External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Sunday said the United States had “deliberately become a lonelier power”, describing Washington’s strategic repositioning and China’s rise as the two major forces reshaping the global order. He argued that intensifying competition between the world’s two biggest powers was pushing emerging and middle powers towards greater self-reliance, diversification and flexible partnerships.
Speaking at the Munich Leaders Meeting in New Delhi, Jaishankar said the present international landscape was primarily marked by a “radical repositioning” of the US. He described the change as a “posture of choice”, suggesting Washington had consciously moved towards a position in which it was more willing to act with fewer partners.
China’s rise
Jaishankar identified China’s emergence as the other defining feature of the changing international system. He pointed to Beijing’s economic weight, including its substantial share of global manufacturing, and said those capabilities were increasingly translating into political influence.
The result, he said, was “very sharp competition” between Washington and Beijing that was no longer confined to the two countries themselves. The rivalry had led to the “weaponisation” of whatever leverage countries possessed even as their economies remained deeply interconnected.
Middle powers assert themselves
Against this backdrop, Jaishankar said emerging and middle powers were becoming increasingly conscious of their interests and capabilities. Greater self-reliance was becoming a common feature of their strategies, with India’s emphasis on “Atmanirbhar” reflecting a broader international trend.
Such countries were increasingly asking what capabilities they could bring to negotiations rather than simply aligning themselves with one of the major powers. Diversification and de-risking, he said, had consequently become important considerations extending beyond economics to security and strategic partnerships.
No need for complete agreement
Jaishankar argued that the emerging global architecture would not necessarily be built around traditional alliances requiring countries to share identical positions across issues. Instead, cooperation could increasingly be based on sufficient convergence in particular areas.
Countries no longer needed complete agreement or an overwhelming congruence of interests before working together, he said. Having enough “touch points” could provide the foundation for cooperation, allowing countries to develop issue-specific partnerships while retaining differences elsewhere.
Quad to BRICS
Jaishankar cited the Quad as an example of countries cooperating around specific strategic interests. He also pointed to connectivity initiatives including the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, the International North-South Transport Corridor and the Northern Sea Route as examples of new arrangements taking shape.
BRICS represented another model, he said, where countries believed their collective voice carried greater weight than their individual positions. He also cited India-backed initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure.
The examples illustrated what Jaishankar described as an increasingly flexible international system in which the same country could work with different partners across different platforms instead of being locked permanently into one geopolitical bloc.
India’s opportunity
Jaishankar also placed India within this changing hierarchy, arguing that the country had the potential to move rapidly upwards over the coming years. He pointed to the prospect of decades of high economic growth and India’s demographic profile as important advantages.
He suggested that India may not necessarily have to replicate the conventional industrialisation path followed by earlier economic powers. Technological change and new economic possibilities could allow the country to pursue a more contemporary development trajectory.
A fluid hierarchy
The External Affairs Minister said the category of “middle powers” itself would not remain static. Some countries would rise from it, some would retain their position and others could slip down the international hierarchy as economic and strategic capabilities changed.
His broader argument was that a more fluid global order was taking shape — one in which countries would cooperate when their interests converged, develop arrangements around specific agendas and retain considerable freedom in choosing partners. In such a system, de-risking, diversification and strategic flexibility would increasingly replace the rigid alignments that characterised earlier periods of great-power competition.