Global swing states

The notion of ‘global swing states’ first appeared in a 2012 policy report for the German Marshall Fund in 2012. In that report, authors identified Brazil, India, Indonesia and Türkiye as democratic countries that are willing to support the ‘international order’. The latter is characterized by multilateral cooperation and observance of a set of rules (Kliman and Fontaine 2012).

To single out these 4 countries, the authors argued: “All possess large and rapidly growing economies. All occupy central positions in a region or stand at the hinge of multiple regions. All embrace democratic government at home, which endows them with the potential to fully support an order defined by liberal values and norms. Lastly, all are increasingly influential at the regional and global level, and although they desire changes to the international order, they do not seek to scrap it” (Kliman and Fontaine 2012).

Global swing states possess sufficient influence to shape the direction of global governance, much like ‘swing states’ in the domestic U.S. context can determine the outcome of a presidential election. Therefore, the authors recommended, the United States should work with them, to strengthen the rules-based international order in various policy domains.

In a 2025 article in The Washington Quarterly, Fontaine and McKinley updated the concept and policy recommendation for the United States. The add two countries: Saudi Arabia and South Africa. The authors observe that the international order has entered into much deeper trouble, with the United States itself under Trump having become the “quintessential global swing state” (Fontaine and McKinley 2025).

Still, “the United States benefits from, and has a vital interest in maintaining, a global order governed by rules rather than brute power – one in which countries enjoy sovereignty, disputes are resolved peacefully, markets are open to trade, human rights are considered universal, and democracy can flourish” (Fontaine and McKinley 2025).

The paper identifies 5 pillars of the ‘rules-based international order’ that are key: the territorial pillar, the global trade pillar, the financial pillar, the non-proliferation pillar and the human rights pillar. (We believe the climate pillar can be added, but this is not part of Trump’s agenda.)

In these areas, the United States should step up its cooperation with the 6 global swing states: “Washington should pursue policies toward the six global swing states that: (1) encourage and assist them in bolstering key pillars of global order; (2) deny adversary countries like Russia and China advantages in areas like military basing, security ties, technology infrastructure, and diplomatic coordination; and (3) devote attention to and support for their own needs, on their own terms, in exchange for policies and programs that will further US interests. It can begin to do so by adhering to the following overarching policies.”

The authors update the defining characteristics of the 6 global swing states: “To defend and extend this system, policymakers should focus on six ‘global swing states’ – Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Türkiye – that will together exert disproportionate influence over the future of international order. Each is multi-aligned, maintaining simultaneous ties with the United States, Russia, and China.

None wishes to be forced into a strategic alignment with one great power alone, and all seek meaningful changes in international rules and institutions. Each of the global swing states plays a dominant role in its region and takes actions with worldwide repercussions. They possess sufficient collective geopolitical weight for their policy preferences to sway the future direction of the international order.”

The authors are aware of the fact that some of these 6 have deeply problematic human rights records and witness democratic backsliding. Still, these countries are crucial partners in upholding the rules-based international order.

The notion of global swing states is closely related to the concept of pivotal states, which has mainly been discussed in a security context (Sweijs et al. 2014). Both notions share the idea that certain middle powers can critically influence the direction of global governance and security through their choices. Fontaine and McKinley also refer to the current strategy of multi-alignment pursued by swing states, which often involves hedging.