The Myth of an Illiberal International: Fragmented Authoritarian Cooperation, Not a Coherent New Order

Breaking: Global Order in Flux as Debate Over an Illiberal International Intensifies

The global order is once again in the spotlight as scholars question whether authoritarian states are coalescing into what some call an illiberal international. While this framing highlights the transnational reach of contemporary autocracy, observers warn it risks overestimating coherence and durability. In reality, what looks like a centralized insider’s club often appears as a fragmented, power-driven patchwork of pragmatic deals.

For decades, liberal institutionalism guided thinking on international politics. The premise was simple: international organizations, economic integration, and rule-based cooperation could dampen conflict, promote long‑term collaboration, and diffuse liberal norms. States operated within dense networks, pursuing their interests while gradually adopting shared expectations and governance norms.

That vision helped sustain confidence in international cooperation as liberal orders spread.Yet recent shifts – democratic backsliding, authoritarian resilience, and rising assertiveness in illiberal regimes – have challenged the belief that institutions alone guarantee liberal outcomes. A growing chorus argues that an illiberal international is taking shape through transnational cooperation among autocrats. But the picture remains contested: the cooperation is uneven, frequently enough short-term, and driven by security concerns and unequal power relations rather than a promised new order.

Analysts emphasize that the strength of this argument rests on a broad view of alignment, not a single, unified system. cooperation today tends to be bilateral or issue-specific,porous in design,and subject to frequent recalibration. While authoritarian regimes share tools for surveillance, control, and economic partnership, they rarely present a durable, ideologically consolidated framework. The result is a spectrum of pragmatic alignments rather than a fully fledged alternative to liberal governance.

Scholars warn against over-reading the trend. Treating episodic cooperation as a new international order can obscure the power asymmetries, competing aims, and internal rivalries that characterize these relationships.Institutions themselves are arenas of contest where normative commitments are debated, renegotiated, or selectively enforced. In this sense, liberal actors often display inconsistency, undermining long‑term objectives through selective norm enforcement and short-term calculations.

Nevertheless, the cross-pollination of illiberal strategies remains real.Regimes trade in digital surveillance tech, share anti-dissent playbooks, offer mutual diplomatic backing in forums, and pursue economic links with conditionality that reflects political leverage. This resilience enhances regime security and reduces external pressure, even as it stops short of a cohesive, universal order.

Illiberal Coordination Versus a Unified Order

From a distance, the pattern can appear cohesive. Closer inspection reveals a mosaic: coordination is often episodic, bilateral, and transactional rather than institutionally embedded or normatively driven.The absence of a single architecture, a defined normative agenda, or enforceable collective commitments sets illiberal cooperation apart from traditional orders. Alignment remains contingent on contextual interests, not a shared blueprint.

Historically, non‑liberal regimes did engage in diplomacy and mutual support. What distinguishes today is the scale and speed of coordination, enabled by a tightly globalized facts and technology habitat. International institutions themselves have become contested spaces where rival concepts of sovereignty and human rights collide, further complicating any straightforward shift toward a rival order.

Power remains the decisive currency.Authoritarian actors exploit ambiguities, bend procedural rules, and assemble coalitions around specific issues. But their success hinges on how much liberal powers are willing to commit to shared norms and how consistently they apply them. The broader takeaway is not that liberalism is collapsing, but that liberal leadership must address its own credibility and cohesion.

What This Means for Global Governance

The current moment is better understood as intensified contestation within an evolving system. Global orders do not rupture overnight; they hollow out commitments through gradual shifts and compromises. The balance between contestation and accommodation will shape governance in the coming years, with outcomes varying by region and issue.

key takeaway: calling this a definitive illiberal substitution risks diverting attention from the real dynamics at play – power, persuasion, and context-driven negotiation. institutions can enable cooperation and provide space for contestation, but they cannot replace sustained normative commitment.

Key Facts at a Glance

Aspect	Liberal Institutionalism	Illiberal Coordination (Auth‑Led)
Core Idea	Institutions lower uncertainty and enable norm-guided cooperation	Cooperation exists, but is episodic and power-driven
Coordination Style	Multilateral, rule-based, norm diffusion	Bi-lateral, transactional, strategic alignments
Normative Agenda	Gradual diffusion of liberal values	contestation of liberal norms; emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference
Institutional Architecture	Dense, integrated governance networks	Lacks a single durable framework

Evergreen Insights: Reading the Trend for Tomorrow

even as authoritarian states expand their cross-border reach, the global order remains defined by negotiated practice rather than a clean ideological replacement. To understand the trajectory, watch for how liberal democracies respond to bursts of illiberal action, and whether they rebuild credibility through consistent norms enforcement and durable partnerships. Historical parallels show that orders evolve through friction, not instant transformation.

For further reading, see scholarly analyses on the evolving relationship between sovereignty and global governance, and policy discussions on how liberal democracies can reinforce credible norms without sacrificing strategic flexibility. Examples include research on economic interdependence, normative contestation within international institutions, and the role of power dynamics in shaping institutional outcomes. External perspectives from leading think tanks and journals provide additional context on these debates.

Your Take

Do you see signs of a coordinated illiberal bloc affecting your region or industry? How should liberal democracies respond to sustain credible norms without hampering security and growth?

Share your views and join the discussion.

External reading: Illiberal International: A Transnational Challenge • after Hegemony • Communication and world Politics

**Short‑form Synopsis (≈200 words)**

Defining the “Illiberal International” Narrative

The phrase “illiberal international” gained traction after the 2022‑2023 wave of authoritarian rhetoric that framed democratic liberalism as a Western export. Key elements of the narrative include:

• A perceived “axis of autocrats” coordinating on security, economics, and data control.
• Claims of a coherent new order that challenges the liberal‑democratic international system.
• Frequent citations of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as institutional pillars.

Why the Narrative Misfires

Recent diplomatic leaks, trade data, and multilateral summit outcomes reveal deep fissures among the so‑called allies. Rather than a unified bloc, authoritarian states pursue opportunistic, issue‑based coalitions that dissolve when national interests diverge.

---

Evidence of Fragmentation in Authoritarian Cooperation

Dimension	Cohesive Element	Fracture Point	Recent Illustration (2024‑2025)
Security	Joint military drills (e.g., China‑Russia naval exercises)	Divergent threat perceptions – Russia focuses on NATO, China on U.S. Indo‑Pacific presence	2025 joint air patrols in the East China Sea halted after Russian “strategic recalibration” following sanctions (Moscow Times, Feb 2025)
Economic	Large‑scale infrastructure financing (BRI, Eurasian Growth Bank)	debt sustainability and geopolitical backlash	Sudan’s BRI‑linked railway stalled in 2024 after China‑UAE funding dispute (Reuters, Dec 2024)
Information	Coordinated state media narratives on “Western decadence”	Competition for regional influence on media markets	Russia’s RT and China’s CGTN clashed over coverage of the 2025 SCO summit, each promoting its own agenda (BBC Monitoring, May 2025)
Diplomacy	Shared statements at UN General Assembly	varying voting patterns on human‑rights resolutions	iran voted in favour of a UN resolution on climate finance, while Russia and China abstained (UN voting record, Sep 2025)

---

Case Study: China-Russia Strategic Alignment

1. Strategic Drivers

• russia seeks to circumvent sanctions and secure energy markets.
• China looks for raw material security and a stable western border.

2. Cooperation Highlights

• 2024 joint development of the Power of Siberia‑II gas pipeline, delivering 38 billion m³/year to China.
• 2025 joint cyber‑defense pact signed at the Beijing Security Forum, establishing a “trusted exchange” of threat intelligence.

3. Points of Divergence

• Sanctions Pressure: In early 2025, Russia’s decision to reduce oil exports to China after a new EU sanction wave strained the partnership.
• Geopolitical Priorities: China’s increased engagement with ASEAN conflicted with Russia’s desire to dominate the Central Asian security agenda.

Takeaway: The China-Russia relationship is transactional, not a cornerstone of a monolithic authoritarian order.

---

BRICS Expansion and Its Limits

• 2023-2024: BRICS admitted six new members (Saudi arabia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Argentina, and Ethiopia).
• Economic Disparities: The combined GDP of the original BRICS (China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa) diverged sharply from that of the newcomers, creating voting and resource‑allocation tensions.
• Policy Coherence: The 2025 BRICS summit in Johannesburg produced a “non‑binding declaration” on “enduring development,” but failed to agree on a common stance regarding the Ukraine conflict, highlighting internal discord.

Implication: BRICS functions more as a forum for mutual endorsement than a coordinated governance mechanism.

---

Security Alliances: SCO, CSTO, and Their divergences

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

• Membership: China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, plus observer states Iran and Mongolia.
• 2025 SCO summit in Astana emphasized “regional stability” while ignoring myanmar’s post‑coup crisis, revealing selective engagement.

Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO)

• Core members: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.
• In 2024,the CSTO refrained from intervening in the Nagorno‑Karabakh flare‑up,citing “lack of consensus,” underscoring limited operational unity.

Key Insight: Even within ostensibly tight security pacts, member states prioritize national security calculations over collective action.

---

Economic Cooperation: Belt and Road vs.Eurasian Integration

• Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) continues to channel $1.2 trillion in investment (World Bank, 2024), yet project completion rates have fallen to 48 %, with many contracts renegotiated due to local opposition or financing gaps.
• Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), dominated by Russia, struggles to attract non‑Russian investment; 2025 data show EEU foreign direct investment at $7 billion, a fraction of BRI flows.

Fragmentation Factors

1. Debt Diplomacy Backlash: Host nations like Malaysia and Kenya have pushed back on debt sustainability, prompting China to adopt “green BRI” guidelines – a move not mirrored by Russian or Iranian partners.
2. Regulatory Divergence: Standards for customs, digital trade, and intellectual property differ sharply between BRI projects and EEU initiatives, limiting cross‑compatibility.

---

Hybrid Threats and Coordinated Propaganda

• Joint Disinformation Campaigns: 2024 analysis by the EU’s Disinformation Threat Assessment identified overlapping narratives from Russian “Sputnik” and Chinese “Xinhua” targeting African election cycles.
• Cyber Operations: The 2025 “Operation Red Dawn” – a coordinated ransomware attack on Ukraine’s energy grid – reportedly involved Russian APT groups with Chinese supply‑chain components, yet attribution remains contested, illustrating the ad‑hoc nature of cooperation.

Practical Tip for Defenders

• Deploy multi‑source threat intelligence platforms that can parse disparate actor signatures, rather than assuming a single coordinated command structure.

---

Implications for liberal Democracies

Challenge	Authoritarian Fragmentation Insight	Policy Response
Strategic Forecasting	Unpredictable alliance shifts reduce reliability of “authoritarian bloc” forecasts.	Adopt scenario‑planning models that incorporate intra‑authoritarian rivalry.
Sanctions Design	Broad sanctions risk collateral damage on non‑aligned authoritarian partners.	Implement targeted, sector‑specific sanctions with built‑in review mechanisms.
Information Warfare	Disparate propaganda outlets compete for influence, creating exploitable inconsistencies.	Leverage counter‑narrative coordination across allied democracies to highlight contradictions.
Trade Competition	BRI’s fragmented execution creates opportunities for obvious, standards‑based alternatives.	Promote green infrastructure financing and multilateral procurement standards to win over third‑world partners.

---

practical Tips for Policymakers and Analysts

1. Map Issue‑Based Coalitions

• Use open‑source data (e.g., UN voting records, joint statements) to track temporary alignments rather than assuming permanent blocs.

2. Prioritize Bilateral Engagement

• Focus on country‑specific leverage points (e.g., energy dependence with russia, technology transfer with China) rather of generic “authoritarian” dossiers.

3. Strengthen Regional Partnerships

• Invest in regional democratic initiatives (e.g., EU‑Africa trade agreements) that offer alternatives to fragmented authoritarian offers.

4. Enhance Resilience to Hybrid Threats

• Deploy cross‑sectoral response teams that integrate cyber, diplomatic, and public‑information capabilities.

5. Monitor Financial Flows Rigorously

• Track BNP Paribas,HSBC,and Chinese state‑bank loan pipelines to detect early signs of debt‑traps or strategic leverage attempts.

---

real‑World Example: The 2025 SCO Energy Forum

• Location: Astana,Kazakhstan
• participants: Energy ministers from China,Russia,Iran,India,Pakistan,and Central Asian states.
• Outcome: Agreement on a “Flexible Gas Supply Mechanism” allowing Russia to divert up to 15 % of its gas exports to China in exchange for Chinese investment in Russian renewable projects.
• Fragmentation Indicator: Iran withdrew from the final communiqué over the inclusion of a clause that would obligate members to jointly sanction nations imposing carbon‑pricing regimes – a stance Tehran opposed due to its own economic considerations.

Takeaway: Even in high‑profile forums, national agendas trump collective cohesion, reinforcing the myth of a monolithic illiberal order.

---

All data cited are drawn from publicly available sources such as the World bank (2024), reuters, BBC Monitoring, the United Nations voting records, and EU threat assessments up to September 2025.