southeast Asian actors. A Chinese-Singaporean partnership recently delivered a robotic inspection solution for the city-state’s power infrastructure.[67] Shanghai-headquartered humanoid vendor Fourier, whose deputy CEO is Singaporean, has R&D labs in Singapore, Malaysia and multiple other countries.[68]

One outcome of the recently signed AI development MoU between Malaysia and China is a joint ‘AI Innovation and Cooperation Centre’, to drive cross-border applications and customisation of AI services by integrating robotics and generative AI.[69] Simultaneously, the Malaysian government is promoting automation of domestic manufacturing through partnerships between local actors and US-based AI vendors.[70]

The business models being pioneered in China to diffuse affordable AI to a range of small and medium enterprises are highly relevant in ASEAN.[71] Low cost-of-access AI tools, firm-level partnerships to optimise AI products for the customer’s requirements, and reduction of barriers to entry into higher value-added markets could benefit many Southeast Asian firms, the great majority of which remain at low technological levels by global standards and have limited potential to spend their way out of this situation.

The same applies for public services such as agricultural and meteorological information, or delivery of education and healthcare. Chinese pilot projects such as Tsinghua University’s ‘AI hospital’ – which reportedly is trained on a half million synthetic patient cases and covers 300 diseases across 21 clinical specialties[72] – should at least be studied as potential models, given the ASEAN region’s pressing health challenges.[73] Even US institutions are already trialling Chinese humanoids in medical procedures.[74]

Data security considerations will increasingly come to the fore as ASEAN countries see their firms and consumers adopt foreign-developed AI tools, regardless of which country these come from. The proliferation beyond China of Chinese-made drones and connected vehicles is already providing case studies in how perceived risks in this arena can be managed.[75] Given the Trump administration’s aggressive stance towards foreign regulation that impacts US vendors of internet and AI services, such as the EU’s AI and Digital Services Acts, Southeast Asian governments should plan for political friction over their own efforts to implement data governance and AI safety regimes.[76]

The international politics of AI remain generally vexed and unclear in trend. The Trump administration recently pivoted towards loosening US export controls that target China and converting them into a revenue-raising tool, raising doubts about US commitment to constraining Chinese AI capabilities.[77] Conversely, the AI Action Plan released by the White House in July declares that the US will “meet global demand for AI by exporting its full AI technology stack… to all countries willing to join America’s AI alliance.”[78]

Deals to export such end-to-end AI products will need to ‘meet US-approved security requirements and standards.’ An example might be US-headquartered Nvidia’s robotics-oriented ‘three-computer solution’ (for AI training, inference and digital twinning).[79] The US government could conceivably make an export license conditional on the foreign purchaser not using any Chinese-sourced robotics components, AI models or AI-enabling hardware. Such an approach has precedents in the Biden administration’s regulation on connected vehicles (which remains in force), and the Trump administration’s guidance in early 2025 on avoiding use of Chinese AI hardware.[80]

Robots have also been drawn directly into the politics of US reshoring and tariff policy. In late September, the Trump administration announced a new ‘section 232’ investigation “to determine the effects on national security of imports of robotics and industrial machinery, and their parts and components.”[81] This announcement refers to the goal of growing domestic production capacity, the impact of other countries’ state-led economic practices on US industry, and to determining “whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary.”

China for its part is now pushing export of its’ own AI stack in international messaging. Premier Li Qiang recently promoted China’s readiness to ‘share its AI development experience and technological products to help [other] countries… especially those in the Global South.’[82] He also called for establishing a ‘global AI cooperation organisation’, preferably based in Shanghai.[83] Beijing’s ‘AI Plus’ policy released in August advocates ‘building a global AI governance framework’ in cooperation with the United Nations.[84]

One prominent Chinese AI sector figure recently called for leveraging China’s lead in open AI models to drive adoption of Chinese AI abroad, framing this as an influence contest with the US to shape the global AI ecosystem’s future technical and political landscape.[85] Huawei recently open-sourced its software development toolkit for the company’s AI chips, aiming to drive adoption of its’ AI solutions at Nvidia’s expense.[86] One recent global survey of the AI sector found that 55% of respondents were willing to use Chinese models if hosted on infrastructure outside China (27% even if hosted inside China), and that DeepSeek was the most popular open AI model worldwide.[87]

Collectively, these trends are leading some Washington-based commentators to argue that ‘winning’ the AI race against China is unrealistic and that US policy should shift towards risk mitigation, in a context of widespread integration with Chinese-developed AI. An example could be intermediate software layers to adjudicate the behaviour of Chinese-developed AI upstream and isolate downstream systems if required for security or political reasons.[88] Such a turn in US policy could create more political space to adopt Chinese AI and robotics with less blowback from Washington.

ASEAN actors may need to limit expectations for internationalising the future AI-driven economy, with US and Chinese dominance in AI development potentially transferring onto ‘embodied AI’ and robotics. Past globalisation is no guarantee that future economic dynamism will not concentrate in huge national economies, leaving other countries with shrinking potential to participate, rather than to be ‘technology takers’.[89]

Nonetheless, there are still opportunities beyond the US and China for partners in AI and robotics development. Alternative providers of these technologies are emerging in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.[90] These governments and their companies are also focusing on applying AI to robots specifically.[91] Their goal is to develop national supply chains that are competitive with those of the US and China, potentially opening niches for Southeast Asian actors with similar interests in avoiding an ‘embodied AI’ G2.[92]

Malaysia’s decade-long licensing agreement signed in 2025 with UK-headquartered chip design intellectual property vendor Arm will potentially provide a test case for whether investments by ASEAN governments can reduce costs and entry barriers for local firms.[93] And a Malaysian chip design firm’s recent unveiling of an AI processor designed for industrial, agricultural and ‘smart city’ edge applications, combined with its partner firm’s announcement of a software platform aimed at ‘democratising’ AI use, shows that Southeast Asian economies have the capacity to develop elements of the future AI-enabled economy and urban fabric.[94] But this announcement also hinted at the geopolitical currents that such technical achievements within ASEAN need to navigate, by omitting one detail: the identity of the foundry – whether in the US or the Chinese ‘camp’ – that will manufacture the new chip.[95]

For appendices and endnotes, please refer to the original pdf document


About the author: John Lee is Director of consultancy East West Futures, TOY Senior Fellow at Asia Society Switzerland and Fellow with the Center for China Analysis (Asia Society Policy Institute, New York), and a Researcher at the Leiden Asia Centre. He was Visiting Fellow with ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Source: This article was published at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute


ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute

The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), an autonomous organization established by an Act of Parliament in 1968, was renamed ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute in August 2015. Its aims are: To be a leading research centre and think tank dedicated to the study of socio-political, security, and economic trends and developments in Southeast Asia and its wider geostrategic and economic environment. To stimulate research and debate within scholarly circles, enhance public awareness of the region, and facilitate the search for viable solutions to the varied problems confronting the region. To serve as a centre for international, regional and local scholars and other researchers to do research on the region and publish and publicize their findings. To achieve these aims, the Institute conducts a range of research programmes; holds conferences, workshops, lectures and seminars; publishes briefs, research journals and books; and generally provides a range of research support facilities, including a large library collection.
The Middle East’s Rapidly Growing Renewable Energy Shift – Analysis


By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh


The Middle East is today the fastest-growing renewable energy market outside of China. This is a step in the right direction, as it points to a profound and strategic shift in the region’s energy policy.

This shift did not occur overnight. The past decade has witnessed a great transformation, as several governments, companies, private sector actors and investors have recognized the multifaceted benefits of adopting renewable energy.

This does not come from international climate pressures, it is a strategic move because it contributes to economic diversification and technological innovation, as well as long-term energy security, which is critical for regional stability.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Morocco and Jordan are at the forefront of this movement. They have been investing heavily in solar and wind projects, energy storage technologies and green hydrogen initiatives. The region’s mission should not only be to participate in the global energy transition but to shape it.

Saudi Arabia is considered the most prominent example of leadership when it comes to the renewable energy sector in the Middle East. Thanks to its Vision 2030, the Kingdom has undertaken an ambitious reorientation in order to reduce its dependence on oil. One of the key goals is to generate about 50 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources. According to a recent report, Saudi Arabia will add 15 gigawatts of renewable and gas power by 2028. Some of its large-scale solar projects include the Sakaka plant in the Jouf region and the ambitious Neom solar initiative, which is designed to integrate green hydrogen production with solar power generation.

Another example in the region is the UAE, which has positioned itself as a renewable energy hub through projects such as the Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai. That project’s goal is to achieve a production capacity of 5 GW by 2030, making it one of the largest solar power projects in the world.


Oman, Morocco and Jordan have also made substantial investments in renewable infrastructure, including wind farms and solar parks. These developments show a wider regional recognition of the benefits that adopting clean energy can bring. These initiatives are supported by both public investment and private sector innovation.

The benefits can be seen in the economic, environmental, social and technological dimensions.

When it comes to the economy, the deployment of renewable infrastructure creates jobs because it requires construction, engineering, research and project management. In addition, the energy transition attracts foreign investment, provides opportunities for export-oriented industries and, most importantly, diversifies energy portfolios. This helps the Middle East reduce its vulnerability to fluctuations in global oil prices. Such a rapidly growing transition will not only strengthen domestic economies in the region, it will also help the region to compete and even lead in global energy markets.

When it comes to the environment, the shift toward renewable energy addresses climate concerns in the region, as many countries are facing extreme temperatures, water scarcity and increasing urbanization. This rapid transition means that the region is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, which will improve air quality and align with global climate commitments like the Paris Agreement.

The region will also benefit from the technological advancement resulting from the transition to renewable energy. Investment is increasing in solar power technologies and other cutting-edge solutions. This will lead to innovations in energy sector storage. So, by investing in the deployment of renewable technologies, the region can become a knowledge hub capable of exporting technology and expertise across the world.

The Middle East’s potential to be a global leader in renewable energy is supported by the unique geographic, financial and strategic advantages it possesses. The region benefits from some of the highest solar irradiance levels on the planet, offering ideal conditions for large-scale solar power projects. In addition, coastal areas and desert plains offer significant potential for wind energy development.

Furthermore, the financial reserves of many of the region’s countries provide the capital needed to fund transformative, large-scale renewable energy projects. And its strategic location gives it the potential to be a hub for energy distribution, such as by supplying renewable electricity to neighboring countries or even exporting it to Europe, Asia and Africa.

In a nutshell, the Middle East’s rapid growth in renewable energy production is one of the most significant transformations in the global energy sector. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman are leading this transition through ambitious projects, significant investments and technological innovation. The benefits of this shift include economic diversification, environmental sustainability and energy security. While some nations in the region are still in the early stages of adopting renewable energy, they can accelerate progress and hopefully help the Middle East become a global leader in renewable energy.

This article was published at Arab News

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh
China’s 15th Plan’s Promise: Self-Reliance And Prosperity – OpEd
By Dr. Imran Khalid

In an era when the global economy staggers under the weight of inflation, trade wars, and geopolitical fractures, China’s Communist Party has just unveiled a roadmap that feels less like a policy document and more like a quiet revolution.

The fourth plenary session of the 20th Central Committee, which wrapped up in Beijing on October 23, adopted recommendations for the 15th Five-Year Plan, covering 2026 to 2030. This is no mere bureaucratic exercise. It positions China at the cusp of socialist modernization by 2035, bridging the triumphs of the past five years with a future oriented toward self-reliance and collective well-being. As the world grapples with uncertainty, this plan stands as a testament to disciplined governance and long-term vision, one that prioritizes people over profits and harmony over hegemony.

The session’s communique depicts a society that has endured challenges and emerged more resilient. Over the 14th Five-Year Plan period, from 2021 to 2025, China clocked an average annual growth rate of 5.5 percent, adding more than 35 trillion yuan to its economy. These are not abstract figures; they translate to lifted millions out of poverty, expanded access to education and healthcare, and a pivot toward sustainable industries. The plenum affirmed these gains while acknowledging the headwinds ahead: strategic opportunities laced with risks, from domestic structural shifts to external pressures like protectionist tariffs and supply chain disruptions. Yet the response is not retreat but resolve. Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the party recommitted to his core position and the guiding role of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, framing these challenges as tests to be met with innovation and unity.

At its heart, the 15th Five-Year Plan rests on six guiding principles: the party’s overall leadership, putting people first, pursuing high-quality development, deepening reforms, balancing efficient markets with effective governance, and safeguarding both growth and security. These are not slogans but actionable imperatives. High-quality development, for instance, shifts the focus from sheer scale to substance. China aims to build a modernized industrial system that bolsters the real economy, fostering what officials describe as new quality productive forces. This means breakthroughs in core technologies, from high-performance chips and quantum computing to large AI models and deep-space exploration. Recent strides, like the “AI Plus” initiative, are set to permeate scientific research, manufacturing, and even consumer sectors, creating scenarios where artificial intelligence empowers everything from precision agriculture to urban planning.

Self-reliance in science and technology emerges as a cornerstone, a direct counter to the “raging storms” of external containment efforts. The plenum’s emphasis on achieving greater autonomy here is pragmatic, born of necessity. Western sanctions on semiconductors and rare earths have only accelerated China’s domestic push, with investments pouring into R&D and talent cultivation. Officials at a post-plenum press conference underscored this, noting the plan’s intent to tackle “major tests” through tech advancements, including AI and manufacturing applications. By 2030, the goal is substantial improvements in these areas, laying the groundwork for industries that not only compete but lead. This is not isolationism; it is insurance against volatility, ensuring that China’s growth engine hums regardless of global caprice.

Equally vital is the plan’s commitment to a robust domestic market and a new development pattern. Consumption will be the anchor, stimulated through sectors like the silver economy for aging populations, low-altitude aviation for logistics, and rural tourism. Rural revitalization takes center stage, with accelerated modernization of agriculture and integrated urban-rural progress. Imagine vast farmlands equipped with smart irrigation and drone surveillance, or villages reborn as hubs of eco-tourism and e-commerce. These steps aim to narrow regional disparities, refining China’s economic layout for balanced growth. In a world where inequality festers, this pursuit of common prosperity offers a model worth emulating: policies that ensure public well-being, from expanded social safety nets to cultural enrichment that ignites national creativity


The green transition weaves through it all, under the banner of building a Beautiful China. China, already the global leader in renewable energy installation, pledges a comprehensive shift toward low-carbon paths. This includes exporting affordable green technologies, from solar panels to electric vehicles, to aid the world’s climate fight. The plenum calls for major strides in ecological conservation, recognizing that development without sustainability is a dead end. Amid COP conferences that often dissolve into finger-pointing, China’s approach is concrete: lead by example, share the gains.

Opening up remains high-standard, geared toward mutually beneficial cooperation. The plan envisions new horizons in trade and investment, even as it fortifies national security. Modernizing the security apparatus and advancing the Peaceful China Initiative signal sincere urge for stability at home and abroad. The People’s Liberation Army’s centenary goals by 2027 will modernize defenses without adventurism, underscoring China’s preference for diplomacy over dominance. In Belt and Road corridors from Africa to Latin America, this translates to partnerships that build infrastructure and capacity, not debt traps as critics falsely claim.

Critics in Washington and Brussels may dismiss this as authoritarian blueprinting, but they miss the point. China’s model thrives because it listens—to its 1.4 billion citizens, to the lessons of history. While the West chases short-term electoral wins, Beijing plans in decades, adapting socialism to the digital age. The 15th Five-Year Plan is a link in that chain, propelling China toward modernization that is socialist, Chinese, and profoundly human-centered.

As the world teeters, this plenum invites us to look eastward. Not for imitation, but inspiration. In fostering self-reliance amid adversity, nurturing green innovation, and prioritizing shared prosperity, China charts a path where progress lifts all. The call is clear: unite around these principles, break new ground, and build a future where no one is left behind. The next five years will test this resolve, but if history is any guide, China will deliver.


Dr. Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and journals.
The Terms ‘Theory’ And ‘Doctrine’ In Political Science – OpEd

Political science (politology/politologia) is a general scientific discipline of politics. The term “politics” was most often defined as the art of managing the state (ancient Greek polis – city-state), but it was understood and treated differently as a subject over the course of history.

Initially, political science as a subject was only part of the general history of philosophical thought, but later it gradually became independent in the form of the history of political doctrines, the history of political philosophy or social philosophy, state and/or legal philosophical thought, and even as the history of legal theories, given that the art of managing a state and its citizens is largely based on the application, interpretation, realization, and respect for official legal norms (as well as on the application of unwritten but traditional legal legislation and its socio-moral norms based on which a certain social environment has lived and resolved its interpersonal relations for centuries).

The term “philosophy” in its meaning is sufficiently elaborated and known and essentially boils down to “love of wisdom”, i.e., knowledge or general knowledge (science) about man, i.e., his existence either in this world or the next, as well as the world around him, including a wide range of social and natural phenomena that influence man’s existence. However, the meaning of the terms “theory” and “doctrine” remains in many specific research cases, at least as far as political science is concerned, undefined or, in most cases, unclearly defined or not accepted at some general (global) level.

The term “theory” is of ancient Greek origin and, in a general sense, represents knowledge that is generally accepted as such. However, such knowledge also appears in practice in at least three forms:

1. Theoretical knowledge that is not (or does not need to be) directly related to application in practice;

2. Scientific knowledge, i.e., knowledge obtained through official systems of scientific verification and proof, and which as such becomes formally proven and “generally recognized” as accurate (proven) knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the functioning of a certain phenomenon);

3. Hypothetical meaning (i.e., a statement that has not yet been proven, i.e., “generally recognized”, but is widely applied in practice as it is).

In contrast to the term “theory”, the term “doctrine” in political science is generally prevalent among Western, but especially French, theorists and writers who deal with the history of economic science. However, the same term “doctrine” in political science can mean a completely different context in terms of, for example, the outlined foreign policy actions of a state (e.g., the “Bush Doctrine” of 2001, which proclaimed the “America First” policy). In any case, French theorists believe that in the history of (political and economic) philosophy, two types of thought should be distinguished:

1. Accurately established and officially adopted (in the strict sense of the word – proven) scientific knowledge and laws relating to a certain phenomenon that is the object of a certain study – “theory”;

2. Views, understandings, interpretations, or opinions of certain persons that are not officially established as “scientific theories” but are used as a kind of directive for specific political actions – “doctrine” or “hypotheses”, which are more or less practical instructions for a specific action but not officially scientifically recognized knowledge of proven truth or proven development of phenomenon (“theory”).

Nevertheless, the term “doctrine” is of Latin origin and comes from the words doceo, docere, doctus (to teach, to be taught, to know). However, this Latin term originally has several meanings, such as:

1. Theoretical knowledge that has not yet received official scientific confirmation as verified, i.e., proven knowledge in practical life (this item is practically identical to point 3 from the above-mentioned presentation of the meaning of the term “theory”);

2. Knowledge that is essentially considered true, but is in a practical sense related to action (political or economic), i.e., knowledge that is not purely theoretical. In this case, it is important to note that theoretical knowledge is considered proven facts, while doctrine implies some kind of instructions for practical action or, in politics, an order to perform a certain practical task in order to solve a practical problem.

3. Scientific knowledge, which practically coincides with points 1 and 2 from the above-mentioned presentation of the meaning of the term “theory”.

However, in the practice of scientific research in political, legal, and economic sciences, “theory” means proven (scientific) knowledge, while the term “doctrine” refers to still unproven knowledge from a purely scientific point of view – assumptions, which in essence do not have to be incorrect but in practice have not yet been formally proven as scientifically correct, i.e. true. In political science, the term “theory” is used in the broadest sense of the word for knowledge in a general sense: therefore, as knowledge that has been scientifically verified, but also as knowledge that is still in the form of use as an unproven hypothetical opinion or knowledge that is basically directed at the practical activity of a certain group of people.


Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic is an ex-university professor and a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade, Serbia.
Russia’s Oil Giants Get Sanctioned By US: Will It Hurt Kremlin’s War On Ukraine? (For Now, No) – Analysis

RFE RL
By Mike Eckel

The war economy that has fueled Russia’s all-out assault on Ukraine for 45 months has been funded by Moscow’s exports of oil and gas and, critics say, the West’s unwillingness — as well as China and India’s disinterest — to fully turn off the spigot.

Now the United States — along with the European Union and Britain — has taken aim at some of Russia’s biggest oil and gas companies, and their sprawling networks of subsidiaries and affiliates.

The US Treasury Department announced on October 22 that it was sanctioning state-controlled Rosneft and privately owned LUKoil — Russia’s two largest oil companies, whose exports go a long way toward filling the Kremlin’s coffers.

A day later, Brussels targeted Rosneft and Gazpromneft, another major oil company that is a subsidiary of state-controlled gas giant Gazprom.

“These are very big — against their two big oil companies,” US President Donald Trump said at the White House on October 22, describing the sanctions as “tremendous.”



So will it work? Will blacklisting Rosneft and LUKoil run Russia’s war machine dry

Not immediately.

“I think the short-term impact of these sanctions will be limited,” said Aleksandra Prokopenko, a former adviser at the Russian Central Bank, now an analyst at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin.

“Both companies were likely preparing for them. Furthermore, significant volumes of oil exports are denominated in yuan and rubles, so I don’t expect any dramatic impact on the budget,” she said.

The sanctions were the first significant measures taken by the Trump administration, said Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Berlin, reflecting frustration with “Russia’s stalling tactics” in efforts to tamp down, or end, the Ukraine fighting.

For example, Shagina said, the US announcement postpones enactment of the sanctions for a month: until November 21.

“More importantly,” she said, “it remains to be seen whether the US Treasury will take an extraterritorial approach and target Chinese and Indian entities, including financial institutions, with secondary sanctions.”

Jennifer Kavanaugh, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a Washington think tank, said she doubted the sanctions would have a major effect on the Ukraine war.

“For Putin, this war is existential,” she said. “He has shown that he is willing to bear significant costs to achieve his objectives, in terms of lost Russian lives and economic and military expenses. This latest round of sanctions will not change that calculus.”
The China (And India) Card

Since the February 2022 invasion, the West has tried to put Moscow in a sanctions vise; Russia is now the most-sanctioned country in the world.

Its economy, however, has defied predictions from those who expected Moscow would be brought to heel as it runs out of money or the ruble tanks or hyperinflation takes off.

The economy has indeed slowed, though that’s the result mainly of policy intervention: the Central Bank hiking interest rates to tamp down soaring inflation. The government has recently announced tax hikes to maintain revenues.

In the meantime, Moscow has decidedly not taken its foot off the gas of its war machine, even in the face of eyewatering casualty rates.

Western sanctions have turned out to be more porous, and less effective than experts had hoped. That’s allowed Moscow to continue selling oil and gas to eager Chinese, Indian, Turkish, and other buyers.

Russia earned $13.35 billion from crude oil and fuel exports in September, according to the International Energy Agency, down sharply from July. The drop was due mainly to export constraints: Ukraine’s drone campaign targeted Russian refineries and pipelines and cut as much as 30 percent of the country’s refining capacity.

Also watering down the sanctions: Europe, where some countries – Slovakia and Hungary — continue to buy Russian oil and several others – the Netherlands, France, and Belgium — continue to buy Russian liquefied natural gas, or LNG. EU countries also buy a substantial amount of Russian gas via the TurkStream pipeline.

Trump has hammered Europe on this.

“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” he said in a speech at the United Nations last month. “They have to immediately cease all energy purchases from Russia. Otherwise, we are all wasting a lot of time.”

Most European countries phased out Russian crude oil imports in 2022, and then gasoline and refined products the following year. The European Union says it will phase out all remaining Russian LNG imports by the end of 2027. The bloc also sanctioned more than 20 Chinese and other foreign firms linked to Russian oil imports.

Further softening the edges of the sanctions: Rosneft and LUKoil have had time to build alternate systems and supply chains.

“The effectiveness of the sanctions will depend on enforcement and the strength of US alliances,” said Leslie Palti-Guzman, an energy expert and founder of Energy Vista, a consultancy. “Russian companies have mastered sanction evasion, but Western technologies are keeping close watch on ship-to-ship transfers, spoofing, and potential buyers.”

The new sanctions “will definitely be mitigated by sanctions proofing that not only Rosneft and LUKoil have done but also their buyers,” said Rachel Ziemba, a sanctions researcher at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

“It will have some effect sure, and more than Europeans acting alone, but the real impact will depend on US willingness to not just threaten secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions and ports but to do it,” she said.

It’s unclear how exactly India and China — the two biggest buyers of Russian oil exports — will respond. China is one of Moscow’s top allies and trading partners, sourcing much of its Russian energy via Siberian pipelines.

India has so far resisted US pressure to curtail its use of Russian energy, and Trump has lashed New Delhi on the issue. In August, he imposed punitive tariffs, citing India’s Russian imports.

That may be changing.

India’s top buyer of Russian oil, Reliance –- which has a contact with Rosneft to import around 500,000 barrels daily –- reportedly moved to halt those importsin the wake of the US announcement.

“New Delhi is much more susceptible to the threats and is expected to wind down the operations,” Shagina said. “However, it will be more difficult to scare away Chinese teapot refineries which are less integrated into the global energy markets.”

“Beyond China, which buyer is still willing to risk importing Rosneft’s oil?” Palti-Guzman said.



Mike Eckel is a senior international correspondent reporting on political and economic developments in Russia, Ukraine, and around the former Soviet Union, as well as news involving cybercrime and espionage. He’s reported on the ground on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the wars in Chechnya and Georgia, and the 2004 Beslan hostage crisis, as well as the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Minorities Within Minorities: Double-Edged Role Of Ethnic Education In Myanmar – Analysis

October 24, 2025 

By Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre
By Aung Thet Paing Hmue

In Myanmar’s polycrisis, Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) provide crucial education for millions. However, their focus on the dominant ethnic group’s identity risks creating new forms of exclusion for minority groups living within the EAO-controlled territories.
Key Takeaways:The post-coup expansion of Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEPs) is remarkable, but it mainly prioritizes and serves the dominant ethnic group
Language and curriculum policies in EAO-controlled areas create new barriers for “minorities within minorities”.
Interim education systems must prioritise inclusivity and equitable representation of all communities to build a truly federal and democratic Myanmar.
Historical Role of Education in EAO-controlled areas

Throughout history, the Myanmar education system was centralised and used as a tool for national assimilation. This process is often referred to as “Burmanisation“. This policy prioritised Burmese language and culture in the state schools, and marginalised the country’s diverse ethnic minority groups. This was seen as a cultural and identity threat to non-Bamar communities, fuelling decades of civil conflicts. This schooling strategy aims to promote a single national identity and is a core element of state-building, but has instead fuelled the ethnic tensions it sought to suppress.

The ethnic education system in Myanmar stands as a vital mechanism for cultural preservation, resistance, and the assertion of a right to self-determination by marginalised ethnic groups in the face of a persistent state-led “Burmanisation” project. Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEPs) were founded to respond to the state-enforced Burmanisation as a critical alternative. Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), and community groups developed independent education programs, particularly in ethnic regions, to counter the junta’s monopoly on education.

Following the 2011 democratic transition, the semi-democratic government made a symbolic transformation to reform and include ethnic languages in the curriculum by the “Mother tongue-based and multi-lingual education; MTB-MLE“. By 2020, 64 minority languages had been introduced as subjects in government schools. Despite these efforts, EBEPs and EAOs continued to operate their own parallel systems, highlighting the lack of trust and reliance on a territorial-based administration system.
School supplies


Role of EBEPs in post-2021 military coup

After the 2021 military coup, many students and teachers nationwide joined the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and boycotted the formal education system. By late 2024, approximately 7 million, or 53%, of Myanmar’s school-age children will be missing out on basic education. Therefore, the EBEPs’ functions became essential in many EAO-controlled territories. EBEPs have established functional and resilient mother tongue-based school systems. EBEPs have seen a surge in enrolment, ensuring the children can still access education amid the ongoing crisis in many places.



The growth of EBEPs since the military coup is a powerful testament to the resilience of communities in a polycrisis setting in Myanmar. The Karen National Union (KNU)’s education system supports over 145,000 students through 1,660 schools, while the Ta’ang National Education Committee (TNEC) serves over 10,000 students in 500 schools. There were only 215 schools in the 2023-2024 academic year in the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) controlled area. The number rose to 448 schools in total during the 2023-2025 academic year, indicating the improvement of the KIO education system in the region.
Minorities within Minorities challenges

However, the rapidly expanding EBEP system has introduced new complexities. The primary goal of providing the necessary education to the marginalized people also creates significant challenges for the minority groups in the EAO-controlled territories.

The creation of parallel education systems by EAOs has been a powerful act of resistance, but the specific peace and conflict dynamics of each ethnic group often shaped these systems. The education regimes developed by the EAOs tend to be more separatist in character when conflict is rife and less separatist when ceasefires are in place.

After the 1027 operation, the prior territories of the EAOs have changed significantly, forming a power and administrative vacuum in particular places. For example, the Palang State Liberation Front/Ta’ang National Liberation Army (PSLF/TNLA) has established a new governance body, the Ta’ang Land Council (TLC), in its newly acquired territory, which overlaps with KIO-controlled areas. Moreover, the TLC’s effort to make the Ta’ang language an official language causes ethnic tension with the Kachin, Shan, and Bamar populations.

Beyond territorial disputes, the issue of “minorities within minorities” is also evident in linguistic and political situations. Many ethnic education systems are designed to promote a specific ethnic identity and language by relying on a single, dominant dialect. For instance, the Karen Education and Culture Department (KECD) places a heavy emphasis on the S’gaw language. This creates an internal hierarchy among even the same ethnic group. Moreover, the Karen conflict is not monolithic, with splinter groups such as the Democratic Karen Benevolent Army (DKBA) and KNU-Peace Council (KNU-PC). Each group has its own education system with distinct curricula that reflect their ideological separation.

In Rakhine state, minority groups such as the Rohingya, Mro, Khumi, and Maramagyi face significant barriers. For the 2025-2026 academic year, the United League of Arakan (ULA) is hiring teachers to reopen schools in AA-controlled areas of 15 townships, including Paletwa township in Chin State. However, the Rohingya teachers have been barred from teaching, and local school committees are being pressured to hire Rakhine teachers. The ULA aims to revitalise Rakhine education, but there is no clear information on how they will provide education for the Chin ethnicity in Paletwa township. These exclusions could damage the reconciliation between the Rakhine and Rohingya communities for the future of Arakan.
Recommendations

To ensure that the interim education system serves as a foundation for the future democratic state and nation-building process, the following factors should be considered by all stakeholders.Decentralised education system: the EAOs should incorporate the micro-minorities with fairer representation, collaboration, and diverse leadership. In this way, the interim education system will be transparent and become an inclusive decision-making process for all people.
Cross-ethnic cooperation: to foster mutual understanding and avoid linguistic marginalisation in the controlled areas, the EAOs should coordinate policies to recognise each other.
Teacher diversity: The recruitment policies should prioritize inclusivity by ensuring the representation of teachers from underrepresented minority groups.
Expand Inclusive Education for all: To bridge the educational gap, all stakeholders should expand education at all levels by supporting necessary training and infrastructure to accompany the innovations to ensure no one is left behind.

‘Conclusion

The rise of EBEPs in post-coup Myanmar represents an act of extraordinary resilience and a vital community-driven alternative for millions of children facing an acute schooling crisis. Yet, this crucial provision operates as a double-edged sword: the prioritisation of the dominant ethnic group’s identities within EAO-controlled areas risks reproducing the exclusionary mechanisms of the state (such as past Burmanisation policies). This trajectory not only creates “minorities within minorities” but also fundamentally undermines the foundation for a truly federal and democratic building process of Myanmar. For education to contribute to a shared and just future, it must move beyond cultural preservation for dominant groups and embrace principles of inclusivity, equity, and shared governance for all ethnic minority groups within these territories.


About the author: Aung Thet Paing Hmue is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) with over two years of experience in the humanitarian sector. Currently residing in Thailand, he navigates cross-border challenges while building his professional future.

Source: This article was published by The Sabai Times


Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre

The Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) is a hybrid think tank (non-partisan) and consultancy firm that advances sustainable governance, policy innovation, and sustainability literacy in Myanmar. Through its Sustainability Lab, SRIc conducts in-depth public policy research and analysis to promote sustainable development and guide Myanmar toward a more resilient, equitable, and environmentally conscious future. SRIc provides strategic policy advocacy, CSR consultation, and the development of sustainability roadmaps grounded in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. These services support public institutions and private sector actors in aligning their operations with the Sustainable Development Goals. By integrating rigorous research with actionable consultancy, SRIc supports responsible business practices, fosters innovative CSR strategies, and designs impactful sustainability pathways. SRIc contributes to local transformation & global sustainability efforts through this dual approach.
India Set To Capitalize On China’s Lost Market In USA, Signaling A New Global Supply Chain Order – Analysis

By Subrata Majumder


Deep concern swirled around for India’s exports in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s tariff weaponization. The USA is the biggest destination for India’s export. It account for about one-fifth of India’s global export. Analysts fear that high tariffs by the USA will slash India’s overall exports, leveraging a drop in the GDP.

Nonetheless, the situation has turned into a paradox. Against the paranoia of containment, India’s exports surged despite Trump’s threat of high tariffs, which is the highest in the Asian market. The spike in the tariffs on India is mainly due to a retaliatory tariff of 25 percent for importing oil from Russia, in addition to a reciprocal tariff of 25 percent.

During the first 6 months of 2025-26 (April-September), India’s exports to USA increased by 13.4 percent, corresponding to an increase by 5.7 percent during same period in the preceding year.

In contrast, China’s exports to the USA tightened. In the first 8 months of 2025 (January-August), China’s exports to the USA dropped by 15.5 percent. The USA slipped to 3rd rank in China’s export list, behind ASEAN and EU, even though the USA is largest trading partner of China. In other words, China diversified its exports to emerging markets, particularly to ASEAN, India, Africa, as well to EU. Trade with ASEAN increased by 8.6 percent in January-August 2025, with Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia as the prominent destinations.

How has India built up strong resilience to Trump’s high tariff weaponization?

One of the distinguished features for India’s strong resilience to Trump’s tariff backlash was the fall in Chinese exports to the USA. The downturn in Chinese exports to the USA offered a space to India to capitalize on the market vacated by China.

Notably, India emerged as a tough competitor to China in the export of electronic goods to the USA. There has been a boom in the growth of electronic goods to the USA from India for the last 3 years. Electronic goods emerged the biggest item in the export basket to the USA in 2024-25, accounting for 17.8 percent of total export to the USA. The average growth in India’s export of electronic goods to the USA recorded a 72.8 percent/year during the last 3 years. Hitherto, drugs and pharmaceuticals, diamonds and jewelry and petroleum refinery products were the major items in the export basket to the USA.

This demonstrates a dramatic change in the export basket of India to the USA. India challenged China’s behemoth stake in the US electronic market during Trump’s tariff war period and evoked a new era in the global order supply chain.

US imports from China have dropped significantly since the start of Trump’s second period of presidency. This impacted China’s export of electronic goods to the USA, with monthly exports of electronic goods from China plunging from US$3.4 billion in May 2024 to US$1.1 billion in May 2025, even though they were exempted from thereciprocal tariff. The consistent month-to-month decline in exports allowed India to capitalize on China’s lost market in USA.

Eventually, in pursuance of the steep fall in Chinese exports of electronic goods to the USA, India’s exports surged in the USA market. During first six months of 2025-26 (April-September), India’s export of electronic goods to the USA shot up by 132 percent.

The growth trajectory of India’s electronic export to the USA relies on the boom of the Indian electronic industry. The present Indian electronic industry is valued at about US$155 billion. This is a six-fold increase in the electronic goods industry during the last decade. Eventually, this led to a five-fold increase in exports of electronic goods in the decade – from US$7.1 billion in 2014-15 to US$40.9 billion in 2024-25.

According to a PWC report, India’s electronic manufacturing industry will reach US$282 billion by 2030, nearly double the current level. The growth will be driven by mobile phones and wearable, semiconductor and consumer electronics. PLI (Productivity Linked Incentive) and other peripheral incentives have been crucial for boosting manufacturing and attracting investment.

FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) played key role in the development of electronic industry, with a significant impact on exports. India has attracted FDI worth US$4 billion since 2020-21. The trigger in FDI in the electronics sector was catapulted by the “China+1” strategy.

Given the “China+1” strategy, India became a fovoured nation for foreign investors. As a result of the new and innovative government policy to attract foreign investors, like the PLI scheme and coupled with low labour costs, India emerged as an important destination for foreign investors. The windfall flagged India as an emerging hot destination for the manufacture of electronic goods. Foreign investment in manufacturing of electronic goods sparked to a 193.6 percent increase in 2024-25, against average growth of 25 percent in the preceding years. Eventually, the global electronic leaders like Apple, Samsung and Foxconn flocked to India and emerged as the major exporters of electronic goods to the USA.

To this end, it would not be overoptimistic to underscore India as the next generation supply chain hub.


Subrata Majumder is a former adviser to Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), New Delhi, and the author of “Exporting to Japan,” as well as various articles in Indian media, including Business Line, Echo of India, Indian Press Agency, and foreign media, such as Asia Times online and Eurasia Review

 

BEYOND THE BOSPORUS: Espionage claims thrown at Imamoglu mean relief at dismissal of CHP court case is short-lived

BEYOND THE BOSPORUS: Espionage claims thrown at Imamoglu mean relief at dismissal of CHP court case is short-lived
In February, CHP leader Ozel (middle) and Imamoglu (left) met with Ankara mayor Yavas (right) to secure his backing for an Imamoglu presidential run. Imamoglu ended up in jail. Amid rumours that Yavas will take up the CHP candidacy, the threat that he too will find himself in a cell has emerged. / @eczozgurozel
By Akin Nazli in Belgrade October 24, 2025

A court case that sought to place trustees at the helm of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) was on October 24 dismissed by the Ankara 42nd (Asliye Hukuk) civil court of first instance, according to local media reports.

The court reportedly decided that the plaintiffs, who were expelled from the CHP, lacked the active capacity to file a lawsuit. If the case had gone ahead, the court could have questioned the expulsion of the plaintiffs by the defendants.

The plaintiffs have the right to file an objection at higher courts against the ruling to dismiss the case.

Many other lawsuits and investigations that target the CHP, meanwhile, continue. (See the latest on the major cases here).

Markets rally

On the news of the case dismissal, the Borsa Istanbul rallied and Turkey’s five-year credit default swaps (CDS) fell below the 250-level.

Turkey has been focused on the trial process since June. In the previous hearing, held on September 15, the court assigned October 24 as the next hearing date.

Under court examination was whether alleged irregularities should invalidate the CHP national party congress held in November 2023. CHP leader Ozgur Ozel, elected to his position at the congress, could have been relieved of his post if the plaintiffs had succeeded with their case.

Dummy run

Throughout the court process, bne IntelliNews stuck to the view that Ozel in the final analysis poses no threat to Turkey’s ruling regime, meaning the dismissal of him would amount to an unnecessary controversial move.

However, anticipation and tensions over the direction matters appeared to be heading in built up after the Istanbul 45th (Asliye Hukuk) civil court of first instance on September 2 appointed a board of trustees to take over the CHP’s provincial party headquarters in Istanbul.

That court move was something of a gripping moment for observers, including this publication, but in hindsight, given the Ankara decision to drop the case focused on the national party headquarters of the CHP, it turns out to have been a dummy run. The pass was never made.

Imamoglu targeted with espionage case

Also on October 24, government-run news service Anadolu Agency reported that the Istanbul chief prosecutor’s office has launched an espionage investigation against the CHP’s Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, who in mid-March ended up in jail after vowing to challenge Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in the next presidential election.

Additionally, the prosecutor’s office said in a statement that in a separate investigation it had detained 15 people accused of selling personal data of users of a mobile app launched by the Istanbul Municipality. Imamoglu has yet to be targeted in this case.

British, American and Israeli spooks

The espionage allegations are – as watchers of the campaign to sideline Imamoglu would expect – absurd. Someone named Huseyin Gun is said to have bought services from a British digital media agency during Imamoglu’s 2019 campaign to be mayor of Istanbul.

Gun, who worked with Imamoglu campaign director Necati Ozkan, is accused of being associated with British, American and Israeli intelligence services. As a result, Imamoglu is also accused of espionage.

Merdan Yanardag, editor-in-chief of Turkish TV channel Tele 1, has also been arrested as part of the espionage investigation.

‘It was also Imamoglu who set Rome on fire’

“Will you convince this beloved nation, which you have failed to convince with accusations of corruption and terrorism, with a mind-boggling slander like espionage?” Imamoglu, whose usual X account is blocked in Turkey, wrote on X via his @CBAdayOfisi (Presidential Candidacy Office) account.

“According to recent investigations, it is alleged that it was also Ekrem Imamoglu who set Rome on fire. Although we did not live during that period, we still demand this matter be investigated meticulously,” Imamoglu’s wife Dilek Imamoglu (@dk_imamoglu) wrote in a tweet.

Imamoglu spoilt the game

Part of Erdogan’s approach to maintaining power is to provide a space for a controlled opposition in the country’s political system. This helps to create confusion about the actual political situation in the country.

When, in March 2019, Imamoglu fought against the official Istanbul result released at the conclusion of the local elections, he challenged this theatre. Such was the thoroughness of his polling stations operation, he won the day, but the infuriated Erdogan camp demanded a re-run. Imamoglu triumphed again, this time by an even greater margin. Licking their wounds, Erdogan and his henchmen decided that the double-loss was within the limits of tolerability.

However, Imamoglu’s plan to capitalise on his sheer popularity for a repeat performance in the next presidential contest was not seen as tolerable at all.

Required realities

The newly brought espionage case could end up in a seizure of the Istanbul Municipality. The jailed Imamoglu was officially dismissed after he was charged with corruption, but the city parliament defended the CHP’s control over Istanbul by electing another CHP member to replace him.

Terrorism charges, unlike corruption charges, would end with the appointment of trustees to take over the public office. Local media reports now suggest that espionage charges would serve the same purpose; they would require the seizure of the municipality.

In Erdogan’s theatre, the CHP and Imamoglu were supposed to stay smart by not breaching the required realities of the regime. The unspoken warning has always been that doing otherwise would result in Erdogan taking control of the Istanbul Municipality.

Ankara mayor risks trial

Earlier this month, media reports suggested that Ankara prosecutors were applying to the interior ministry for permission to investigate the CHP mayor of the capital city, Mansur Yavas, for corruption.

To Turks, Yavas and Imamoglu are the CHP’s two most popular mayors. There was a real debate over whether Yavas or Imamoglu should be nominated to challenge ruler of 22 years Erdogan for the presidency.

Imamoglu received the party’s blessing, but where is he now? Imamoglu is sat in jail, even, through devious means devised by officials, stripped of the university diploma he legally requires to challenge for the presidency. Now it is Yavas’ chance to read the Erdogan script, stay smart and keep away from any suggestion of a run for the crown. Very likely, the only alternative is his own appointment with the jailer.

On October 21, the 34th Ankara (Agir Ceza) Heavy Penal Court permitted the Ankara prosecutors to pursue their corruption investigation. Yavas risks being tried.