‘Gloglomerates’ and the Battle for Global Influence

• The ‘glogomerates’ are instituted either in an academic/hedge fund manager’s mind or are a desperate attempt to seize the global stage and are propped up to provide a counterweight to some existing yet polarizing power.
• A glogomerate is marked by a dominant power driving its decisions and issuing press releases that either promote its own agenda or vilify opposing global leaders.
• The new cold wars have begun! Only time will tell as to how appropriately we find ourselves balancing the feat of strategic autonomy before being compelled to make a move.

Despite the looming threat of being labelled a fossil, I’d like to share a movie recommendation before starting. Dr. Strangelove. And if you have watched it, I’m glad to welcome you here. Eerie, isn’t it? How much closer we seem to be approaching day zero, but instead of the bomb dropping on the Soviet Union, it might find its destination redirected to its Communist neighbour. (Which one? Well, that’s food for thought).

Now, why I start with such an ominous tone might be rightly questioned. However, take a look at the recent survey Pew Research conducted on China’s favorability we attached below. Further, an interesting pointer you’d find is that almost the majority of the OECD countries have an unfavourable view of China. And for those who seem to be extremely favourable to China, a simple glance at their balance sheets would indicate why they seem to be so favourable.

However, this is in retrospect just a small part of a larger and significant geopolitical shift in which we find ourselves, akin to the post-WWI era. In particular, there is an increasing focus on self-interest taking increasing priority and represented directly on the global stage instead of being pursued behind closed doors. In numerous articles written prior, one can observe the rise of the global-right and more importantly, a significant increase in populist and nationalistic leaders rising across the globe with a prima facie objective of trying to establish their hegemony on the global stage. However, no more pronounced is this than in the charade of organizations across the globe. 

The rise of two power blocs presents us with a more interesting question to ask. With the relative increases in power of both China and Russia together opposing the US expansion of democracy, where is the battle underway?

I’ll take time to build my answer, however, let’s take a step back and go first to the prime region of contact – the United Nations. Let’s visit the primary statutory body of the United Nations, the Security Council. With the ability to veto significant, landmark resolutions based on self-interest the P5 possess an undue advantage to essentially shut down whatever opposes their larger geopolitical interests. In this context, if we zoom in on the number of vetoes passed, the last time any member apart from the United States, Russia or China ever opposed a resolution was 1989. Yes, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, only three powers have exercised this undue right for the sole sake of propagating a vested interest. To this, one could only just laugh at how ironically democratic such actions are by the United States and sigh over how rather characteristically totalitarian it is of both China and Russia. 

Let’s move back on this now re-focusing on the trade spectrum. Supporting the $52 trillion global economy, trade is imperative in trying to facilitate the smooth functioning of the global economy. This is facilitated through the WTO. But wait, what about conflicts there? Well, of the 24 cases that China has filed as a complainant, 18 of them were directed to the United States. Over $1.7 trillion of publicly-listed companies valuations all were lost until 2023. However, this harkens back to my answer. The biggest battlegrounds we find this front of war happening is in organizations. Through the legal permission of vetos and trade disputes, there has been a significant clash and counter-response presented by both parties all for the sake of validation.  And this seems to be getting on everybody’s nerves. 

To the geopolitical observer, there seems to be a flip side to this. The rise in an era of glomerate, all ushered in through the consequence of de-globalization. With an increase in the attempt to disentangle from the global supply chains, these two poles of power now are proceeding to establish spheres of influence by instituting special importance to bloated pipedream international organizations, I call glogomerates.   

These glogomerates, for a lack of a better word, are instituted either in an academic/hedge fund manager’s mind or are a desperate attempt to seize the global stage and are propped up to provide a counter-weight to some existing yet polarizing power. For example, BRICS was formed by an erstwhile Goldman Sachs chairman, Jim O’Neil to identify investment decisions.  Nurtured in an attempt to usher FDIs and FIIs into global markets given better opportunities, BRICS has now morphed into a geo-political organization shadowed by China. With 62% of the cumulative GDP being contributed by China, it seems that BRICS gradually would present itself as a microphone to amplify anti-American sentiments while at the same time positioning the Chinese Renminbi as a contender to the dollar, all while India cheers in the clouded misjudgement of equal representation by a BRICS currency. 

A second glogomerate, sponsored by  China, is the SCO. Positioning itself as a diplomatic alliance of Asian countries, instead, it provides a significant opportunity to perpetuate Chinese interests by attracting pandering nations all through promises of funding and development, courtesy of the BRI.

A glogomerate can be identified in two methods, first – it has a polar power leading the organization with a significant share in its decision-making and operations. Second, their recent press releases reeks of diplomatic jargon espoused by the polar power or instead vilifies the other global leader. For instance, let’s go back to history and look at the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Both of them had a significant global superpower providing its might behind them. Second, they direct a significant amount of effort vilifying the other dominant superpowers, in this case, the Soviet Union and the USA. The only caveat? They present these organizations as an affront to promote dominating ideologies. 

To return to the discussion of glogomerates, requires us to revisit the question I first posed. What is the battleground? Well, it’s these organizations and glogomerates. To coronate a certain group of countries as a glogomerate allows for these powers to flex their might. They gain the opportunity to boast about their extended sphere of influence while vilifying the other. Take a look at QUAD, AUKUS and the Five Eyes. They too are no different from SCO and BRICS. The only contrast? They re-package the ideology of democracy as a veiled threat to China. 

This is the battleground we find ourselves in. Ideologies pushed henceforth as but a representation of power. The new cold wars have begun! Only time will tell as to how appropriately we find ourselves balancing the feat of strategic autonomy before being compelled to make a move. 

_{(Divith Narendra is a student of data science, economics, and business with a passion for integrating data and statistics. He writes extensively on industry trends and geopolitics. His works were featured at the G20 and published by Cambridge Union Press. Views expressed are the author’s own)}

Divith Narendra