top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger...

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger geopolitical churn in which alliances, energy, trade, currencies and economic coercion are becoming interconnected. India finds itself almost at its centre. The emerging Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan security equation deserves particular attention. Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial and energy influence; Türkiye possesses considerable military strength, NATO experience and an expanding defence industry; Pakistan brings a large military establishment and nuclear capability with the open support of Washington. Any arrangement containing a collective-defence commitment naturally acquires significance beyond ordinary diplomatic cooperation. Alongside it, another strategic convergence has gradually developed among India, Israel and the UAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as a formal military alliance. Yet geopolitics does not operate through defence treaties alone. India's extensive defence and technology relationship with Israel, its rapidly expanding economic and strategic partnership with the UAE, and the UAE-Israel relationship following the Abraham Accords have created considerable common ground. I2U2—bringing together India, Israel, the UAE and the United States—added another institutional dimension. Thus, without necessarily becoming opposing military camps, two interesting strategic formations are visible across West Asia: Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan and the looser India–UAE–Israel convergence. Balancing Challenge India faces a similar balancing challenge. The Gulf is not a distant geopolitical theatre for New Delhi. Nearly nine million Indians live and work there. India's energy security, investments, trade and remittance flows are closely connected with the region. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor also requires relative stability across this geography. Polarisation in West Asia can therefore rapidly become an Indian economic and strategic problem. There is another question Indian planners cannot ignore. If a future India-Pakistan confrontation escalates, how would any collective-defence commitment involving Pakistan be interpreted by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye? It would be alarmist to assume that either country would automatically enter a conflict against India. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has substantial economic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with New Delhi. Nevertheless, defence planners are paid to examine possibilities before they become crises. While these equations develop in India's neighbourhood, economic pressure is emerging from Washington. The US Senate has voted 86–11 for legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia by targeting major purchasers of Russian energy. The measure could authorise tariffs reaching 100 per cent against goods from countries continuing large-scale purchases of Russian oil and gas, with India among those potentially exposed. China is powerful enough to shrug off similar challenges from the West." However this does not mean that America has already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on India. Further legislative steps remain necessary, and presidential waiver provisions are important. But the overwhelming Senate vote carries a political message that New Delhi cannot dismiss. Tariffs are no longer merely tools of trade protection; they have become instruments of geopolitical coercion. Washington's argument is understandable: revenues from Russian petroleum help sustain Moscow's economy during the Ukraine war, and reducing those revenues increases pressure on Russia. But in that case what about European countries who too were/are customers of Russian oil? India's question is equally legitimate: who should determine where India purchases the energy required by more than 1.4 billion people? If Russian crude remains commercially advantageous and helps contain domestic energy costs, New Delhi cannot reasonably be expected to make every energy decision according to another country's geopolitical priorities. Strategic partnership cannot become strategic obedience. This is where BRICS enters the larger picture. India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and will host its leaders at an unusually sensitive moment. BRICS is no longer merely the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its expansion has considerably increased its demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. More importantly, discussions around BRICS increasingly touch a sensitive nerve in Washington: alternative payment mechanisms, local-currency trade, development finance and the possibility of gradually reducing dependence upon the dollar-dominated international financial system. The BRICS Summit this time is poised to take some decisive steps which may affect western interests especially US. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Heavy Lies the Box: The Hidden Perils of Misdeclared Cargo

The humble shipping container is being undermined by a toxic mix of deception, negligence and regulatory blind spots.

In 2004, Efthymios Mitropoulos, then Secretary General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), delivered a chilling truth when he said “ships transport around 90 percent of global goods. Their absence would mean half the world will freeze and the other half will starve.” The figures still hold. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), as of its 2023 review, merchant ships carry about 90 percent of dry, oil and gas cargo by volume, and nearly 75 percent by value.

 

And at the heart of this logistical lifeline lies a steel box - the shipping container, globalization’s unsung hero. Standardized containerization, which took to the high seas in 1966 with the S.S. Fairland, was a quiet revolution. By minimizing manual handling, it slashed cargo damage and pilferage, cutting theft rates nearly in half. In doing so, it fuelled the rise of just-in-time supply chains and supercharged global trade. But a half-century on, that very system is being quietly sabotaged - not by pirates or geopolitical friction, but by unscrupulous shippers and freight forwarders willing to fudge the truth for a discount.

 

A recent study carried out by the authors of this article lays bare the growing menace. Misdeclared container cargo, whether by weight, nature or packaging, has become an Achilles heel in the global logistics chain and is endangering lives, ships, oceans and coastal communities.

 

Let us start with weight. A container declared as 8 metric tonnes but actually weighing 18 can become a lethal liability at sea. Loaded high in a stack, such a container renders a ship ‘tender’ - a maritime term for top-heaviness, thus making it prone to dangerous rolling in rough waters.

 

That increased motion puts stress far beyond design limits on the lashings and structures securing containers. The inevitable result is that containers snap loose and plunge into the ocean. Worse still, the ship itself can lose balance. The MSC Elsa-3, which sank off the west coast of India in May this year is a case in point. Investigations point to stability issues aggravated by weight misdeclaration.

 

Such instances are not outliers. A Lloyd’s Register report lists misdeclared weight and contents as the third leading cause of container ship accidents. In 2012, a Ukrainian customs study over a two-week period found that 56 percent of containers weighed more than declared in their shipping documentation.

 

Chemical Time Bombs

But if under-declared weight is dangerous, misdeclared hazardous cargo can be apocalyptic. Dangerous goods require precise stowage. Exothermic cargo, or goods that emit heat, must never be placed next to flammable liquids. That is basic chemistry. But what is stable in a warehouse can become volatile at sea. Marine conditions can trigger thermal runaway, combustion or explosions. Unlike oil tankers, container ships are not equipped for chemical fires nor are seafarers trained to combat them.

 

The X-Press Pearl, which caught fire and exploded off Colombo in May 2021 with over 70 containers of hazardous cargo, is a tragic reminder. Sri Lanka is now seeking over $1 billion in damages. Other disasters in the past decade read like a litany of negligence: MSC Flaminia (2012), Maersk Honam (2018), ONE Apus (2020), Maersk Essen and MSC Messina (2021), and Grande Brasile and Wan Hai 503 more recently.

 

Fractured Trust

The problem lies in a global system predicated on trust that is now routinely betrayed. As Delhi-based logistics veteran Daya Saran notes, the trust between shipper and receiver is often broken in the race to undercut freight costs. The system allows shippers and freight forwarders to declare container contents and weights themselves. Customs agencies, operating under the Kyoto Convention and the SAFE Framework of the World Customs Organization (WCO), are not mandated or even equipped to verify each shipment. Ship owners, for their part, cannot be expected to police the contents of the millions of boxes their vessels carry.

 

Even the IMO’s 2016 rule requiring a Verified Gross Mass (VGM) declaration has failed to arrest the trend. Compliance is weak, enforcement weaker still. The result is a regulatory Bermuda Triangle in which accountability evaporates.

 

Plugging the Gaps

The authors propose a more robust framework, starting with a simple truth that relying solely on declarations from shippers and freight forwarders is no longer tenable.

 

First, there ought to be an independent, government-approved verification body (similar to ship classification societies) to inspect containers at the stuffing stage. These verifications would become a prerequisite for customs clearance. Since stuffing is the most critical point in a container’s journey, this reform could nip deception at the bud.

 

Second, all shippers and freight forwarders must obtain an IMO number, thus creating a unique global identity for each actor, and tag it to every shipping bill and customs manifest. This would allow for better tracking and accountability across jurisdictions.

 

Training must be overhauled. While the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) already mandates training for shippers handling dangerous goods, the maritime world lacks a parallel requirement. That gap must be closed, making such certification mandatory under marine law. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the consequences of misdeclaration must be made sharper. False declarations should be treated as cognisable offences in all IMO member states. Punishments, both financial and criminal, must be deterrent, not symbolic.

 

As always, the costs of complacency are borne not by the deceitful, but by the dutiful. Ship owners and seafarers pay with their vessels and lives. Coastal states suffer when toxic cargo leaches into the sea. The oceans, already strained by climate change and pollution, are left to absorb yet another man-made assault.


The IMO and the WCO, jointly responsible for shipping safety and global customs standards, must take the lead. A joint resolution mandating global reform of container stuffing and verification is overdue. So too is leadership from national maritime authorities like India’s Directorate General of Shipping, which could table a formal proposal.

 

The steel box transformed global trade. But today, its contents are more uncertain and more dangerous than ever before. If the international community continues to look the other way, it may not be long before another X-Press Pearl or MSC Elsa-3 makes headlines. Only this time, the cost might be far greater.

 

(Capt. Singhal is a shipping and marine consultant and member, Singapore Shipping Association. Capt. Saggi is ex-Nautical Advisor to Government of India)

Comments

bottom of page