Amit's Blog

Is the U.S. Justified in Considering a North American Alliance Doctrine? Since World War II, the U.S. has been the backbone of global security through NATO and other alliances, spending 3.4–3.7% of GDP ($778–968 billion annually, 2020–2024), enabling allies like Japan (1.4% GDP) and Germany (1.8%) to prioritize economic growth. Frustration over NATO allies’ underfunding—only 11 of 31 met the 2% GDP target in 2023—has spurred interest in a North American alliance with Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central American states. This doctrine could secure the Arctic, counter drug cartels, and reduce U.S. defense costs ($150 billion annually for 700 overseas bases). Canada benefits from low spending (1.5% GDP), Greenland leverages strategic relevance, and Mexico strengthens USMCA trade. However, reducing NATO commitments risks weakening global deterrence, emboldening Russia (7.1% GDP, $149 billion) and China (1.7%, $314 billion), and disrupting $18 trillion in U.S. exports, potentially cedin...

India: Navigating Trade, Defense, and Diplomacy in a Multipolar World India, with a $4.1 trillion GDP and a youthful demographic, stands as a pivotal global power, leveraging its multi-alignment strategy to navigate the U.S.-China rivalry, assert leadership in BRICS, and expand trade in goods and services with the United States, China, Russia, the European Union (EU), ASEAN, Quad countries (U.S., Japan, Australia), Middle Eastern energy producers, and Turkey. As the fastest-growing large economy and a voice of the Global South, India balances economic growth, defense modernization, and diplomatic finesse while addressing regional challenges from Pakistan’s China-Turkey alignment. This India-centric note provides an in-depth analysis of its geopolitical positioning, BRICS role, trade dynamics (updated for FY 2024-25, including services), defense procurement and reliance, and threats in trade and defense, contextualizing Pakistan’s challenges. 1. India’s Geopolitical Positioning: Multi-A...

The Free Market Myth: Power, Politics, and Protectionism     Free market economics, envisioned as a system of unfettered trade, minimal government interference, perfect competition, and unrestricted factor mobility, remains a theoretical construct rather than a practical reality. Geopolitical imperatives—state power, security, and strategic interests—consistently override market principles, as evidenced by historical mercantilism, Cold War trade blocs, and modern sanctions. Social and political pressures in affluent nations restrict labor mobility, thwarting a free labor market, while technology protectionism, driven by national security concerns, fragments global innovation. The World Trade Organization (WTO), often misrepresented as a beacon of free trade, is a pragmatic compromise, managing trade tensions through rules that permit tariffs, subsidies, and exemptions. Additional barriers—market failures, corporate monopolies, inequality, cultural norms, and financial controls...