As global trade fragments into power blocs and strategic alignments, market logic is increasingly shaped by geopolitics, supply-chain security, and institutional leverage. In this wide-ranging conversation, Dr Asif Iqbal, President of the Indian Economic Trade Organization (IETO), reflects on India’s multi-alignment strategy, the evolving dynamics of the Global South, MSME inclusion, ethical trade, and why execution—not optics—now defines success in economic diplomacy.
Background
Global trade is no longer governed solely by comparative advantage or price efficiency. Increasingly, it is shaped by geopolitical alignment, supply-chain securitisation, and strategic resilience. Economic diplomacy—once centred on mutual value creation—now operates within a more contested environment defined by power asymmetries, bloc politics, and competing national priorities.
For emerging and developing economies, this shift presents both opportunity and vulnerability. Access to markets is often mediated by alignment, while policy autonomy is tested by external pressures and evolving trade standards. In this context, the effectiveness of economic engagement depends not only on formal diplomacy, but on institutions that can translate strategic intent into implementable outcomes.
Dr Iqbal brings a cross-regional practitioner’s perspective to this evolving landscape. As President of the Indian Economic Trade Organization, and through his concurrent roles as President of the India–Africa Trade Council and Director General of the Asian Arab Chamber of Commerce, his engagement spans structured India–Africa trade cooperation and sustained business dialogue across the Arab world—placing him at the intersection of policy, enterprise, and institutional execution across multiple geographies of the Global South.
In conversation with Dr. Iqbal
By Renu Malhotra, Editor-in-Chief
Question 1: Global trade today appears increasingly driven by power blocs and strategic alignments rather than market logic alone. In your experience, has economic diplomacy shifted from mutual value creation to becoming a tool of geopolitical leverage—and what risks does this pose for smaller and emerging economies?
Dr Iqbal: Global trade has undoubtedly become more influenced by strategic alignments and geopolitical considerations than in previous decades. While this reflects legitimate national security and resilience concerns, it also creates structural challenges for smaller and emerging economies that depend on open, predictable markets.
The principal risk lies in reduced policy space and heightened exposure to external pressures, as bloc-based decision-making increasingly overrides pure market logic. For emerging economies, this can translate into constrained choices, fragmented access, and asymmetric negotiating power.
In this environment, the way forward lies in diversification, regional cooperation, and stronger institutional frameworks that allow engagement with global partners to remain balanced, inclusive, and development-oriented rather than dependency-driven. Platforms that enable candid, outcome-focused dialogue between governments and industry are critical to mitigating these asymmetries.
Question 2: India engages simultaneously with the West, BRICS, the Global South, and emerging markets. Is this multi-alignment a durable strategy of strategic autonomy, or do you foresee pressure points where India may be compelled to make difficult trade-offs?
Dr Iqbal: India’s multi-alignment reflects a mature and pragmatic approach to international engagement. It allows the country to safeguard strategic autonomy while contributing constructively across diverse platforms.
As India moves toward 2026 and beyond, pressure points may emerge in areas such as technology governance, climate-linked trade standards, and supply-chain security. However, India’s strength lies in its ability to engage without exclusivity—using dialogue, economic capability, and institutional depth to manage trade-offs rather than being constrained by them.
Question 3: Africa is emerging as a major focus of global trade engagement. How should India–Africa economic relations be structured to prioritise long-term partnership, local value creation, and mutual growth?
Dr Iqbal: India–Africa economic engagement must be approached as a long-term partnership grounded in shared development pathways and institutional trust, rather than transactional trade.
The emphasis should be on structured collaboration—through country-specific dialogue, sector-focused engagement, and direct interaction between enterprises and local stakeholders. This enables clarity on regulatory environments, investment readiness, and local priorities, while encouraging joint ventures, MSME partnerships, and project-based collaboration.
Such an approach supports local value addition, employment generation, skills development, and technology transfer within African economies, ensuring that growth is mutual and sustainable.
Question 4: Trade summits and high-level delegations often attract criticism for producing impressive optics but limited outcomes. What, in your view, constitutes real impact in economic diplomacy?
Dr Iqbal: Real impact is defined by continuity and execution. Economic diplomacy succeeds when businesses enter new markets, investments are realised, and institutional bottlenecks are addressed.
MOUs are important starting points, but they are not outcomes in themselves. Success lies in follow-through—sector-specific engagement, problem-solving mechanisms, and sustained facilitation that converts intent into implementation.
Question 5: MSMEs are frequently encouraged to integrate into global value chains, yet they face regulatory complexity, financing constraints, and unequal market access. Is the global trade architecture genuinely inclusive?
Dr Iqbal: The global trade architecture has historically favoured scale, capital strength, and established players, making internationalisation particularly challenging for MSMEs. While there is growing recognition of the need for inclusion, progress remains uneven.
Meaningful integration requires tailored pathways rather than one-size-fits-all solutions. MSMEs benefit most from gradual scaling—through partnerships, joint ventures, and participation in regional value chains—supported by access to market intelligence and institutional linkages.
Question 6: With rising resource nationalism and supply-chain securitisation, can ethical and sustainable trade models realistically coexist with profit-driven global markets?
Dr Iqbal: Ethical and sustainable trade models are increasingly becoming integral to long-term competitiveness rather than remaining aspirational. While cost pressures persist, sustainability is being embedded into investment decisions, regulatory frameworks, and consumer expectations.
Over time, profitability and responsibility will need to coexist, particularly as global markets evolve toward higher standards of accountability and resilience.
Question 7: The idea of Global South solidarity has gained momentum in recent years. On the ground, however, competing national interests often fragment collective action. Is this unity real, evolving, or largely situational?
Dr Iqbal: Global South solidarity is evolving in a pragmatic, issue-driven manner rather than as a rigid bloc. While national priorities and competitive interests do create fragmentation, there is convergence on shared concerns such as development finance, technology access, resilient supply chains, and fairer trade frameworks.
This makes cooperation situational in form, but strategic in intent. From IETO’s perspective, solidarity is most effective when translated into practical economic engagement—anchored in trade, investment, and enterprise-level collaboration rather than rhetoric.
Question 8: Trade bodies and industry-led institutions often appear more agile than governments in responding to market realities. Do organisations such as IETO fill gaps left by formal diplomacy, and should they have a more structured role in shaping foreign economic policy?
Dr Iqbal: Institutions such as IETO play a complementary role to formal diplomacy. Governments set strategic direction, while trade bodies help translate policy intent into market-level outcomes.
Their agility allows them to respond quickly to evolving business realities, identify sector-specific opportunities, and address implementation gaps. While foreign economic policy must remain government-led, structured collaboration with credible, industry-driven institutions adds realism, depth, and execution capability.
Question 9: India’s demographic dividend is frequently highlighted as a strategic advantage. Without accelerated skilling, international exposure, and industry alignment, could this dividend risk becoming a liability rather than an asset?
Dr Iqbal: India’s demographic dividend is a powerful advantage, but without accelerated skilling, global exposure, and strong industry alignment, it risks underutilisation.
The focus must shift from workforce size to capability, adaptability, and productivity. Aligning education systems, vocational training, and industry demand—while exposing young professionals to global standards—will be critical in the years ahead.
Question 10: From your international engagements, how is India currently perceived—and what must change for India to decisively shape global trade norms?
Dr Iqbal: India is increasingly perceived as a strategic partner with growing influence in global trade discussions. To consolidate its role as a rule-shaper, India must continue active participation in standard-setting processes, technology governance, and multilateral trade forums.
Policy consistency, institutional credibility, and sustained engagement will be essential if India is to shape global trade norms rather than merely adapt to them.
Question 11: If there is one uncomfortable truth about the global trading system today that policymakers and institutions tend to avoid acknowledging, what would it be?
Dr Iqbal: A persistent challenge is the gap between the spirit of multilateral rules and their practical application. While the system aspires to be universal, differences in capacity and institutional readiness significantly influence outcomes.
This imbalance is rarely addressed openly, yet it affects confidence and inclusivity. For emerging economies, balancing integration with resilience remains an ongoing challenge.
Question 12: After years of navigating economic diplomacy, institutional negotiations, and global power corridors, what has most challenged or altered your early assumptions about how the international system actually functions?
Dr Iqbal: Early on, formal treaties and high-level summits appeared to be the primary drivers of outcomes. Experience has shown that execution capacity, consistency, and on-ground partnerships matter far more.
At IETO, this is evident through sustained engagement—trade delegations, MSME matchmaking, and joint ventures across sectors such as renewables and agriculture. Institutions provide structure, but preparedness and integration ultimately determine success in an increasingly complex global environment.
Closing Perspective
As global trade becomes more fragmented and politicised, the distance between diplomacy and delivery continues to narrow. Influence today is defined less by alignment alone, and more by the ability to convert dialogue into durable economic outcomes.
For India and the wider Global South, the next phase of engagement will be shaped by institutional strength, execution discipline, and partnerships that endure beyond summits, statements, and short-term alignments.
