Answer

Introduction

The upcoming Busan Summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping marks a shift from confrontation to cautious cooperation. The proposed Global Peace Initiative aims to turn great-power rivalry into a framework of “managed coexistence.” While it projects stability, it also reshapes the global order,  posing new strategic tests for middle powers like India.

Body

Strategic Motivations Behind the Engagement

• Rebranding Competition as Cooperation: Both leaders want to project a positive image by turning their power rivalry into a message of peace and shared global responsibility.
  Eg: Trump’s plan to announce a peace framework with Xi along with a trade deal shows an attempt to present the US–China partnership as a stabilising force.
• Global Legitimacy and Domestic Optics: Trump wants to be seen as a global “peace president,” while Xi wants to show China as a responsible world leader and peacemaker.
  Eg: Xi’s four global initiatives on development, security, civilisation, and governance strengthen China’s image as a global guardian.
• Economic and Strategic Interdependence: The US and China depend heavily on each other’s economies. A cooperative approach helps them avoid full-scale trade conflict and maintain stability.
• Reducing Global Security Risks: Restarting talks on nuclear control, AI, and outer space issues helps both sides appear as responsible powers trying to reduce global tensions.
• Geopolitical Signalling to Other Powers: The peace plan allows both the US and China to set the global agenda and reduce the influence of other alliances that exclude them.
  Eg: A joint “peace declaration” would present Washington and Beijing as equal global leaders, reducing the role of blocs like the G7 or Quad.

Emerging Challenges for Middle-Power Countries (Focus: India)

• Strategic Marginalisation: If the US and China work together, middle powers may lose influence and be forced to adjust to their joint decisions.
  Eg: India’s regional voice could weaken if Washington and Beijing coordinate directly on Indo-Pacific issues.
• Erosion of Strategic Autonomy: India’s policy of keeping friendly ties with all major powers may face pressure as the world moves toward two main power centres.
  Eg: Balancing between Quad cooperation with the US and BRICS engagement with China will become harder.
• Economic Vulnerabilities: Stronger US–China trade ties could shift global supply chains, affecting India’s trade opportunities.
  Eg: A revived trade deal between the US and China might limit India’s role as an alternative manufacturing hub.
• Security Dilemmas in the Indo-Pacific:Even if the US and China talk peace, border and maritime disputes may continue, especially for neighbours like India.
• Diplomatic Balancing Fatigue: India must manage its relations with multiple groups at once, increasing diplomatic pressure and confusion.
  Eg: India’s active role in G20, BRICS, and Quad shows how difficult it is to balance between competing power blocs.

Conclusion

The Busan peace talks may mark a pragmatic truce, not the end of great-power competition. For middle powers like India, the task ahead is to preserve strategic autonomy, deepen regional coalitions like Quad and I2U2, and shape emerging global norms on AI, trade, and security. Their resilience will define whether managed coexistence becomes a stable order or a new form of dependency.

DOWNLOAD PDF