The Conglomerate as Capital Market

Mukesh Ambani and the corporate balance sheet building India’s next economy

Mukesh Ambani’s most important asset may not be Reliance Industries’ size. It may be his ability to decide which part of the old economy should finance the next one.

Reliance still earns enormous amounts from energy and petrochemicals. But Ambani increasingly uses that financial strength to build businesses in telecom, digital infrastructure, retail, renewable energy and artificial intelligence.

He described the logic himself:

“This business financed our past. It is financing our future.”

Mukesh Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director, Reliance Industries

That is more than a statement about cash flow. It is a philosophy of industrial development.

Read More

The Silicon Sovereign

How Huawei Turned Sanctions into a Self-Sustaining Technology System

In 2019, Huawei was widely seen as a company under siege. Cut off from advanced semiconductors, stripped of access to key components and effectively locked out of Western markets, the Chinese technology giant appeared to be entering a prolonged decline. Its global smartphone business collapsed. Its future, many assumed, would follow.

For a time, that assumption seemed justified.

Yet six years later, Huawei’s 2025 results tell a fundamentally different story. Revenues have rebounded to near-record levels. Profitability has stabilized. More importantly, the company has re-emerged not as a weakened version of its former self, but as something structurally different.

Huawei is no longer simply a technology company competing in global markets. It has become a vertically integrated system architect, embedded in China’s long-term geopolitical and industrial strategy.

“Huawei is no longer just a telecommunications company; they have become the primary engine for China’s drive toward technological self-reliance.”

Paul Triolo
Associate Partner, Albright Stonebridge Group

This transformation reflects a deeper shift underway in China’s approach to technology: from participation in global supply chains to the construction of sovereign ones.

Read More

China’s industrial policy is no longer cyclical — it’s positional

China is not stimulating demand. It is reallocating capacity

Recent policy signals — from targeted credit easing to continued support for EVs, batteries and semiconductors — suggest a shift away from broad-based economic stimulus. Instead of boosting consumption or real estate, Beijing is doubling down on sectors tied to technological self-sufficiency and export strength.

There are two ways to read this.

One interpretation is constraint: China simply cannot afford large-scale stimulus anymore. Debt levels are high, the property sector remains fragile and traditional levers are losing effectiveness

The other interpretation is intent: China is choosing not to stimulate in the old way because it no longer sees domestic demand as the primary engine of power. Instead, it is prioritizing control over critical supply chains and industrial depth.

The second explanation is more convincing.

If this were purely constraint-driven, we would expect at least partial reversion to familiar tools — especially given slowing growth. Instead, policy remains unusually disciplined and narrowly targeted.

The implication is structural.

China is not trying to return to its previous growth model. It is actively replacing it — shifting from a demand-driven economy to a production-anchored system designed for geopolitical resilience.

Photo by Toby Yang / Unsplash

From Embassies to Algorithms

How digital infrastructure is redefining diplomacy in Asia

For centuries, diplomacy unfolded behind closed doors—through envoys, embassies and carefully negotiated agreements. Messages travelled slowly, and power was exercised through physical presence, political alliances and territorial control. Today, that model is under strain.

Geopolitical competition increasingly plays out not only in meeting rooms or maritime zones, but across digital networks—through cyber operations, data flows and algorithmic influence. A diplomatic signal can now be sent not in weeks, but in milliseconds.

This shift is not merely technological. It is structural. The arena of diplomacy is moving away from geography and toward infrastructure—toward the systems through which information, communication and power itself are organised.

“The era of the ‘grand bargain’ is being replaced by the era of ‘granular governance’. We are moving from a world of embassies to a world of algorithms.”

Hiba Malik
Analyst, Modern Diplomacy
Source: Modern Diplomacy, January 2026

Her observation captures a deeper transition: diplomacy is no longer defined solely by who sits at the table, but by who controls the architecture on which the table rests.

Code as Power: Technology as Statecraft Infrastructure

In Asia, technology is rapidly becoming a core instrument of statecraft. Power is increasingly linked to control over digital infrastructure—data systems, cloud architecture, semiconductor supply chains and emerging standards in artificial intelligence and connectivity.

This evolution has given rise to what can be described as technology as statecraft infrastructure.

India offers a particularly striking example. Through its Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)—including systems such as Aadhaar and UPI—it is exporting a model of digital governance to developing economies. This is not simply technical cooperation; it is a form of strategic influence.

“India is sharing its digital governance model for the global public good. Technology must serve as a force for inclusion rather than division.”

Dr. S. Jaishankar
Minister of External Affairs, India
Source: UN Human Rights Council, February 2026

What emerges here is a new form of diplomacy—one that operates not through treaties alone, but through platforms, standards and systems.

The Digital Silk Road: Infrastructure as Influence

If India’s approach reflects openness and scalability, China’s strategy is defined by scale and integration.

Through its Digital Silk Road, Beijing has invested heavily in telecommunications networks, fibre-optic cables, smart city systems and AI-enabled infrastructure across Asia and beyond. These projects are often framed as development partnerships—but they also embed long-term technological dependencies.

“China has found a new way to wield power: not through hard power, but through fibre optics, AI systems and 5G. The question is: are nations gaining independence or becoming entangled in a digital web?”

Dominika Wiater
Geopolitical Researcher
Source: January 2025

This raises a central tension in digital diplomacy: connectivity can enable growth and integration, but it can also create asymmetrical dependencies.

In this context, infrastructure is no longer neutral. It is geopolitical.

The Rise of Tech Diplomacy

As technology becomes central to power, diplomacy itself is evolving.

Governments are appointing technology envoys, negotiating digital standards and engaging directly with private companies that control critical infrastructure. Diplomacy is no longer confined to interactions between states—it now operates at the intersection of states, corporations and code.

Singapore has emerged as a key actor in this space. Rather than aligning with a single bloc, it positions itself as a norm-setter, shaping discussions on AI governance, data regulation and cyber security.

“AI is not just the next rung in the technological ladder. It will deliver a paradigm shift in the distribution and exercise of power. The question is not whether AI will shape foreign policy, but who will shape it.”

David Lammy
UK Foreign Secretary
Source: Speech in Singapore, July 2025

Singapore’s approach reflects a broader strategy visible across parts of Asia: influence not through dominance, but through rule-making and standard-setting.

The Splinternet: Fragmentation of the Digital Order

At the same time, the global digital landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented.

Rather than a single, open internet, we are witnessing the emergence of parallel systems—often described as the “splinternet”—with different rules governing data, privacy, security and access.

China promotes a model of digital sovereignty and state control. The United States and its partners emphasise openness, albeit increasingly constrained by security concerns. Meanwhile, many Asian countries pursue hybrid strategies—balancing openness with control.

“Sovereignty in the digital age is less about territorial control than about the capacity to script technological futures.”

Editorial Board
Politics and Governance Journal
Source: November 2025

This shift reflects a deeper transformation: sovereignty is no longer defined only by borders, but by the ability to shape digital ecosystems.

Hedging in a Digital World

For many states in Asia, the response is not alignment, but adaptation.

Countries are increasingly engaging in technological hedging—using American chips, Chinese infrastructure and domestic regulatory frameworks simultaneously. This layered approach allows them to manage risk while preserving strategic autonomy.

At the same time, governments are asserting data sovereignty, seeking to ensure that the data generated within their borders remains subject to national control. Debates around platforms such as TikTok, cloud storage and cross-border data flows are no longer technical—they are deeply geopolitical.

What emerges is a form of algorithmic statecraft, in which influence is exercised not only through negotiation, but through control over information flows, predictive systems and digital environments.

Asia as a Digital Geopolitical Laboratory

Asia has become the central testing ground for this transformation.

The region combines rapid technological adoption with diverse governance models—from highly centralised systems to open, market-driven approaches. This diversity makes it both a site of competition and a laboratory for new forms of digital diplomacy.

Crucially, Asian states are not passive recipients of global trends. They are active shapers of the rules, norms and infrastructures that will define the future of international relations.

Conclusion: Sovereignty Rewritten

Diplomacy in the digital age is no longer confined to negotiation tables or formal agreements. It is embedded in code, infrastructure and systems that operate continuously and often invisibly.

Technology is no longer a tool of diplomacy. It is its foundation.

The implications are profound. Control over data, standards and digital infrastructure increasingly determines not just economic competitiveness, but political influence and strategic autonomy.

In this emerging order, sovereignty is being rewritten.

Not as control over territory, but as control over the systems that define how the world connects, communicates and competes.

And in that system, diplomacy is no longer just about dialogue—it is about design.

---

Photo Credit:

Illustration for Altair Media

Caption:

The Great Transition: From the classical architecture of physical embassies to the vast, complex algorithmic networks of digital statecraft. This visualization shows how power in Asia is shifting from physical presence to digital control, with glowing data hubs marking the new geography of algorithmic sovereignty and influence across the Indo-Pacific.

The Quiet Rewiring of Power

How minilateralism is transforming the Indo-Pacific order

In August 2023, a summit at Camp David brought together the United States, Japan and South Korea—three countries whose relations have long been shaped by historical tension and strategic mistrust. What emerged was not a traditional alliance, but a functional framework for cooperation across security, technology and crisis coordination.

“The era of the ‘grand bargain’ is over. We have entered the era of the ‘targeted taskforce’.”

Dr. C. Raja Mohan
Senior Fellow, Asia Society Policy Institute
Source: Foreign Policy Analysis

This moment reflects a broader structural shift across the Indo-Pacific: the rise of minilateralism.

Small Groups, Big Influence

Minilateralism refers to cooperation among a small number of states—typically three to five—focused on clearly defined strategic objectives. Unlike large multilateral institutions, which prioritise inclusivity and consensus, minilateral arrangements are deliberately selective and operational.

They function as a form of “plug-and-play diplomacy”: modular, adaptive and designed for speed.

This is not about replacing institutions such as ASEAN or the United Nations. It is about compensating for their limitations in an increasingly complex strategic environment.

“Consensus has become a synonym for stagnation.”

Kurt Campbell
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Source: U.S. Senate Hearing on the Indo-Pacific

A New Geometry of Power

The appeal of minilateralism lies in its efficiency. Smaller groups of like-minded states can coordinate faster, act more decisively and align more closely around shared priorities.

But beyond efficiency, minilateralism signals a deeper transformation in how power is structured.

The traditional model—defined by rigid alliances and clearly demarcated blocs—is giving way to a more fluid system of overlapping partnerships.

This shift is visible across several key initiatives:

• The Quad (United States, India, Japan, Australia), expanding into vaccines and critical technologies
• AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States), integrating defence capabilities and advanced technologies
• Emerging groupings such as U.S.–Japan–Australia–Philippines cooperation on maritime security

What binds these initiatives together is not ideology, but function. This is functional cooperation in practice.

Beyond the Hub-and-Spoke

For decades, Asia’s security architecture was described as a “hub-and-spoke” system, with the United States at the centre of bilateral alliances.

That model is evolving.

In its place, a more complex lattice-like security architecture is emerging—one defined by horizontal linkages between states.

Japan and Australia deepen bilateral ties. India pursues strategic autonomy while engaging selectively. Southeast Asian states participate in multiple arrangements simultaneously.

The result is a dense web of overlapping partnerships—what can be described as minilateral overlap.

In this system, influence is no longer defined solely by alignment, but by connectivity.

The Logic of Institutional Hedging

For many states in Asia, minilateralism is not a substitute for multilateralism, but a complement.

Governments continue to invest in broader frameworks such as ASEAN, while simultaneously engaging in smaller, more agile coalitions. This reflects a strategy of institutional hedging—diversifying partnerships to manage uncertainty.

It allows states to:

• maintain economic ties with China
• strengthen security cooperation with the United States
• preserve strategic autonomy

Rather than choosing sides, states are managing exposure across systems.

The Exclusion Dilemma

Yet the very features that make minilateralism effective also introduce new risks.

Efficiency depends on exclusivity. But exclusivity creates friction.

“Minilateralism is efficient for those inside the room, but it creates a sense of siege for those outside. It risks turning the Indo-Pacific into a patchwork of hostile cliques.”

Kishore Mahbubani
Former President, United Nations Security Council
Source: The Asian 21st Century

For countries excluded from these arrangements, minilateralism can appear as containment—or even encirclement.

The result may be an Indo-Pacific increasingly defined by a patchwork of competing networks, rather than a cohesive regional order.

ASEAN and the Crisis of Centrality

ASEAN faces a particular challenge in this evolving landscape.

For decades, the organisation has positioned itself as the central platform for regional dialogue—“ASEAN centrality.” The rise of minilateral initiatives, however, risks bypassing this role.

In capitals such as Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur, concerns are growing that key strategic decisions are increasingly made outside ASEAN-led frameworks.

The question is no longer whether ASEAN remains relevant, but whether it can adapt to a system where flexibility outweighs consensus.

A Networked Future

The rise of minilateralism points toward a broader transformation—from fixed structures to dynamic networks.

In this emerging system:

• alliances are issue-specific and fluid
• partnerships overlap rather than align neatly
• power is distributed across networks

This does not signal the end of multilateralism—but it does mark the end of its dominance.

Conclusion: Power in Motion

Minilateralism is not a temporary adjustment. It is a structural response to a more complex, faster-moving and fragmented world.

Small, strategic alliances enable precision and flexibility. But they also introduce new dynamics of exclusion, competition and potential escalation.

The central question is not simply whether minilateralism works—but what it means for long-term stability.

What is clear is this: Power is no longer defined solely by size or alignment, but by position within a network.

And in that networked order, the decisive factor is no longer who leads—but who connects.

---

Photo credit: Unsplash