Pallbearers of the 'liberal order'
A summit finds that countries are being pragmatic in the pursuit of national interests
Share
 "Satarupa Bhattacharjya")
 "Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar at the Raisina summit")
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar at the Raisina summit. Photo: Raisina Dialogue
This year’s Raisina Dialogue underscored a trend. Countries are pursuing diplomacy only to advance national interests, especially at a time when the Western-led global order, in place since the end of
World War II (1945), has collapsed and US President Donald Trump has made “America first” his country’s foreign
policy priority.
The international security conference, annually hosted by India’s Ministry of External Affairs and the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) think tank since 2016, was held over March 5-7 in New Delhi. Although the Munich Security Conference (1963) and the Shangri-La Dialogue (2002) in Singapore are older, that the India summit has risen in profile was evident by the presence of Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh, who called the United States (US)-Israel war against his country existential.
Some other speakers expressed their concern about how the US has been conducting diplomacy around the world, and to an extent China. While the US is the sole superpower, China is challenging it through economic, technological and military means despite significant gaps.
 "South Korea's KF-21 fighter aircraft")
Sitting beside Finnish President Alexander Stubb, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said, “Let’s be honest, whose order was it? It was by the West, from the West and for the West.”
He said, looking back, “the expectation that we can freeze a 1945 or a 1989 (the fall of the Berlin Wall) forever was not very realistic” and the nostalgia did not consider the forces propelling the change in the world order.
Stubb’s new book The Triangle of Power that was also discussed (he was the chief guest) argues, with the “liberal order breaking down”, the time has come for a rebalance of power, which he sees distributed among the global West, the East and the South.
Jaishankar praised Stubb for bringing out the divisions within the Western world rather than looking at things only from the binary of the West and the East, and said conceptually the “global South matters”, adding that the two big changes this decade would relate to technology and demography. In his view, the global South should not be seen as sloganeering or clever diplomacy, but something that has emanated from a shared historical experience — colonialism.
He said the world will become “much more multipolar, because no country today has hegemony over so many domains that it is an overall hegemon. It’s not just the distribution of gross domestic product and capabilities.”
He added that people cannot completely lose sight of past experiences to project the future, but structurally, the era
when powers put up an order that everyone has to follow is over. “If multipolarity is here to stay, then — the issue is not against multilateralism — you can have multipolarity with
or without multilateralism. The question is of how much multilateralism.”
Without naming China that leads multilateral platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, of which India is a member, Jaishankar said, the success of multilateralism should not be based on the weakening
of multipolarity.
The United Nations (UN) was meant to check unilateral military action. But since the US intervention in the Balkans 30 years ago, the UN has been sidelined as an arbitrator, according to an ORF note. “The UN Security Council (UNSC) is at the heart of this erosion; its five members’ procedural allegiance to multilateralism is often eroded by a reliance on unilateral military action, economic coercion and ad hoc coalitions of convenience.”
The US, China, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK) and France are the five permanent members of the UNSC. India’s bid for a seat at the table has reportedly been snubbed by China.
Jaishankar said the global West was “a unified term”, with cultural, political and strategic links until recently, and it still exists, but less cohesive than before. That kind of cohesion and solidarity does not exist in the global East. Many countries that envisage themselves as the global East think of themselves as strong national players and less collectively, he added.
It is unclear if the reference was mostly to China.
Even so, India is increasingly questioning the so-called rules-based order in public forums like China has been doing through its state media.
US foreign policy
The world after WWII had a clear vision for US foreign policy, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said on the event’s opening day. To contain the spread of communism from the erstwhile Soviet Union to smaller countries. India had formulated a clear policy of its own, that of nonalignment, to balance the East and the West, and to avoid taking sides in the Cold War.
After that an assessment was missing, he said. The US had “a massive military and diplomatic footprint all over the world” and instead of having a national debate about what the purpose of US foreign policy was after the Cold War, “we just let it all happen by default”. He blamed previous administrations of the Democratic Party for bungling.
“Over the last several decades, American foreign policy had descended into a toxic brew of moralism and impotence,” Landau said.
“President Trump with his ‘America-first’ foreign policy has made it very clear that our objectives are to make our country safer, stronger and more prosperous. That doesn’t mean we don’t want to do things that also advance the interests of other countries. But it recognises that the purpose of the American foreign policy is to advance our national interests.”
“We are not a charity organisation, we are not the UN,” he said, adding that the US can now focus on economic and commercial policy as a key objective. The US will not repeat what he called past mistakes — aiding
China’s economic rise only to later realise that China had become a competitor. The US will approach economic partnerships such as with India with a greater strategic and hard-nosed transparency.
On the last day of the conference, Jaishankar offered a rebuttal, saying India’s place in the world will be self-defined, based on the country’s strength, not by the mistakes of others.
The closing session, titled “convergence before consensus”, detailed the pragmatic approach to international diplomacy.
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri called for the reform of global institutions, and said while “shared values” are important, they are not sufficient for partnerships when solutions are needed, and that the time is ripe to move to “shared value” in relations between or among countries.
Stephen Harper, former prime minister of Canada, said the US and China are unapologetic and not seeking anybody’s consent in conducting their affairs in a world that is more fractured and riskier than before.
For middle or emerging powers such as India and Canada, the choice is to adapt.
Comfort Ero, president and CEO, International Crisis Group, a Western non-profit, said the middle powers have demonstrated their ability to talk. “Because if you can’t safeguard your choice, as a sovereign nation, it becomes hard to think about what the value looks like, what the rules look like.”
Philippe Varin, chairman, International Chamber of Commerce, France, said, tariffs have been weaponised, without naming the US.
He said the World Trade Organisation should reform. Last year, countries violated some 3,000 WTO rules,
he added.
According to another ORF note, countries find themselves in “accidental alignments”, pulled together by structural forces, overlapping incentives and the complex logic of multilateral platforms. Countries with political differences or land disputes might still collaborate on investment priorities and those competing over technology could work on the climate crisis.
For instance, India and China have coordinated their positions on climate change at the UN despite the decades long border dispute.
Defence in the new world
Discussing the convergence of artificial intelligence, autonomy and dependable energy sources as shaping deterrence, Chief of the Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan referred to a US Department of Defense (officially the Department of War) memo that encourages the country’s armed forces to use more AI in warfighting.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already playing a major role in the ongoing wars — in decision support, targeting, and for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Until recently, military heft was based on platforms — both quantity and quality — but today “what you need additionally is data, networks and integration”. Combat is complex, with many domains at play. He said AI and weapons autonomy help to make timely and correct decisions.
Chief of Staff, armed forces of the Philippines, General Romeo S Brawner Junior, said, AI and autonomous systems will reshape war. The archipelago will have small nuclear plants to generate electricity across its 7,100 islands, as well as for the military industry.
He mentioned that a 500-megawatt data centre will be set up to house 1,000 computer servers.
The idea of short and decisive wars may draw questions, Indian Navy chief Admiral Dinesh Tripathi said during a different session, adding that the post-WWII peace dividend has ended.
India has learned lessons from its four-day conflict with Pakistan last year, plus, from the Russia-Ukraine war
(in its fourth year), Israel’s war in Gaza and is now watching West Asia.
One lesson is that India needs “an evolved” defence-industrial complex.
When safeguarding national security, a country should not only produce at scale but be prepared for quick technological changes, he said.“As an operational man, I would certainly look at rapid adaptation. Depth and inventory.”
India has defence deals with the US and France. But India still imports 38 per cent (2020-24 Sipri data)
of its military equipment from Russia. The Indian government recently approved proposals worth $25 billion
to buy Russian S-400 air defence systems, among other items. Does that make defence-industrial cooperation with the Western world difficult?
“You must have heard of ‘strategic autonomy’ and it’s not only India,” he said, because of what is happening, whether it’s the democratisation of dual-use technology or the monopolisation of resources or the weaponisation of supply chains, all these are forcing many countries to opt for self-reliance. He did not name China or the US.
India’s new defence model is co-production and co-development. “As a country, we are fully aware of how to work with many partners, and Russia happens to be one partner.”
Chief of joint defence capabilities, Australia, Lieutenant General Susan Coyle said her country has a history
of working with many other countries, which in some cases span decades or centuries. “We want to continue.”
Australia is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network with the US, the UK, New Zealand and Canada. The alliance was formed during WWII and formalised in 1946.
Australia, like others, wants more military platforms and capacity, she said, adding that the security
agreement among her country, the US and the UK, called AUKUS, is “the perfect example” of an information and
technology-sharing platform.
At the end of the conference, one thing became clear: countries will do business in just the way they individually deem fit.
Written By
Satarupa Bhattacharjya
Satarupa Bhattacharjya is a journalist with 25 years of work experience in India, China and Sri Lanka. She covered politics, government and policy in the past. Now, she writes on defence and geopolitics.
 "Satarupa Bhattacharjya")
First Published: Apr 10 2026 | 7:00 AM IST
In this article :