Modern globalization is running on empty. When Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar laid out his diagnostic framework of three Cs—competition, conflict, and choke points—at a recent global leadership forum in New Delhi, he was not merely offering catchy bureaucratic shorthand. He was delivering an autopsy report on the post-Cold War economic consensus. The comfortable assumption that open markets would forever self-regulate and prioritize absolute cost efficiency has shattered against the rocks of geopolitical reality.
For decades, corporate boardrooms and state planners treated international trade as a frictionless conveyor belt. Components moved across oceans with second-hand precision, timed to arrive at assembly plants minutes before installation. That era is dead. In its place stands a high-stakes arena where economic interdependence is weaponized, and geographic choke points are turned into instruments of national coercion.
The Anatomy of Modern Vulnerability
The shift from cooperative globalization to aggressive economic nationalism did not happen overnight. It accumulated through years of neglected systemic risks. Traditional rivalries have migrated from border disputes and territorial posturing into trade lanes, semiconductor fabrication plants, and critical mineral processing hubs. When a single nation or a tight-knit cartel establishes near-monopolistic control over a vital material, the rest of the world inherits an invisible fragility.
Consider the mechanics of maritime choke points. Global trade relies heavily on narrow maritime straits and canal systems where a single regional conflict can halt billions of dollars in cargo. When combined with protracted wars in Eastern Europe and West Asia that stretch past half a decade, the friction in global logistics ceases to be a temporary supply chain glitch. It becomes the permanent baseline operating condition.
Enterprises that spent the last thirty years optimizing for the lowest possible cost are discovering that cheap inputs carry a hidden, deferred price tag. Energy markets, fertilizer distribution networks, and maritime insurance rates fluctuate wildly under the pressure of secondary sanctions and naval standoffs. The assumption that logistics will quietly fix themselves no longer survives contact with empirical reality.
The Four-Pronged Strategic Pivot
To counter this structural decay, policymakers are shifting from wishful thinking to defensive architecture. Jaishankar’s proposed antidote relies on four distinct imperatives designed to inject operational safety margins back into statecraft and corporate strategy.
Derisking occupies the central pillar of this doctrine. Unlike complete decoupling, which remains economically unviable for most industrializing economies, derisking targets critical single points of failure. It acknowledges that engagement with rival powers must continue, but under strict terms of bounded exposure.
Diversification follows as the operational engine. Relying on a single supplier because their balance sheet shows a fractional cost advantage is treated as an obsolete luxury. Spreading procurement across multiple geographies creates operational redundancy. If one corridor closes due to geopolitical friction or localized conflict, alternate channels absorb the shock without halting domestic production lines.
Dealing with market distortions requires direct state intervention. When subsidies, export controls, and artificial supply caps distort pricing mechanisms for food, fuel, and tech hardware, free-market actors cannot rely on standard cost-benefit analyses. Governments must absorb baseline shocks or subsidize domestic buffers to protect citizens from sudden inflation spikes.
Finally, the traditional audit mantra of "trust and verify" has been replaced by an adversarial posture: distrust and diversify. Planning must proceed from the worst-case assumption that primary partners will experience catastrophic disruptions.
The Domestic Imperative
External resilience requires internal capacity. Building a secure position on the global stage starts with local manufacturing depth, domestic R&D, and self-reliant industrial ecosystems. Countries that outsource their foundational manufacturing capabilities find themselves politically exposed when international rules dissolve.
By prioritizing domestic value addition, regional industrial clusters, and wide-ranging trade frameworks with trusted democracies, major developing economies are attempting to insulate their domestic markets from external contagion. The goal is not isolation, but the confidence that comes from knowing national survival does not depend on the goodwill of a strategic competitor.
The international order will not return to the predictable rhythms of the late twentieth century. Supply chains will remain fragmented, strategic competition will intensify, and the margin for error will continue to shrink. States and corporations that fail to hardwire these risks into their daily calculations will find themselves permanently at the mercy of forces they refused to anticipate
