Beyond G2: Why middle powers must build a new order independently

The G2 benefit from their ability to craft rules to suit themselves. They cannot be trusted to reform anything

The world is in a bad place right now. Two unending wars, and two superpowers throwing established rules to the wind — one through military might, both by weaponising trade — make this a particularly dangerous time for everyone. Any chance of re-establishing a rules-based order seems limited.

 

A lot depends on whether middle powers like India can band together to either negotiate jointly with the superpowers for a change in the world order, or to create an alternative rules-based framework for those willing to sign up. 

At the recent Davos conference, Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, made waves when he declared the obvious: That the old rules-based order was fiction. 

But Mr Carney did not talk of a world that would only be transactional in nature as old assumptions about a fair global system evaporate. He spoke of building a new coalition of middle powers so that they did not have to negotiate alone with the superpowers. He argued: “In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice — compete with each other for favour, or to combine to create a third path with impact... The middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

 

With the Israel-US-Iran war now opening up further fissures in geopolitics — the European Union and Japan have declined to join the West Asian war to protect sea lanes in the Strait of Hormuz — the time is now ripe for building a new coalition of middle powers, where India can also take the lead to reform global institutions, including the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, to name just a few. The US has not helped matters by withdrawing from over 60 global organisations, while China, despite claiming to be a supporter of free trade, continues to squeeze the world by flexing its rare earths monopoly and undercutting most global manufacturers by dumping goods in various markets.

 

Even as the US has been raising tariffs to force a reduction in its trade deficits (now temporarily suspended due to a US Supreme Court decision clipping the President’s powers), China has reported its biggest trade surplus ever of $1.2 trillion in 2025. The G2 (US and China) cannot, by themselves, promise a stable, rules-based future.

 

The case for a coalition of middle powers to start building a fairer geopolitical order by demanding reform of old institutions is now stronger than ever. Let’s call this new coalition R7 — the R standing for reforms, and the Seven representing the most important middle powers that have a vested interest in change. The initial members of the R7 could be India, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, and Canada, though it is equally possible to expand the R7 to R10 or R12 by adding more middle powers from Europe, Latin America and Africa and Asia. The R7 represents 2.2 billion people, more than a quarter of the world. If the EU formally becomes a part of the R7+, the pro-reforms group would represent 35 per cent of the world.

 

The aim of the R7 is not to create a closed club, but to champion reforms in global and multilateral organisations, with more members being added once the initial ideas are formulated. Keeping the initial club small will enable the creation of a broad set of goals and principles to guide the reforms. The two superpowers, the US-China and Russia, can be excluded in the initial stages, unless they are willing to engage with the reformist agenda. They may resist or try to weaken the R7 by pressuring some members to opt out. The old permanent members of the UN, the United Kingdom and France, can be included once they commit to reforming the institutions created in the late 1940s, which means curtailing their own exorbitant powers.

 

The starting point for reforms, beginning with the UN Security Council, should be the proposal put forth by the G4 — Germany, Japan, India and Brazil — for expanding the UNSC’s permanent membership to 11 from the current five.

 

A key reform measure should be the abolition of the veto of permanent members, with voting on key resolutions being done on the basis of some kind of proportional voting based on population and economic size and/or contributions to UN peace-keeping operations. All unilateral actions to invade or attack countries should be deemed illegal under the new rules-based order, even if the justification used is human rights or some other high moral principle.

 

In the WTO, the new rules must not only seek fair trade, but periodic reviews of outcomes. Any country that faces persistent trade deficits or surpluses should be helped or forced to take measures to reverse this anomaly.  Trade always has losers and winners, and the purpose of having trade rules with periodic reviews is to see that the outcomes are not persistently perverse.

 

Organisations like the IMF or the World Bank cannot be the permanent preserve of the P5 countries or the US or China. The same goes for the top UN posts or posts at the WTO.

 

A fourth, possibly more controversial norm for the new world order, must be the avoidance of moral postures and norms that suit one kind of historical development or cultural preference over another. For example, democracy can be a shared value for some countries, but just because another country isn’t one should not make it an enemy of the rules-based order. Each country must be trusted to evolve in its own way, even if this may sometimes seem unacceptable to the others in the short to medium run.

 

Similarly, religious freedom cannot be defined only by the Christian experience or Abrahamic norms. There are other ways to define religious freedom, and its presence or absence cannot be a reason to discriminate against a member state of the UN. 

 

The middle powers, which till recently chose to work within an older order imposed on them by the superpowers, often because they also partially benefited from it (consider Canada, Japan and Europe), now need to lead the charge for change. India needs to be a moving spirit behind this transformation. Just as it was a prime mover of the non-aligned movement, the movement for reform of the big institutions of global order must be part of its core agenda. The current world disorder is not good for anyone, including the two big hegemons.

 

---

The author is a senior journalist