'We Are Power In The Middle': EAM Jaishankar’s One-Liner After Rishi Sunak’s ‘Middle Power’ Remark

I would say more than middle power. In a way, we are powers in the middle. I think we're in this world. It's obviously multipolar. We've seen breakdowns and things that we took for granted. As a result, people are trying to diversify their relationships in one way that in one sense the world is converging on Jay's foreign policy of strategic autonomy, which some of us are waking up to in a way that he's been talking about and India's been practicing for many years. Now, having said that, I'm less confident or persuaded that what we will have is one overarching middle power architectural institution. And I think what is more likely is that you get a set of overlapping minilateralism, where there are going to be groups of countries that come together, middle powers, maybe every so often with some of the bigger ones, on a particular cause or overlapping set of interests. And I think part of the reason for that is if you just look at this stage, right, we're on here on a middle powers panel, we've got actually an enormous diversity, right? We've got one country that shares a very large land border with the United States. We've got two middle powers over here, both of whom have a deep and abiding security relationship with the United States, which is always going to be the foundation of everything else that Australia and the UK do, even as they look to hedge and diversify a bit. And even between us, one's a Pacific power, one's a European power. And then in India, we're talking about middle powers panel. I'm sure Jay would say this. That's probably not the right description for India, right? I don't know what you've described it, Jay. I'm the host, so I'm here for courtesy purposes. Whether it's upper middle or emerging leading, which obviously has a very different perspective. So, you know, I think that diversity illustrates why it's tough that on every issue you're going to have exactly the same set of overlapping things. I don't think there was this idea that there'd be a replacement of the current architecture with a middle power architecture. In essence, the current institutions are serving a purpose, but they, A, need reform, perhaps. think of the UN, but B, there are issues like Ukraine, like Arctic security, like information technology, where middle powers coalescing. And that's exactly what I'm saying. So these are the examples that you get. So look at Ukraine, right, whether it's the Coalition of the Willing or the other institutions that have formed to help with that issue. Coalition of the Willing is interesting because it's the first time there's been a real European security issue which doesn't have the US involved in the command architecture for that. So that's actually quite a significant change, right? And then Kevin mentioned CPTPP, which I would echo as well, right? Like that is the UK joining a very significant trade alliance significantly after the US decided not to participate and now conversations with the EU. And if that comes off, you will have created something quite significant, I think, there. But that's exactly my point. You will have these issues and Jay will have the various coalitions that India is part of. And that is where I think we are heading. It's this kind of mini-lateralism where there will be different issues where different groups of middle-powered countries come together in a way to support their interests and indeed work together in a way which we haven't seen before and often without the involvement of the quote-unquote G2, if you want to call it that way. That's my kind of sense of where we're heading. Exactly. Dr. Jaishankar, you are here for more than just courtesy and I do want to note for those in the audience that I will be doing something that appears to be rude which is to say checking my watch every so often there's a reason for that Dr. Jaishankar has to be at a cabinet meeting and has a hard stop and I want to be respectful of that and so if you see him leave the stage at my cue it won't be because it's a mic drop I've had enough of this moment, it'll be because it's not wise to be late for Prime Minister Modi. That option is there. I suppose that option is still on the table. Dr. Jaishankar, Rishi made a very good point. India does not like to be called or described as a middle power. Why is that? Okay, let me, before I come to that, you know, I would say more than middle power, in a way, we are powers in the middle. I mean, you have it's partly what we are today confronting when we look at the global landscape. So, what really would define a middle power? I think countries who have the ability to use the Prime Minister's words, who have the power to empower. He used that yesterday. Very effectively. More domestic sense, I'm using it more in an international relation sense. who have the ability to make a difference. So let's use a very loose terminology for middle power. Would India be a middle power? You know, it's not a comfortable description because if you are the most populous country in the world, you have a GDP of 4 trillion, give or take, and you have a lot of growth ahead of you, staring you in the face. then the middle power somehow seems to be limiting yourself by that definition. But that's not what I would really quibble about. I think the issue, and in a way what Prime Minister Carney did at Davos, was he was expressing the predicament of really countries who are part of an alliance and who now find that situation far more complicated than it has ever been before. and that they would now have to often take decisions of their own or go on paths which are divergent from that of the United States, only partly overlapping. So let's not take it literally. Let's take it conceptually. Conceptually, what I hear him is really arguing for the fact that the powers in the middle now need to be more active, need to deal more with each other and figure out a way of moving the needle on issues of interest to them. Now, I would say, well, some of that we already knew because in our case we were not members of an alliance, so we've always sort of learned to be in the rain without an umbrella. But there are examples. Did you get wet? Well, we have our own Teflon. But look, I would cite to you already examples. Now, some of them would involve already middle class. So Quad is an example. IMEC is an example. They're countries come together for a purpose. Of course, those two also have the US in them. But you could have groups of countries who have, and that was Rishi's point that you're not going to get it's not like the middle powers are going to be around the table the middle powers would now each apply their own mind stake out their own interests, figure out their own policies and then reach arrangements with each other