Summary of Key Points
Shivshankar Menon, former Indian National Security Advisor, stated in an interview that the world is currently in a state of "drift"—the old order has collapsed, and no new one has yet emerged. He also emphasized that a "unified global order has always been an historical exception." The limitations of military power have become evident in conflicts such as those between Russia and Ukraine, as well as between the United States, Israel, and Iran. Although there is an increase in conflicts, all parties will ultimately seek partial coordination. Menon pointed out that the BRICS countries are not a geopolitical organization and thus cannot establish a new global order; instead, they should focus on the practical issues facing developing nations, such as debt and energy security. India adheres to a foreign policy of "strategic autonomy" and does not align itself with any particular bloc. He expressed optimism about Sino-Indian relations, suggesting that both countries should take control of their bilateral ties and avoid external interference, as there is significant potential for cooperation in the future.
Detailed Interpretation
1. The Global Order: An Historical Exception, Moving Towards Fragmentation
Menon believes that a "complete global order" is rare; instead, we often see regional or sector-specific rules. The old order, dominated by the United States after World War II, is collapsing for two reasons: first, the distribution of power is no longer concentrated (the U.S. GDP once accounted for 40% of the world's total, but now China, the U.S., and Canada combined account for less than 50%); second, there have been changes in technology and threats (non-traditional challenges such as energy revolutions, AI, and cybersecurity have become new areas of competition). In the future, there will be no unified global order; instead, regions (e.g., ASEAN) and sectors (e.g., energy, trade) will develop their own coordination mechanisms, with limited cooperation on issues of common concern (for example, despite differences, Sino-U.S. relations remain relatively stable).
2. Military Power Is Not Omnipotent: Conflicts Reveal Limits
Menon used several examples to illustrate the limitations of military force:
- The U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict: The United States aimed to overthrow the Iranian regime but ended up with an enhanced Iranian presence, as the Revolutionary Guard gained more influence.
- The Russia-Ukraine conflict: Russia's military superiority did not translate into a political victory; instead, it led to a protracted war.
He argued that the increase in conflicts is due to the lack of an orderly framework, leading countries to take risks (such as in Sudan and Yemen). However, he noted that even the strongest military and economic powers cannot achieve all their goals, highlighting the growing difficulty and cost of resolving issues through force.
3. The BRICS Countries: Focusing on Development, Not a "New Order"
Menon clarified that the BRICS is not a tight-knit organization like NATO or the EU; it is merely a platform for developing countries to cooperate. He explained that the reasons for this include:
- The low level of institutionalization within the BRICS and the diverse interests of its members (for instance, Iran and the UAE have regional conflicts, and China and India also have differences).
- No country has a clear plan for a new global order; rather, there is dissatisfaction with the existing systems (e.g., the U.S. initiative "Make America Great Again" aims to reform the existing system, not to create a new one).
What should the BRICS do? Menon suggested focusing on the practical needs of developing countries, such as establishing a new development bank to address financing issues, promoting supply chain resilience, energy security, and debt relief. He emphasized that managing internal differences requires separating issues—similar to how ASEAN separates territorial disputes from economic cooperation, starting with actions that all members agree on.
4. Indian Foreign Policy: "Strategic Autonomy" as a Core Principle
Menon stressed India's traditional foreign policy of non-alignment, now referred to as "strategic autonomy":
- India does not join military alliances and avoids getting involved in others' conflicts (it maintains cooperation with China, the United States, Iran, and Israel simultaneously).
- Foreign policy decisions are based on India's own interests, free from external influence (for example, Sino-Indian relations should not be determined by the U.S.).
In a world without an established order, this approach allows for flexibility and prevents being tied to others' agendas.
5. Sino-Indian Relations: Improving, with Autonomy as the Key
Menon is optimistic about Sino-Indian relations:
- The current situation is much better than during the border conflicts in 2020, with resumed direct flights, normal visa issuance, and increased dialogue (including a strategic dialogue scheduled for later this year).
- The key principle is to maintain control over bilateral relations and not let third parties (such as the U.S.) influence them.
- He predicts that economic cooperation will strengthen, political dialogues will improve, and high-level meetings may take place soon. Menon believes that both China and India have the capability to manage their differences, and cooperation is beneficial for their development.
Conclusion
Menon's main points highlight that the world is moving from a unified order towards fragmented coordination, and countries need to adapt pragmatically. Military power is not a solution to all problems; the BRICS should focus on development, and China and India should take control of their relations to address uncertainties. These insights are valuable for understanding the current international landscape and Sino-Indian dynamics.