Transformation in the global order

Institute of Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at the National Defence University (NDU) Islamabad conducted the annual 'International Programme for Development and Stability (IPDS-26)' on September 14-15, 2026. One has been a keen participant and observer in the IPDS events that assemble an array of scholars, academics, diplomats, businessmen, community leaders and policymakers from across the globe, in person and online. IPDS has developed into an influential and assertive platform, raising the stature of NDU/ISSRA significantly. The forum this year had some 150 foreign participants from around 50 countries. Dealing with important issue affecting the world, this year the theme was 'Transformation of the Global Order' with sub-themes dilating upon power, governance, strategic autonomy, AI, information and society, redefining national power, the changing character of warfare, strategic stability, managing competition, preventing conflict, the role of middle powers, etc. In two days of exhaustive deliberations, with the entire National Security and War Course (NSWC), IPDS, NDU alumni, guests and other participants present and online, the speakers shared unique insight into their respective areas of expertise. This piece will discuss some aspects. First, the broad strands of 'Emerging Global Order' (EGO). There was unanimity of opinion that EGO is fragmented, with the ongoing debate about unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity yet to be settled. That there is competition for Global Commons (outer space, high seas, Antarctica, atmosphere, etc); the US just weaponised space. Technological competition for superiority in AI, semi-conductors and quantum computing defines EGO. That the tyranny of geography affects EGO in places like Hormuz and Afghanistan. That governance is becoming increasingly complex due to citizenry's usage of social media networks (SMN) and rulers' sensitivity and at times, obsessive compulsiveness towards public opinion, which continues to be generated and manipulated by fakes on SMNs. Most speakers agreed that the present era is characterised as the 'age of disruptions' with transactional alliances, competition by nation-states to acquire hard power (that includes military power), and the weapons of ultimate choice, the nukes. That in the EGO, geostrategy would continue to outpace geoeconomics (as expressed by this scribe frequently in this space). Some speakers called the EGO a 'disorder', which in the South Asian context would be characterised by: a) the trinity of Pakistan-China and India relations; b) the outcome of the US-Iran war and competition; and c) Afghanistan. Second, the Sino-US competition. The venerable Professor Victor Gao from China postulated the ascendency of Chinese economic and hard power over the US. The US decline was more pronounced in the eclipse of US naval power, as witnessed in its conflict with Iran. Prof Gao emphasised just and uniform development at the global level, for all countries to benefit from EGO. Another Chinese scholar did not see the Sino-US competition negatively and considered it healthy for fostering mutual deterrence; for the Global South; and for increased trade competitiveness. In his reckoning the competition was heading towards 'de-escalation' rather than spiking up. On AI, Professor Gao raised important questions, for example, if AI was good for humanity or otherwise, if it was possible for AI to break loose from human control, if international cooperation (regulation) of AI was possible, and the specter of AI-dominance by a single country. The chief guest on Day 1 discoursed on the transformation of Global Order, the role of technology and the nature of warfare. In his overarching keynote address, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) Gen Sahir emphasised peace, engagements and stability with India; sought restraining of TTP and adherence to Doha Accord by Afghanistan; highlighted collective security in the Middle East under the Makkah Agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye; and emphasised strategic agency without disruption. On warfare, he reverberated wars' expansiveness into AI, EW and Cyber domains. He questioned 'maneuver' under changing paradigms defined by technological intensity and asymmetry. That disruptive technologies are ushering in non-contact warfare, with 'fire and maneuver' becoming obsolete. The former CJCSC postulated that technology is outpacing doctrine. He reckoned comprehensive National Security paradigm as panacea and emphasised criticality of leadership, aligning training with technology and ensuring protection of combatants and non-combatants alike, from the overflow of information. He dispelled the notion of war with India under the nuclear overhang. Another speaker emphasised that it was 'the rules for exercising the power' that were changing. The speaker differentiated between military supremacy and political supremacy as stand alone. While the US enjoyed the former, Iran benefited from the latter. She postulated that the world was becoming 'multiplex' with more actors interacting in a less regulated environment. The Russian speaker concurred that there were lesser stability and predictability under the new environment. That the existing order was fragmented, witnessing altered distribution of power and changing behaviour of states. He recommended 'strategic autonomy' as the way to go. Strategic autonomy is synonymous with 'hedging' wherein nations avoid alignment with any single great power, shun camps politics and seek advantage wherever they find it. Participant from the UK discussed the rise of China, interestingly mentioning that a 'rising China' was simply the country returning to its default position, which was its 'historic norm'. He characterised the present era as the 'era of strongmen', or the 'age of monsters' as described by none other than US Vice President JD Vance. He was critical of Europe under the EU which 'misses no opportunity to miss opportunity'. In his opinion, Putin unifies Europe which is now scrambling to put its defences together, after a faltering alliance with the US under President Trump. In the EGO, Europe needs to reboot politically as the US, EU interests are increasingly divergent. That Europe must 'Europeanize' NATO. Although, contrarily, one US participant considered Trump as 'a transient phenomenon' inspired by the competition between the American urban elite and the rural middle class that had gone a bit too far. The US participants were critical of President Trump for his unserious approach to foreign policy; his preference of ideology over experience; and his proclivity for unilateralism over alliances. Most agreed that in the EGO, military power will be subservient to 'hard power' – the sum of military, political, economic and diplomatic advantage. Continued…