KUALA LUMPUR — The deepening geopolitical and economic rivalry between China and India is threatening to disrupt historic migration flows, skilled labour exchanges, and strategic autonomy across the Global South, international experts warned at a premier security forum.

​Speaking at the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable (39APR) hosted by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia on July 1, panellists highlighted that the competition between the two Asian giants is no longer just an economic or military dispute, but one that actively reshapes human capital and institutional footprints across the region.

​Historically, both powers have served as vital civilizational anchors that facilitated regional mobility, trade, and cultural convergence across Southeast Asia.

​"China has a big influence through trade, immigration, and technological exchange in the past, whereas India has travelled through the Indian Ocean, bioregions, philosophy, and education," noted Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen, Vice-President of Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam (DAV).

​However, delegates cautioned that the contemporary escalation of bilateral friction risks creating a polarised environment that pressures smaller, developing nations to restrict or tightly regulate cross-border partnerships.

​The debate quickly sharpened over what the "Global South" actually represents, with some speakers questioning whether the term carries any functional meaning or if it is merely being used as a geopolitical shield.

​"From my understanding, the global South is not a geopolitical camp, nor is it an arena for middle power rivalry; at its core, it represents a community of development and shared interest," argued Dr Lan Jianxue, Director of Department of Asia-Pacific Studies at China Institute of International Studies (CIIS)

​Dr Lan further stressed that China and India should focus on an "orogenic movement"—a geological term for mountain-building—rather than a tectonic collision of rivalry and attrition, proposing a unified "China-India-ASEAN" trilateral formula to shift the global development landscape.

​This cooperative view was immediately challenged by other panellists, who argued that ignoring the structural friction between the two nuclear-armed neighbours is unrealistic.

​"My Chinese colleague said China doesn't view us as a geopolitical entity, but if the global South is not a geopolitical entity, what use is the global South?" countered Dr Jabin Jacob, Director of Centre of Excellence for Himalayan Studies at Shiv Nadar University.

​Dr Jacob observed that China has successfully expanded its institutional capacity to engage with ASEAN on multiple fronts, leaving an under-resourced India racing to catch up in diplomatic reach.

​"The central issues are no longer just about supply chain and strategic economy and so on; it's about two things: one, institutional capacity, and the other, the civilization output that both India and China are developing," he added.

​This institutional asymmetry heavily impacts how smaller states manage their own natural and human resources, as major powers lean into local extraction and infrastructure initiatives to capture emerging markets.

​In smaller island states like Sri Lanka, the local population is increasingly exposed to the hidden political cost of accepting massive foreign assistance, leading to opaque bilateral adjustments behind closed doors.

Dr Bhagya Senaratne, an independent scholar from Sri Lanka warned that the financial lifelines extended by New Delhi during his country's recent economic crisis have come with heavy, undisclosed strategic strings attached.

​"Providing this support to small and medium states means, for example in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka signed several agreements with India but all of these have not been disclosed to the public," revealed Dr Senaratne.

She went on to state that there is now very little practical difference between what critics historically labelled a "Chinese debt trap" and what he termed "Indian debt leveraging" over regional energy, defence, and mineral assets.

​To withstand the destabilising fallout of this regional tussle, middle powers like Singapore are actively recalibrating their foreign policies to focus on developing human capital and soft infrastructure.

Dr Gong Xue, Assistant Professor at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University emphasised that the city-state's specific niche involves fostering trusted, rules-based interfaces to help navigate major power dynamics safely.

​"Singapore's role is to play a guard-rail, working together with the Chinese government in terms of promoting sustainability, transparency, and also the development-based human capital," Dr Gong explained.

​He also noted that Singapore has quietly run its own Global South capacity-building projects, training over 160,000 government officials from 180 countries in alignment with United Nations mandates.

​Ultimately, Southeast Asian nations continue to stress that their shared survival depends on keeping their borders open to both powers without being forced into an institutional or demographic blockade.

​"ASEAN does not want to choose either China or India; it rather wants to engage constructively with both of them," Dr Nguyen concluded.