World
China-India Conflict a Potential Threat to BRICS Association
By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh
The tension between China and India threatens to paralyse BRICS – the association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. While struggling to expand and influence on the global stage, China and India have locked horns over issues in their bilateral relations, ranging from border security to trade conflicts and information war.
The latest strains began in early May and culminated in hand-to-hand fighting in the Galwan Valley, a remote stretch of the 3,380-kilometre (2,100-mile) Line of Actual Control – the border established following a war between India and China in 1962 that resulted in an uneasy truce.
Punsara Amarasinghe, a former research fellow at the Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics in Moscow, and now a PhD candidate in international law at the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, Italy, argues that this tension is rather ironic given that in the past the two countries shared many civilisational values and both were victims of Western colonialism.
When India gained independence in 1947 from the British, its first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru built a rapport with Communist China by accepting the government of Mao Zedong with great anticipation that both China and India would become the stalwarts in the global campaign against Western imperialism. For example, it was Nehru’s idea that China should be granted a place in the non-aligned movement despite some of opposition from some members at the famous Bandung Conference in 1955.
However, the comity between the two nations was short-lived as China claimed the territory near Arunachal Pradesh whereas India adhered to the line of control known as the McMahon Line established by the British under the 1914 Simla Convention with the consent of Tibet. From the 1950s onwards, China showed its interest in the Aksai Chin area albeit its cordial relations with Nehru’s India. This long dispute finally ended in military escalation in 1962 and became known as the Sino-Indian War.
While acknowledging that some other issues have marred their relationship apart from the current border conflict, Amarasinghe told this article author that “both China and India have longed for global governance as emerging powers, and particularly, the influence expanded by China in South Asia has rapidly increased India’s doubt on China’s presence. Secondly, China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative project has encircled India geopolitically, creating a plethora of doubts about India’s state apparatus.”
He added that the notion of nuclear weapon strategies and India’s affinity with the USA are the biggest dilemmas that China has persistently had in dealing with India. Moreover, India has been the sanctuary for Tibetan refugees, including the Dalai Lama.
As to the fundamental question of whether all these issues put together could reappear in future, Amarasinghe emphasized: “Having looked at the trajectories of the history of Indo-China conflict, one can ascertain that the India-China issue has always been imbued with a question of power. Both states are yearning for global governance. Yet India is ahead of the curve as the world’s largest democracy and a state with one of the strongest soft powers, making the Indian narrative stronger, whereas Beijing is known for its autocracy.”
On the other hand, he reminded, “We should not forget that the pact signed between China and India in 1996 clearly says that two states cannot use firearms in a border dispute escalation. However, there have been several events that have shown the acts of aggression in the Indo-China border conflict. The Chinese efforts to build a road in the Doklam area near the border created a tense situation in 2017. Three years after that event, the conflict erupted again.”
China’s Foreign Ministry stipulated measures that would be implemented to normalise the situation and prevent future armed conflicts. “The sides welcomed the developments of relations between defence agencies and the external affairs ministries, agreed to support such consultations in the future and implement agreements that were reached by the two sides during the talks between the border troops commanders, as well complete as soon as possible the process of frontline troop withdrawal,” read a ministry statement.
The Foreign Ministry noted that the sides also reached an agreement to implement measures to “prevent the reoccurrence of incidents which may influence the situation and peace in the border region.”
“The relationship of China and India underwent various trials and their progress towards modern development was not always swift. As had been recently demonstrated correctly, and at the same time incorrectly, by the recent incident in the western sector of the China-India border in the Galwan River valley, China will continue to assert its territorial sovereignty as well as peace and tranquillity in the border region,” according to the statement.
The sides expressed readiness to respect the agreements achieved previously by the heads of state, pay specific attention to the issue of state borders and prevent “disagreements from becoming conflicts.” The sides also confirmed their adherence to the earlier agreements on the state border and expressed readiness to implement measures to normalise the situation in the border region.
Sino-Indian geopolitical rivalry is certainly not new, but today it has multifaceted implications for developments in the South Asian region and most possibly for BRICS. For example, in email discussions, Dr. Zhu Ming of the Institute for Global Governance Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS), noted that while there have been several disagreements between China and India, some have been resolved within the framework of international law but others have remained without comprehensive solutions.
Within the context of geopolitical alliances and emerging challenges, Tahama Asadis, a graduate of Strategic Studies from the National Defence University in Islamabad, noted the changing alliances and power equilibrium among the United States, China, India and Pakistan that bear key implications for inter-state rivalry and the consequent crisis dynamics in South Asia.
China has so far been successful in influencing South Asia because of many factors. One of the major reasons is that China has managed to project itself as a neighbour that would not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, least of all, in the internal affairs of its friends and partners. In the light of its ‘Good Neighbour Policy’, China’s increased diplomatic and economic engagements in South Asia are aimed at enhancing its strategic influence in the region.
Professor Ian Taylor at the University of St Andrews in the United Kingdom explained that he did not see any long-term future for the BRICS as a coherent grouping on the world stage. According to Taylor, the China-India rivalry (as exemplified by border clashes) shows how shallow the alliance is. Furthermore, Brasilia has its own “Brazilian Trump” who sees alliance with the West as the way forward, not with other “developing countries”.
Originally, BRIC was a four-member alliance until South Africa officially became a member in December 2010, after formally being invited by China to join and subsequently being accepted by the founding BRIC countries. The group was renamed BRICS – with the “S” standing for South Africa – to reflect the group’s expanded membership. South Africa is a staunch member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
“South Africa is in terminal decline and was only admitted to the BRICS for politically expedient-politically correct reasons. Its membership damaged the group’s credibility. And of course, China will resist to the very end the notion that India be admitted to the UN Security Council as a Permanent Member,” Taylor explained, adding that so much for the vaunted “South-South solidarity” that the BRICS was supposed to represent and what all the noise was about when it was launched.
Zhu Ming holds conservative not so negative views on the future of BRICS amid India-China conflicts, giving two reasons. The first and most important is that Beijing is still keeping a low profile on this conflict. For instance, Chinese local media coverage of this conflict is still quite low, and Beijing has not revealed losses on the Chinese side in order not to form the impression of too huge a gap in losses between the two sides as to humiliate the Indian side. “Just imagine, if two people were fighting, the situation would be extremely hard to turn back to normal very soon. But if one side could keep relatively calm, the situation would be more optimistic.”
Secondly, the disputed land is not worthy of a war between the two countries. “However, the rising nationalist mood of India is a bit troublesome. BRICS is not nothing to New Delhi, it will not be a good option for India to quit BRICS. Since BRICS was formed jointly by five powers, China does not own BRICS,” he told this article author, adding, “It is a bit early to judge the prospects of BRICS. It is quite possible that the global and BRICS health governance system could be another rising cooperation field within the BRICS group after the forthcoming BRICS summit.”
“While there are no official claims from the Kremlin that Putin was brokering any negotiation between the two to reconcile the border dispute if Russia can make a good move in meddling with the Indo-China border conflict, I assume it will work to a greater extent. Given the history of Russia’s dominant role in South Asia since its Soviet past, Moscow has a greater capacity to play the role of mediator. Besides that, BRICS is a platform for emerging powers and its capacity cannot be discarded as a regional political talk shop. Thus, I believe BRICS would create some steps for a more amicable solution,” Amarasinghe concluded on an optimistic note.
Alicia Garcia-Herrero is Senior Research Fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel and Adjunct Professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, noted in her article headlined “China Continues To Dominate An Expanded BRICS” published by the East Asia Forum that China has been the leading proponent of expanding BRICS to BRICS+. The main reason for the expansion was to make BRICS more representative of the developing world and give it a stronger voice on the global stage.
But the six countries invited to join — which has become five after Argentina’s withdrawal — are quite heterogeneous. Some are net creditors (such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), while others are net debtors and in a very weak financial position. Half of them are large exporters of fossil fuels (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran). Ethiopia and Egypt stand out as members from Africa, a continent that has become increasingly important for China’s and India’s foreign policy, according to Garcia-Herrero.
The BRICS countries are considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc of leading advanced economies, implementing competing initiatives such as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the BRICS pay, the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication and the BRICS basket reserve currency. But in practical reality, China has large control and uses the platform to widen its economic influence. Most of the trade growth has been China-centric, with contributions from the rest of BRICS remaining quite flat until recently. Russia, with its limited economic impact, only remains an excellent public relations organizer for BRICS.
The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs, and all are members of the G20. Since its establishment in 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at several summits, with South Africa having hosted the most recent 15th BRICS Summit in August 2023. Currently, Russia is heading the rotating in 2024 and plans to push forward significant issues, particularly the association’s expansion and transforming it into an anti-Western coalition. Reports indicate about 40 countries, the majority in Africa and Asia have expressed readiness to join BRICS from the Global South. The association has three areas of strategic partnership: policy and security, economy and finance, and cultural and educational cooperation.
Between now and until October when Kazan will host the 16th summit, Moscow has scheduled various activities including the BRICS Games, BRICS Foreign Ministers, BRICS Academic and BRICS Parliamentary meetings, these aim at showcasing BRICS geopolitical influence and increasing coalition for building a fairer, better and multipolar world. It also operates based on non-interference and equality with the hope of ensuring members get mutual economic benefits in the world. BRICS has received both praise and criticism from academics, researchers, politicians geopolitical analysts and writers around the world.
The origins of BRICS — a bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and, as of 2024, new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — can be traced back to a 2001 publication by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill titled ‘Building Better Global Economic BRICs’. O’Neill argued that Brazil, Russia, India and China were poised to play an increasingly significant role in the global economy. BRIC was officially launched in 2009 and was renamed BRICS in 2010 when South Africa joined, and Russia will make history by admitting the largest ever in 2024.
The founding countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China held the first summit in Yekaterinburg in 2009, with South Africa joining the association a year later. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined on 1 January 2024 The five BRICS countries together represent over 3.1 billion people, or about 41 percent of the world population. The five nations had a combined nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 18.6 trillion dollars and an estimated 4.46 trillion dollars in combined foreign reserves.
World
Essent Slashes Contact Centre Technology Costs by 50%
By Modupe Gbadeyanka
The Netherlands’ largest energy provider, Essent, has cut the technology costs of its contact centre infrastructure by half.
The organisation, which serves 2.5 million customers, recorded zero critical incidents post-migration and improved agent workplace satisfaction by 36 per cent.
The migration was delivered in partnership with AI-first customer experience transformation specialists, Sabio Group, and was completed in under 12 weeks for an operation spanning over 1,000 agents across two locations.
Agents were forced to juggle multiple disconnected screens simultaneously — a workflow that was as inefficient as it was stressful.
“Our agents were constantly working with different screens — multiple chat instances open at once, multiple agent desktop instances. It was messy, and in some cases, quite stressful,” SAFe Product Manager for Customer Interaction, Omnichannel and Digital Transformation at Essent, Michiel Kouijzer, stated.
“A lot of colleagues were saying I was mad for even suggesting this approach. It kind of feels like a victory on a personal level that it did work out. You just have to be a little ambitious — and have the right expert partner who can make it work,” Kouijzer added.
With stable cloud infrastructure now firmly in place, Essent is turning its attention to the capabilities that were impossible in its legacy environment: AI-powered call summarisation, agentic customer self-service, and next-generation workforce optimisation.
Rather than a reckless ‘big bang’ cutover that could have affected service to millions of households, Sabio engineered a phased migration strategy — beginning with Essent’s SME segment to validate technical readiness before scaling to the full enterprise operation.
“This project showcases Sabio’s unique position in the contact centre technology landscape. We’re not just moving Essent to the cloud — we’re establishing a foundation for continuous improvement in their customer experience delivery,” the Country Manager for Sabio Group Benelux, Wouter Bakker, commented.
World
Africa: A New Market for Russian Business
By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh
On April 11, the presentation of the book “Africa: a new market for Russian business” took place, which aroused lively diverse interests among business representatives, entrepreneurs and employees of federal structures of Russia. The event was dedicated to discussing the prospects of Russian companies entering the African market and became a platform for the exchange of views and experiences.
Participating guests, packed in the small hall, included:
– representatives of business circles,
– entrepreneurs interested in new directions of development,
– employees of federal agencies curating foreign economic activity.
The presentation was held in a constructive and friendly atmosphere. The author of the book, Serge Fokas Odunlami, detailed the key ideas and conclusions presented in the publication. Particular attention was paid to the practical aspects of operating in the African market, as well as the analysis of opportunities and risks for Russian companies.
During the lively discussion, participants asked questions, shared their experiences and made suggestions for developing cooperation with African countries. This format allowed not only to get acquainted with the content of the book, but also to discuss topical issues of expanding business relations.
Meaning of the book: The publication, “Africa: a new market for Russian business” offers readers not only analytical, but also practical recommendations on investment and market trends, and how to enter the African market. The book will be a useful tool for those considering Africa as a promising destination for investment and business development.
The presentation of the book became a significant event for the Russian business community interested in expanding cooperation with Africa. Serge Fokas Odunlami introduced the participants to the new edition, which is a comprehensive business guide that gives an impetus for dialogue and implementation of joint entrepreneurial projects and corporate initiatives across Africa.
World
Ryan Collyer Reveals Reasons Behind Africa’s Significant Energy Deficit
By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh
Perhaps Russia’s state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, is at the frontline, shaping Africa’s energy security. And African countries are also accelerating coordinated efforts to build nuclear power plants primarily to supply their energy, which will drive industrialisation and boost power capacity for domestic utilisation.
Energy experts say adopting nuclear can further support a diverse energy mix, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and help across the continent. Over the past two decades, Russia has been collaborating with African countries, adopting energy initiatives to provide power to approximately half the continent’s population, and making it an important component of Africa’s future energy strategy and solutions. At this point, however, it is necessary to underline the irreversible fact that Russia’s ultimate goal is to ensure long-term African energy security.
In this interview, Rosatom’s Chief Executive Director for Central and Southern Africa, Ryan Collyer, reiterates the strategic importance of Russia-Africa’s energy cooperation through strengthening bilateral agreements on collaboration on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Collyer explains that the Russian approach is its ability to offer an integrated solution, from technology and financing to training and localisation. According to him, partnerships must be built on mutual benefit and on the principle of transparency. Here follows the interview excerpts:
What are the expectations, specifically in the nuclear energy sphere, for Africa during the forthcoming Russia–Africa Summit scheduled for 2026?
The expectation is a clear shift from dialogue to delivery. Over the past few years, we have built a strong foundation through agreements, feasibility discussions and partnerships. The 2026 Russia–Africa Summit is an opportunity to demonstrate tangible progress.
In practical terms, I would expect greater focus on implementation readiness. That includes regulatory development, human capital, financing models and localisation strategies. We also expect to see more structured cooperation in areas like small modular reactors, which are particularly relevant for many African grids, as well as stronger emphasis on education and training partnerships. Ultimately, the success of the Summit will be measured by how many initiatives move from concept to execution.
Why, despite many bilateral agreements, is Africa still experiencing a significant energy deficit?
Africa’s energy deficit is not a result of a lack of ambition or agreements. It is primarily a question of scale, financing and infrastructure readiness. Energy projects, especially large-scale ones, require long-term investment, stable policy frameworks and strong institutional capacity. Many countries are working under fiscal constraints, and at the same time, demand is growing rapidly due to population growth and urbanisation. So, even when progress is made, it can be outpaced by rising demand.
It is also important to understand that many agreements are not meant to deliver immediate infrastructure. They are part of a longer preparation cycle, including feasibility studies, regulatory development and workforce training. Nuclear projects in particular are long-term by nature, and while this can be perceived as slow progress, it is actually a reflection of the level of diligence required.
How do you assess the contribution of nuclear energy to climate change mitigation and technological development in Africa?
Nuclear energy plays a dual role in Africa’s development, both as a clean energy source and as a driver of technological advancement. From a climate perspective, nuclear provides reliable, low-carbon electricity at scale. Africa needs a significant expansion of its energy capacity to support economic growth, and this growth must be both stable and sustainable.
Nuclear allows countries to increase power generation without increasing emissions, while ensuring a consistent baseload supply. At the same time, its impact goes beyond electricity. Nuclear technologies support medicine, agriculture, water management and industrial processes. Across Africa, they are already used in areas such as cancer treatment, food preservation and environmental monitoring, making nuclear a broader platform for sustainable development.
In this context, Rosatom offers integrated solutions across the full nuclear value chain. This includes large-scale and small modular reactors, as well as advanced non-power applications such as nuclear medicine and irradiation technologies. Our focus is on delivering practical, tailored solutions that support long-term development and local capacity building.
Is Africa unprepared to deal with nuclear waste, as some critics suggest?
I would say that preparedness varies across countries, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that the issue is being ignored. Responsible nuclear programmes require a comprehensive approach to waste management from the very beginning. This includes legal frameworks, regulatory oversight, storage solutions and long-term planning. These elements are part of international best practice and are supported by organisations such as the IAEA. What is true is that this topic is often undercommunicated in the public space. It should be discussed more openly, because transparency builds trust.
Countries that are serious about nuclear energy understand that waste management is not optional. It is a core component of the programme, and it is addressed in parallel with all other aspects of development. Rosatom offers comprehensive solutions for spent fuel and radioactive waste management. These include technologies for safe storage, transportation, reprocessing and recycling of nuclear materials. In fact, advanced reprocessing solutions allow for the reuse of valuable components of spent fuel, significantly reducing the volume of waste and improving the overall sustainability of the nuclear cycle.
Nuclear power remains controversial. Why do you believe it is important for Africa, and what role does it play in the energy mix?
Africa needs a balanced and pragmatic energy strategy. The conversation should not be about choosing one technology over another, but about building an energy mix that is reliable, affordable and sustainable. Renewables will play a critical role and are already expanding rapidly. However, they are variable by nature. For industrialisation, countries also need stable, continuous power that is baseload. This is where nuclear can make a meaningful contribution. A diversified energy mix that includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower and other sources allows countries to reduce risk, improve energy security and support long-term economic growth.
Nuclear is not the only solution, but it is an important part of a resilient system, especially for countries with growing industrial ambitions. In this context, Rosatom is able to support countries with integrated energy solutions that combine reliability, sustainability and long-term partnership models, tailored to national development priorities.
How can we shift public perception, given the legacy of Chornobyl and Fukushima?
We cannot rewrite history, and we should not try to. Events like Chornobyl and Fukushima shaped public perception for a reason. The starting point is respect for those concerns, not dismissal. At the same time, what is often missing in the conversation is what happened after those events. Chornobyl, in particular, fundamentally reshaped the entire philosophy of nuclear safety. It led to a complete rethinking of reactor design, emergency response, and regulatory oversight. Independent regulators were strengthened, safety responsibilities were clearly separated from operators, and safety culture became not just a principle but a legal requirement supported by continuous drills and probabilistic risk assessments.
Technologically, the industry also changed dramatically. Modern reactors are designed to withstand even worst-case scenarios, with multi-layered “defence-in-depth” systems, core melt traps, and passive safety mechanisms that rely on natural physical processes rather than human intervention. These are not incremental improvements. They are the direct result of lessons learned at a very high cost. But facts alone do not change perception. People do not build trust through reports. They build it through experience and transparency. That is why our approach in Africa is deliberately open.
We create opportunities for students, young professionals and journalists to visit nuclear facilities, research centres and training programmes. When people can see how systems operate, how safety is managed, and how seriously it is taken, the conversation becomes more grounded and less abstract. There is also an important human dimension that is often overlooked.
The history of Chornobyl is not only a story of tragedy. It is also a story of professionalism, responsibility and the people who managed the crisis and generated the knowledge that made today’s safety standards possible. Acknowledging that the full picture helps move the discussion away from fear alone toward understanding. At the same time, we need to broaden the narrative. Nuclear is not only about power generation. It is about cancer treatment, food security, water management and high-skilled employment. When communities begin to connect nuclear technology with real benefits in their own lives, it stops being an abstract risk and starts becoming a practical solution. Ultimately, perception does not change through persuasion. It changes through consistency. Through transparency, long-term engagement, and real-world impact.
What are your final thoughts on Russia’s preparedness to support Africa’s nuclear ambitions?
Russia has demonstrated that it is committed to long-term partnerships in Africa, particularly in the nuclear sector. We are already seeing concrete examples of cooperation in areas such as project development, education and skills transfer. The key strength of the Russian approach is its ability to offer an integrated solution, from technology and financing to training and localisation. Partnerships must be built on mutual benefit and transparency. Africa’s priorities are clear: energy security, economic development and local capacity building. Any partner that is ready to contribute to these goals consistently and practically will have a meaningful role to play. If we look country by country, the picture becomes even more interesting.
Take Ethiopia. This is a country thinking long-term about energy security and industrialisation. It has strong hydropower, but also understands the need to diversify. Ethiopia is prepared to take a big step towards nuclear energy. In Rwanda, the approach is different. It is focused on innovation and speed. There is a strong interest in small and flexible nuclear technologies, alongside active use of nuclear science in healthcare and agriculture. What stands out is the clarity of vision and pace of implementation.
Then, there is Namibia. As a major uranium producer, the question is how to move up the value chain. Partnerships can help connect resources to technology, skills and future energy applications. So, Russia’s role is not one-size-fits-all.
The real strength lies in adapting to each country’s strategy. If that continues, nuclear cooperation becomes not just about energy, but about shaping long-term technological development. Rosatom is one of the few global players capable of delivering the entire nuclear value chain. This includes reactor technologies, fuel supply, waste management solutions, including reprocessing, as well as long-term operational support and human capital development. This comprehensive capability is what allows us to move projects from concept to reality in a structured and sustainable way.
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn
