Raisina Dialogue 2024 navigating a fragmented global order

By Sonjib Chandra Das

At a time when global governance is fraying and multilateralism teeters on the edge, the 2024

Raisina Dialogue, India’s flagship geopolitical forum, provided a rare and crucial window into the world’s evolving power dynamics.

In an era marked by growing divisions between the Global North and South, as well as the East and West, India positioned itself as a balancing force – bridging gaps between conflicting blocs while showcasing its strategic autonomy.

The conference opened with a striking remark by Samir Saran, President of the Observer Research Foundation, who bluntly declared, “The creators of multilateralism have given up on multilateralism.”

This statement encapsulated the global uncertainty pervading diplomatic circles, as the rules-based international order continues to unravel.Co-hosted by India’s Ministry of External Affairs, the Raisina Dialogue reflected deep-seated anxieties over international disorder, even as India sought to play the role of a stabilizing force.

The composition of attendees itself served as a litmus test for India’s diplomatic engagements. The United States sent a large delegation of foreign policy experts and business leaders, with US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivering a keynote address.

The presence of a QUAD panel underscored India’s commitment to regional multilateralism in the Indo-Pacific, even as the concept faces disruption from an increasingly assertive China.

Strikingly absent was any representation from Bangladesh, particularly from the Muhammad Yunus-led faction, signaling a cooling of ties. However, the invitation of a Chinese professor from Fudan University hinted at a temporary thaw in Indo-Chinese relations.

Meanwhile, India carefully maintained a diplomatic balance by inviting both Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga and Vyacheslav Nikonov, a prominent Russian politician and grandson of Vyacheslav Molotov.

The event also underscored India’s growing role in championing the Global South. Representatives from Slovenia, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Moldova, Georgia, Sweden, Slovakia, Bhutan, Maldives, Norway, Thailand, Antigua and Barbuda, Peru, Ghana, Hungary, Mauritius, and the Philippines were in attendance, reflecting a diversity of perspectives and concerns.

Many sessions featured panelists from three or more continents, replicating the kind of multilateralism that is disappearing from institutional frameworks.

The growing skepticism towards Western dominance was evident. Slovenian Deputy Prime Minister Tanja Fajon remarked that global disorder is increasingly defined by “not power of the rules but the rules of the power,” a statement that resonated with many attendees from the Global South.

The pre-pandemic trend of outsourcing supply chains has been replaced by diversification, if not outright indigenization, placing stress on multilateral trade mechanisms.

The United Kingdom’s approach to the Ukraine conflict marked a noticeable shift. National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell avoided direct references to Russia, in stark contrast to previous years when Western leaders were unanimous in their condemnation of Moscow.

However, former European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson took a more aggressive stance, labeling Russia’s actions a “colonial war” against Ukraine.

This divergence in rhetoric suggests either a crisis of confidence in Europe’s foreign policy or a realization of the limits of Western power.

Powell’s satisfaction over Britain’s renewed inclusion in European security discussions post-Brexit symbolized London’s desire to remain relevant on the global stage.

However, as some critics pointed out, Britain’s increasing relevance comes at a time when Europe itself faces growing irrelevance.

Despite its apparent decline, some scholars, such as Dr. Happymon Jacob, argue that even a facade of a rules-based order is preferable to outright anarchy.

While Western hypocrisy is well-documented, a common framework-however flawed-allows for course correction. Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed a similar sentiment in a parallel discussion hosted by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, emphasizing the difficulty of fostering trust in an environment of contradictions.

This growing distrust in international frameworks has fueled the rise of regional orders. The Raisina Dialogue underscored the complexity of predicting global trends, as power struggles are increasingly shaped by unconventional players.

A striking example was an Arab state mediating peace negotiations between two European powers-an unthinkable scenario three decades ago.

Ashok Malik succinctly described the shifting power balance: “In 2023, Europeans were berating the Global South for not upholding European values in Ukraine.

In 2024, the Global South was berating Europe for not upholding European values in Gaza. In 2025, the US Vice President will be berating Europe for not upholding European values in Europe.”

This statement reflects the fundamental transformations underway. America is increasingly transactional, Europe is in economic retreat, Russia is counterbalancing NATO expansion, China is asserting its place on the global stage, and India-perhaps uniquely-understands all perspectives in a bipolar world.

Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar noted that “the weaponization of everything” has become a defining feature of modern geopolitics.

From trade to technology to finance, every aspect of international relations is now leveraged as a strategic tool. Pierroberto Folgiero, CEO of the Italian shipbuilding giant Fincantieri, highlighted how shipbuilding is emerging as a key pillar of maritime geopolitics.

He noted that while the West abandoned shipbuilding two decades ago, China and South Korea have come to dominate the industry-placing Beijing in a commanding position over global maritime trade.

An Emirati panelist, however, warned against conflating sovereignty with isolationism. The world, he argued, must navigate a delicate balance between self-sufficiency and global integration-without succumbing to ideological rigidity.

As the world drifts into a post-truth and post-rules era, governments face an unprecedented trifecta of risks: AI-driven warfare, nuclear proliferation, and ultranationalism. These challenges demand robust diplomatic guardrails, yet diplomacy itself is at risk of becoming a rarity.

With global institutions paralyzed and American economic priorities shifting, inter- and intra-state conflicts are expected to increase.

In such an environment, maintaining open channels of negotiation becomes more critical than ever. Yet, history has shown that without clear regulatory frameworks, global rivalries tend to escalate unchecked.

The Raisina Dialogue served as a stark reminder of the volatile times ahead. As states scramble to secure their interests, the question remains: Can diplomacy keep pace with the accelerating fragmentation of global power?

Without meaningful efforts to re-establish international trust, the world may find itself repeating the mistakes of a previous generation-one that too hastily declared “peace for our time.”