Search this site

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” from JOI For more than a decade, Syria existed in the margins of time. Not paused, not moving forward, but held in a quiet tension between what had been lost and what refused to disappear. Streets carried the weight of memory, homes stood as witnesses rather than shelters, and survival became an act of routine rather than hope. From a distance, the world learned to accept this permanence, mistaking endurance for stability and silence for resolution. Over years, Syria occupied the global imagination as a conflict frozen in time. Ruined cities, fractured borders, and a population exhausted by war came to symbolise a crisis that seemed immune to resolution. Diplomats spoke of managed decline, and the international community adjusted to the belief that the Assad regime, for all its brutality, would endure. What persisted instead was a sense of suspended collapse, a state that had ceased to function meaningfully yet continued to exist through inertia and the backing of external patrons. That illusion shattered in December 2024 . The fall of Damascus on 8 December unfolded quietly, without triumphant crowds or ceremonial resignations. It marked not a dramatic overthrow but the final implosion of a system long hollowed out from within. What Syrians had sensed for years, the world witnessed in real time: a powerful façade masking a decaying core. Context and Background Few collapses in contemporary political history have been as swift or disorienting. A state that had survived thirteen years of civil war, foreign intervention, and insurgent offensives disintegrated in barely twelve days. This speed was not accidental. It reflected the dynamics of what has been described as a hollow state, one that preserves the appearance of sovereignty even as coercive capacity and internal legitimacy steadily erode. By late 2024 , these fractures converged. Russia’s military overstretch in Ukraine depleted the air power that had once shielded Damascus. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps faced mounting pressures across Iraq, Lebanon, and the Red Sea. Hezbollah, weakened by sustained Israeli operations, could no longer offer decisive support. Inside Syria, Assad’s security apparatus was exhausted. Soldiers went unpaid, checkpoints operated as personal fiefdoms, and Baathist rhetoric rooted in nationalism and resistance no longer resonated with a population battered by deprivation. The final blow came on 27 November 2024 , when Hayat Tahrir al Sham launched Operation Deterrence of Aggression from Idlib. Its fighters encountered a Syrian Arab Army unwilling to defend the capital. Damascus fell with startling ease, and Assad fled to Moscow the same afternoon. His departure confirmed what had long been evident: the regime had collapsed internally long before it collapsed territorially. Key Players and Stakeholders Ahmed al Sharaa and Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS). At the centre of Syria’s transition is Ahmed al Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al Julani . Once an al Qaeda linked insurgent with a United States bounty on his head, he emerged as the most coherent political actor in a fragmented post Assad landscape. After severing formal ties with al Qaeda in 2016 and rebranding his movement as HTS in 2017 , he governed Idlib through a tightly controlled system combining strict security enforcement with selective, image conscious reforms. In March 2025 , he signed a Constitutional Declaration suspending the 2012 constitution and establishing a five year transitional presidency. Later that year, his appearance at the White House alongside President Donald Trump symbolised the political recalibration shaping Syria’s new order. The Transitional Syrian Leadership Structure. The governing framework introduced after Assad’s fall centralises authority around the presidency. The 2025 Constitutional Declaration grants the executive sweeping powers over ministerial appointments, parliamentary dissolution, legislative nominations, and judicial selection. This structure defines the nature of political authority during the transition and shapes the balance between consolidation and inclusion. Turkey.  Turkey plays an indispensable role in Syria’s transition. Hosting nearly three million Syrian refugees and deeply wary of Kurdish autonomy along its border, Ankara views a cooperative government in Damascus as central to its security architecture. Turkey provided critical logistical and political support during the 2024 offensive and now exerts influence across administrative and military sectors in northern Syria. The relationship reflects converging interests between border security, refugee management, and political stabilisation. The United States.  The United States has recalibrated its approach following Assad’s collapse. After years of sanctions and conditional engagement, Washington began viewing al Sharaa as a potential counterweight to Iranian regional networks. In early 2025 , Caesar Act sanctions were partially waived and HTS was removed from the terrorist designation list. This shift reflected adaptation to changing geopolitical realities rather than ideological endorsement. Russia and Iran. Russia and Iran, once dominant actors in Syrian affairs, now occupy diminished positions. Moscow retains its military bases at Tartus and Hmeimim but lacks the leverage it once exercised. Iran’s land corridor to Lebanon has been disrupted, and allied militias face new vulnerabilities. Syria’s transition underscores the limits of external patronage when internal legitimacy erodes. Minority Communities and Territorial Authorities.  Syria’s minority communities remain central stakeholders in the transition. Alawites, long associated with Assad’s security apparatus, face fear and reprisals. Christians remain apprehensive despite public assurances of protection. Druze communities in Suwayda assert local autonomy. Kurdish authorities administer the northeast and remain cautious of a constitutional framework hostile to federalism and autonomy. Major Concerns and Consequences Minority Vulnerability and Reprisals. The collapse of the Assad regime intensified insecurity among minority communities. Alawites faced widespread fear of retribution, with reports indicating more than 1,500 deaths during March 2025 alone. Christians continued to express anxiety despite official protection guarantees, reinforcing communal mistrust and withdrawal. The Kurdish Question.  Although the Syrian Democratic Forces signed a provisional integration agreement in March 2025, implementation stalled. Kurdish leadership recognised that the new constitutional order is fundamentally hostile to federalism and autonomy. This unresolved tension remains one of the most volatile aspects of Syria’s transition. Executive Concentration of Power.  The 2025 Constitutional Declaration established an executive presidency with extensive authority. The president can appoint ministers, dissolve parliament, nominate one third of the legislature, and select all members of the S upreme Constitutional Court . Laws criminalising glorification of the former regime enabled widespread detentions, particularly in Alawite regions. These measures raised concerns that the post Assad order mirrors the centralised authoritarianism of the past. Persistent Territorial Fragmentation.  Despite regime change, Syria remains territorially divided. Sunni majority urban centres fall under transitional control. Alawite militias retain coastal strongholds. Kurdish authorities govern the resource rich northeast. Druze communities maintain local autonomy. These divisions reflect long standing historical, sectarian, and political fractures. Unresolved Transitional Justice.  With more than half a million dead and countless disappeared, demands for accountability remain deeply embedded in Syrian society. The transitional leadership prioritised stability, integrating defected regime officials, releasing select detainees, and avoiding broad institutional reforms. This approach preserved unresolved grievances that originally fuelled the 2011 uprising . Structural Fragility of the Transition.  The interaction of centralised authority, territorial fragmentation, minority insecurity, and deferred justice defines Syria’s post Assad political landscape. The transition reflects not closure but continuity of unresolved tensions embedded within a reconfigured power structure. Political Perspectives and Understanding Syria’s transition invites deeper theoretical reflection. Constructivism helps explain al Sharaa’s transformation from insurgent commander to transitional president as a recalibration of political identity. Changes in rhetoric, appearance, and diplomatic posture enabled him to project legitimacy at home and acceptability abroad. External actors, fatigued by conflict, accepted this constructed identity because it aligned with their strategic aims. Neorealism adds another layer. States adjusted to shifting power balances in ways that maximised security interests. Turkey aligned with HTS to manage border threats. The United States recalibrated to counter Iran. Russia and Iran receded under structural constraints. Within Syria, Barry Posen’s domestic security dilemma explains why minorities retain arms and why the central government interprets such actions as sedition. Mutual fear sustains militarisation and instability. More broadly, concepts of sovereignty, legitimacy, recognition , and state failure are being reconfigured. Authority in post Assad Syria is constructed through control, narrative, and external recognition rather than inherited institutions. The selective re engagement of the United States underscores how recognition functions as a geopolitical instrument rather than a moral judgment. Takeaways Syria’s transition illustrates that the fall of a regime does not automatically produce democratic renewal. It reveals how revolutions can end not in liberation but in the reconfiguration of power under new terms. The decline of Russian and Iranian influence, the resurgence of Turkish engagement, and the pragmatic acceptance of a former al Qaeda figure by the United States reflect a broader shift toward realpolitik over ideological consistency. For Syrians, the central question remains unresolved. Has the revolution delivered transformation, or merely exchanged one form of authoritarianism for another? The answer will depend on whether the new leadership can build trust with minorities, negotiate a sustainable settlement with the Kurds, and restrain its own impulses toward hyper centralisation. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms. Supriya Mishra & Ms. Kashmira Juwatkar )  Stay Tuned for More! Syria’s transition reminds us that revolutions are not clean endings but prolonged negotiations with history, power, and fear. The fall of Assad closed one chapter, yet it opened another defined by fragile authority, contested legitimacy, and unresolved questions of justice and inclusion. As Syria navigates this uncertain transition, the balance between stability and accountability will shape whether it moves toward renewal or repeats familiar cycles of authoritarian control. Global Canvas  will continue to trace how unfinished revolutions reshape regional orders and redefine global political norms. Which transition or geopolitical shift should we map next? Stay connected with us through   www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email us at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com Exciting news related to the Global Canvas series coming soon! Watch out for updates! References and Sources Phillips, C. (2025). The battle for Syria (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300249910/the-battle-for-syria/   Khalifa, D., & Mandıracı, B. (2025b, February 3). Op-ed | Turkey’s tightrope in post-Assad Syria. Turkey recap. https://www.turkeyrecap.com/p/turkeys-tightrope-in-post-assad-syria   Lister, C. (2024). The Syrian jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the evolution of an insurgency. Oxford University Press. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton. Posen, B. R. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival , 35 (1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396339308442672   Weinstein, A. (2025, September 24). Syria’s new leader sheds terror past at UN. Responsible Statecraft . https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ahmed-al-sharaa-united-nations/   Afp. (2025, July 7). U.S. revoking “terrorist” designation for Syria’s HTS . The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-revoking-terrorist-designation-for-syrias-hts/article69785013.ece   Hassan .  (2025, October 11). How Syria Can Forge a Lasting Peace . Time. https://time.com/7324960/syria-kurds-sharaa-stability/   Gendler, A. (2024, December 16). Who controls Syria after Assad? Voice of America . https://www.voanews.com/a/who-controls-syria-after-assad/7903494.html   News in Brief – page 13 . (2025, January 3). https://battle-updates.com/update-category/news-in-brief/page/13/   Staff, A. J. (2024, December 10). How al-Assad’s regime fell: Key moments in the fall of Syria’s ‘tyrant.’ Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/10/syria   Al-Lami, M. (2024, December 9). How Syria rebel leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani reinvented himself . https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q0w1g8zqvo   Observer Research Foundation. (2025, January 16). Syria’s transition under Ahmed al-Sharaa: Diplomacy and realpolitik . orfonline.org . https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/syria-s-transition-under-ahmed-al-sharaa-diplomacy-and-realpolitik   Roth, A. (2025, November 11). US declares partial suspension of sanctions on Syria after historic meeting. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/10/us-declares-partial-suspension-of-sanctions-on-syria-after-historic-meeting   Sharaa on Trump’s Five Points, Six Months On . (n.d.). The Washington Institute. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/sharaa-trumps-five-points-six-months   Dhojnacki. (2024, December 24). What role will the Gulf states play in shaping the new Syria? - Atlantic Council . Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/what-role-will-gulf-states-play-in-shaping-the-new-syria/   Giorgio Cafiero . (2025, February 18). Role for Gulf States in Syria’s reconstruction. Orion Policy Institute. https://orionpolicy.org/role-for-gulf-states-in-syrias-reconstruction/    Human Rights Foundation. (2025, February 23). Assad regime overthrown after 53 years of repression and brutality; pivotal opportunity to establish rule of law and individual rights - Human Rights Foundation . https://hrf.org/latest/assad-regime-overthrown-after-53-years-of-repression-and-brutality-pivotal-opportunity-to-establish-rule-of-law-and-individual-rights/   Staff, A. J. (2024a, December 8). Syria’s Bashar al-Assad: The president who lost his homeland. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/8/syrias-bashar-al-assad-the-president-who-lost-his-homeland   BBC News. (2024, December 9). Bashar al-Assad: Sudden downfall ends decades of family’s iron rule . https://www.bbc.com/news/10338256   Widyane Hamdach. (2025, May 7). The fall of Bashar Al-Assad: winners, losers, and challenges ahead - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs . Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2025/05/07/the-fall-of-bashar-al-assad-winners-losers-and-challenges-ahead/   Arayssi. D, Gilder. A. (2025, October 7). Preventing another sectarian authoritarian system in Syria - New Lines Institute . New Lines Institute. https://newlinesinstitute.org/sustainable-futures/preventing-another-sectarian-authoritarian-system-in-syria/

There are years that feel busy, and there are years that feel formative. As I look back on 2025 at Johnson Odakkal Initiatives (JOI), this was unmistakably the latter. It was not a year defined by dramatic shifts or loud milestones, but one marked by clarity, consolidation, and a deeper sense of alignment between what we do and why we do it. While JOI did turn four this year, 2025 was less about marking time and more about understanding direction. Progress felt less like acceleration and more like intentional movement, where people, partnerships, and purpose began to settle into a coherent whole. If the early years of JOI were about building momentum, this year was about shaping meaning. People Before Platforms At its heart, JOI has always been people-led. This year reaffirmed that belief in very real ways. Every partnership, publication, classroom engagement, and conversation in 2025 was shaped more by shared conviction than individual ambition. Our collaboration with ARA Counsellors  for the Global College Admissions webinar series reflected this ethos. These sessions were not simply informational touchpoints. They were thoughtful, grounded engagements designed to help students and families navigate decisions with clarity rather than pressure. A defining institutional moment came when the NCERT Textbook Development Team  entrusted JOI with the responsibility of contributing three official textbook chapters across Geography, Social Sciences, and Political Science for Grades 6–8 . This was more than an academic milestone. It affirmed an approach to education that we deeply value, one that is rigorous yet accessible, structured yet humane. Contributing to material that will shape young learners across the country is both an honour and a responsibility we carry with humility and gratitude. Teaching, Leadership, and Shared Spaces Teaching and leadership continued to intersect meaningfully throughout the year. The Bombay Baptist Church Leadership Summit 2025 , hosted and facilitated by JOI, became a space for reflection, leadership, and community. It was not a celebration of scale, but of substance, bringing together conversations that mattered and relationships that endured beyond the event itself. Our collaboration with The Outreach Collective  further expanded JOI’s learning ecosystem. Through immersive AI workshops, career counselling initiatives, and the engagement of TOCians, these partnerships reinforced a core belief that the future of education lies not in silos, but in shared spaces of learning and inquiry. From Individual Effort to Collective Architecture One of the most significant developments this year was internal. JOI steadily moved away from activity-driven output toward architecture-driven thinking. The focus shifted from doing more to building frameworks that endure, systems that help others think clearly and act ethically even when we are not present. This transition was strengthened by the formation of a committed core team, people who value thinking together, sharing responsibility, and growing through collaboration rather than hierarchy. The work became less solitary and more relational, grounded in trust, mutual learning, and complementary strengths. Welcoming New Voices The JOI family grew in meaningful ways during 2025. In May, Ms. Kashmira Juwatkar  joined us as a full-time Research Assistant after her impactful journey as a JOI Research Intern. From playing a key role in launching the Global Canvas  series to contributing across research projects and assignments, her work became a steady pillar in JOI’s output this year. In November, we welcomed Ms. Manasi Misal Tirodkar  as a Programme Partner and Senior Associate. Her strategic perspective and programme leadership added strength and clarity at a crucial phase of JOI’s growth. Together, these new members brought not just skills, but alignment and a shared understanding of why the work matters. Writing as Thought Leadership Writing remained a constant presence throughout the year, though with a quieter, more intentional posture. JOI contributors and collaborators published extensively across platforms such as The Sunday Guardian, WION News, Eurasia Review, News18 India, Organiser, Asian Lite, FINS Journal  and Firstpost . These pieces spanned global affairs, geopolitics, ethics, leadership, and education, each anchored in clarity rather than commentary. Alongside this, multiple episodes of the Global Canvas  blog series were released across the year. What began as a conceptual initiative is steadily evolving into a distinctive intellectual property, bridging academic rigour with public understanding. As we look ahead, 2026 holds a significant development related to Global Canvas. The groundwork is complete, the thinking has matured, and the reveal is coming soon. A Year of Professional Distillation As a founder, this year also invited reflection. Working through JOI in 2025 reinforced a shift from visibility to value, from metrics to mentorship, and from output to judgment. Teaching revealed itself again not as delivery, but as legacy. Writing clarified itself not as volume, but as alignment. Perhaps the most meaningful change was internal, the confidence to reposition without noise. Not every transition requires announcement. Clarity, when genuine, communicates itself through consistency. If there is one insight that defines this year, it is this. Sustainable impact is born when clarity of purpose meets restraint of ego. Gratitude and What Lies Ahead As we close 2025 and step into the next phase of JOI’s journey, gratitude stands foremost. For collaborators, contributors, students, partners, and team members who shaped this year with trust and thoughtfulness. What exists today is not incomplete. It is appropriately formed for this season. The road ahead is clearer, the work more grounded, and the vision more coherent. That, perhaps, is the most meaningful outcome of this year. Thank you for being part of the JOI journey. The next chapter is already taking shape.

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” from JOI Imagine a world where a morning coffee costs a little more, supermarket shelves appear inexplicably empty, or a favourite gadget is delayed, not because of a factory breakdown in East Asia but because a missile fired from Yemen’s mountains forced a ship to reroute 6,000 nautical miles around the Cape of Good Hope . This scenario is neither speculative fiction nor a worst case forecast. Since late 2023 , it has become the lived geoeconomic reality of a deeply interconnected world. When Yemen’s Houthi movement transformed the Red Sea into a theatre of asymmetric maritime warfare, it shattered long held assumptions about the stability of global trade routes. What began as a declared act of solidarity with Gaza quickly evolved into a sustained campaign that reshaped shipping behaviour, distorted insurance markets, and exposed how fragile the arteries of global commerce truly are. Even after a fragile ceasefire in Gaza took effect on 10 October 2025 , the waters remained unsettled, revealing that the Red Sea crisis was never simply a by-product of another war but a manifestation of deeper structural vulnerabilities. Context and Background The Red Sea occupies a critical position in the global trading system, linking Europe and Asia through the Suez Canal and the Bab el Mandeb Strait. A significant share of global trade and energy shipments flows through this narrow corridor, making uninterrupted passage central to economic stability across regions. Between November 2023 and January 2025 , the Houthis deployed drones, anti ship ballistic missiles, and explosive laden speedboats against more than a hundred commercial vessels. While the tempo of attacks varied in response to regional developments, their cumulative impact was profound. Oil flows through the Bab el Mandeb declined by around 15 percent, freight prices surged by as much as 30 percent, and global trade losses exceeded 100 billion dollars. The fragility of the maritime environment was further underscored days after the Gaza ceasefire, when a Cameroon flagged LNG tanker exploded near Aden. Although responsibility was denied, the incident highlighted a defining feature of the crisis: the blurring of attribution, authority, and accountability in a contested maritime space where insecurity persisted even in moments of diplomatic pause. Key Players and Stakeholders At the centre of the crisis stands the Houthi movement, an ideologically driven and technologically adept non state actor rooted in Yemen’s unresolved civil war and Zaydi political identity. Unlike the Somali pirates of the previous decade, whose actions were largely motivated by economic gain, the Houthis operate as hybrid actors. Their campaign combines ideology, insurgency, and strategic disruption of global trade. Iran plays an undeniably central role by supplying weapons, training, intelligence, and political cover. Yet, the Houthis retain significant autonomy. Maritime disruption allows them to strengthen bargaining power within Yemen, consolidate authority over territories they control, and reinforce ideological legitimacy among supporters who frame resistance to external powers as a generational struggle. The relationship between Tehran and the Houthis is therefore best understood as a transactional alignment of interests rather than a rigid proxy hierarchy. Other stakeholders include global shipping firms, marine insurers, energy markets, and states whose economic stability depends on uninterrupted maritime flows. The United States and the United Kingdom have responded with strikes and naval deployments, while European states , China , and India maintain a strong interest in secure passage but differ in their willingness to align with US led initiatives. These divergent approaches have produced a fragmented security architecture in a region that demands cohesion. Major Concerns and Consequences The most immediate consequence of the crisis has been the exposure of global supply chain fragility . War risk insurance premiums, once negligible, climbed to nearly one percent of a vessel’s hull value per transit, translating into million dollar costs for a single journey. Many shipping companies responded by rerouting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to transit times and over a million dollars in additional fuel and operational expenses per voyage. Beyond economic disruption, the crisis carries serious escalation risks. A misidentified vessel, a miscalculated strike, or a retaliatory response could rapidly draw regional powers and global navies into a wider confrontation. Environmental risks further compound these dangers. A disabled oil tanker, ruptured LNG vessel, or chemical spill in the confined waters near Yemen would amplify the catastrophe exponentially, with consequences extending far beyond the region. The crisis also exposes the limitations of existing maritime security frameworks, which were designed to address piracy, smuggling, and state based conflict rather than hybrid non state actors wielding long range weapons, ideological narratives, and external support. Political Perspectives and Understanding From a realist perspective, the Red Sea crisis reflects underlying power politics. Iran’s regional posture, the naval responses of the United States and its partners, and the broader contest over sea control all align with realist assumptions about security and influence. Geoeconomic theory helps explain how trade routes and insurance markets have become tools of coercion, where the ability to raise transportation and risk costs functions as a strategic weapon. Constructivist perspectives draw attention to the importance of narrative and identity. For the Houthis, maritime attacks are not only acts of coercion but also performances of resistance aimed at reinforcing legitimacy among domestic supporters and regional sympathisers. Economic liberalism highlights the paradox of interdependence, where global connectivity creates shared prosperity while simultaneously exposing economies to shared vulnerability. Complex interdependence theory further suggests how non state actors can exploit interconnected systems to exert influence disproportionate to their size. Together, these perspectives reveal why the Houthis’ behaviour resists singular explanation and why traditional security responses alone have failed to restore stability. Takeaways The Red Sea crisis is not simply a maritime security challenge or an extension of the Gaza conflict. It represents a convergence of Yemen’s internal fragmentation, Iran’s regional strategy, great power hesitation, and a global economy heavily reliant on fragile chokepoints and just in time logistics. The Gaza ceasefire did not restore maritime stability because the crisis was never confined to Gaza. Without a political settlement in Yemen, sustained multilateral cooperation, and new approaches to maritime governance that recognise the rise of hybrid non-state threats, the Red Sea will remain a persistent source of global economic and strategic disruption. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms. Kashmira Juwatkar & Ms. Supriya Mishra )  Stay Tuned for More! The Red Sea crisis underscores that maritime chokepoints are far more than logistical corridors. They are living intersections of conflict, commerce, and power, where local wars, regional rivalries, and global economic dependence converge. The persistence of insecurity in the Red Sea demonstrates how unresolved political fractures, particularly in Yemen, can reverberate far beyond their immediate geography, reshaping trade flows, insurance markets, and strategic calculations worldwide. Future editions of Global Canvas  will continue to examine how hybrid conflicts and non-state actors are redefining vulnerability in an interconnected world. What maritime route, geopolitical fault line, or emerging crisis should we map next? Share your reflections and questions in the comments, and stay connected with us through www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email us at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com Exciting news related to the Global Canvas series coming soon! Watch out for updates! References and Sources Allcargo Logistics Limited. (2025, June 28). India’s Logistics Sector Powers Ahead Amid Global Shocks. https://www.allcargogati.com/insights/news-press-releases/india-s-logistics-sector-powers-ahead-amid-global-shocks    Al Jazeera. (2025, October 18). LNG tanker on fire off Yemen coast after explosion. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/18/uk-military-says-ship-ablaze-after-being-struck-off-coast-of-yemen    Berman, N. (2024, January 12). How Houthi Attacks in the Red Sea Threaten Global Shipping. Council of Foreign Relations  https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-houthi-attacks-red-sea-threaten-global-shipping    Denamiel, T., Schleich, M., Reinsch, W A., Todman, W. (2024, January 22). The Global Economic Consequences of the Attacks on Red Sea Shipping Lanes. Center for Strategic and International Studies  https://www.csis.org/analysis/global-economic-consequences-attacks-red-sea-shipping-lanes    Gibbon, G. (2025, November 12). Red Sea premiums to stay high despite Houthi ceasefire. https://www.agbi.com/logistics/2025/11/red-sea-premiums-to-stay-high-despite-houthi-ceasefire/   International Maritime Organisation. (2024, November 4). IMO Secretary-General visits Red Sea countries https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/red-sea-mission.aspx    Jolly, J. (2023, December 20). More than 100 container ships rerouted from Suez canal to avoid Houthi attacks. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/20/more-than-100-container-ships-rerouted-suez-canal-red-sea-houthi-attacks-yemen   Maplecroft. (2025, August 19). War premiums, shipping risks spike, as Houthi campaign intensifies. https://www.maplecroft.com/solutions/consulting/political-risk/insights/war-premiums-shipping-risks-spike-as-houthi-campaign-intensifies/   Perkins, R. (2023, December 21). FACTBOX: Seaborne trade reroutes away from Red Sea over Houthi attacks.  https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/shipping/122123-factbox-seaborne-trade-reroutes-away-from-red-sea-over-houthi-attacks     Robinson, K. (2025, March 24). Iran’s Support of the Houthis: What to Know.  https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/irans-support-houthis-what-know   Sainz, V. (2025, March 27). The Red Sea Shipping Crisis (2024–2025): Houthi Attacks and Global Trade Disruption. https://atlasinstitute.org/the-red-sea-shipping-crisis-2024-2025-houthi-attacks-and-global-trade-disruption/    Schuler, M. (2025, October 18). Fire and Explosion Onboard LPG Tanker in Gulf of Aden Leaves Two Missing https://gcaptain.com/tanker-struck-by-projectile-gulf-of-aden-as-houthi-threat-to-shipping-resurfaces/   Saul, J. (2025, July 11). Red Sea insurance soars after deadly Houthi ship attacks. Reuters  https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/red-sea-insurance-soars-after-deadly-houthi-ship-attacks-2025-07-10/    Qui, W. (2025, July 21). Red Sea Ship Insurance Jumps after Deadly Houthis Attacks. https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/nv/insights/red-sea-ship-insurance-jumps-after-deadly-houthis-attacks   Yemen Online. (2025, October 21). Defense Line Confirms Houthi Involvement in Attack on LNG Tanker FALCON in Gulf of Aden Despite Militia Denial. https://yemenonline.info/politics/10492

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” from JOI It is often said that the SEA is prone to turbulence, its waters unpredictable and wild. It has yet again flared up, however, this time, the storm is not stirred by nature, but by power politics. This “SEA” is not made of water, but years of historical ties, entangled alliances, and complex politics. This is the story of two South East Asian (SEA) nations, Thailand and Cambodia, caught once again in the eye of a political storm. Rich cultural legacies define South East Asia’s identity and tourism economies. Ironically, this shared heritage is the very reason that Thailand and Cambodia have repeatedly exchanged artillery fire and airstrikes over the years. Beneath the surface, an old border dispute has simmered since the early 1900s , waiting for another political ignition point. Context and Background To trace this conflict, the story returns to 1904 . That year, the Kingdom of Siam (present-day Thailand) signed a border agreement with France , which then ruled Cambodia as a colony. The region was filled with dense forests and sharp mountain gradients. Both sides agreed the border would follow the Dangrek Mountains’ watershed line, though the exact demarcation remained unclear. The narrative shifted in 1907 when France produced the “Annex I” map, placing the Prasat Preah Vihear temple (known as Phra Viharn in Thailand) inside Cambodian territory. This map deviated from the watershed principle. Preah Vihear is a Hindu temple dedicated to God Shiva, constructed by the Khmer Empire during the 11th-12th centuries. Over time, it also reflected Buddhist influence. Its location atop a steep escarpment made it both architecturally majestic and politically sensitive. As the Khmer Empire declined, parts of the region periodically fell under Siamese control, especially after Siam’s attack on Angkor Thom. Cambodia became a French protectorate in 1863 to avoid Siamese dominance. In 1867 , Siam renounced several territorial claims, including those around Preah Vihear. The 1907 map soon became controversial. Critics argued that France had ignored the 1904 agreement’s requirement for a joint survey. Instead, France surveyed and published the maps unilaterally in Paris. If the watershed principle had been applied as agreed, Siamese officials argued, most of the Preah Vihear temple would have fallen on the Siamese side. Yet Siam did not submit an official objection. This silence later became central to Cambodia’s legal argument. The story resurfaced in the Second World War . In 1941 , Thailand used France’s weakened position to seize the area. Japan mediated an end to the conflict, leading to the Franco-Siamese Peace Convention. After Japan’s defeat, the treaty became void. The 1946 settlement returned the territory to French control. When France withdrew following Cambodian independence, Thailand reoccupied the temple. Cambodia took the dispute to the International Court of Justice in 1959. Thailand argued that the 1907 map was not legally binding. The ICJ , however, noted that Thailand had not objected when the map was presented. The Court also pointed out that in 1930 , Thai Prince Damrong had visited the temple, seen the French-Cambodian flag, and raised no protest. This counted as tacit acceptance. In 1962 , the ICJ ruled in Cambodia’s favour. Thailand withdrew troops the following year. Prince Sihanouk sought to ease tensions by allowing Thai visitors to enter the temple without visas and even permitted Thailand to retain certain relics taken during its occupation. Yet the underlying border was never fully resolved. The ICJ ruled only on the temple, not the surrounding 4.6 square kilometres. Thailand continues to reject ICJ authority over this disputed area.  The conflict returned dramatically in 2008 when Cambodia submitted Preah Vihear for UNESCO World Heritage status. Thailand objected, arguing the application involved disputed land. Political tempers flared. In Thailand, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the “Yellow Shirts” (backed by monarchy, military, and urban elites), accused the government of surrendering sovereignty. On the other side of the border, in Cambodia, Hun Sen amplified nationalist sentiment before elections. UNESCO eventually approved Cambodia’s submission, triggering troop deployments and clashes. Between 2013 and 2023 , tensions ebbed but never ended. They resurfaced during negotiations over the Overlapping Claims Area (OCA) in the Gulf of Thailand, believed to hold oil and gas. Initial diplomatic warmth between Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Hun Manet created hope. However, conservative Thai factions accused Paetongtarn of risking territorial concessions. Cambodian nationalists revived their own claims. Both sides hardened their positions. The spark came from a viral video in February 2025 showing Cambodians singing their national anthem at Ta Muen Thom , located in Thailand’s Surin province. This temple, too, became a point of contention due to its historical ties to the Khmer Empire. A Joint Border Commission meeting collapsed in June. Days later, Hun Sen leaked a private call with Paetongtarn, referring to him as “uncle”, humiliating Thai leadership. Paetongtarn was suspended by Thailand’s Constitutional Court on July 1. Meanwhile, both militaries fortified their borders. Analysts noted new roads and outposts on both sides. Apologies between commanders in April were followed by gunfire in May that killed a Cambodian soldier. On July 23, 2025 a Thai soldier lost a leg to a landmine, triggering full-scale clashes the next day. Cambodia fired BM-21 rockets. Thailand responded with F-16 strikes. More than 30 people were killed, and over 200,000 displaced.  Efforts at peace repeatedly collapsed. A temporary halt to fighting was agreed on July 28 in Malaysia. Yet, within hours Thailand accused Cambodia of violating the truce. Another meeting in Shanghai followed. A thirteen-point plan to demilitarize the Preah Vihear area was drafted. Hopes peaked when both sides signed the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords at an ASEAN summit on October 26, 2025 , in the presence of President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. The agreement included releasing prisoners of war, removing heavy weapons, clearing landmines, and deploying neutral observers. However, the peace barely lasted two weeks. An explosion in November wounded four Thai soldiers. Thailand suspended the ceasefire on November 10 . More clashes followed. Thailand cancelled prisoner releases. On November 17 , Thailand presented evidence of newly planted mines. Cambodia denied responsibility. By late November, neither side had an incentive to step back. Fighting flared up in December 2025 , with the bordering areas yet again witnessing the horrors of artillery, rockets, airstrikes, and drones, causing casualties. Tens of thousands more civilians have been displaced, and both governments are trading accusations of ceasefire violations and foreign interference. What began as a “temporary truce” has reverted to open confrontation, confirming once again that negative peace without structural reconciliation is no peace at all. Key Players and Stakeholders Thailand and Cambodia Governments. Both governments faced domestic pressure that constrained their ability to compromise. In Thailand, conservative factions and the military leveraged nationalist sentiment. Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended by the Constitutional Court following a leaked phone call with Hun Manet’s father, former Prime Minister Hun Sen . In Cambodia, rising nationalism and Hun Manet’s political consolidation reinforced hardline positions. Military and Security Forces. Both armies fortified positions, built roads, and deployed forces near disputed temples and border sites such as Hill-641 and Chong Bok . Cambodia’s army constructed at least nine new roads and positions near the tri-junction of Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos. Thailand responded with infrastructure upgrades near Prasat Ta Muen Thom. Gunfire, artillery exchanges, and airstrikes caused casualties, injuries, and mass displacement. Civilians. Women, children, and local communities were disproportionately affected. Artillery fire, landmines, and forced evacuations disrupted livelihoods, education, and social cohesion. Human security concerns became central to understanding the cost of militarisation. Criminal and Transnational Actors. The Golden Triangle cyber-scam crisis added tension. Criminal networks, displaced by Chinese enforcement, migrated to border regions, heightening suspicion between Thailand and Cambodia and complicating security operations. ASEAN, International Courts, and UNESCO. Regional institutions attempted mediation, but non-interference principles and limited enforcement capacity constrained effectiveness. The ICJ, UNESCO, and other international frameworks shaped the legal backdrop but could not prevent escalation. Major Concerns and Consequences The Golden Triangle became the centre of cyber-scam syndicates after the 2021 Myanmar coup . Criminal groups ran scam centres using kidnapped workers. When Chinese actor Wang Xing was trafficked to a Myanmar scam camp in January 2025 , China mounted a major crackdown, forcing syndicates to disperse into Laos and Cambodia. China pressured Thailand to cut electricity and internet at the border, heightening tensions. Thai and Cambodian leaders already mistrusted each other. Hun Sen’s leak worsened the situation leading to an increase in troop movements. Though ceasing conflict and ensuring safety of its citizens should be the penultimate goal of states, the realist lens shows an unfortunate tale. As Hagir Elsheikh , in her work “Dreamer in Chains: Poems of Exile and Resilience, ” quoted, Greed fuels war, for war is profitable. As long as there are profits, peace is but a fable , this conflict too tends to profit certain factions on both sides. For Thailand's military, it could be beneficial in strengthening their political position ahead of the March 2026 parliamentary election. This could hinder the progressive People's Party's chances of winning an outright majority. Cambodian leadership, on the other hand, also focuses on maintenance of power through nationalistic narratives. Many observers argue that Hun Sen escalated tensions to protect the shadow economies of cybercrime and casinos, or to bolster Hun Manet’s legitimacy. Additionally, Phnom Penh is hesitant to back down due to public outrage over the ceasefire collapse and pressure to appear strong. Cambodia has grown closer to the U.S., which might influence their strategy. However, Thailand remains a key U.S. treaty ally and trading partner, complicating Cambodia's position.  Hence, the Thailand-Cambodia conflict demonstrates that legal adjudication and heritage recognition alone cannot resolve historical disputes. Post-colonial boundaries remain fragile, and structural ambiguities create recurring crises. Repeated escalations threaten regional stability, economic development, and civilian welfare. Nationalist mobilisation around cultural symbols can weaponise heritage, while political and military incentives reinforce the cycle of tension. Until inclusive dialogue, political courage, and credible regional mechanisms address historical grievances, the border will remain a recurring flashpoint. The conflict is a reminder that unresolved pasts continue to shape the present and that regional peace requires attention to both material and symbolic dimensions of sovereignty. Political Perspectives and Understanding Realism explains why both states rely on force to defend sovereignty in an anarchic regional system with weak enforcement mechanisms. Security dilemmas intensify when military posturing appears necessary to deter perceived threats. Constructivism illuminates the role of identity, memory, and symbolism. Temples and historical sites are not neutral; they embody civilisational pride and historical grievance. Compromise is framed as betrayal, and national narratives reinforce existential stakes. Structural power perspectives show the uneven influence of institutions. ICJ rulings, UNESCO heritage status, and colonial treaties constrain state behavior but also inflame domestic politics. Human security frameworks highlight the civilian cost of militarisation. Diversionary incentives suggest leaders may exploit external conflict to consolidate legitimacy, though evidence is contested. Domestic politics significantly shape escalation. In Cambodia, Hun Manet’s political consolidation and nationalist sentiment limited compromise. In Thailand, the military leveraged heightened nationalism ahead of elections, weakening progressive forces. Both governments faced political incentives to avoid appearing weak, making de-escalation difficult. Regional and global alliances, particularly U.S. involvement and ASEAN constraints, also shaped strategic calculations. Johan Galtung’s concepts of negative and positive peace help explain the Thailand-Cambodia border conflict. Here, ceasefire represented negative peace  i.e., a temporary halt to direct violence, but one that ignores root causes. This leads to repeated backsliding as borders stay militarized, nationalist narratives fester in schools and media, and economic disparities (e.g., unequal Gulf of Thailand resources) breed resentment. For lasting stability, positive peace  is essential. This calls for addressing structural violence through justice and integration. Initiatives could include joint cultural programs at Preah Vihear (shared tourism revenue), cross-border economic zones, or truth-and-reconciliation commissions on colonial legacies. Yet, ASEAN's non-interference often favors the former, dodging mediation on history. True progress demands courage, in the form of demilitarizing mindsets via youth exchanges or UNESCO collaborations. Without it, triggers like elections or leaks will keep the cycle spinning, as temples symbolize not just stone, but unresolved identities. Takeaways The 2025 Thailand-Cambodia border clashes are not isolated skirmishes, but symptoms of deeper structural issues. Civilians bear the immediate cost, while domestic political pressures and nationalist narratives constrain compromise. Realist, constructivist, and human security perspectives illuminate the persistence of conflict, showing that both identity and power shape escalation. ASEAN and international mechanisms can moderate but not resolve disputes without political will. This conflict underscores that borders, history, and culture are intertwined in regional security, and unresolved disputes will repeatedly resurface until addressed holistically. Thus, the storm in the SEA has not passed. It continues to churn. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms. Kashmira Juwatkar & Ms. Supriya Mishra )  Stay Tuned for More! Thailand and Cambodia’s ongoing dispute highlights that borders are more than lines on a map. They are living sites of history, identity, and political negotiation. Future editions of Global Canvas will continue to track how unresolved historical grievances shape modern geopolitics in Southeast Asia and beyond. What movement or global trend should we map next? Share your thoughts, reflections and questions in the comments. Stay connected with us through   www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email us at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com Exciting news related to the Global Canvas series coming soon! Watch out for updates! References and Sources CHEANG, S., SAKSORNCHAI, J., PECK, G. (2025, July 30). What to know about the shaky truce after 5 days of combat between Thailand and Cambodia. Associated Press.  https://apnews.com/article/thailand-cambodia-border-conflict-explainer-0eb99510a4ea16ee769a5934e0c07383 Chen , F. (2025, January 17). China and Thailand detain 12 crime ring members suspected of trafficking actor to Myanmar. South China Morning Post.  https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3295193/china-and-thailand-detain-12-crime-ring-members-suspected-trafficking-actor-myanmar Fouda, M. (2025, December 12). Thailand dissolves parliament amid continued skirmishes with Cambodia. Euronews  https://www.euronews.com/2025/12/12/thai-pm-anutin-charnvirakul-dissolves-parliament-amid-continued-fighting-with-neighbouring   International Court of Justice. (1959, October 6). INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand).  https://www.icj-cij.org/case/45 International Court of Justice. (2011, April 28). Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand).  https://www.newindianexpress.com/explainers/2025/Aug/10/guns-fall-silent-wounds-remain-open-on-thailand-cambodia-border Krishnakumar, R. (2025, August 10). Guns fall silent, wounds remain open on Thailand-Cambodia border. Indian Express.  https://www.newindianexpress.com/explainers/2025/Aug/10/guns-fall-silent-wounds-remain-open-on-thailand-cambodia-border Kurlantzick, J., Richter, A. (2025, December 1). Conflict in Cambodia and Thailand Resumes—With No End in Sight. Council of Foreign Relations.  https://www.cfr.org/article/conflict-cambodia-and-thailand-resumes-no-end-sight McCready, A. (2025, December 12). Thailand-Cambodia fighting enters 5th day, Thai PM confirms Trump call. Al Jazeera  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/12/cambodia-thailand-fighting-enters-5th-day-thai-pm-confirms-trump-call   Michaels, M., Laksmana, E. (2025, August 13). The complex fault lines of the Thai–Cambodian armed conflict.  https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/08/the-complex-fault-lines-of-the-thaicambodian-armed-conflict/ NG, E., SAKSORNCHAI, J., CHEANG, S. (2025, July 29). Thailand and Cambodia agree to a ceasefire in their deadly border clashes. Associated Press.  https://apnews.com/article/thailand-cambodia-armed-clash-border-ceasefire-talks-6d8cc517df1be1ad0bf911fe1c81c765 Office of the Historian. (1945, August 22). Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, The British Commonwealth, The Far East, Volume VI. Document 956. No. 621.  https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v06/d956 Olarn, K., Mogul, R., Barnard, A. (2025, December 9). Thailand launches airstrikes on Cambodia as Trump’s peace agreement hangs in balance. CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/07/asia/thailand-cambodia-border-clashes-december-intl-hnk   Outlook. (2025, December 12). Thailand-Cambodia: Fighting Continues For Fifth Day. https://www.outlookindia.com/international/thailand-cambodia-fighting-continues-for-fifth-day-in-pics   Politico. (2025, July 28). Thailand and Cambodia agree to ceasefire.  https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/28/thailand-and-cambodia-agree-to-ceasefire-00480939 Rizqullah. F. (2025, July 31). Blame It on France: From Thai-Cambodian Drama to Every Other Mess in the World Today https://medium.com/@farhanrizqullah/how-france-is-responsible-for-the-recent-thai-cambodian-conflict-and-in-many-ways-for-nearly-09aca30caa26 Rungjirajittranon, M., Lai, S. (2025, January 29). Fears of scam centre kidnaps keep Chinese tourists on edge in Thailand. Hong Kong Free Press.  https://hongkongfp.com/2025/01/29/chinese-tourists-fear-kidnappings-by-scam-centres-in-thailand/ Security Council Report. (2025, July 25). Cambodia-Thailand Border Clashes: Urgent Private Meeting.  https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2025/07/cambodia-thailand-border-clashes-urgent-private-meeting.php Sovereign Limits. (n.d.). Cambodia–Thailand.  https://sovereignlimits.com/boundaries/cambodia-thailand-land Stanford University. (2009). THAILAND AND CAMBODIA: THE BATTLE FOR PREAH VIHEAR. Spice Digest.  https://fsi9-prod.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Prihear.pdf Strangio, S. (2025, July 28). The Roots of the Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict. https://thediplomat.com/2025/07/the-roots-of-the-thailand-cambodia-border-conflict/ The Indian Express. (2025, July 2). ‘Uncle’, ‘other side’ and more: Inside the leaked phone call with Cambodian leader that got Thai PM suspended. https://indianexpress.com/article/world/leaked-phone-call-cambodia-hun-sen-thailand-pm-paetongtarn-shinawatra-suspended-10100293/ The Laotian Times. (2025, February 18). Thailand Protests Over Cambodian Women Singing at Border Temple. https://laotiantimes.com/2025/02/18/thailand-protests-over-cambodian-women-singing-at-border-temple/ Thongperm, S. (1994). Preah Vihear and the Cambodia-Thailand Borderland. IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin. https://www.academia.edu/1454868/Preah_Vihear_and_the_Cambodia_Thailand_Borderland#:~:text=The%20Thai%20army%20invaded%20northwestern,had%20seized%20five%20years%20earlier . Yuenyong, Kan. (2025, June 15). Why Thailand Won’t Join the ICJ for Its Border Dispute with Cambodia.  https://sikkha.medium.com/why-thailand-wont-join-the-icj-for-its-border-dispute-with-cambodia-e1a3d62998b4

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” from JOI On the last days of August 2025 , as monsoon clouds hung low over Jakarta , the city seemed to thrum with an unease that had quietly grown for months. Outside the imposing compound of the Indonesian parliament, students and young citizens stood shoulder to shoulder, sweat running down their brows while freshly painted placards shook in the humid air. Women moved to the front with brooms raised high, sweeping the air as if symbolically cleansing a system long weighted by privilege. Heat shimmered off the pavement but the crowd only swelled. What began as irritation over rising allowances and perks for lawmakers suddenly hardened into something far greater. By August 30, 2025, Jakarta witnessed the spark of a generational tide that would soon cross seas and mountains, drawing youth in the Philippines and Nepal into a shared wave of dissent. It was not merely protest; it was the moment a new political generation found its voice. Context and Background Indonesia’s protests did not emerge overnight. For weeks before the streets burst open, reports from Jakarta, Surabaya, and Yogyakarta exposed a widening chasm between ordinary citizens and political elites. While inflation rose and jobs remained scarce, lawmakers continued to access privilege, allowances and opaque expenditures that seemed insulated from public hardship. Students, historically the conscience of Indonesian democracy, felt this gap most sharply. Many saw privilege not just as unfair resource allocation but as a system rewarding insiders while the youth fought daily for limited opportunities. The frustration deepened as evidence spread online and through student networks, and on August 30 , ordinary murmurs turned into a roar. As protests intensified into early September, violence erupted, leaving casualties and forcing President Prabowo Subianto to replace five ministers on September 9 in an attempt to restore calm. Yet heavy crackdowns, arbitrary detentions and excessive use of force only amplified anger on the streets. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations urged restraint, but to young Indonesians, state reaction reflected fear more than order. This unresolved tension soon leapt across borders. In the Philippines , the environment was already volatile. Between 2023 and 2025, billions of pesos meant for flooding relief and infrastructure simply disappeared into corruption chains. Floods had continued to devastate communities and livelihoods, and public patience eroded each season. When Indonesian protests filled global headlines, young Filipinos recognised themselves in the struggle. On September 4, 2025 , Manila’s first waves of youth-led protests began. Within days, thousands filled the streets with satire-laced posters depicting political dynasties as puppeteers tugging at taxpayers like marionettes. At these gatherings, a striking symbol began to appear: the One Piece  pirate flag , adopted from anime culture and reimagined as an emblem of resistance. Memes, edited videos, and pop references spread rapidly online, connecting Indonesian and Filipino outrage into a shared narrative of corruption and generational defiance. By November 30, over 20,000 protesters marched toward Manila’s core, many demanding President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s resignation. Towering effigies labelled with the word graft hung over the crowd, visually indicting the powerful and calling for prosecution, accountability and recovery of stolen public funds. Only four days after Manila’s protests gained momentum, Nepal’s government imposed a sweeping ban on twenty six social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, citing national security. For millions of digitally connected Nepali youth, the ban felt like suffocation. Nepal had long struggled with unemployment and shrinking opportunities, while allegations of nepotism and corruption enveloped political networks. The ban became the final spark. Mass protests spread from Kathmandu to smaller districts, quickly evolving into the largest youth mobilisation in Nepal’s democratic history. Violence was brutal. Seventy two people were killed and thousands injured as curfews and crackdowns widened. Yet censorship and repression only strengthened public resolve. Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki emerged as a symbol of integrity, often invoked by young demonstrators demanding merit-based leadership. In late November, clashes escalated across Bara district and Dhangadhi where party cadres on motorbikes rammed into youth protesters, deepening national resentment and highlighting impunity. Nepal was no longer protesting digital restrictions alone; it was fighting for political legitimacy, justice and generational inclusion. By the end of 2025, analysts observed that despite diverse triggers corruption in the Philippines, privilege in Indonesia and censorship in Nepal the underlying structure of discontent was the same. Youth across the region faced exclusion, weak accountability, stagnant economies and elite privilege. Digital culture transcended geography, forming what some called a transnational political consciousness powered by memes, livestreams, symbolism and shared anger. The protests were not isolated anomalies. They marked a global youth awakening also visible in Morocco , Madagascar and beyond. Governments from Jakarta to Manila to Kathmandu now faced a generation unwilling to stay silent. Key Players and Stakeholders Youth and Student Communities.  They were the engine of mobilisation. In Indonesia, they formed the first human chains outside parliament. In Manila, student groups led rallies, created protest art and turned pop culture into political messaging. In Nepal, youth spearheaded demonstrations nationwide even under digital blackouts. This demographic did not simply express dissatisfaction, they redefined dissent. Their tools were smartphones, flags, satire and solidarity. Their demand was straightforward: fairness, representation and a future that belonged to them. National Governments (Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal).  Political leadership became the primary target of agitation. In Indonesia, privilege linked to lawmakers triggered outrage and ministerial reshuffling. In the Philippines, corruption scandals linked to missing flood funds intensified anger at the Marcos administration. In Nepal, the sweeping social media ban symbolised shrinking civic space. In all three cases, state response relied on force, curfews and arrests to regain control. Governments claimed security. Youth saw fear of accountability. Security Forces and State Machinery.  Police and armed units acted as the visible arm of power, enforcing crackdowns, dispersing crowds, imposing curfews and conducting arrests. In Indonesia and Nepal, allegations of arbitrary detention and excessive force were frequent. Their role deepened mistrust in institutions and reinforced narratives of state impunity. Political Elites, Dynasties and Patronage Networks.  These groups represented entrenched power. In the Philippines, dynastic politics were portrayed in effigies and puppeteer posters. In Nepal, protesters demanded the removal of personnel linked to nepotism including calls to sack the Prime Minister’s chief personal secretary. Indonesia’s lawmakers remained symbols of privilege at public expense. Protests challenged not only policies but the structure maintaining elite dominance. Civil Society, Universities and Digital Collectives.  Universities became organisational hubs for marches, discussions and planning. Activist collectives used digital spaces to document events, circulate evidence and create momentum. NGOs amplified international scrutiny and called for restraint. Their involvement made mobilisation structured, strategic and harder to suppress. Media and Transnational Digital Communities:  Local and international media carried the protests beyond borders. Livestreams, memes, anime flags, and satirical videos became political currency, enabling solidarity across nations. Social media was both amplifier and battleground. Where it was restricted, such as in Nepal, underground circulation grew stronger. The digital sphere turned dissent into a shared regional narrative. Major Concerns and Consequences Across Indonesia , the Philippines and Nepal , the protests were anchored in shared anxieties about governance, accountability and the widening disconnect between young citizens and their ruling elite. In Indonesia, the outrage stemmed from parliamentary privileges and financial perks at a time when unemployment and living costs strained ordinary households. The privilege of the few became a reminder of systemic exclusion. In the Philippines, allegations of billions siphoned from disaster and flood-control funds deepened mistrust in political dynasties. Corruption was not merely a scandal, it was lived reality impacting infrastructure, safety and public welfare. Nepal’s sweeping social media ban triggered questions about civil liberties, surveillance and state control over speech, exposing a fragile democratic contract between the rulers and the ruled. The consequences unfolded rapidly and intensely. In Indonesia, the crisis eroded institutional trust, cast doubts on President Prabowo’s leadership and forced cabinet reshuffles aimed at damage control rather than reform. The crackdown on protesters strengthened calls for human rights safeguards and accountability. The Philippines confronted economic uncertainty, governance paralysis and a legitimacy challenge to the Marcos administration as tens of thousands demanded justice and structural reform. Economic losses accumulated as protests stalled mobility, while political discourse hardened into a question of resignation versus reform. Nepal arguably paid the steepest human cost. Seventy two lives were lost, thousands injured and digital blackouts disrupted not only dissent but also commerce, communication and education. Curfews, clashes and impunity inflamed resentment further, suggesting that coercion could delay but not dissolve discontent. Beyond immediate unrest, long term consequences took shape. Investors grew cautious, tourism took a hit in Nepal, and public institutions in all three nations were forced under scrutiny. Regional observers warned of a potential trust deficit between youth and government that could shape future elections and leadership transitions. Yet within the disruption lay possibility. These upheavals energised civic participation, amplified calls for merit-based leadership and inspired transnational solidarity where memes, flags and slogans travelled faster than diplomacy. The movements demonstrated how digital generation consciousness can redefine political engagement. What began as protest became a formative moment in Southeast and South Asia’s democratic evolution, signalling that governance models built on opacity and privilege no longer match a generation raised on transparency and voice. Political Perspectives and Understanding Political theory  helps unpack the deeper logic of these movements. Through the  realist lens, states acted to preserve order using coercive capability when challenged. Curfews, social media bans, arrests and ministerial reshuffling were attempts to maintain authority against unpredictable street mobilisation. Liberal theory  highlights systemic fault lines, especially weak accountability mechanisms that allowed corruption networks and privilege to persist. Indonesia’s parliamentary perks, the Philippines’ flood fund scandal and Nepal’s entrenched patronage systems demonstrate how institutional design shapes public trust. Constructivism  foregrounds identity and narrative. Gen Z used digital culture, memes, pirate flags and humour as political tools, forging a cross-border identity rooted not in nationalism but generational solidarity. Political aspirations travelled through symbols rather than treaties. Critical theory  goes further, exposing inequity. It points to how exclusion, nepotism and privilege were not aberrations but structures protecting elite interests. The protests reveal how power, when insulated from scrutiny, invites rebellion. Yet theory alone cannot contain what happened on the streets. Young citizens did not march only because theories predicted failure. They marched because they felt the future slipping from their grasp. They marched to reclaim dignity, to question inherited power and to insist that democracy cannot function as generational theatre where youth are only the audience and never actors. In that defiance, a new political consciousness was born. A consciousness that is empowered, impatient, unafraid and deeply aware of its numbers. Takeaways 2025 marked a turning point in the political story of Southeast and South Asia. A demographic often dismissed as disengaged proved capable of rewriting national discourses. Digital culture enabled rapid mobilisation. Pop symbols became political language. Youth no longer accepted corruption, privilege or censorship as immutable reality. Governments could manage dissent through force, but long-term stability required partnership, transparency and inclusion. Whether leaders evolve fast enough remains uncertain. What is clear is that the political map has shifted. The question is not whether Gen Z has found its voice. Jakarta, Manila and Kathmandu already answered that. The real question is whether institutions are ready to hear them. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms. Supriya Mishra and Ms. Kashmira Juwatkar )  Stay Tuned for More! The youth-led wave across Indonesia, the Philippines and Nepal reminds us that democracy is not merely a system—it is a living conversation between power and people. The streets of Jakarta, Manila and Kathmandu were not just scenes of unrest, but classrooms where a new generation taught the world what accountability looks like. Their protests did not end when the crowds dispersed; they reshaped regional discourse, challenged authority and opened space for new political possibilities. This edition of Global Canvas  captures just one chapter in an unfolding story of how Asia's youngest citizens are rewriting the rules of governance. More case studies, more voices and more regions await. What movement or global trend should we map next? Share your thoughts, reflections and questions in the comments. Stay connected with us through   www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email us at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com Exciting news related to the Global Canvas series coming soon! Watch out for updates! References and Sources Adhikari, P. (2025, October 3). Nepal’s leaderless Gen-Z revolution has changed the rules of power. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/10/3/nepals-leaderless-gen-z-revolution-has-changed-the-rules-of-power    Ap. (2025, September 21). Thousands protest in Philippines over massive corruption scandal . The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/thousands-protest-in-philippines-over-massive-corruption-scandal/article70076528.ece   Beltran, M. (2025, November 30). Thousands march in Philippines, demanding Marcos resign over fraud scandal. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/30/thousands-rally-in-philippines-demanding-marcos-resign-over-graft-scandal   Butler, J. G. &. G. (2025, September 3). Indonesia: Hundreds of women with brooms join protests as Prabowo flies to China . https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vlv2gpvvzo   Cherian, J. S. (2025, September 10). Why was Indonesia rocked by protests? | Explained . The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/why-was-indonesia-rocked-by-protests-explained/article70031118.ece   Choudhury, S. D., Dawar, T., & Dawar, T. (2025, September 11). Nepal’s Gen Z protests expose deeper frustrations, raise regional stakes . Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. https://www.asiapacific.ca/publication/nepals-gen-z-protests-expose-deeper-frustrations-and-regional-stakes   Corruption fuels unrest in Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia . (n.d.). Asia Media Centre | Helping New Zealand Media Cover Asia. https://www.asiamediacentre.org.nz/otr-indonesia-philippines-and-malaysia-citizens-rise-against-corruption   ‘Culture of corruption’ protests: What’s ahead for Philippines?  (n.d.). https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/-culture-of-corruption-protests-what-s-ahead-for-philippines/3698664   Desk, E. (2025, September 26). Corruption, ‘nepo babies’: How the Philippines’ protests echo Nepal agitation, where they diverge. The Indian Express . https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/corruption-nepo-babies-philippines-youth-protest-10272365/   Ewe, K. (2025, October 14). Indonesian MPs get extra allowance weeks after angry protests over perks . https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4gwr20wzo   Greene, C. (2025, October 2). What to know about the ‘Gen Z’ Protests roiling countries across the globe. TIME . https://time.com/7322834/gen-z-protests-government-corruption/   Indonesia: End crackdown on protesters, arbitrary detention. (2025, October 21). Human Rights Watch . https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/03/indonesia-end-crackdown-on-protesters-arbitrary-detention   Jazeera, A. (2025a, September 9). Indonesian President Prabowo replaces five ministers after deadly protests. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/9/indonesian-president-prabowo-replaces-five-ministers-after-deadly-protests   Jazeera, A. (2025b, September 21). Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest corruption in Philippines. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/21/thousands-rally-in-philippines-at-anticorruption-protests-in-manila   Lamb, K. (2025, August 27). Protests erupt in Indonesia over privileges for parliament members and ‘corrupt elites.’ The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/26/indonesia-protests-austerity-parliament-member-privileges   Livingstone, H. (2025, September 2). Indonesia protests explained: why did they start and how has the government responded? The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/02/indonesia-protests-explained-start-how-has-the-government-responded   Nepal Gen Z Front demands sacking of PM’s chief personal secretary over nepotism. (2025, November 24). Kathmandu Post . https://kathmandupost.com/national/2025/11/24/nepal-gen-z-front-demands-sacking-of-pm-s-chief-personal-secretary-over-nepotism   Pokharel, G., & Ellis-Petersen, H. (2025, October 31). Unease at slow pace of change in Nepal one month on from gen Z protests. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/11/nepal-gen-z-protests-one-month-on-slow-change   Pti. (2025, November 27). Nepal’s Gen Z youths clash with ousted PM Sharma Oli’s party cadres . The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/nepals-gen-z-youths-clash-with-ousted-pm-sharma-olis-party-cadres/article70328978.ece   Ratcliffe, R. (2025, September 22). Protesters flood streets of Philippines over state corruption. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/21/protests-philippines-corruption-state-flood   Singh, R. (2025, October 12). After Nepal and the Philippines, why have youth-led protests rocked Morocco and Madagascar? The Indian Express . https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/nepal-philippines-youth-protests-morocco-madagascar-10300879/   UNHR. (2025, September 1). Indonesia protests: call for restraint and dialogue  [Press release]. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/indonesia-protests-call-restraint-and-dialogue   Wong, T. (2025, September 24). Gen Z uprising in Asia shows social media is a double-edged sword . https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4ljv39em7o   Janjira Sombatpoonsiri. (2025, September 30). The promises and pitfalls of the social Media–Fueled Gen-Z protests across Asia . Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/09/social-media-gen-z-protests-nepal-indonesia-promises-pitfalls?lang=en

The Nobility of Silence From deckplates to think tanks, I have seen power in motion. At sea, it moves with the steel of hulls and the rhythm of deployments. In classrooms and strategy rooms, it moves with ideas, models, and narratives. Both are real, both shape our world, and both demand a steady hand on the compass. In 2025, that compass seems to be spinning wildly. Alliances fracture, blocs consolidate, technologies redefine sovereignty, and entire regions are rewriting their place on the global chart. For a world conditioned by familiar coordinates of power, the sudden tilts of this multipolar order feel disorienting. How then does one navigate? The answer lies in bringing together lived experience, historical memory, and critical thinking — in calibrating a compass that can hold steady even as the gyro spins. Lessons on Power in Motion My first education in geopolitics was not in lecture halls or policy papers but on the deckplates of naval ships. There, in the humid winds of the Indian Ocean and the sharp chill of northern seas, I learned that global politics is not an abstraction. It is convoy escorts, maritime patrols, and port visits that signal presence, deterrence, or solidarity. Maritime chokepoints taught me this viscerally. The Strait of Hormuz, where a narrow passage carries a fifth of the world’s oil. The Malacca Strait, lifeline of Asian trade. Bab el-Mandeb, gateway to the Red Sea. Each chokepoint is a reminder that sovereignty and security are not theoretical - they are exercised by hulls in the water, radar on watch, and sailors at their stations. From the deckplates, one sees power in motion. A fleet maneuver is not just tactical; it is a message in steel. A port call is not just logistics; it is diplomacy with flags and uniforms. A naval exercise is not just practice; it is assurance to partners and warning to rivals. These early lessons have never left me. They taught me that strategy is experienced before it is theorized. The Horizon of 2025: New Fleet Formations Looking across today’s horizon, I see familiar patterns, fleets forming, converging, colliding, but in very different seas. China’s flagship sails high. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin this year, Beijing pushed for a yuan-denominated energy corridor, an SCO development bank, and greater technological integration through the BeiDou satellite system. Alongside Russia, Iran, and North Korea — the so-called CRINKs — China is building a bloc that challenges the dominance of Western-led institutions. The imagery is striking Xi, Putin, and Kim sharing a stage at Beijing’s military parade. A choreographed reminder that authoritarian powers are no longer shy of being seen together. The U.S. and India collide in contested waters. Despite being called natural allies, 2025 has seen frictions: Washington’s steep tariffs on Indian imports, India’s strategic autonomy in energy sourcing, and the balancing act of being in Quad exercises while engaging with BRICS expansion. Like ships maneuvering too close in narrow seas, these collisions do not mean hostility, but they underscore the difficulty of coordination when priorities diverge. Europe arms itself into a new battle group. After decades of relying on transatlantic guarantees, the European Union has turbocharged its defense posture with an €800 billion plan. The message is that Europe is no longer content to be a dependent convoy; it seeks to steam ahead as an independent task force. Technology fleets dominate the new sea lanes. AI systems, digital sovereignty, and energy technologies are the new carriers and destroyers. Control over data flows and algorithmic governance is fast becoming as decisive as naval dominance once was in the Indian Ocean. Technology giants increasingly resemble digital sovereigns — not just tools of states but actors shaping public discourse and strategic choices. These new “fleet formations” reveal the reality of 2025: multipolarity is not theoretical anymore. The world’s task forces are assembled, but their rules of navigation are not yet agreed. On to Seminar Rooms: Thinking About Power If the deckplates taught me what power looks like in motion, the seminar rooms and think tanks taught me what power looks like on paper. War games, strategy models, policy briefs — all attempt to capture the motion of power in diagrams, projections, and scenarios. Yet here, an epistemic perspective is useful: Who decides what counts as authoritative knowledge in geopolitics? ● For decades, knowledge was hierarchical. States, militaries, and their think tanks defined the narratives. ● Today, new knowers enter the room: AI systems producing simulations, grassroots movements reshaping agendas, regional blocs like BRICS or the Alliance of Sahel States asserting alternative discourses. ● Expertise itself is contested. Is a naval officer with lived deployments more credible than a policy analyst with datasets? Is an AI forecast a knowledge claim or a statistical guess? TOK reminds us that knowledge is not only what is said but who says it, and who accepts it. The risk is that think tanks become echo chambers, reinforcing their own assumptions, while AI systems produce outputs without human judgment. The challenge is not to abandon theory, but to ensure that experience, history, and epistemic humility guide how we interpret models. India’s Bearings in a Multipolar Sea In this turbulent ocean, India finds itself both a ship in the fleet and a potential provider of bearings. Historically, India has been a maritime civilization, with the Indian Ocean as its crossroads of trade and encounter. Culturally, it has navigated pluralism, balancing multiple faiths and traditions. Strategically, it has guarded its autonomy, resisting being a camp follower in global blocs. In 2025, India faces difficult waters. U.S. pressure on trade and energy, Chinese assertiveness along borders and seas, and Russian ties that are both legacy and liability. Yet India’s civilizational ethos, of dialogue, diversity, and knowledge, offers more than just another ship in the lineup. It offers a compass. India does not need to merely balance blocs. It can articulate a perspective that sees power not only as coercion or currency but as responsibility, responsibility for stability, for freedom of navigation, for inclusive development, and for critical thinking. If the world is spinning, India can be an anchor, not because it is flawless, but because it knows what it means to navigate contradictions. Mentorship as Compass Calibration As I turn sixty, I am mindful of the responsibility not just to read the compass but to hand it down calibrated. The greatest danger in a spinning world is not disorientation but the absence of guides who can steady younger hands. Every classroom I teach in, whether Global Politics or Theory of Knowledge, is a miniature think tank. There, I see students wrestling with concepts of power, justice, sovereignty, and human rights. There, I see the temptation of quick answers and the allure of simplistic narratives. And there, I see the opportunity to equip them with intellectual compasses that will help them navigate beyond exams into life. Mentorship is not about dictating routes. It is about teaching how to read bearings, how to question assumptions, how to balance reason with empathy. Just as a naval navigator must constantly correct for drift and current, so must young scholars learn to adjust their course without losing their destination. The compass we hand down must be ethical imagination — the capacity to see not only where power lies, but where responsibility lies. Holding a Compass in a Spinning World In 2025, the gyrocompass spins wildly. The CRINKs bloc parades its defiance, Western alliance’s strain, AI redraws sovereignty, and the Global South asserts new alignments. For many, the world seems unmoored, without fixed bearings. Yet clarity is possible. History shows us patterns, lived experience shows us consequences, and critical thinking shows us questions worth asking. From deckplates to think tanks, I have seen power in motion. But motion without bearings is drift. The greater task before us is not to predict every wave but to hold the compass steady. To teach, to mentor, to guide — so that in the spinning world, a generation of navigators will emerge who can chart courses responsibly, with wisdom and courage. The seas are uncertain. The compass may spin. But the responsibility to navigate remains ours. This article was published in FINS e-Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 5, 1st October 2025.

A few days ago, a colleague on the National Syllabus, Textbook and Learning Committee , Diya Chatterjee, shared the words of a private school teacher from Bhopal that pierced through layers of rhetoric: “I’m forgetting the joy I once felt in teaching, the very reason I became a teacher.” On the eve of Teacher’s Day , these words should weigh heavily on our collective conscience. For if the joy of teaching is extinguished, the very soul of education is endangered. The Nobility of Silence Teaching has always been a noble calling, and perhaps its most precious honour lies in the opportunity to learn without boundaries and to witness the spark of discovery in young minds. Yet today, the spark of that learning is weighed down by multiple expectations. Teachers are asked to be an inspirational voice in the classroom, counselors for students, managers of parental concerns, masters of ever-changing technologies, and contributors to institutional demands, all at once. Amidst this whirlwind, one vital question is often left unasked: How are teachers themselves coping? Too often, the answer comes in silence. Silence from fatigue. Silence from unacknowledged stress. Silence that risks turning a vocation of passion into a profession of transaction. In earlier reflections, I described this as the “ murder of pedagogy by hierarchy .” The danger lies not only in government apathy or commercialization, but sometimes within the very ecosystem of schools themselves. When leadership reduces mentoring to mere monitoring, when administration overshadows inspiration, and when senior colleagues lean more on authority than responsibility, the true spirit of teaching is diminished. This is not simply about efficiency. It is about fidelity to the calling of education. Teaching is not meant to be policed, it is meant to be nurtured. It flourishes best when cultivated with trust, empathy, and joy. Leadership, Responsibility, and Misplaced Hierarchy Educational leadership is not about control. It is about creating safe spaces for growth , both for learners and for teachers. But too often, school leadership teams focus on compliance, instead of curiosity. Structures of accountability, while necessary, too frequently devolve into rigid systems that stifle rather than support . More painful still is when senior teachers, who should be the torchbearers of mentorship, lapse into perpetuating pseudo-hierarchies.  Instead of nurturing younger colleagues, they can sometimes fall into patterns of critique, control, or exclusion. In doing so, they inadvertently turn classrooms into battlegrounds of authority rather than sanctuaries of learning. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, whose birthday we mark as Teacher’s Day in India, once said: “The end-product of education should be a free creative man, who can battle against historical circumstances and adversities of nature.” If this is the vision, then how tragic it is when teachers themselves are shackled by the very hierarchies that should liberate them. What Frameworks Demand To be fair, frameworks and policies have tried to address this. The National Education Policy 2020  and the National Curriculum Framework 2023  explicitly state the importance of “enabling and empowering teachers.” But this must move beyond slogans. Professional development cannot be reduced to one-time workshops and PowerPoints. International frameworks, too, echo this. The IB Learner Profile  emphasises that both students and teachers must embody attributes such as “inquirers” and “reflective.” Similarly, Cambridge’s ethos highlights “education for a better world,” which requires teachers who themselves feel inspired and empowered. Yet policy without culture remains sterile. If schools treat teachers as replaceable rather than invaluable, if capacity building is a checkbox rather than a commitment, then empowerment remains rhetoric. Why Teaching Matters Teaching is the quiet force that shapes futures long before they are visible. At its heart, it is not the transmission of information but the cultivation of clarity, confidence, and curiosity in another human being. A teacher does not merely instruct; they ignite imagination, awaken conscience, and nurture resilience. What distinguishes teaching from many other professions is its ripple effect. A single encouraging word in the classroom can travel across years, influencing careers, shaping character, and even redirecting the course of communities. This is why education systems must never reduce teaching to a checklist of duties or metrics of efficiency. Teaching is nation-building in its most intimate form, transforming individual lives that, together, determine the trajectory of a society. Today, when pressures of hierarchy, bureaucracy, and commercialization threaten to stifle that essence, we must remind ourselves that teaching is a covenant of trust. It is where influence flows not from command but from compassion, not from hierarchy but from humility. To protect that covenant is to protect the possibility of a brighter, freer, more humane future. The Way Forward to Joyous Pedagogy What then is required? Three essentials stand out: Safe Spaces for Teachers:  Just as students thrive in classrooms that encourage questioning, teachers thrive in schools that allow vulnerability, reflection, and experimentation without fear of reprimand. Mentorship over Hierarchy:  Senior teachers and leadership teams must embrace mentoring as their primary role. Authority without empathy undermines pedagogy. Guidance with care, however, multiplies influence. Reclaiming Joy:  Professional learning communities, collaborative innovation, and acknowledgment of teachers as learners themselves are crucial. As the IB rightly suggests, “education is a journey of inquiry.” Teachers, too, deserve to rediscover inquiry and joy. Mirror to Society The state of teaching is never just a matter of classrooms; it is a mirror of society itself. If schools become places where hierarchy overwhelms accountability, society too risks inheriting rigidity and division. But if schools nurture joy, empowerment, and the freedom to learn, then the society of tomorrow will inherit resilience, creativity, and compassion. This is why protecting the delight of learning is not only an educational concern, but a national one. For every teacher who is empowered, inspired, and valued, a classroom lights up—and with it, the minds and lives of countless students. I count it a privilege that my own journey as a teacher began early: first, in middle school, guiding a younger peer, and later, at just 16, serving as a class teacher and maths teacher for three months. Those moments, however small, revealed the profound gift of teaching—to shape, to encourage, and to witness cognitive construction in young minds. To this day, I carry that same gratitude. For teaching is not merely a task; it is a trust. And when honoured, it builds not just classrooms, but the very fabric of our society. Teacher’s Day and the Call Ahead Teacher’s Day should not become a ritual of garlands and speeches while ignoring the struggles within faculty rooms. Instead, it should be a moment of resolve. To borrow the words of the teacher from Bhopal: “I am forgetting the joy I once felt in teaching.”  Let us ensure this is never the refrain of an entire generation of teachers. As someone who has led at sea and now learns with students in classrooms, I know storms can be weathered only when the crew rows together. So too in education: when teachers, senior colleagues, leadership teams, and policymakers row in unison, pedagogy thrives. On this Teacher’s Day, may we reclaim the joy of teaching , dismantle suffocating hierarchies, and ensure that classrooms remain what they were always meant to be: places of freedom, discovery, and light. “When teachers thrive, society sails forward.”

On this 78th anniversary of its modern, independent, and sovereign journey, India’s strategic autonomy is once again at the forefront of its international relations. This principle, a cornerstone of its foreign policy since independence, reflects a deep-seated commitment to charting its own course amidst a complex global landscape. From the earliest days of decolonization and its leadership in the Bandung Declaration of 1955, India has steadfastly refused to align with any single power bloc, prioritizing its national interests and its role as a voice for the developing world. This approach, which allows it to maintain relationships across geopolitical divides, is a testament to its enduring diplomatic philosophy. It is a philosophy that has shaped its policies from its nuclear pursuits to its current energy needs. The relationship between India and the U.S. has been a journey of peaks and valleys. For much of the Cold War, the U.S. viewed India with suspicion due to its non-aligned stance and close ties with the Soviet Union, with friction over trade and U.S. support for Pakistan. The turn of the century, however, saw a significant shift, culminating in the landmark U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008, which ended India's nuclear isolation and marked a high point in strategic partnership. The relationship deepened further through initiatives like the Quad, aimed at countering Chinese influence. Yet, with President Trump's re-election, a new period of tension has emerged, fueled by a 25% reciprocal tariff on Indian goods and unspecified penalties on Russia-related purchases. This transactional approach, which prioritizes trade deficit reduction, risks straining a partnership critical to both nations' long-term interests and stability against shared challenges. As a response, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs pushed back such demands, making it clear that Washington’s latest trade salvos would not dictate New Delhi’s choices. In a sharply worded statement, the MEA noted that “the United States has in recent days targeted India’s oil imports from Russia. We have already made clear our position on these issues, including the fact that our imports are based on market factors and done with the overall objective of ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion people of India” (MEA, 2025). In other words, India is unwilling to bow to demands that undermine its right to source discounted Russian oil, a policy the U.S. itself encouraged in 2022, in the early months of the Ukraine war, to stabilize global prices. By labeling the American measures “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” (MEA, 2025) New Delhi is not only defending a trade choice but reasserting the principle that its economic policy will be shaped in New Delhi, not in Washington. This Op-Ed traces the trajectory of this trade standoff, examines its sector-specific impacts, and assesses India’s enduring strategic importance to the U.S. amidst its rise as an Asian power of global significance. The Trajectory of Trade Tensions The current trade gridlock builds on a history of friction that began (2017-2020), during Donald Trump's first term. Back then, he took a jibe at India, labelling New Delhi as the “tariff king”, due to the latter's high tariffs and non-tariff barriers. He revoked India’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) status in 2019 citing the same reasons. As a response, India imposed tariffs on U.S. goods like almonds and apples. Though the tensions eased under the Biden administration, with the WTO disputes getting resolved by 2023, Trump's second term has seen intensified developments with regards to this tariff issue. On 1st February, 2025, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring trade deficits a national emergency and imposing a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, with higher “reciprocal tariffs” targeting nations like India with significant trade surpluses. Further, the 1st April “Liberation Day” saw a 26% tariff on Indian goods, which was later reduced to 25%, suspended for a period of 90 days. As of August 2025, these two countries have engaged in 5 rounds of talks, catalyzed by Prime Minister Modi's February visit to Washington. However, no deal has been finalized yet, which has led to commencing a 6th talk in New Delhi, later this month. Though initiatives like “U.S.-India COMPACT”, launched during Prime Minister Modi's visit aimed towards doubling bilateral trade to $500 billion, specific sectors like agriculture and dairy, have stalled progress.  Sticking Points and Strategic Autonomy India’s trade policy, rooted in strategic autonomy, prioritizes protecting its domestic industries and 700 million rural livelihoods, particularly in agriculture and dairy. The US, on the other hand, seeks greater market access for its farm products, including genetically modified corn and soybeans, viewing India’s $45.7 billion trade surplus in 2024 as a leverage point.  This policy is not a new reaction but is "rooted in a historical commitment to food security and farmer protection.  India's high tariff and non tariff barriers, such as Quality Control Orders and data localization rules, are seen as “obnoxious” by Trump, who demands near-complete market opening. However, New Delhi's refusal to liberalize agriculture and dairy reflects its historical commitment to food security and farmer protections, reinforced by the 2020 farm law protests. India’s strategic autonomy is also demonstrated through its energy and defense relations with Russia, with the former importing 1.75 million barrels of oil per day from the latter, from January to June this year, prompting Trump’s additional penalty. The additional 25% tariff imposed on India as a response to its oil purchases from the Kremlin aligns with U.S. efforts to isolate Russia over Ukraine. It is an example of India's diplomacy inspired by Arthashastra, which is about "maximizing flexibility while avoiding over-dependence". New Delhi’s BRICS membership and neutral stance enhances its global influence, complicating further alignment with the U.S. goals.  Though India has offered concessions, including tariff reductions on 60% of U.S. imports and preferential access for 90%, alongside lowering tariffs on bourbon and motorcycles, it falls short on Trump's expectations and his aggressive deadlines. New Delhi’s cautious approach, prioritizing long-term benefits over a “hotchpotch deal,” reflects its strategic calculus to maintain policy independence while engaging Washington.  Sector-Specific Impacts Amidst this trade standoff, labour-intensive sectors like textiles and electronics face steep cost increases, eroding India’s edge over lower-tariff competitors such as Vietnam and Indonesia. Gems and jewellery risk market share losses, while auto parts and metals could see supply chain disruptions. Pharmaceuticals are partially shielded due to U.S. reliance on Indian generics, and services exports remain largely unaffected for now, though vulnerable to visa changes. Despite these headwinds, India’s competitive positioning of export diversification and free trade agreements with partners like the UAE and UK, offers a degree of resilience.  India’s Rising Global Influence and Strategic Importance Far from the “dead economy” comment made by Trump, India is projected to grow at 6.5% through 2026, retaining its position as the world’s fastest-growing major economy (Taxtmi, 2025). Its robust rebuttal to U.S. pressure, coupled with its ability to balance BRICS partnerships and Quad security commitments, underscores its emergence as a bridge between the Global South and Western powers. The MEA’s public critique of Western “double standards” on Russia is less a defensive reaction and more a declaration that India will not trade away strategic autonomy for short-term concessions.  From a geopolitical perspective, India’s leadership in the Quad, naval modernization in the Indian Ocean, and strong foothold on key chokepoints like the Malacca Strait, aligns with U.S. goals to counter Chinese influence. India’s maritime dominance is critical for securing trade routes, reinforced by joint exercises like Malabar. Despite tensions over Russia, India’s exclusion from Trump’s July tariff letters and ongoing talks signal U.S. recognition of its strategic value. However, Trump’s transactional approach, i.e., prioritizing trade deficit reduction over long-term alignment, risks straining this partnership. Additionally, India’s refusal to fully align with U.S. sanctions on Russia reflects its Arthashastra inspired diplomacy, i.e., maximizing flexibility while avoiding over-dependence.  The Path Forward: A Call for Nuance The India-U.S. trade standoff reflects a clash between Trump’s aggressive protectionism and India’s strategic autonomy, with significant implications for bilateral ties. The upcoming 6th round of talks in New Delhi offers a glimmer of hope for a “mini-deal,” potentially focusing on labor-intensive sectors like textiles and gems while leaving more contentious issues like agriculture and dairy for future negotiations. India's resilience, reinforced by export diversification and competitive positioning, will help mitigate the impact of tariffs, although sustained tariffs could reduce its GDP growth by 0.5-1%. For the U.S., maintaining India as a strategic partner is critical for securing supply chains and strengthening the Quad to counter Chinese influence. A nuanced U.S. approach is essential, recognizing that tariffs alone cannot dictate the trajectory of this indispensable partnership. India's rise as an Asian power demands that both nations prioritize long-term strategic alignment over short-term economic wins. India’s journey of strategic autonomy has prepared it to navigate such challenges, demonstrating its maturity as a global power unwilling to compromise its core principles for short-term concessions. References: Business Today. (2025, August 12). US imposed 25% reciprocal tariffs on Indian exports; no addl tariffs on pharma, electronics: MoS Commerce.  https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/us-imposed-25-reciprocal-tariffs-on-indian-exports-no-addl-tariffs-on-pharma-electronics-mos-commerce-489039-2025-08-12 Nath, S. (2025, August 5). US Wanted India To Buy Russian Oil When Ukraine War Started. What Changed. NDTV https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-wanted-india-to-buy-russian-oil-when-ukraine-war-started-what-changed-9022516   Prusty, N. (2025, August 11). India pushes ahead with US trade talks despite tariff hike to 50%. Reuters  https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-pushes-ahead-with-us-trade-talks-despite-tariff-hike-50-2025-08-11/ Ministry of External Affairs. (2025, August 6). Statement by Official Spokesperson. Government of India.  https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/39945/Statement_by_Official_Spokesperson Ministry of External Affairs. (2025, August 4). Statement by Official Spokesperson. Government of India  https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/39936 Leonova, O. Khatri, J. (2023, July). Strategic Partnership between India and the United States: Examining Driving and Restraining Forces. MGIMO Review of International Relations 16(3):180-198. DOI:10.24833/2071-8160-2023-3-90-180-198  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372089672_Strategic_Partnership_between_India_and_the_United_States_Examining_Driving_and_Restraining_Forces#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20Indo%2DAmerican%20relations%20has%20transformed,cooperation%20agreement%20in%202008%20(Oksana%2C%202023)%20 . PTI. (2025, August 07). From calling 'Tariff King' to imposing high import duties How US toughened trade terms with India.  https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/business/2025/08/07/dcm11-biz-trump-tariffs-india-explainer.html The White House. (2025, April 2). Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/ Rao, A. (2025, May 30). US Appeals Court Reinstates Trump Tariffs: Key Updates for India.  India Briefing. https://www.india-briefing.com/news/us-imposes-26-tariff-on-india-36763.html/ FP Explainers. (2025, July 4). Can India and the US strike a trade deal without clashing over agriculture? https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/india-us-trade-deal-agriculture-farmers-sticking-point-why-13903084.html#:~:text=The%20industry%20is%20largely%20unorganised,that%20include%20animal%20by%2Dproducts.&text=This%20latter%20point%20is%20a,by%20Indian%20distillers%20and%20agribusinesses . PTI. (2025, June 30). Import duty cut on US farm goods under trade pact could undermine India’s food security: GTRI. The Economic Times.   https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/import-duty-cut-on-us-farm-goods-under-trade-pact-could-undermine-indias-food-security-gtri/articleshow/122166146.cms Ohri, N. (2025, July 31). Factbox-Key US complaints about India's 'obnoxious' non-monetary trade barriers. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/factboxkey-us-complaints-about-india-s-obnoxious-non-monetary-trade-barriers-101753959849740-amp.html Kashyap, G. (2021, November 20). The Farmers’ Protests and the Court: A Recap. Supreme Court Observer. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-farmers-protests-and-the-court-a-recap/ Patel, S., Shah, C. (2025, August 2). India to maintain Russian oil imports despite Trump threats, government sources say. Reuters.  https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-maintain-russian-oil-imports-despite-trump-threats-government-sources-say-2025-08-02/ Batra, S., Acharya, S., Dugal, I. (2025, May 9). Exclusive: India offers to slash tariff gap by two-thirds in dash to seal trade pact with Trump. Reuters.  https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-offers-slash-tariff-gap-by-two-thirds-dash-seal-trade-pact-with-trump-2025-05-09/ PIB. (2025, April 1). How Make in India is Shaping the Future of Textiles and Apparel Industry. Ministry of Commerce & Industry. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2117470#:~:text=Overview%20of%20India's%20Textile%20Industry,MSME

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” by JOI In June 2025 , a SpaceX Starship test rocket exploded over South Texas, scattering debris into Mexico and damaging protected areas in Tamaulipas. In response, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador publicly threatened to sue Elon Musk’s company for environmental damage caused by falling debris. This incident is not isolated. Space activity, once celebrated as the frontier of human progress, is now colliding with politics and sovereignty disputes. What was once seen as a limitless realm for exploration is today entangled in the geopolitics of the global commons. The skies above us are no longer neutral; they are contested, commercialized, and dangerously unregulated. As powerful countries and private corporations crowd Earth’s orbit with satellites and rocket launches, the rest of the world bears the risks. This week on Global Canvas , we examine the growing threat of space debris through the lens of global commons governance and ask: Who really owns the sky, and who pays the price when it falls? Context and Background Space debris refers to defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, fragments from explosions or collisions, and other man-made objects left in orbit. Primarily caused by human activities in orbit, including satellite launches, rocket deployments, and military tests, debris can form when a satellite or rocket explodes, breaks apart due to collision, or reaches the end of its operational life and is not safely deorbited. Anti-satellite missile tests and accidental crashes between spacecraft also generated large clouds of debris.  Most debris is concentrated in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) , between 200 and 2,000 kilometres above Earth, where many satellites operate. Another significant cluster exists in geostationary orbit, about 36,000 kilometres up, used for communication satellites. But the threat doesn't stop in orbit. Space junk re-enters Earth’s atmosphere  regularly, and while most of it burns up, some larger pieces survive and hit the ground. This growing cloud of debris raises urgent questions about the governance of outer space. Originally envisioned as a ‘ global commons ’, space was defined as the "province of all mankind", prohibiting national appropriation of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies and envisioned as a domain to be used peacefully and equally by all. Today, the vision is under threat. Space is now increasingly dominated by a few powerful states and private actors. The lack of enforceable rules on debris mitigation and responsibility has made shared access more precarious. As low orbits fill up, the risks are borne by all, but especially by less powerful nations that lack the resources to influence space policy or respond to its fallout. Major Incidents Kosmos 954 (1978) : A Soviet satellite powered by a nuclear reactor re-entered the atmosphere and scattered radioactive material across the eastern part of Canada's Northwest Territories, the western part of what's now Nunavut and into northern Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Dené people, living near the eastern side of Great Slave Lake, were among the hardest hit and they continue to face long-term effects, including contamination of traditional territory and increased cancer rates. Chinese Anti-Satellite Test (2007) : China destroyed its weather satellite FY-1C using a kinetic kill vehicle launched on a modified ballistic missile. The impact, at an altitude of 865 kilometres, created over 3,000 pieces of trackable debris, making it the largest-ever space debris field. Nearly two decades later, in 2025, the International Space Station had to fire thrusters to avoid its remnants from that same event, underscoring its long-lasting impact on space safety. Iridium–Kosmos Collision (2009) : A defunct Russian military satellite , Kosmos 2251, collided with the active U.S. commercial satellite Iridium 33 at an altitude of about 790 kilometres. The crash was the first-ever accidental satellite collision in orbit, and the event highlighted the growing risk of uncontrolled objects in space and remains one of the largest space debris incidents to date. Russian Anti-Satellite Test (2021) : Russia conducted an anti-satellite test by destroying one of its satellites, Cosmos 1408, using a direct-ascent missile. The test created over 1,500 pieces of trackable debris in LEO, posing a significant threat to operational satellites and the International Space Station. The debris cloud forced ISS crew members to take emergency shelter, drawing international criticism for the irresponsible use of ASAT weapons and their long-term risk to space safety. Long March 5B (November 2022) : A Chinese Long March 5B rocket made an uncontrolled re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, prompting France, Spain, and Monaco to temporarily close sections of their airspace as a precaution. Though China’s space agency later confirmed the rocket fell over the Sulu Sea in the Pacific, the precautionary airspace closures delayed 645 flights and caused air traffic congestion in neighbouring countries. Falcon 9 debris in Poland (February 2025) : A piece of debris from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket’s second stage survived re-entry and crashed into a warehouse in Komorniki, Poland. The impact caused structural damage but no injuries. This rare ground strike reignited discussions around uncontrolled re-entries, risk management in commercial space operations, and the need for better international tracking and debris mitigation systems. Kosmos 482 (May 2025) : A Soviet-era Venus probe launched in 1972 re-entered Earth’s atmosphere uncontrollably and reportedly crashed into the Indian Ocean. The spacecraft had remained in orbit for over 50 years, and its re-entry raised concerns about the risks of aging, defunct satellites left in space. These incidents are just the visible edge of a much larger orbital problem. They highlight the growing unpredictability of space debris. While most fragments burn up during re-entry, larger components such as satellite parts and rocket stages can survive the descent and pose risks both in space and on the ground. Key Players and Stakeholders 1) National Space Agencies. National space agencies play a critical role in shaping the direction of space activity, not just through exploration and satellite deployment, but also in setting standards for responsible conduct in orbit. These agencies manage satellite constellations, space stations, and scientific missions, which place them at the centre of both debris creation and mitigation. Agencies like NASA (United States), ESA (Europe), ISRO (India), CNSA (China), and Roscosmos (Russia) are among the most active in both operational and policy efforts related to space debris. NASA operates the world’s most advanced orbital debris tracking system through its Orbital Debris Program Office, providing critical data for collision avoidance and risk assessment. ESA, on the other hand, has introduced the “Zero Debris Charter” , aimed at ensuring future missions leave no waste in orbit by 2030 . 2) Private Companies. Private space companies have become major players in the modern space landscape, with firms like SpaceX, Blue Origin, OneWeb, and Virgin Galactic launching thousands of satellites into orbit. Their growing presence brings innovation, lower launch costs, and expanded access to space, but also new challenges in managing space traffic and debris. SpaceX, for example, operates the world’s largest satellite constellation through Starlink and has faced scrutiny over potential collision risks and re-entry debris. While some companies follow voluntary guidelines, enforcement remains weak, and not all private actors prioritise long-term sustainability. However, some firms are contributing positively. Companies such as ClearSpace and Astroscale are developing active debris removal technologies, while others invest in propulsion systems that enable controlled deorbiting.  Private companies are key to the future of space, but must take on shared responsibility. Their participation in global forums, adherence to debris mitigation standards, and investment in safer satellite design will determine how sustainable space remains. 3) Emerging and Non-Spacefaring Nations. Smaller or emerging spacefaring nations such as Japan , the UAE, South Korea, and Brazil are becoming increasingly significant players in shaping global space governance. These countries often rely on international cooperation and shared infrastructure, making the stability and safety of orbital space critical to their development agendas. Japan, for instance, has invested in space debris mitigation through JAXA’s active debris removal technologies, while the UAE has positioned itself as a responsible actor, advocating for peaceful and sustainable space use through forums like the UN COPUOS. At the same time, non-spacefaring states, particularly small island nations in the Pacific or developing countries in Africa and Asia, may not launch satellites but are heavily dependent on space-based services for climate monitoring, disaster response, navigation, and communications. These states are stakeholders by consequence. As space debris grows and global commons erode, their ability to access orbital resources safely and affordably is increasingly threatened. Despite limited representation in decision-making, their interests underscore the urgent need for more inclusive, equitable global space governance. Major Concerns and Consequences Uncontrolled space activity and the accumulation of debris are turning outer space from once a symbol of shared progress into a contested and hazardous domain. The overcrowding of key orbits, paired with weak global regulations, undermines the idea of space as a global commons . Today, a few powerful states and corporations dominate access, sidelining emerging spacefaring nations and non-spacefaring countries that rely on satellites for vital services like communication and disaster response. As debris increases, the goal of equitable participation in space use is slipping out of reach. In orbit, the threat of collisions even from small fragments forces costly evasive manoeuvres. On Earth, re-entering debris can damage property, harm ecosystems, or in rare cases, release hazardous materials. These risks are pushing insurers to rethink space coverage, while proposed cleanup missions remain experimental and expensive. Incidents like the SpaceX–Mexico fallout show how debris can escalate into diplomatic disputes, raising urgent questions around accountability and legal responsibility. A globally coordinated, responsible approach to space governance is more critical than ever. Theoretically Speaking : Strategic Alignments and Power Shifts Realism views space as an extension of geopolitical rivalry, where states and corporations act to protect national interests and strategic advantage. Debris-generating actions such as anti-satellite (ASAT) tests by China and Russia are seen as deliberate demonstrations of power and deterrence, even if they endanger orbital sustainability. From this lens, space debris is a trade-off in the pursuit of dominance. However, realism fails to account for the need for global cooperation to manage shared risks, and it sidelines the interests of less powerful nations and non-state actors affected by the fallout. Constructivism interprets space not just as physical territory but as a socially constructed domain shaped by dominant norms and narratives. Whether space is governed as a commons or exploited as a military or commercial asset depends on who defines the rules. As leading powers and private firms shape expectations around space activity, collective responsibility often gets sidelined. While this perspective explains how global norms evolve, it may overestimate the role of shared values in a landscape increasingly driven by competition and profit. Takeaways Space was once seen as infinite, a place where human activity could have no lasting consequence. That illusion is gone. Today, the skies above us are cluttered, contested, and dangerously fragile. It’s a real and growing threat. If we don’t act collectively and decisively, space debris will not only choke our orbital pathways but also rain chaos onto our planet. The space race must not become a race to pollute it. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms Vivaksha Vats)  Stay Tuned for More! The growing crisis of space debris is more than a technological challenge it’s a political test of how we govern our global commons. From cross-border lawsuits to contested orbits, the fallout is forcing states, corporations, and citizens to confront urgent questions of accountability, equity, and sustainability. In the end, the future of space won’t just be shaped by engineering breakthroughs, but by the collective will to act responsibly before the sky falls. In our next episode of Global Canvas , we explore another arena where global challenges collide with political complexity. Until then, we’d love to hear your reflections . What global shifts are keeping you up at night? Share your views in the comments or connect with us at www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email   ceo@johnsonodakkal.com   to stay engaged. References and Sources NASA. (2023, November 3). Space Debris . NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/headquarters/library/find/bibliographies/space-debris/ European Space Agency. (2023). About space debris . www.esa.int . https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/About_space_debris Reuters. (2025, June 26). SpaceX says debris recovery attempts hindered after Starship explosion. Reuters . https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spacex-says-debris-recovery-attempts-hindered-after-starship-explosion-2025-06-26/ O’Callaghan, J. (2019). What is Space Junk and why is it a problem?  Natural History Museum. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-space-junk-and-why-is-it-a-problem.html Shamim, S. (2025, June 27). Why is Mexico threatening to sue Elon Musk over SpaceX debris?  Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/27/why-is-mexico-threatening-to-sue-elon-musk-over-spacex-debris Guardian staff reporter. (2025, June 25). Mexico’s president threatens to sue over SpaceX debris from rocket explosions. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/mexico-president-lawsuit-spacex-debris-rocket-explosions Tingley, B. (2025, June 27). Mexico threatens lawsuit against SpaceX over Starship explosion “contamination.” Space. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/private-spaceflight/mexico-threatens-lawsuit-against-spacex-over-starship-explosion-debris Pardini, C., & Anselmo, L. (2025). Orbital re-entries of human-made space objects: Drawbacks for the upper atmosphere and the safety of people. Journal of Space Safety Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2025.04.009 David, L. (2024, June 5). Uncontrolled reentry of space debris poses a real and growing threat. SpaceNews. https://spacenews.com/uncontrolled-reentry-of-space-debris-poses-a-real-and-growing-threat/ Parsonson, A. (2025, March 11). Polish Space Agency President Sacked Over Falcon 9 Debris Controversy. European Spaceflight. https://europeanspaceflight.com/polish-space-agency-president-sacked-over-falcon-9-debris-controversy/ Kluger, J. (2025, May 7). What to Know About The Soviet-Era Venus Spacecraft Plunging Back to Earth. Time. https://time.com/7283460/soviet-spacecraft-plunging-back-to-earth-what-to-know/ Wattles, J. (2025, February 21). Debris from Blue Origin and SpaceX rockets found in Bahamas and Europe. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/21/science/blue-origin-spacex-debris-bahamas-europe Hill, S. (2025, March 6). The growing odds of space junk hitting a plane. Astronomy Magazine. https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/rocket-debris-poses-risks-to-aircraft-operations/ Zander, F. (2022, September 26). What’s the Risk of Being Hit by Falling Space debris?.BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220912-what-happens-to-space-debris-when-it-returns-to-earth Dart, C. (2022, November 14). In 1978, a Soviet satellite exploded over traditional Dené land. Its effects are still felt today. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/arts/operation-morning-light-podcast-soviet-satellite-exploded-traditional-dene-land-1.6650994 Hadley, G. (2023, January 13). Saltzman: China’s ASAT Test Was “Pivot Point” in Space Operations. Air & Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/saltzman-chinas-asat-test-was-pivot-point-in-space-operations/ Ali, I., & Gorman, S. (2021, November 16). Russian anti-satellite missile test endangers space station crew - NASA. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-military-reports-debris-generating-event-outer-space-2021-11-15/ Long March 5B: Debris from Chinese rocket falls back to Earth. (2022, July 29). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62333546 Brown, T. (2025, June 28). Satellites keep breaking up in space. Insurance won’t cover them. Space. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/satellites/satellites-keep-breaking-up-in-space-insurance-wont-cover-them Henry, C. (2020, January 7). SpaceX becomes operator of world’s largest commercial satellite constellation with Starlink launch. SpaceNews. https://spacenews.com/spacex-becomes-operator-of-worlds-largest-commercial-satellite-constellation-with-starlink-launch/ European Space Agency. (2023). About space debris. www.esa.int. https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/About_space_debris

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” by JOI South Korea’s democracy was not born overnight, it was forged through war, authoritarianism , and a relentless struggle for freedom. From the ashes of the Korean War to decades of military rule under strongmen like Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan , it took the massive June Democratic Uprising of 1987 to force a constitutional turning point and usher in a new era of civilian rule. Since then, South Korea has built strong democratic institutions, an independent judiciary, and a vibrant civil society. Yet, beneath this progress, the legacy of authoritarianism lingers. In recent years, Seoul’s electoral arena has become one of Asia’s most closely watched democratic theatres. From the recent razor-thin election of President Yoon Suk-yeol to the shocking imposition of martial law and the public’s swift, defiant response, the country has faced a profound test. At its heart, the crisis from 2022 to 2025 isn’t just about leadership, it’s about whether democratic institutions can withstand the weight of political ambition, or whether their survival still depends on citizens willing to rise in their defense. Context and Background South Korea transitioned from military dictatorship to democracy in 1987 . Since then, it has held competitive elections, developed robust institutions, and maintained political stability albeit under the shadow of a powerful military, a volatile North, and a polarized electorate. In 2022 , Yoon Suk-yeol, a conservative former prosecutor with no political experience, narrowly defeated DPK’s Lee Jae-myung by just 0.7% to become president. Running on a platform of anti-corruption and tougher North Korea policies, Yoon aligned closely with Washington and Tokyo, distancing Seoul from Beijing. Domestically, his investigations into Moon Jae-in’s administration sparked accusations of political retaliation. In the April 2024 legislative elections , Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) suffered a major defeat, losing legislative control to the DPK and progressives. Facing mass protests, plummeting approval ratings, and an oppositional parliament, Yoon’s administration hinted at “ extraordinary measures .” Leaked documents revealed discussions of emergency powers or martial law in the event of civil unrest or North Korean threats. On December 3, 2024 , Yoon declared nationwide martial law  in a late-night broadcast, citing threats from “pro-North Korean forces.” Troops were deployed to the National Assembly, and restrictions on speech, assembly, and political activity were imposed. But within hours, citizens took to the streets. Lawmakers defied the crackdown, voting 190–0 to revoke the decree. Martial law was lifted by dawn. The backlash was swift: cabinet resignations followed, investigations began, and on December 14 , a successful impeachment motion  suspended Yoon’s powers, elevating Prime Minister Han Duck-Soo as acting president. A snap presidential election  was held on June 3, 2025 . Lee Jae-myung (DPK), Han Dong-hoon (PPP), and Sim Sang-jung (Justice Party) contested the race. Lee’s decisive victory marked a liberal comeback and a renewed push for democratic reform. Key Players and Stakeholders People Power Party (PPP). The People Power Party is South Korea’s leading conservative force, closely aligned with President Yoon Suk-yeol since his election in 2022. The party is known for its tough stance on North Korea, firm pro-U.S. foreign policy, and a strong emphasis on law and order. Throughout Yoon’s presidency, the PPP supported his initiatives and agenda. However, the declaration of martial law in December 2024 exposed significant internal fractures. Eighteen lawmakers broke with the party line to back Yoon’s impeachment, and party leader Han Dong-hoon resigned in the wake of mounting public and political pressure. Democratic Party of Korea (DPK). The Democratic Party of Korea is South Korea’s main liberal party and was previously in power under President Moon Jae-in . After narrowly losing the 2022 election, the DPK regained momentum following the martial law crisis. The party framed itself as a defender of democratic values, civil liberties, and balanced diplomacy. Its leader, Lee Jae-myung , emerged as a central figure in the opposition movement, organizing mass protests and steering the impeachment campaign. The DPK’s return to leadership in the 2025 re-election marks a public shift toward restoring democratic accountability. Civil Society and Youth Movements. South Korea’s civil society, especially its youth, played a vital role in opposing the authoritarian turn during Yoon’s presidency. Immediately after the martial law declaration, citizens organized candlelight vigils, light-stick demonstrations, and public rallies across the country. Protestors often blended cultural expression with political resistance. Young people, particularly women and Gen-Z activists , used social media and creative protest strategies to challenge the government and support institutional checks. Their activism was instrumental in influencing legislators and the Constitutional Court, ultimately playing a key role in defending South Korea’s democracy. Major Concerns and Consequences South Korea’s recent political crisis has exposed troubling cracks in its democratic foundations. The sudden imposition of martial law marked a sharp deviation from constitutional norms and reignited fears of authoritarian regression. For a country often celebrated as a model democracy in Asia, this moment highlighted how vulnerable institutions can become when executive power overreaches. The move shook public trust and raised urgent questions about the strength of legal safeguards in times of crisis. The consequences extended beyond domestic politics. As a key player in the Indo-Pacific , instability in Seoul threatens regional security dynamics. It complicates coordination with allies like the United States and Japan , weakens deterrence against North Korea , and risks diminishing South Korea’s credibility as a strategic partner. In a tense geopolitical environment, internal unrest undermines Seoul’s global standing. Socially, the crisis has deepened divisions. Political polarization between conservatives and progressives has sharpened, while generational and regional gaps continue to widen. Youth and older voters appear to inhabit separate political realities, straining national unity. Rebuilding trust in institutions and restoring civic cohesion will be essential for South Korea’s democratic future. Theoretically Speaking : Strategic Alignments and Power Shifts Liberal Institutionalism emphasizes the central role of democratic institutions, legal norms, and international cooperation in maintaining both domestic stability and global order. In the case of South Korea, actions that undermine the rule of law or bypass constitutional procedures for political gain risk weakening the foundations of democratic governance. This not only destabilizes internal politics but also damages South Korea’s credibility and reliability as a partner within international frameworks, particularly with allies like the United States and Japan. Constructivism focuses on how national identity, shared norms, and collective perceptions shape international behavior. South Korea has spent decades building a democratic identity rooted in civilian rule, human rights, and peaceful protest. This identity has been key to its soft power and legitimacy on the global stage. However, authoritarian tendencies and the use of emergency powers challenge these deeply held norms and could alter how South Korea is perceived both by its own citizens and by the international community. Takeaways South Korea’s crisis underscores that elections are not just about parties, they define how a nation wields power, upholds dissent, and positions itself globally. The case challenges assumptions about democracy’s durability in developed nations and reminds us that institutions, while essential, ultimately depend on the will of the people to defend them. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms Vivaksha Vats)  Stay Tuned for More! South Korea’s recent political upheaval is more than a domestic drama, it’s a critical case study in how democracies respond under pressure. From razor-thin elections to a shock martial law declaration, the nation's institutions were tested, but ultimately, its citizens rose to the occasion. The message is clear: democracy endures not just through constitutions, but through collective civic will. In our next episode of Global Canvas , we’ll explore another region where politics and pressure collide. Until then, we’d love to hear from you. What global shifts are keeping you up at night? Share your views in the comments or connect with us at www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email   ceo@johnsonodakkal.com   to stay engaged. References and Sources Atlantic Council Experts. (2025, June 3). Experts react: What does South Korean President Lee Jae-myung mean for Indo-Pacific security?. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/what-does-president-lee-jae-myung-mean-for-south-koreas-future/   Cha, V., & Lim, A. (2025, June 3). South Korea’s New President: Frying Pan to Fire. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/south-koreas-new-president-frying-pan-fire   Atlantic Council Experts. (2024, December 17). The global ripple effects of South Korea’s political turmoil. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-global-ripple-effects-of-south-koreas-political-turmoil/   AP. (2025, June 4). South Korea has endured 6 months of political turmoil. What can we expect in Lee’s presidency?. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/south-korea-has-endured-6-months-of-political-turmoil-what-can-we-expect-in-lees-presidency/articleshow/121619913.cms   How polarization undermines democracy in South Korea. (n.d.). Council of Councils. https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/how-polarization-undermines-democracy-south-korea   Gong, S. E. (2025, June 3). South Korea elects liberal Lee Jae-myung after months of political turmoil. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/02/g-s1-70029/south-korea-presidential-elections   South Korea election results 2025: Who won, who lost, what’s next? Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/3/south-korea-election-results-2025-who-won-who-lost-whats-next   Lee, J., & Park, J. (2025, June 3). Liberal Lee Jae-myung projected to win South Korea presidency in martial law “judgement day.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-koreans-vote-president-after-months-turmoil-triggered-by-martial-law-2025-06-02/   Yeung, J., Seo, Y., Bae, G., Valerio, M., & Kent, L. (2025, June 3). South Korea’s opposition leader Lee wins election as voters punish conservatives after martial law chaos. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/03/asia/south-korea-presidential-election-results-intl-hnk   AP. (2025, June 4). South Koreans vote for new President in wake of Yoon’s ouster over martial law. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-korea-election-on-tuesday-june-3-2025-after-outster-of-yoon-suk-yeol-after-martial-law/article69651130.ece   Langel Tunchinmang. (2024, 24 December). From martial law to impeachment: Outcome and implications for South Korea. Indian Council of World Affairs (Government of India). https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=12173&lid=7419   Lim, A., Ji, S., & Cha, V. (2024, December 3). Yoon Declares Martial Law in South Korea. Csis.org . https://www.csis.org/analysis/yoon-declares-martial-law-south-korea   Da-gyum, J. (2024, December 3). Full text of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s emergency martial law declaration. The Korea Herald. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10012293   Tong-Hyung, K. (2025, January 15). A look at the events that led up to the arrest of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-president-yoon-detention-timeline-214ff8dc95ceb3365f60baaf9961b349   Kakoti, A,R. (2024, December 27). Martial law in South Korea: A critical analysis of its political and cultural impact. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-insight/international-affairs/martial-law-in-south-korea-a-critical-analysis-of-its-political-and-cultural-impact-101735303806326.html   Davies, C., & Jung-a, S. (2025, April 6). “In for a rough ride”: removal of South Korea’s president leaves deep divides. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/546c9b86-c18c-4cf2-9ef6-906f1b9caa1e   ‌Roy, T. (2024, December 7). In South Korea, a brief return to martial law and the spirit of protest that reversed it. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/south-korea-martial-law-protest-spirit-9711502/

Life at sea, far from home, and surrounded by endless blue horizons, can quietly weigh on one’s mental well-being, often leading to what many call the “mental blues.” Whether on a commercial ship or a military one, working offshore is both rewarding and challenging. On the positive side, you get to experience the thrilling life at sea. However, on the flip side, this life may not be as exciting as it is often marketed to be.  Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal , a navy veteran with 39 years  of naval and merchant experience, recounts his first brush with the sea’s fury. Just months into his sailing career as a deck cadet, in 1983 , aboard a general-purpose cargo vessel sailing from Houston through the Bermuda Triangle toward Europe, the ship encountered a violent storm off the coast of Florida. He recalls, "We realized six of our shipmates had fallen badly injured. Broken bones, severe trauma. Every time we moved someone, another wave threatened to undo our efforts. Eventually, the US Coast Guard from Miami air-dropped paramedics. That moment never left me. It taught me how delicate and frail we are compared to the sea.”  Seafaring is a demanding profession that affects both the mind and body. Prolonged isolation, demanding work hours, unpredictable weather, and limited access to support systems can have a significant impact on their overall well-being. Without a supportive and respectful work environment, the psychological burden on seafarers can deepen, leading to burnout, anxiety, and decreased performance.  In 2006 , while being the Executive Officer aboard INS Jyoti, during an Eastern Fleet operation, Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal recalls how the news of a catastrophic earthquake in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, changed their mission overnight. INS Jyoti became the logistical hub for relief materials, coordinating alongside other naval ships. He highlights how seafarers are often the first responders to crises beyond borders. It is therefore essential that the maritime industry adopts a holistic approach to seafarer welfare by cultivating inclusive shipboard cultures and upholding dignity and fairness in every aspect of life at sea. According to IMO , 50% of female seafarers and significant numbers of their male counterparts face harassment and bullying at sea. Many incidents go unreported due to fear of retaliation and the absence of trustworthy reporting mechanisms. This highlights the growing need to place emphasis on inclusive mental and physical well-being at sea, ensuring that every seafarer feels safe, heard, and supported.  Addressing these issues requires more than individual resilience; it demands systemic change across the maritime sector, including stronger policies, awareness campaigns, and a cultural shift toward respect and accountability. That is why this year’s theme by the IMO, “My Harassment-Free Ship,”  focuses on creating safer, more inclusive shipboard environments by promoting zero tolerance for harassment and bullying, encouraging open reporting, and ensuring that every seafarer feels protected and valued while at sea. However, before exploring this year’s IMO theme for the Day of the Seafarer, it is just as important to understand the background of this significant day.  The Day of the Seafarer was established in a resolution adopted by the 2010 Diplomatic Conference in Manila to adopt the revised ‘The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers’. Since then, every year on June 25, the world observes the International Day of Seafarer  to recognize and honour the vital role that seafarers play in global trade, maritime safety, and world economy. The day acknowledges the dedication, resilience, and sacrifices of millions of men and women who work at sea. They are responsible for transporting over 80 percent of the world’s goods, yet their contributions often go unnoticed. From navigating dangerous waters to enduring long months away from home, seafarers remain the backbone of international logistics and commerce. By highlighting their experiences and ensuring their voices are heard, the International Day of Seafarer  encourages governments, shipping companies, and the wider public to take concrete actions to support and protect those who make global connectivity possible. This year, the International Day of Seafarer focuses on the campaign “ My Harassment-Free Ship ,” a bold initiative aimed at fostering a culture of respect and zero tolerance for bullying, harassment, and discrimination at sea. Harassment at sea remains a serious concern, affecting both male and female seafarers and often leading to emotional distress, isolation, and career stagnation.  According to Dr. Johnson Odakkal , modern ships today are cultural microcosms. He calls them “ diversified demography under flags of convenience ”. A single ship may host a Norwegian captain, Bangladeshi engineers, Indian officers, and Filipino crew, yet not a single person may be from the nation under which the ship is flagged. This diversity, while enriching, can also be challenging,  especially when cultural misunderstandings, unconscious bias, or power asymmetries go unaddressed. In light of this, the IMO has urged the global shipping community to take meaningful action toward transforming maritime culture. Through this day, IMO calls for a shift in maritime culture to ensure that every seafarer, regardless of gender, rank, or background, feels safe, valued, and protected while on board. Through this campaign, the maritime community is being urged to raise awareness, implement strong zero-tolerance policies, improve reporting systems, and provide support and resources for those affected.  JOI and its maritime heritage Dr. Johnson Odakkal , a navy veteran and founder of Johnson Odakkal Initiatives (JOI) , . has long been an advocate for restoring seafarers to their rightful place in our national consciousness. “Seafarers power global trade, yet remain history’s outcasts—vital to nations, but still adrift in national memory,” he observes. This belief has shaped much of his work, both during his tenure as Director of the Maritime History Society and now through JOI. During his tenure as Director of the Maritime History Society, he led numerous efforts to promote maritime awareness and preserve India's rich seafaring heritage.  Through JOI , he now champions the concept of "Life Navigation," a concept Dr. Odakkal developed by drawing on the values and disciplines of life at sea to guide personal and professional journeys on land. “Seafaring is the ultimate human endeavor,” he says, “where nature, knowledge, courage, and discipline converge in service to the world.” It is this deep respect for the maritime profession that drives his commitment to mentoring young professionals and students, encouraging them to explore the challenges and possibilities of life at sea. Way forward  As we reflect on the significance of the International Day of the Seafarer and the urgent call for harassment-free ships, it becomes clear that the maritime sector stands at a pivotal moment. The future of seafaring depends not only on technological advancement or global trade dynamics, but on how we treat the people who keep the system afloat. Creating inclusive, respectful, and mentally supportive shipboard environments must move from rhetoric to reality. This calls for sustained collaboration among maritime institutions, governments, ship owners, and training bodies to implement robust policies, invest in mental health infrastructure, and build a culture of empathy and accountability at sea. By anchoring maritime progress in dignity, safety, and shared responsibility, we can ensure that seafaring remains not only a noble profession, but a sustainable and fulfilling one for all.  In support of this, the IMO has launched a digital Seafarer Support Map  to identify grievance centers around the world, supporting seafarers facing issues such as harassment, detention, or abandonment. As of June 2025, the map currently features three designated locations: one in the United States, one in London, and one in Norway. However, critical, yet dangerous maritime regions including the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Guinea, the Gulf of Aden, the Malacca Strait, where seafarers encounter significant risks like piracy and detention, lack visible support centers on this map. While the IMO and its partners, such as the International Transport Workers’ Federation, provide additional global assistance channels, the map’s limited coverage may hinder accessibility for those in high-risk areas. Enhancing the map with broader regional representation could better align it with the needs of the global seafaring community. If the tool aims to support a truly global workforce, then it must offer a global reach, not just a global branding.  Inspired by the stories from the sea? Want to navigate your own course with courage and clarity?   Let’s chart your journey together — with purpose, not just ambition. Reach out via DM or drop us a line at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com   Explore more at our newly updated website:   www.johnsonodakkal.com Let’s anchor change — not just in words, but in action. Happy Day of the Seafarer 2025!   References  Vessels, G. O. (2024, June 24). Celebrate Day of the Seafarer 2024 and #SafetyTipsAtSeA with Guice Offshore and the International Maritime Organization . Guice Offshore. https://www.guiceoffshore.com/celebrate-day-of-the-seafarer-2024-safetytipsatsea-with-guice-offshore-and-international-maritime-organization/ Day of the seafarer . (2023, June 25). Times of India Blog. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/mohammad-nayem/day-of-the-seafarer-55620/ Bharat, E. (2024, June 24). International Day of Seafarer - Recognising the contribution of seafarers. ETV Bharat News . https://www.etvbharat.com/en/!international/international-day-of-seafarer-recognising-the-contribution-of-seafarers-enn24062404407 Day of the Seafarer 2025 . (n.d.). https://www.imo.org/en/About/Events/Pages/Day-of-the-Seafarer-2025.aspx Map . (n.d.). https://wwwmedia.imo.org/$web/SeaFarerSupportMap-v1.0.html Medenilla, V. (2025, June 24). Onboarding respect: Championing safer, harassment-free ships. The Manila Times . https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/06/25/supplements/special-features/onboarding-respect-championing-safer-harassment-free-ships/213845 Johnson Odakkal Initiatives. (2022, June 29). A Seafarers Voyage : ISD 2022 . YouTube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmK-kggbkKw

Another Episode of “Global Canvas” by JOI Greenland’s March 11, 2025 , election delivered a shocking upset as the center-right, pro-independence Demokraatit surged to victory, unseating the left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA). Pledging gradual independence and economic self-sufficiency, the new government is set to reshape Greenland’s future—just as global powers, including the U.S. and China , compete for influence in the Arctic. With Donald Trump once again expressing interest in Greenland, the island has become a geopolitical hotspot. This week on Global Canvas , we look into the growing geopolitical importance of Greenland. Context and Background Greenland , the world’s largest island , spans over 2 million square kilometres yet is home to just over 56,000 people. While its population is small, its strategic Arctic location makes it a geopolitical hotspot .  On March 11, 2025, Greenlanders went to the polls, and by March 12 , the results revealed a major political shift. The center-right, pro-business Demokraatit (The Democrats), led by Jens-Frederik Nielsen, pulled off a stunning victory, securing 29.9% of the vote. The party campaigned on economic development, improving housing and education, and delaying independence until Greenland is self-sufficient. This marked a dramatic turnaround from the 9.1% of the vote it received in the previous election, when it finished in fourth place. Despite its win, Demokraatit did not secure an outright majority in Greenland’s 31-seat parliament , Inatsisartut, prompting coalition talks. It is expected to form a government with Naleraq , a center-populist, aggressively pro-independence party that finished second with 24.5% of the vote. The left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) , which led the last government, suffered a major setback, dropping to 21.4% . Another traditional power player, the social democratic Siumut , collapsed to 14.7% , a stunning decline for a party that once dominated Greenlandic politics. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark , governing most domestic affairs but lacking control over foreign policy, security, and defense, which remain under Danish jurisdiction. The issue of full independence has long been debated, with Greenlandic parties divided over how fast sovereignty should be pursued. Demokraatit supports eventual independence but argues that Greenland must first build a stronger economy, infrastructure, and education system before breaking from Denmark. Naleraq, on the other hand, wants a rapid move toward independence, pushing for an immediate referendum. IA and Siumut also support independence but advocate for a cautious, long-term approach, emphasizing social policies and sustainability.  The 2025 Greenland election was seen as a pivotal moment amid growing U.S. interest in the Arctic, driven by the island’s strategic location, vast mineral reserves, and Donald Trump’s past push to acquire it. While its geopolitical significance loomed large, the campaign itself focused primarily on domestic issues like healthcare, housing shortages, and education, reflecting the immediate concerns of Greenlandic voters over external power struggles. Key Players and Stakeholders Demokraatit , led by Jens-Frederik Nielsen, is a center-right , pro-business party that secured a surprise victory with 29.9% of the vote in Greenland’s 2025 elections. The party advocates for economic growth through foreign investment, diversification of the economy, and expansion of the mining sector, which is seen as crucial for reducing Greenland’s dependence on Danish subsidies. While Demokraatit supports eventual independence , it favors a gradual approach, emphasizing the need to strengthen Greenland’s economy first. The party has also been highly critical of Donald Trump’s rhetoric about acquiring Greenland, with Nielsen calling Trump “a threat to our political independence.”   Naleraq , led by Pele Broberg, is a center-right, nationalist party that finished second with 24.5% of the vote. Unlike Demokraatit, Naleraq advocates for a rapid move toward full sovereignty, pushing for an immediate referendum on independence . The party has historically been more receptive to U.S. interest in Greenland, seeing it as an opportunity to diversify economic partnerships beyond Denmark. Naleraq’s strong electoral performance has positioned it as a key force in the new government, with coalition negotiations likely to determine how aggressively independence will be pursued. Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) , led by Múte Bourup  Egede, is a left-wing socialist party that suffered a major setback in the election, dropping to 21.4% of the vote and falling to third place. IA supports Greenlandic independence but takes a cautious, long-term approach, prioritizing social welfare, environmental protection, and sustainable development over immediate sovereignty. While the party previously led the government, its declining support suggests a shift in voter priorities toward economic concerns and a stronger push for self-sufficiency before independence. Siumut , historically Greenland’s dominant party, is a center-left, social democratic party led by Erik Jensen. Once the primary political force in Greenland, Siumut continued its decline, securing just 14.9% of the vote. The party supports eventual independence but has long emphasized economic development and maintaining strong ties with Denmark as a necessary step before sovereignty. Its electoral losses reflect growing dissatisfaction with the party’s leadership and policies, as Greenlanders increasingly seek new political directions for managing the island’s future. Major Concerns and Consequences The Arctic is emerging as a key battleground for global influence, with Greenland at its centre. Three major factors make Greenland an international focal point: Denmark’s balancing act, US strategic military importance, and new found natural resources. Denmark remains cautious about Greenland’s push for independence, as losing Greenland would mean losing control over its Arctic interests. Denmark has invested heavily in Greenland’s infrastructure and security, especially as China and Russia increase their presence in the Arctic. A fully independent Greenland would force Denmark to rethink its geopolitical strategy and could weaken its position in NATO and the Arctic Council . The Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) is the northernmost American military base and the only non-Danish military presence in Greenland. As a critical hub for missile defense and space surveillance, it allows the U.S. to detect missile launches, track trajectories, and activate defense systems in real time. Amid Trump’s renewed push to annex Greenland , which has become a major talking point, a high-level American delegation is visiting the island led by Usha Vance , wife of Vice President JD Vance , and includes White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright. The visit has sparked backlash in Greenland, with Greenland's outgoing Prime Minister Mute Egede calling it a breach of democratic principles and a sign of disrespect for the island’s right to self-determination. Greenland is believed to hold vast reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and gas , drawing interest from the U.S., China, & the European Union . As Arctic ice melts , new military and shipping routes are opening, increasing the region’s importance. The U.S. wants access to Greenland’s rare earth elements to reduce its dependence on China, which currently dominates global production of these critical materials used in technology, renewable energy, and defense industries. However, mining in Greenland faces significant challenges, including harsh weather conditions, limited infrastructure, and opposition from local communities concerned about environmental damage. Theoretically Speaking : Strategic Alignments and Power Shifts From a realist perspective , the U.S., China, and Russia view Greenland as a strategic asset due to its military value, rare earth minerals, and emerging trade routes. The U.S. seeks to strengthen its military presence through Pituffik Space Base, while Denmark aims to maintain control over Greenland’s security. Meanwhile, China’s interest in Greenland’s mining sector and Russia’s Arctic militarization highlights growing competition for influence in the region. Realism explains why global superpowers are invested in Greenland’s future-because whoever controls Greenland holds a key position in the Arctic power balance. From a constructivist perspective , the 2025 Greenland election reflects a shift in national identity and evolving perceptions of sovereignty rather than just economic or strategic calculations. Constructivism argues that political decisions are shaped by ideas, cultural identity, and historical narratives, rather than purely material interests like resources or military power. Greenland’s pro-business but cautious independence government, led by Demokraatit, signals that while the desire for sovereignty is growing, many Greenlanders recognize the need for economic stability before full independence. This election outcome suggests that Greenlanders are redefining their national identity—not just as a Danish dependency, but as a nation-in-the-making. Takeaways Greenland’s 2025 elections have set the stage for a new era of political and economic strategy. The outcome will shape Arctic security, international alliances, and Greenland’s path toward independence. As global powers compete for influence in the Arctic, Greenland’s future remains a key geopolitical question. Compiled by Commodore (Dr) Johnson Odakkal (with support from Ms Vivaksha Vats)  Stay Tuned for More! Greenland’s 2025 elections have sent ripples through its political and geopolitical landscape, redefining the island’s future amid shifting alliances and climate-driven challenges. As new leadership takes the helm, questions loom over autonomy, economic strategy, and international influence. Beyond the ballot, the real test begins now—navigating governance in an evolving Arctic. In the next episode of Global Canvas , we continue to dissect the aftershocks of global elections and power shifts . What global issues concern you most? Share your thoughts in the comments or reach out at www.johnsonodakkal.com   or email ceo@johnsonodakkal.com    to stay tuned. References and Sources What Greenland's elections mean for the island — and the U.S. Greenland: Election results and energy outlook amid Trump’s ambitions - energynews Greenland election: Democrat party wins surprise victory amid spectre of Trump Greenland Election: Demokraatit Emerges as the Island’s Largest Political Party Greenland’s election winners push back against Trump’s wish to take control of the island - The Hindu Centre-right opposition wins Greenland election dominated by Trump pledge | Elections News | Al Jazeera Greenland's independence gradualists win election amid Trump control pledge | Reuters Greenland elects new government as Trump coaxes, threatens Greenland's opposition wins election dominated by independence and Trump What to Know About the Only US Military Base in Greenland - The New York Times Trump pushes US claims to Greenland as territory's leaders lambast US delegation trip | Reuters There’s a global tug-of-war for Greenland’s resources — but the new government has its own plans