', 'auto');ga('send', 'pageview');
Join us   Log in   editor@ejsss.net.in  


Pages: 339-355

Date of Publication: 31-Jan-2024

Print Article   Download XML  Download PDF

The New Era of Globalism: Redefining Globalisation through International Initiatives, Alliances and Associations

Author: Anmol Rattan Singh

Category: International Relations


Globalisation, as the world’s transformative phenomenon, is emblematic of the convergence of diverse nations under an encompassing network characterised by intricate economic structures, moral frameworks, and shared political foundations. The contemporary iteration of globalisation is undeniably intertwined with the interests and strategic motivations of nation-states. Nevertheless, this manifestation grapples with three fundamental challenges: it impedes the progress of unfettered global trade, thus hindering the global economic agenda; it propagates disparities and exerts detrimental effects on democratic governance; and it does not consistently align with democratic principles. The dynamic interplay and diplomatic engagements among nations have spawned a well-defined international trade and cooperation framework. Notably, a novel paradigm of “alliance or coalition globalisation” is materialising, eclipsing national interests in favour of regional prosperity and shared interests among diverse nations. This evolving concept introduces a new “invisible hand” in the global capitalist model, focusing on regional economic development and connectivity as top priorities for modern nation-states. Consequently, it safeguards and advances regional interests. This paper elucidates how these emerging coalitions serve as catalysts for a global paradigm shift, reconfiguring the landscape of economic and commercial interactions worldwide. The mandates include upholding territorial integrity, non-interference by international organisations in domestic affairs, balanced roles within the global order, reforming the United Nations Security Council, and ensuring that a limited number of countries no longer dictate international objectives. This new wave of globalisation promises to reshape global dynamics to reflect a more equitable and cooperative international landscape.

Keywords: Globalisation, Strategy, Economic agenda, Coalition globalisation, Invisible hand, Territorial integrity, Connectivity, Network

DOI: 10.47362/EJSSS.2023.4303

DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.47362/EJSSS.2023.4303

Full Text:


Globalisation, as a term, defines the modern world in a nutshell: from culture to economy and politics, it unifies everything in its purview. In other words, globalisation refers to the turning point of the world–discovering and merging under a single and embraced network consisting of elegant fiscal arrangements, edifying morals and even similar political pillars. It is due to globalisation that the world follows identical patterns and traditions familiar to everyone worldwide. However, a couple of questions come to mind: How did the scope of globalisation reach this stage? Who is responsible for uniting the world economy? Are the economic aspects the sole driving force of global trends? If so, is it safe from the politics of states? Hopkins’s (2011, p.6) definition of modern globalisation best fits this narrative: two essential elements changed the meaning of globalisation: the “rise of nation states” and the “spread of industrialisation.” The function of nation-states and their leaders expanded significantly after the 1800s with the increasing state intervention in the economic sector.

Nation-states and their national and strategic appeals have directly impacted the contemporary notion of globalisation. The industrial setting increasingly demanded the incorporation of the state to ensure that industrialisation spread beyond the national boundaries and that “political developments fitted new economic needs based on industrialisation” (Hopkins, 2012, p.164). Hopkins (2011, p.164) elaborates that the international order is a product of “command and persuasion”; the free trading theories and charm ensured the latter, and the British colonial regime created the former. Tactically, national lands were recast as properties to intentionally develop a concept of ‘sovereignty’, which clarified the protection rationale. The ventures in the 21st century have revised and redefined the dimensions and duties of a nation-state. Initially, the “scope” referred to the objectives and processes used by states, and the “strength” of a nation’s power depended on its capacity to devise and implement policies (Boss et al., 2010, p.130). In the current world, the democratic ideals of the West are paramount, especially since the end of the Cold War. The increasing role of Western transnational organisations is aiding the smaller nations to achieve a more prominent role in the international community.

Multiple engagements and interactions between nations have resulted in the creation of a well-established trade and network system. To this day, the market plays an undeniable role in boosting the process and progress of globalisation. Sadly, globalisation encounters a puzzle that one cannot solve today through economics alone. Markets and exposure to new practices can cause great national insecurity; therefore, state intervention is a societal demand today. It is straightforward that as long as stronger nation-states are part of this process, fair and equivalent trading prospects will be periodic for smaller nations. The version of globalisation today faces challenges on three central premises: it creates obstacles for fiscal and political expansion of free trade, hampering the global economic agenda; it entails inequality and negative impacts on democratic regimes; and the international trading network does contradict democratic values (Bárcena & Porcile, 2022, p.273). However, is this true? The criticism could not foresee that regional organisations and projects representing mutual interests would become the lethal weapon of rising nation-states. Regional diplomacy holds the answer here, as seen with China’s rise in recent years. In China, facilitating foreign direct investment and using the government’s power to transfer international knowledge and expertise to local firms proved essential to integrating global trade networks and platforms (Bárcena & Porcile, 2022, p.277).

Interestingly, a new wave of ‘coalition globalisation’ is materialising, sweeping aside national interests in the name of regional interests and prosperity instead of being cultivated in a few nations. A new “invisible hand” – that we propose to be a symbiosis-driven-globalisation displays promise to evolve the capitalist economic model, integrating regional economic development and connectivity as priorities of modern nation-states, ensuring the development and protection of regional interests. The market here is the guiding force of global trends and patterns. However, this narrative has met resistance in recent years because of growing terrorism, extremism, regional competitors, the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitics. Due to the newly developing geopolitical rivalries, examining how and what changes are occurring to globalisation due to international projects and newly formed alliances is critical. The article unfolds in a meticulously structured manner, comprising four distinctive sections that collectively illuminate the evolving dynamics of global affairs. Commencing with “Towards a Symbiotic Globalisation,” the first section navigates the paradigm shift away from traditional power dynamics, underscoring the trajectory toward a more interconnected and interdependent global order. Setting the stage for a comprehensive exploration, the subsequent section, “Interplay and Engagements among Nations,” delves into the intricate relationships and collaborative efforts characterising the global stage. From economic interdependence to cultural exchanges and security alliances, this section encapsulates the multifaceted nature of interactions among nations within the framework of symbiotic globalisation.

Transitioning seamlessly, the third section, aptly named “Democratic Mandates of Emerging Coalitions,” unravels the democratic ethos inherent in the collective endeavours of these emergent coalitions. This section delves into the transformative potential of these coalitions in fostering inclusive decision-making and addressing global issues through democratic governance structures. The penultimate section forms a crucial bridge with a nuanced analysis under the title, “Coalition-themed Globalisation,” meticulously examining the role of specific coalitions, with a spotlight on the ASEAN Association and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. These regional partnerships uniquely contribute to shaping the global landscape, emphasising the significance of collaborative efforts in addressing shared challenges. Together, these four sections offer a comprehensive understanding of the profound impact these global shifts have on the world’s orientation and comprehension of the ongoing process of globalisation.

Towards a Symbiotic Globalisation

In the realm of international politics, the deconstruction of traditional state sovereignty, catalysed by rapid technological advancements, has given rise to a transformative paradigm of inter-state relations that is now recognised as symbiotic globalisation. The conventional understanding of state sovereignty, once considered sacrosanct, is undergoing a profound reevaluation as the global community grapples with the implications of an interconnected and interdependent world. The permeation of digital technologies, the ubiquity of instant communication, and the transcendence of geographical barriers have dismantled the traditional notions of borders and autonomy underpinning state sovereignty. This metamorphosis has given birth to a novel landscape where states are intricately intertwined in a complex web of economic, political, and technological relationships, necessitating a redefinition of their roles and responsibilities on the global stage. The emergence of symbiotic globalisation underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the evolving dynamics in international relations, as traditional power structures yield to the forces of technological progress, shaping a new and interconnected world order.

George (2001) articulated that this concept captures the intricate relationship between the modern state system and global capitalism, signalling a departure from traditional boundaries. The contemporary era witnesses a transformative phase wherein the economic dimension, influenced by a series of political decisions, emerges as a potent force propelling the global system beyond conventional constraints. Clarke (1997) further underscores this by emphasising the symbiotic relationship between external interactions and the internal dynamics of major states, introducing the concept of the “Competition State”. The recent financial collaboration among the Paris Group countries, including Japan, France, and bilateral support from India and China for Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring exemplifies the evolving paradigm of Symbiotic Globalisation. Furthermore, India’s strategic approach within the G20 reflects a commitment to intertwining internal policies with external considerations, exemplifying a symbiotic relationship at the national and global levels. The emphasis on a digital ecosystem policy further highlights the evolving nature of this symbiosis.

The commitment to fund transfers for achieving Net Zero carbon emissions in developing countries showcases a commitment to inclusive development and the establishment of symbiotic relationships within the global framework. Marking a departure from unilateral economic strategies, indicating a more interconnected and interdependent global order. The interconnectedness of global trade and financial flows becomes a critical component in understanding Symbiotic Globalisation. The shared narratives of China’s “Shared Future” and India’s “One Earth, One Family, One Future” exemplify the ideological alignment towards a collaborative, symbiotic world order. Symbiotic Globalisation extends to environmental cooperation, emphasising shared responsibility among nations. This collaborative approach seeks to address global environmental challenges collectively, recognising the interconnected nature of ecological systems. Nevertheless, would this balance out the power ranking of the big players? Rodrik (2011, p.19) identifies the problem that there is still no functional international mechanism and no governing body for the international society; the stronger states are all assertive in the international market because no one dares or can regulate their actions. The stronger governments will do as they please and retain their grasp on the international market (Rodrik, 2011). Rodrik (2011, p. 235) captures this sentiment perfectly by suggesting a new concept of “Capitalism 3.0”, where extreme connectivity is key between nations for prosperity; he further adds that the “global markets require global governance.” Rodrik (2011) explains that dominant countries can set and foist their version of the market on the other; the international coliseum has to be free of such one-sided narratives — globalisation must not force the locals to consume products irrelevant to their requirements. National projects aimed towards establishing developmental relations maintain a potential to change the democratic mode of exchange, which has remained the guiding force in maintaining fairness and global democratic order.

Interplay and Engagements among Nations

A grandiose example of an ambitious international project aimed towards inducing global interaction through trade is China’s “One Belt-One Road initiative”, launched in 2013, under the persuasion of the heritage of the ancient Silk Road. Winter (2019) observes it as a new rising “geo-cultural” powerplay that China successfully employed through the Chinese “One Belt and Road initiative.” Winter (2019, p.182) explains that the BRI unlocks new prospects, creating “a situation that sustains the intersections of culture, geopolitics, and infrastructure.” The sheer scale of the One Belt and One Road project enriches and clarifies China’s rising regional role. China could become the epicentre of “culture and geography” (Winter, 2019, p.182-183). Globalisation, by no stretch of the imagination, has enabled China to raise its economic policies. BRI is a skilfully constructed geopolitical scenario. The BRI entails six corridors providing regional connectivity to Asia, the Middle East, East Africa and Central Europe. Many view this project prominently as a strategy to “jump-start a new round of South-South cooperation” (Chen et al., 2021, p.36). The project is a work in progress propelled by “state actors that fund the initiative” and uses the term “geo-cultural” to symbolise competition in China’s neighbourhood (Lin et al., 2021, p. 9). Clearly, the Chinese ambition can challenge the democratic system of exchange and uplift nation-states and factions from “a one-world culture that is Western” (Barton, 2014, p. 1). In a speech in 2017, the Chinese president referred to ancient travellers who used the Silk Road in previous centuries. The statement mentioned the names of “Du Huan of China, Marco Polo of Italy and Ibn Battuta of Morocco” (Yamei, 2017). A unique observation here is that spiritual quests guided these figures of history, and the notion of sovereignty among nation-states did not exist in their time (Chong & Pham, 2020, p.2).

The Belt and Road Initiative harbours two elements that separate it from forming unique non-influential ties among people and states: it intentionally pushes for establishing state relations and lacks intuitive interactions among people (Chong & Pham, 2020, p. 3). The essence of this initiative is that it does not demand a transformation to the international and regional order. Instead, it forces the transformation, significantly enhancing the fiscal policies with China’s neighbours aiming to improve its western hemisphere by building economic corridors on land, maritime and railways; more than “140 countries are a part of this project” (Li et al., 2021, p.845). It widens China’s international reach while expanding the spectrum of globalism and the processes of globalisation. The Chinese president emphasised the project’s desire to promote “peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit”, like the principles of the Silk Road, which symbolises “The glory of the ancient silk routes shows that geographical distance is not insurmountable”(Yamei, 2017). A new era of globalisation is taking shape where the existing parameters of the Western idea of economic integration to promote harmony and democratic values face challenges. China’s project proposes a new expansionist idea similar to colonial expansion; China’s rise is symbolised by its blossoming manufacturing industry and capability to form long-lasting linkages (Chen et al., 2021, p.34). Even centuries back, China was never short of networks and connections. As Pomeranz (2000, p.121) states, the Asian farming industry was invariably way ahead of Europe, and its networks were also considerably strong; in the 1730s, China imported “80,000,000 pounds of sugar from Vietnam, a pattern that occurred annually.” This example suggests that the Chinese always knew how to build relationships. Over the years, China has accumulated credit and reputation by “building the world’s longest highways and largest high-speed train network in the shortest time as the anchoring parts of a massive new infrastructure system” (Chen et al., 2021, p.35). As with any new revolutionary aim, firm resistance awaits on the other side; however, there is a regional-global concern in this case.

The geopolitical characteristics interwoven with the BRI project heighten it beyond market ideas and monetary engagements to influential and cultural exchange. The Chinese government’s developmental approach is at the head of the BRI initiative, similar to the United States and its role in Western organisations. This initiative demands that states, especially those in close proximity to China, join the Chinese dragon and develop differently and uncommonly in the modern era. Globalisation as a process remains undefined in terms of its spatial place; it exists in “unequal cross-national diffusion of economic and political power” (Chen et al., 2021, p.32). The BRI can recalibrate the incredible rise of economic exchange resembling the conditions that created the current informal empire. The informal empire did not use force as a precedent for maturation and growth; “imperialism” was part of creating the informal empire (Barton, 2014, p. 13). The Western rise, in other words, was championed by the arrival of industrialisation accompanied by colonial experience and exhilaration post-Cold War through multilateral institutions, structural adjustment programmes, and the advent of transnational corporations. Countries now demand more than trade and money. Whether this initiative would have a remarkable influence on the history of exchange is yet to be discovered. The BRI is not the sole exponent promoting the rise of a new global advent. Another prime example is the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa Alliance, the BRICS organisation.

BRICS is a distinctive geopolitical association constituting Brazil, Russia, the rising giants in South Asia, India, and China, and the newest member in South Africa. The BRICS is an active alliance encouraging economic development and furnishing an alternative option for developing nations to follow a model distinct from Western development initiatives. The organisation predates the Chinese BRI project and is governed by the mutual feelings of these nations to find an alternative to Western lures converging on national and mutually beneficial arrangements. The highlight of this alliance is that it includes all countries deemed to be the world’s emerging economies. Globalisation is a phenomenon that helps countries attain international wisdom from beyond their borders. The captivating vision behind this alliance is that the countries are able to meddle with the national monetary development through various branches that form the prerequisites for maturation and invention for the BRICS countries (Beausang, 2012, p.13). The potential of this alliance to revise the existing democratic globalism gains momentum because these countries together compose “41 percent of the world’s population, 16 percent of world trade and one-fourth of the world’s gross domestic product” (Dhingra, 2023, p.1652).

The classic neo-liberal approach suggests a country will advance and flourish financially when and if the process of globalisation is respected and the nation-states vacate the market space to function independently to evolve and mature naturally (Beausang, 2012, p.14). Beausang (2012) states that the BRICS governments nattily opted for varying degrees of globalism; the exposure to unexplored products and markets was deliberately and predominantly controlled, and the manipulation of the ideal pace of globalisation resulted from this state involvement. States can regulate domestic and foreign regulations on imports and exports of foreign goods and businesses. As a result, they possess the magnitude of globalisation. Apart from this, the BRICS nations have finalised the creation of a “development bank” to facilitate infrastructure development in smaller countries, acting as a rival to the Western infrastructural chains, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in how “development finance” is distributed and shared” (Madeley, 2013, p.30). BRICS countries involve all the leading emerging economies in the world; it, therefore, operates as a viaduct between the formed world that has reached its potential and the forming world that is yet to reach its potential by narrowing the gap between the forces of change and the institute which enforces change (Madeley, 2013, p.30). Sarkar (2014, p. 129) suggests that if BRICS tackles joint problems such as “poverty, unemployment, inequality, costly basic services, high levels of violence against women, homophobia, criminalisation of social movements, oppression of dissidents, repression of media and securitisation, militarisation of societies and mass displacement owing to large-scale infrastructure projects” it can transform the economic world order.

The strength of BRICS lies in its proficiency to challenge the democratic Western creations such as the “Bretton Woods order” and the European Union regarding the GDP and economic expansion abilities. For instance, in 2015, China alone accounted for “17.1 percent of global GDP, surpassing the United States” (Roberts et al., 2018, p.30). Four of the five countries involved in BRICS are steadily ascending global standings; they are spending vastly on military security development and financial enterprises to integrate new countries and markets into their domestic markets. Reports suggest that by 2025, China alone could beat the spending of Western Europe combined and rise as the chief spender in the Asian Pacific region (Roberts et al., 2018, p.42). The agendas of this organisation make it stand out; the purview of this alliance is not limited to commerce and finance through different modes of exchange or globalisation. It even holds characteristics of climate and environmental concerns. The economic development model and the glory of Western rise have severally caused environmental deterioration, evident through the charts of greenhouse gases, inconsistent mechanisms for industrial waste disposal strategies, and deforestation. BRICS are working on new structural guidelines that boost development and soften environmental damage. Interoperability in actions can be vital for finding a way forward without compromising monetary growth but always keeping “environmental issues in the forefront over profits” (Dhingra, 2023, p.1677). The economic might of these nations, coupled with the Chinese international weight, enables BRICS the necessary means to function alone, unaided by the United States and Western institutions (Roberts et al., 2018, p.65). Although the alliance shows promise of great competition and challenge to the West, it is not free of troubles. Notably, China and its ever-growing power and potential could cause trouble for BRICS to challenge the international arena as the regional order in South Asia is in strife. Nevertheless, the BRICS serves as an exemplary illustration of how a geopolitical grouping based on mutually cohesive potentialities is revising the concept of globalisation.

Democratic Mandates of Emerging Coalitions

In the intricate tapestry of global affairs, the nexus between globalisation, the nation-state, and democratic politics has been a subject of profound analysis. Rodrik’s seminal work on the Political Trilemma of the World Economy (2000) provides a foundational framework for understanding the distribution of Globalisation, Nation-State, and Democratic Politics. This editorial explores the democratic mandate of coalition globalisation, unravelling the dialectical relationship between globalisation and democracy and highlighting the transformative potential of global governance structures. Rodrik’s insights into the interactive causation between globalisation and democracy illuminate a nuanced understanding of their relationship. The dynamic interplay between these forces is dialectical, with each shaping and influencing the trajectory of the other. As globalisation expands, it influences democratic processes within nation-states, while democratic institutions, in turn, shape the contours of globalisation. This reciprocal relationship underscores the complex nature of the ongoing global transformation (Rodrik, 2000). The extension of political democratisation to economic and financial globalisation is a critical dimension of the democratic mandate in the era of coalition globalisation. Scholars argue that the principles of Liberal Cosmopolitanism underpin this extension, advocating for aligning economic institutions with democratic values (Stiglitz, 2002). In this paradigm, economic and financial decision-making becomes more inclusive and accountable, fostering a democratic ethos on the global stage.

The emergence of global civil society, characterised by diverse non-state actors, epitomises the democratic potential inherent in coalition globalisation. The concept of cosmopolitan governance envisions a system where decision-making transcends national boundaries, reflecting a collective commitment to shared values and principles (Archibugi, 2008). The notion of a transnational state further emphasises the need for collaborative structures that go beyond traditional state-centric models, signalling a shift toward a more inclusive and participatory global order. A compelling perspective posits that the globalisation of capital is, in essence, the globalisation of democracy. This perspective aligns with the concept of capitalist democracy, wherein economic systems infused with democratic principles promote shared prosperity and equitable distribution of resources (Held, 1995). The intersection of economic and political realms becomes a crucible for the democratic mandate, illustrating the potential for economic globalisation to be a force for positive democratic change. The evolving nature of sovereignty, characterised by a mosaic of national and supranational organisations, represents a pivotal aspect of coalition globalisation. The Westphalian constitutional concept of state sovereignty is transforming as specialised public international law regimes proliferate into areas previously monopolised by the state (Kingsbury et al., 2005). This shift is evident in the rule of climate assemblies democratically planning a just transition and the prominence of rules enacted by international organisations and transnational corporations. However, what makes the goliaths in Asia substantial and positions them at the centre as new global problem solvers? To explore this, examining the rise of the ASEAN association and its role in changing collective global orientation is imperative.

Coalition themed Globalisation

Even though China stands as the centrepiece of the Asian hierarchy, it is not alone in reshaping the international global order, nor is it the only one demanding it. Regional endeavours have blossomed and glowed massively in the last decade, primarily in the Indo-Pacific region. India is another rising power influencing a new globalising wave through its actions; the 78th United Nations General Assembly General Debate witnessed India’s external affairs minister, Dr Jaishankar, sending a heavy message to the world on reforming the Security Council for better credibility and effectiveness in a changing global order where genuine solidarity must steer towards genuine territorial integrity and non-interference (Ministry of External Affairs, 2023). This message is a precedent confirming a rising ambition to alter the existing global politico-economic hierarchy. It brings to light the configurations and regional goals forming the bases of ASEAN and QUAD, tantamount to that of BRI and BRICS. Through this rhetoric set by Dr Jaishankar, it becomes clear that money alone does not feed the appetite of the global south. The informal empire primarily built around the economic interchange among nations mutually beneficial is being rectified by new geopolitical and regional factors brought to light by newly formed alliances. Security and power dynamics mixed with civil-political narratives have found a way to initiate and boost global connections, redefining globalisation’s older economic and cultural aspects. A manifestation of this is ASEAN, as a regional alliance that focuses on global development of its members and shifts the cultural and economic boundaries of the process of globalisation.

ASEAN oozes a vision of self-resilience and dependence, yet it is a perfect example of our proposed symbiotic-coalition-based globalisation. The organisation has three vital pillars: The ASEAN economic community, the political security community and the socio-cultural community (Anwar et al., 2009, p. 307). These forums are the guiding force of the member nations that orchestrate the organisation’s agenda. Early doors, the organisation lacked unity and commitment towards building regional cooperation with a solid Asian regional identity; globalising at a very high pace can damage and deplete national values and induce a predicament of identity among the nation’s citizens (Anwar et al., 2009, p. 309). The plan to “introduce and enforce ASEAN agreements so that the region can act as one” helped enrich the flow of exchange and finances while safeguarding national values (Anwar et al., 2009, p. 309). ASEAN is a collective derivative of globalisation and intent for provincial integration; the members in the last decade have significantly encouraged foreign direct investment and reliance on global trade for development, which has assisted regional amicability (Chen & Lombaerde, 2019). The ASEAN trade apparatus promotes intra-regional trading options and does not impose a high fee on the government or the customer; “most consumer goods traded in the regional market are subject to zero or very low tariff”(Chen & Lombaerde, 2019, p. 737).

The success of ASEAN has produced new rising companions of Asian descent who rely upon the association’s regional fiscal unity undertakings to create competition among these firms (Chen & Lombaerde, 2019). Globalisation, through this example, has incorporated regional intentions boosted by unique national claims. China, India, and Japan are mega economic powers today; in the last decade, ASEAN has had the chance to work with these countries to boost economic margins through trade. However, given India and China’s potential against each other, the sole worry for members of this association must be succumbing to the global narrative that could cause regional misunderstandings, which can, in turn, unsettle the trading market opportunities with these nations. While the economic aspects of the ASEAN are promising, the security aspects have not been dealt with swiftly or effectively; the topic of China’s claims in the South China Sea, along with the military coup in Myanmar, serves as the most recent examples of the organisation’s inability to solve regional differences (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023). The new globalisation is not based only on money; as stated earlier, it is more than that. Security is an integral part of the new materialising globalisation. There is a nervousness among every state to stop the formation of a hegemon in every region. There are alliances and security cooperation to prevent this from happening. An exclusive example of such an alliance is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue aimed at halting China’s expansion.

The new global era of the nation states from the Asian Pacific is about maintaining a status quo and restricting imperial perils experienced earlier through the colonial era. The rise of China and its potential to upset the world order is evident and has resonated beyond the economic range. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) is one such strategic exchange between India, the United States, Japan, and Australia, perhaps a democratic counter-attempt endorsed by the United States. Maritime alliances are at the forefront among these nations. The motivation of this organisation is to foster an unbiased and accessible Indo-Pacific region; that is to say, no one country should dominate the waters of the Indo-Pacific. This effort promises and shows great potential to maintain regional balance and introduce change acceptable to all regional international players (Singh & Bawa, 2022). This dialogue has seen Australia and India mediate better military ties with Japan, which has responded by offering business options to both nations; the US has made it clear that it desires to harbour an open and welcoming Indo-Pacific for the foreseeable future (Singh & Bawa, 2022). The intriguing point of departure of QUAD from a pure security alliance is that it also actively focuses on issues like “vaccines, supply chains, education and connectivity” (UNI, 2021). A sense of togetherness instead of contention, the QUAD mandates collaboration not via force but through joint interests; working together for the shared greater good is the motto of the new globalisation.

The BRI is also to be credited here; it is seen as a “strategic smart power instrument in Chinese foreign policy aiming at achieving Sinocentric regional connectivity” (Upadhyay, 2021, p. 2). The QUAD members have promoted a “Supply Chain Resilience Initiative” to limit the Indo-Pacific rising vulnerability to China for trade and imports of commodities, which involves the technological exchange of knowledge to explore new pathways to create a balance in the region (Upadhyay, 2021, p. 4). The QUAD is a salient option for India to further its agenda of playing peacemaker in the Indo-Pacific; India is adamant about maintaining its national interests through cooperation instead of force or “anti-Chinese” sentiment (Rai, 2018, p.144). Due to India and China’s imperative trading relations, despite misapprehensions about territorial perimeters and potential conflict, these countries depend on one another to maintain their economic statuses. QUAD is a last-ditch democratic card play maintaining a fair global order; it is unique. Other alliances, such as those discussed in this paper, ASEAN and BRICS, strive to create a non-western economic model of interchange and exchange among nations with a solid desire to peel away from Western interference. QUAD, on the other hand, holds a recurring motif of shared burdens, unity and advancing common interests that are repeated consistently by the leaders and remain enshrined in these alliances and organisations. The national interests on the international stage are breaking down into a regional stage; however, as with ASEAN, the only thing that might impact the new globalising experience is regional disharmony and fear of subjection to a single dominant power.


Globalisation is about linking and interconnecting the world with a growing familiarity and resemblance about approaches and methods; one must wonder and pay more attention to state ambition and involvement, especially the leaders of the nations today. There is no mistaking that because of globalism, an informal empire built upon free trade and new modes of exchanging information united Europeans and non-Europeans under one umbrella. Imperialism became a part of this process. However, Barton (2014) points out that the experience of the informal empire was more about collaboration and unity between elites having mainstream control over the masses. Barton’s (2014, p.13) explanation of elite formations describes ancient globalisation as a give-and-take process based on the mutual benefits of elites. The democratic countries took the lead role in this process and navigated the informal empire by introducing new narratives courted under globalism, free trade and new associations.

In the 21st century, the elites of Asia, particularly China, have identified and attached themselves to this informal empire and its systems, evidenced by the economic rankings and growing sectors for trade and production. The elites can be understood today as leaders of these nation-states; they are not institutions, making their yearnings and dreams tangible and comprehensible. Today, the world is witnessing a change in globalisation based on geopolitical arrangements and vocation instead of bilateral ones. Many of these enterprises include an Asian involvement to counter the world’s problems, simultaneously transforming the American order. The coalitions discussed in this essay contain the seeds inspiring a global change, reshaping modes of interchanges in the economic and commercial outlook of the world: ultimatums for honouring territorial integrity and non-interference of international organisation in domestic affairs, equivalent roles in the world order, modification of the United Nations Security Council, and not allowing a limited amount of countries to decide the international goals are the demands of this globalisation. In other words, the established democratic global world order could be replaced to support regional development over unity for all. The BRI, along with BRICS and regional alliances such as ASEAN, are introducing new prospects and altering the progress of globalisation. In contrast, QUAD, due to the involvement of the United States, remains a vital proponent of democracy. Will they be successful, and will regional diplomacy lead to the satisfaction of growing national appeals? Only time will tell; however, looking at this era of globalisation through the eyes of regional forums and international alliances is fascinating.


Anwar, S., Doran, C., & Sam, C. Y. (2009). “Committing to regional cooperation: ASEAN, globalisation and the Shin Corporation–Temasek Holdings deal.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 50, no. 3, 307-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2009.01403.x

Archibugi, D. (2008). The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton University Press.

Bárcena, A., & Porcile, G. (2022). Globalization, international asymmetries and democracy: a structuralist perspective. Oxford Development Studies, 50(3), 272-287.https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2021.2008891

Barton, G. (2014). Informal empire and the rise of one world culture. Springer https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137315922

Beausang, F. (2012). “BRICs: Beyond Developing?” In Globalization and the BRICs: Why the BRICs will not rule the world for long. Springer.https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137271600

Boss, M., Bang, H.,& Campbell, J., (2010). The Nation-State in Transformation: Economic Globalisation, Institutional Mediation and Political Values. 1st ed. Vol. 1.Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Chen, L., & Lombaerde, P. D. (2019). ASEAN between globalization and regionalization. Asia Pacific Business Review, 25(5), 729-750.https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2019.1652982

Chen, X., Miao, J. T., & Li, X. (2021). “The BRI and Globalisation.” In The Belt and Road Initiative as epochal regionalisation, 30-44. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Chong, A., & Ph?m, Q. M. (Eds.). (2020). Critical Reflections on China’s Belt & Road Initiative (Vol.248). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2098-9

Council on Foreign Relations. (2023). What Is ASEAN? Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-asean

George, J. (2001). Creating Globalisation: ‘Patriotic Internationalism’ And Symbiotic Power Relations In The Post-WW2 Era. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR).

Dhingra, V. S. (2023). Financial development, economic growth, globalisation and environmental quality in BRICS economies: evidence from ARDL bounds test approach. Economic Change and Restructuring, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-022-09481-6

Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford University Press.

Hopkins, A. G. (2011). Globalisation in world history. Random House.

Clark, I. (1997). Globalization and Fragmentation. Oxford University Press.

Kingsbury, B., Krisch, N., & Stewart, R. B. (2005). The Emergence of Global Administrative Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(3), 15-61.

Li, J., Qian, G., Zhou, K. Z., Lu, J., & Liu, B. (2021). Belt and Road Initiative, globalization and institutional changes: implications for firms in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-14.https://doi.org/10.1080/2578711X.2020.1823711

Lin, S., Yang, Y., Alff, H., Frost, M. R., Kaneti, M., Oakes, T., ... & Winter, T. (2021). Review forum reading Tim Winter’s Geocultural Power: China’s Quest to Revive the Silk Roads for the Twenty-first Century, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2019). 304 pp.; bibliog.; index. ISBN: 978-0-226-65835-3 US $27.50 (paperback). Political Geography, 84, 102297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102297

Madeley, J. (2013). Brics. Appropriate Technology, 40(2), 30–30.

Ministry of External Affairs. (2023). National Statement by External Affairs Minister Dr S.Jaishankar at the General Debate of the 78th UNGA. Available at: https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/37148/National+Statement+b +External+Affairs+Minister+Dr+S+Jaishankar+at+the+General+Debate+of+the+78t+UNGA

Pomeranz, K. (2000). The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton University Press.

Rai, A. (2018). Quadrilateral Security Dialogue 2 (Quad 2.0)–a credible strategic construct or mere “foam in the ocean”?. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, 14(2), 138-148.https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2019.1572260

Roberts, C. A., Armijo, L. E., & Katada, S. N. (2018). The BRICS and collective financial statecraft. Oxford University Press.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: why global markets, states, and democracy Can't coexist. Oxford University Press.

Rodrik, D. (2000). How Far Will International Economic Integration Go? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 177-186.

Sarkar, U. (2014). BRICS: An opportunity for a transformative South? South Asian Survey, 21(1-2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971523115592495

Singh, R. A., & Bawa, T. (2023). “Slow but Steady. How is the Quad Holding Up?” Available at: https://intpolicydigest.org/the-platform/slow-but-steady-how-is-the-quad-holding-up/

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company.

Upadhyay, S. (2021). Covid-19 and Quad’s “Soft” Reorientation. Research in Globalization, 3, 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100069

UNI (2021). Quad reflects globalisation, says Jaishankar, dismisses comparisons with NATO. In United News of India. HT Digital Streams Limited.

Winter, T. (2019). Geocultural power: China’s quest to revive the Silk Roads for the Twenty-First Century. University of Chicago Press.

Yamei. (2017). Full text of President Xi’s speech at opening of Belt and Road forum: Speech by His Excellency, President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. Available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/2017-05/14/c_136282982.htm.