India’s Role Amid Waning Western Legitimacy

Future historians may view the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Venezuelan politician who backed the Trump administration’s strikes on her own country—and later urged Israel to take similar action—as a turning point in the credibility of Western institutional leadership. What were once ostensibly neutral global institutions, across economic and cultural domains, such as SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications) and FIFA (International Federation of Association Football), are now aligning with a particular strand of the United States (US) foreign policy, one that impacts India’s interests. With the new ‘Cold War’ pitting the West against an emerging China-Russia-led coalition, there lies an opportunity for impartial institutional leadership which represents the global majority and delivers soft power gains.  India, emerging as one of the most powerful and influential states independent of both the West and the East, not only has the incentive but also the capacity to take up the mantle. Moreover, a rising tide of American public and elite opinion perceives US dominance of global institutions as a net cost to its core interests, hopes to resign from this dominance, and may consider India one of the least threatening candidates to fill the resulting gap.

Loss of Trust in Institutions 

There has been considerable debate on reforming supra-national bodies such as the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly.  This includes elevating states like India to permanent Security Council member status, as well as relocation of the General Assembly to reduce the host’s leverage over who attends.

Less examined are international institutions in the economic and cultural spheres whose very legitimacy depends on neutrality. They operate on the understanding that if a state adheres to the organisation’s internal rules, the organisation needn’t judge the complexities of said state’s international relations. This sentiment is aptly captured by the ‘Olympic spirit’, which holds that the games should be separate from global politics.  Since World War II, the West has been entrusted with facilitating these institutions in a reasonably impartial manner. However, the past few years have involved a decisive shift.

After Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine in 2022, there was a flurry of apolitical institutions issuing unprecedented penalties. Despite no state having been banned for a war of aggression since WWII—for instance, the US hosting the Winter Olympics months after invading Afghanistan—Russia and Belarus were excluded from the Paris Olympics 2024. Nonetheless, Israel was welcomed despite the civilian death toll in Gaza. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had just months earlier found accusations of genocide to be plausible. FIFA and UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), within weeks of the Ukraine invasion, suspended Russian national teams and clubs. Israel continues to partake. While Ukraine received statements of solidarity, Palestinian flags (as well as Catalan and Serbian-nationalist ones) drew fines. Eurovision too suspended Russia within weeks. Here, too, Israel continues to partake.

More consequentially, international economic and financial institutions demonstrated a willingness to prioritise the Biden Administration’s foreign policy, impacting global financial stability, growth, and connectivity, especially for states such as India. SWIFT disconnected Russian financial entities within weeks. No action was taken against Israeli entities. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank curtailed normal cooperation with Russia, also within weeks. Israel maintained normal engagement here as well.

India has an image of being strategically non-aligned with both the West and the East, something that China does not.

India’s Interests 

These institutions have been most susceptible to being swayed when US foreign policy was pushing in an interventionist, neo-con direction – a direction largely divergent from India’s interests.  They rapidly mobilised to support former President Joe Biden’s maximum pressure approach to Russia.  In contrast, none have yet adjusted their penalties in accordance with President Trump’s limited efforts at détente. This is despite Trump’s suggestions that re-establishing relations with Moscow could ease tensions, along with the fact that the pro-peace approach has broad global support, which helps restore institutional legitimacy. The denial of the Nobel Peace Prize to Trump’s comedic candidacy, while granting it to Machado, supported the mounting momentum for intervention in Venezuela. These outcomes result in increased global instability, reduced trade, and spurring energy prices—factors which impact New Delhi.

Soft Power

The susceptibility of financial and economic institutions to instrumentalisation has accelerated efforts by rising powers to decouple themselves from established networks and reduce reliance on the dollar, harming US interests.  Such efforts have largely been led by China, with states such as India playing a key role—for instance, in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa +) or buying Russian oil with Chinese Yuan.

Concerning cultural institutions, however, India has the opportunity to lead.  Much like Beijing, New Delhi possesses the economic and military capabilities to become an institution-leader and norm-setter.  However, India has an image of being strategically non-aligned with both the West and the East, something that China does not. This was reflected in the meteoric rise of Indian media as a trusted source for reporting on the Ukraine conflict.

New Delhi’s geopolitical independence also makes it a contender that anti-interventionist forces within the US and broader West could back. The majority of Americans, including senior figures in Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) campaign, want a US that expends fewer resources on maintaining global primacy, including its engagement with international institutions.  The momentum for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gutting USAID grew from this sentiment. The decline of Western public support for global institutions parallels a significant loss of trust in domestic institutions.  In the increasingly likely future scenario of a US administration stepping back from leading international institutions, compared to the other non-Western Great Powers in contention for replacing it, India presents the most benign option from a Western perspective.

Given the direction these institutions have taken, India has the incentive and opportunity to act.

Furthermore, India’s widely acknowledged contribution to humanity’s cultural and civilizational story gives it a relatively unique standing.  It is perfectly positioned to outshine the Nobel Committee in global legitimacy by introducing a ‘Gandhi Peace Prize’ or ‘Aryabhata Science Prize’.  An AsiaVision would enjoy greater viewership than the declining Eurovision, perhaps including amongst Western publics.

Western-led international institutions have lost significant trust in recent years, even among the Western populace. Given the direction these institutions have taken, India has the incentive and opportunity to act. With its uniquely positive image across the West, East, and Global South, New Delhi is well placed to help bridge the emerging ‘legitimacy gap.’ Doing so would boost the country’s soft power and deliver the leadership position that it has long sought, and long deserved.

Kadira Pethiyagoda is a geopolitics expert and former political advisor and diplomat.

• International Affairs
• India
• brics
• geopolitical landscape india
• india us relations under trump
• russian oil
• usaid

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT