The Prime Minister in his Independence Day address referred to the new emerging global order in the postCovid period. In this context, it is important to examine the nature of the present global flux, of which the intensifying SinoUS rivalry and the emergence of mega economic formations are bound to have a significant impact on India’s strategic choices.

Intermediate powers, which are undoubtedly significant players on the global stage, are not yet in a position to project power in the same league as the United States or China. Both intermediate and smaller powers are worried about the impact, especially economic, of being caught in the middle of another great power rivalry. Cold War analogies are currently in vogue to understand the nature of US-China relations.

Many commentators have drawn parallels to past great power rivalries, arguing that the current China-US rivalry amounts to a ‘New Cold War’. The term has been popularised in media outlets globally spanning topics from manufacturing to military tensions, technology, and Taiwan. This formulation is challenged by scholars who argue that it over-simplifies the complex reality of geopolitical and economic competition between China and the US, which prevails within the ambit of a single international system.

Christopher Blattman’s 2022 work, Why We Fight, is often quoted to suggest the evolving Sino-US relationship displays several of the characteristics which can be the causes of war. In our view, however, the ChinaUS relationship will not be adjudicated militarily. Instead, as Ryan Hass has argued, the crux of competition will be over which governance, social, and economic system will prove capable of outperforming the other in raising the welfare levels of its population while at the same time protecting the environment.

But could this clean-cut framework be wishful thinking? Strategic thinkers who assert that the US-China conflict is driven by geopolitics, not ideology, argue that China’s rise inevitably clashes with the established superpower, the US, regardless of their respective political systems; that geopolitical rivalry is inherent in a rising power challenging the existing hegemon. The counter-argument is that in reality, ideology has always played an outsized role in driving conflict. Arguably, many tensions would be avoided if the US was dealing with a democratic China.

Further, even if Washington chooses to ignore this ideological dimension, many in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) won’t go along. They already see the conflict through an ideological lens. This becomes very clear in both Beijing’s language and its actions, as Andrei Lungu brought out in his 2021 essay ~ The USChina Clash Is About Ideology After All.

Geopolitical conflict is more accurately mirrored, for example, in the case of ChinaIndia relations. The Chinese leadership is not afraid that India wants to promote democracy and threaten the party-state’s stability. For India, China could go democratic tomorrow and it wouldn’t matter as long as the border issue remains active, Beijing continues to prop up Pakistan, and China persists with its policy of tightening the ‘string of pearls’ around India. In contrast, ideological fears have always underpinned Beijing’s and Washington’s views of each other.

Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s decision to strengthen relations with the US, like the economic reforms of the 1980s, was accepted as necessary for China to be rich and glorious, but never accepted as a path toward democratic transition. Deng himself characterised the prodemocracy protestors who were crushed during the Tiananmen Square uprising as the “scum of the Chinese nation.” Conservatives in the CCP and the Chinese armed forces have insisted that democracy was a Western plot to bring chaos to China by subverting the CCP and promoting Western values.

The collapse of the USSR only reinforced this belief. Clearly, the conservatives, piggybacking on the rise of Xi Jinping since 2008, have seen their views prevail. To add to the present flux in global conditions, the international system premised upon Pax Americana which emerged after WW II is under pressure and global institutions are slipping into irrelevance.

This is unfortunately reflected in the sorry state of the United Nations today. China has gone ahead with and is pursuing the creation of a parallel universe of multilateral institutions. Simultaneously, in the post-globalisation era now at hand, the world is getting divided into three large trading blocs ~ the RCEP, NAFTA, and EU that are tending to overtake the spaghetti bowl effect. Thus, the world is surely headed towards multipolarity that will take concrete shape over the next two decades during which the Chinese economy will surpass the US in size and Europe will retain or even increase its share in the global economy.

Europe will try and prevent the emergence of a ‘messy duopoly’ between the US and China, but may have to accept it if its internal dynamic deteriorates. Either of these alternatives yields the unsavoury prospect of India being left out and on its own. Preserving its strategic autonomy, and engaging with both/all sides in varying degree while remaining focussed laser-like on achieving rapid and sustainable economic growth, is perhaps the best way forward for India. Having opted out of the three mega regional trade blocs, India should actively consider establishing a fourth trading bloc with African and West Asian economies. The momentum of economic growth, which is both sustainable and inclusive, will now inevitably shift to the Indian Ocean Rim with an extension into Sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a rising economic entity given its vast reserves of critical minerals and a demographic structure that will remain robust even beyond 2060, when India starts aging. India’s difficult but incredible success in simultaneously managing its three-fold transition viz economic, social and political combined with its commitment to tackling the environment challenge makes it a powerful exemplar for countries in West Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, India has longstanding, strong ties with these countries.

It is time, therefore, for the MEA to put out the message that postings in these countries are a better bet for career advancement than hankering after assignments in OECD or ASEAN countries. This initiative has the potential to put India on par with leaders of the three other trading and economic blocs. If successfully executed, it may also propel India to the high table of global governance

(The writers are, respectively, Chairman and Fellow, Pahle India Foundation)