How can the proposed R7 coalition contribute to reforming global governance institutions?

The proposed R7 coalition—comprising countries like India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, and Canada—aims to act as a reform-oriented bloc within the international system. Its primary objective is not to create an exclusive club but to initiate and drive reforms in existing global institutions.Institutional reforms could include: Expanding the UN Security Council (UNSC) to include more permanent members, as proposed by the G4 nationsReforming voting mechanisms by reducing or abolishing the veto power of the P5Ensuring leadership positions in institutions like the IMF and World Bank are more representative rather than dominated by Western powersIn the trade domain, the R7 could advocate for periodic reviews of trade imbalances within the WTO framework. Countries with persistent deficits or surpluses could be nudged to correct these distortions, ensuring fairer outcomes.By acting collectively, the R7 can also resist pressure from superpowers and create alternative norms. For example, coordinated positions on trade, climate, or security can reduce dependency on unilateral frameworks. Over time, the coalition could expand (R10 or R12), increasing its legitimacy and influence in shaping a more equitable global order.

Critically analyse the proposal to abolish veto power in the UN Security Council. What are its advantages and challenges?

The proposal to abolish the veto power of permanent members (P5) in the UN Security Council is aimed at making global governance more democratic and representative. Currently, the veto allows any one of the five permanent members to block resolutions, often leading to paralysis on critical issues such as conflicts in Syria or Ukraine.Advantages of abolishing veto power include: Greater equity: Decisions would reflect broader global consensus rather than the interests of a few powerful nationsImproved effectiveness: The UNSC could act more decisively in crises without being blocked by geopolitical rivalriesEnhanced legitimacy: Developing countries would perceive the UN as more fair and inclusiveHowever, significant challenges remain: Resistance from P5 nations, which are unlikely to relinquish their privileged statusRisk of major powers disengaging from the UN system if their influence is reducedOperational complexity in designing alternative voting mechanisms, such as proportional voting based on population or economic strengthA balanced approach could involve limiting rather than eliminating the veto, such as restricting its use in cases of mass atrocities. While reform is essential, it must ensure that major powers remain engaged to maintain the effectiveness of global governance.

As a policy advisor to India, how would you recommend leveraging its position to lead a middle-power coalition for global reforms?

As a policy advisor, I would recommend that India adopt a multi-pronged strategy to lead a middle-power coalition like the proposed R7. India’s historical leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and its growing economic and geopolitical stature provide a strong foundation.Key policy recommendations include: Diplomatic leadership: Initiate dialogues with potential R7 members such as Brazil, Germany, and Japan to build consensus on reform agendasInstitutional reform advocacy: Actively push for UNSC expansion and WTO reforms, leveraging platforms like the G20 and BRICSEconomic partnerships: Strengthen South-South cooperation and diversify trade to reduce dependence on major powersIndia should also emphasise inclusive and pluralistic norms, avoiding the imposition of uniform political or cultural standards. For example, advocating respect for diverse governance models can make the coalition more acceptable to a wider range of countries.Challenges include balancing relations with both the US and China while maintaining strategic autonomy. However, by positioning itself as a bridge-builder and reform advocate, India can play a pivotal role in shaping a more equitable and stable global order.

Middle Powers and the Quest for a New Global Order

Q: What is meant by a rules-based international order , and why is it argued to be weakening in the current global context?

Rules-based international order refers to a system where global relations are governed by agreed norms, institutions, and laws rather than unilateral power. Institutions like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank have historically provided frameworks for conflict resolution, trade regulation, and financial stability.However, this order is increasingly seen as weakening due to the actions of major powers. The article highlights how the United States and China have begun to bypass or manipulate rules—through military interventions, trade wars, and economic coercion. For instance, the US has imposed tariffs to address trade imbalances, while China has leveraged its rare earth monopoly and export strategies to influence global markets. Such actions undermine the credibility of multilateral norms.Additionally, institutional erosion is evident as the US has withdrawn from several global organisations, and existing institutions have failed to adapt to contemporary realities. The persistence of conflicts like the Israel-US-Iran tensions and divisions among allies (e.g., EU and Japan refusing to join certain military actions) further illustrate fragmentation. Thus, the system is increasingly viewed as power-driven rather than rule-driven, raising concerns about global stability and equity.

Q: Why is there a growing need for middle powers to collaborate in shaping a new global order?

Middle powers such as India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan occupy a strategic position between superpowers and smaller nations. The article argues that in a world dominated by great power rivalry, these countries risk being marginalised if they act individually. As Mark Carney noted, without collective action, they may be "on the menu" rather than "at the table."The need for collaboration arises from the limitations of the current global order. The G2 (US and China) cannot ensure stability due to competing interests and unilateral actions. Middle powers, representing a significant share of the global population and economy, can provide a balancing force. For example, countries like India and Indonesia represent large developing populations, while Germany and Japan bring technological and economic strength.Collective action can also enhance bargaining power in reforming institutions like the UNSC or WTO. By forming coalitions such as the proposed R7, these nations can push for equitable rules, prevent economic coercion, and promote inclusive governance. This approach mirrors earlier initiatives like the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), but with a stronger focus on institutional reform and rule-making rather than neutrality.

Q: Can you provide real-world examples that illustrate the breakdown of the current global order and the need for reform?

Several recent developments highlight the erosion of the current rules-based order. One prominent example is the US-China trade conflict, where both countries have imposed tariffs and trade restrictions, undermining WTO principles. The US has justified tariffs to reduce trade deficits, while China has been accused of dumping goods and leveraging its dominance in critical supply chains like rare earths.Another example is the fragmented response to global conflicts. In the context of tensions in West Asia, key allies such as the European Union and Japan have chosen not to align fully with US-led military initiatives. This reflects a lack of consensus even among traditional partners, weakening collective security mechanisms.Institutional disengagement further exacerbates the problem. The US withdrawal from multiple international organisations and the limited effectiveness of bodies like the UNSC in resolving conflicts demonstrate systemic weaknesses. These examples underscore the need for new coalitions like the R7 to rebuild trust, ensure fairness, and adapt global governance structures to contemporary geopolitical realities.

Amidst superpower rivalry, middle powers like India must unite to create an alternative rules-based international framework.

Surya

•March 28, 2026•7 mins read

Middle powers unite for new world order

Introduction

The post-World War II rules-based international order — built around the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO — is under unprecedented stress. The United States has withdrawn from over 60 global organisations, China recorded its largest-ever trade surplus of $1.2 trillion in 2025 while weaponising rare earth monopolies, and two active wars continue to destabilise the global security architecture. In this vacuum of superpower responsibility, middle powers — nations too significant to be ignored but too constrained to act alone — are emerging as potential architects of a reformed global order. India, with its Non-Aligned Movement legacy, G20 presidency experience, and G4 membership, is uniquely positioned to lead this charge.

Background: The Collapsing Rules-Based Order

The liberal international order, constructed after 1945, rested on two assumptions — American leadership and multilateral consensus. Both are now fractured:

USA: Raising tariffs aggressively, withdrawing from multilateral bodies, and using economic coercion as foreign policy
China: Claiming free trade support while posting record surpluses, dumping goods globally, and leveraging rare earth monopolies as geopolitical weapons
Russia: Ongoing military aggression in violation of UN Charter principles
G2 Dysfunction: The US-China rivalry has paralysed key multilateral institutions — UNSC vetoes block resolutions, WTO appellate body remains non-functional, IMF voting reform stalled

"In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice — compete with each other for favour, or 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." — Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, Davos 2025

Key Concept: Who Are Middle Powers?

Middle powers are states that lack superpower status but possess sufficient economic, diplomatic, or military weight to shape regional or global outcomes. They typically:

Support multilateralism and rule-based systems (as they benefit from predictability)
Lack unilateral coercive capacity but can build coalitions
Bridge developed and developing world perspectives

Country	Why a Middle Power
India	4th largest economy (PPP), G4, Global South voice, nuclear state
Germany	Largest EU economy, industrial powerhouse, NATO anchor
Japan	3rd largest economy, technology leader, Indo-Pacific stakeholder
Brazil	Largest Latin American economy, Amazon stewardship, BRICS
Indonesia	World's largest Muslim democracy, ASEAN anchor, G20 member
South Africa	Africa's most industrialised economy, AU leadership
Canada	G7 member, middle power diplomatic tradition, Arctic stakeholder

The R7 Proposal: A Coalition for Reform

The article proposes a new grouping — R7 (Reform 7) — of the most consequential middle powers committed to reforming global institutions.

Core Principles of R7:

Not a closed bloc — open to expansion (R10, R12) as consensus builds
Focused on institutional reform, not superpower replacement
Initial exclusion of US, China, Russia unless they engage the reform agenda
UK and France included only upon commitment to curtailing their own institutional privileges (UNSC veto)

Demographic and Economic Weight:

Grouping	Population Share	Implication
R7 (core)	2.2 billion (~27% of world)	Significant legitimacy base
R7 + EU	~35% of world population	Near-majority of non-superpower world

Proposed Institutional Reforms

1. UN Security Council (UNSC)

Expand permanent membership from P5 to P11 — as proposed by G4 (India, Germany, Japan, Brazil)
Abolish the veto or replace with proportional voting based on population, economic size, and UN peacekeeping contributions
All unilateral military invasions deemed illegal under new rules — regardless of justification (human rights, counter-terrorism etc.)

2. World Trade Organization (WTO)

Move beyond fair trade rules to periodic outcome reviews
Countries with persistent trade surpluses or deficits must take corrective measures
Addresses the structural problem that WTO rules govern process, not outcomes — allowing chronic mercantilism to persist legally

3. IMF and World Bank

End the convention of US-nominated World Bank President and European-nominated IMF Managing Director
Leadership and voting rights to reflect current economic realities — not 1944 Bretton Woods power structures
Greater representation for Global South in governance

4. Cultural and Political Pluralism as a Norm

Democracy cannot be a precondition for participation in the rules-based order
Religious freedom cannot be defined exclusively through Western/Abrahamic frameworks
Each nation must be trusted to evolve politically — sovereignty over developmental models respected

India's Role: From NAM to Reform Leadership

India has a strong historical and structural case to lead the R7:

Historical Role	Current Leverage
Founding member & prime mover of Non-Aligned Movement (1961)	G4 membership; UNSC reform advocate
Champion of New International Economic Order (NIEO, 1970s)	G20 Presidency (2023); Voice of Global South Summit
South-South cooperation leadership	Quad member; SCO member; BRICS member
Anti-colonialism and sovereign equality advocacy	4th largest economy; strategic autonomy tradition

India's strategic autonomy doctrine — maintaining equidistance from superpowers while advancing national interests — is precisely the posture needed to lead a middle power coalition without being captured by either Washington or Beijing.

Analytical Dimensions

1. Why Now?

The convergence of US unilateralism, Chinese mercantilism, two active wars (Ukraine, West Asia), and the paralysis of multilateral institutions has created a reform window — a moment when even traditional beneficiaries of the old order (Canada, Japan, Germany) recognise its dysfunction.

2. Challenges to R7 Cohesion

Divergent interests: Japan and Germany are US treaty allies; their participation in a reform coalition risks straining these alliances
China pressure: Beijing will likely pressure Indonesia, South Africa, and Brazil — all with significant Chinese economic ties — to undermine the coalition
India-China tension: India's bilateral tensions with China may make it difficult to lead a truly neutral reform agenda
Institutional inertia: P5 members (especially US and China) have structural incentives to block UNSC reform

3. The Veto Problem

UNSC reform has been discussed since the 1990s — the Uniting for Consensus group (led by Italy, Pakistan, South Korea) opposes G4 expansion. Any reform requires amendment of the UN Charter under Article 108, which itself requires P5 ratification — a near-impossible threshold without superpower buy-in.

4. WTO Paralysis

The WTO Appellate Body has been non-functional since 2019 due to US blocking of new appointments. Without a dispute settlement mechanism, WTO rules are effectively unenforceable — a structural crisis that R7 must prioritise.

Comparison: Reform Coalitions in History

Coalition	Era	Objective	Outcome
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)	1961	Avoid Cold War bloc alignment	Symbolic; limited institutional change
G77 + NIEO	1970s	Reform global economic order	Failed; debt crisis weakened Global South
G4 (UNSC reform)	2004–present	Expand UNSC permanent seats	Stalled; P5 resistance
BRICS	2009–present	Alternative to Western-led order	NDB created; limited reform impact
Proposed R7	2025–	Comprehensive multilateral reform	Yet to be tested

Implications and Challenges

Legitimacy vs. effectiveness: A larger coalition has more legitimacy but less decisiveness — the R7 must stay lean enough to formulate principles before expanding
Economic leverage: Middle powers collectively represent significant trade volumes — coordinated positions in WTO negotiations could compel reform
Security dimension: Without a collective security guarantee, middle powers remain vulnerable to superpower coercion — R7 needs an economic and diplomatic, not military, foundation
India's balancing act: India must navigate its Quad commitments (US-aligned), SCO membership (China-Russia dominated), and BRICS participation (China-led) while positioning itself as a neutral reform leader

Conclusion

The rules-based international order is not dead — but it is broken. The G2 of the United States and China has demonstrated that superpower rivalry, not superpower leadership, defines the current moment. Middle powers, representing over a quarter of humanity and a disproportionate share of global goodwill toward multilateralism, have both the incentive and the opportunity to drive reform. The proposed R7 framework — focused on UNSC expansion, WTO outcome accountability, IMF-World Bank democratisation, and pluralistic norm-setting — offers a credible architecture for a reformed world order. India, with its civilisational pluralism, strategic autonomy, and Global South credibility, is uniquely placed to be the moving spirit of this transformation. The question is not whether India can afford to lead — it is whether India can afford not to.

Core Theme

Middle powers, like India, must lead a reformed global order amidst superpower rivalry and institutional dysfunction.

Keywords

Institutions & Policy

UN IMF World Bank WTO G20

Key Concepts

Rules-Based Order Middle Powers R7 Coalition

Mechanisms

UNSC Reform WTO Outcome Accountability IMF Voting Reform

Risks & Challenges

Great Power Rivalry Institutional Paralysis Economic Coercion

Context & Background

Post-World War II Non-Aligned Movement G4 Membership

Memory Hook

1945: Liberal order assumptions

US-China rivalry paralyzes institutions

Middle powers: vital yet constrained

R7: Reform coalition proposal

India's strategic autonomy

UNSC reform: P5 to P11

Key Concepts

Middle Powers

States with significant influence but not superpower status, capable of shaping global outcomes.

R7 Coalition

A proposed alliance of middle powers aimed at reforming global institutions.

UNSC Reform

Proposed expansion of the UN Security Council's permanent membership and voting reforms.

Case Studies

Non-Aligned Movement

Founded in 1961 to avoid Cold War bloc alignment.

Outcome: Symbolic impact with limited institutional change.

BRICS

Formed as an alternative to Western-led order.

Outcome: Created NDB; limited reform impact.

Way Forward for R7

⚖️

UNSC Reform — Expand permanent membership to P11

📊

WTO Accountability — Enforce outcome-based reviews

🌍

IMF/World Bank Reform — Reflect current economic realities

Important Quotes

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice — compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact...

Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, Davos 2025

5 Facts to Never Forget

01 US has withdrawn from over 60 global organizations.

02 China recorded a $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025.

03 R7 represents 27% of the world population.

04 G4 includes India, Germany, Japan, Brazil.

05 WTO Appellate Body non-functional since 2019.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Rules-based international order refers to a system where global relations are governed by agreed norms, institutions, and laws rather than unilateral power. Institutions like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank have historically provided frameworks for conflict resolution, trade regulation, and financial stability.

However, this order is increasingly seen as weakening due to the actions of major powers. The article highlights how the United States and China have begun to bypass or manipulate rules—through military interventions, trade wars, and economic coercion. For instance, the US has imposed tariffs to address trade imbalances, while China has leveraged its rare earth monopoly and export strategies to influence global markets. Such actions undermine the credibility of multilateral norms.

Additionally, institutional erosion is evident as the US has withdrawn from several global organisations, and existing institutions have failed to adapt to contemporary realities. The persistence of conflicts like the Israel-US-Iran tensions and divisions among allies (e.g., EU and Japan refusing to join certain military actions) further illustrate fragmentation. Thus, the system is increasingly viewed as power-driven rather than rule-driven, raising concerns about global stability and equity.

Middle powers such as India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan occupy a strategic position between superpowers and smaller nations. The article argues that in a world dominated by great power rivalry, these countries risk being marginalised if they act individually. As Mark Carney noted, without collective action, they may be "on the menu" rather than "at the table."

The need for collaboration arises from the limitations of the current global order. The G2 (US and China) cannot ensure stability due to competing interests and unilateral actions. Middle powers, representing a significant share of the global population and economy, can provide a balancing force. For example, countries like India and Indonesia represent large developing populations, while Germany and Japan bring technological and economic strength.

Collective action can also enhance bargaining power in reforming institutions like the UNSC or WTO. By forming coalitions such as the proposed R7, these nations can push for equitable rules, prevent economic coercion, and promote inclusive governance. This approach mirrors earlier initiatives like the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), but with a stronger focus on institutional reform and rule-making rather than neutrality.

The proposed R7 coalition—comprising countries like India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, and Canada—aims to act as a reform-oriented bloc within the international system. Its primary objective is not to create an exclusive club but to initiate and drive reforms in existing global institutions.

Institutional reforms could include:

Expanding the UN Security Council (UNSC) to include more permanent members, as proposed by the G4 nations
Reforming voting mechanisms by reducing or abolishing the veto power of the P5
Ensuring leadership positions in institutions like the IMF and World Bank are more representative rather than dominated by Western powers

In the trade domain, the R7 could advocate for periodic reviews of trade imbalances within the WTO framework. Countries with persistent deficits or surpluses could be nudged to correct these distortions, ensuring fairer outcomes.

By acting collectively, the R7 can also resist pressure from superpowers and create alternative norms. For example, coordinated positions on trade, climate, or security can reduce dependency on unilateral frameworks. Over time, the coalition could expand (R10 or R12), increasing its legitimacy and influence in shaping a more equitable global order.

The proposal to abolish the veto power of permanent members (P5) in the UN Security Council is aimed at making global governance more democratic and representative. Currently, the veto allows any one of the five permanent members to block resolutions, often leading to paralysis on critical issues such as conflicts in Syria or Ukraine.

Advantages of abolishing veto power include:

Greater equity: Decisions would reflect broader global consensus rather than the interests of a few powerful nations
Improved effectiveness: The UNSC could act more decisively in crises without being blocked by geopolitical rivalries
Enhanced legitimacy: Developing countries would perceive the UN as more fair and inclusive

However, significant challenges remain:

Resistance from P5 nations, which are unlikely to relinquish their privileged status
Risk of major powers disengaging from the UN system if their influence is reduced
Operational complexity in designing alternative voting mechanisms, such as proportional voting based on population or economic strength

A balanced approach could involve limiting rather than eliminating the veto, such as restricting its use in cases of mass atrocities. While reform is essential, it must ensure that major powers remain engaged to maintain the effectiveness of global governance.

Several recent developments highlight the erosion of the current rules-based order. One prominent example is the US-China trade conflict, where both countries have imposed tariffs and trade restrictions, undermining WTO principles. The US has justified tariffs to reduce trade deficits, while China has been accused of dumping goods and leveraging its dominance in critical supply chains like rare earths.

Another example is the fragmented response to global conflicts. In the context of tensions in West Asia, key allies such as the European Union and Japan have chosen not to align fully with US-led military initiatives. This reflects a lack of consensus even among traditional partners, weakening collective security mechanisms.

Institutional disengagement further exacerbates the problem. The US withdrawal from multiple international organisations and the limited effectiveness of bodies like the UNSC in resolving conflicts demonstrate systemic weaknesses. These examples underscore the need for new coalitions like the R7 to rebuild trust, ensure fairness, and adapt global governance structures to contemporary geopolitical realities.

As a policy advisor, I would recommend that India adopt a multi-pronged strategy to lead a middle-power coalition like the proposed R7. India’s historical leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and its growing economic and geopolitical stature provide a strong foundation.

Key policy recommendations include:

Diplomatic leadership: Initiate dialogues with potential R7 members such as Brazil, Germany, and Japan to build consensus on reform agendas
Institutional reform advocacy: Actively push for UNSC expansion and WTO reforms, leveraging platforms like the G20 and BRICS
Economic partnerships: Strengthen South-South cooperation and diversify trade to reduce dependence on major powers

India should also emphasise inclusive and pluralistic norms, avoiding the imposition of uniform political or cultural standards. For example, advocating respect for diverse governance models can make the coalition more acceptable to a wider range of countries.

Challenges include balancing relations with both the US and China while maintaining strategic autonomy. However, by positioning itself as a bridge-builder and reform advocate, India can play a pivotal role in shaping a more equitable and stable global order.