Competition for pole position in the race to boss the 21st century’s fast-evolving new world order is heating up. US President Joe Biden sought a winning strategic partnership with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The EU unveiled an economic security strategy to fend off Chinese and Russian predators. In Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) told the top US diplomat who is in charge: China.
In Paris, leaders of the global north and south planned a new beginning. They aim to deliver billions in funding, promised at last year’s COP27 summit, to help vulnerable countries fight the climate crisis and related poverty, inequality and debt. Poorer nations urge radical reform of the global institutional framework, which they say has failed.
It was a busy week. Yet why all the haste? It seems that recent crises have convinced states that things cannot continue as they are. The COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine war, the accelerating climate crisis and the cost-of-living crunch, including energy, food supply and inflation shocks, are driving an urgent rethink about how the world will work — and who will run it — in the coming decades.
Illustration: Mountain People
A rare moment of seismic transformation might have arrived, not unlike 1945 after the defeat of fascism, or 1991, when the Soviet empire collapsed. Faith in the Western neoliberal model and the unfettered, free-market capitalism associated with former US president Ronald Reagan and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher is eroding. Subsidies and state intervention are back in vogue. Globalization is in retreat. The unheard demand a hearing.
Respect for the UN and the international rules-based order is palpably weakening. A deadlocked security council teeters on irrelevance. Global regulatory systems, represented by the IMF, World Bank and WTO, are not fit for purpose in the view of developing countries. UN-led peacekeeping and conflict resolution appear ineffective.
The long-term geopolitical and security implications of this shifting ideological and structural environment are huge and destabilizing. Washington’s approach, shaped by Biden and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, is to maintain supposedly benign US global leadership while ensuring foreign policy serves the domestic, economic interests of its “middle class.”
That means, for example, that no more free-trade agreements resulting in the “export” of US jobs and investment to lower-wage, lower-tax economies — and sanctions on countries that oppose the US’ aims.
Former US president Donald Trump’s ascent in 2016, like rampant European right-wing populism, was fueled by perceived declines in working people’s incomes, security and life chances. Biden seeks to reverse that.
This is where last week’s White House tryst with India’s prime minister comes in. Biden offered Modi deals on defense and technology, and heaps of flattery. This is not because the US has suddenly conceived a sincere affection for the Hindu nationalist leader, notorious for abuses of human rights and media freedom.
It is because Biden wants Modi’s help in containing China economically and militarily — and sustaining US pre-eminence. Apparently, it is the cost of doing business in the race to rule the world.
Xi, another serial rights abuser, has his own vision of a 21st-century world order. Naturally it, too, places him on top of the pile.
China was globalization’s big winner. Now its economy is stumbling and its international posture, typified by saber rattling over Taiwan and aggressive debt diplomacy, is backfiring. Xi, newly installed as de facto president for life, is doubling down.
Xi’s world order is based on noninterference in other states’ internal affairs — meaning a country’s lack of democracy or internal repression are its business and no one else’s. Basically, it is a tyrant’s charter — and as such, anathema to the West.
It is no wonder that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken felt so uncomfortable visiting Beijing last week. Although he secured a meeting with Xi, China’s leader declined to sit next to him, preferring to talk down from a distance. The visit achieved nothing of substance — while underscoring the ideological gulf. Then Biden put his foot in it, calling Xi a “dictator” in a sudden burst of honesty.
Beijing’s efforts to remake the world in its authoritarian image help explain the EU’s first-ever economic security strategy. It entails new controls on sensitive technology and military exports, outsourcing and inward investment. It is part of a bigger effort to build autonomy and resilience in an increasingly lawless world, while reducing Europe’s dependencies, highlighted by Russia’s energy blockade. China is the strategy’s principal target.
Must the 21st century, like the second half of the 20th, inevitably be bipolar? A truly multipolar world could be safer, fairer and potentially more widely beneficial. Yet this involves a concept unfamiliar to the US and Chinese presidents, other than in the Northern Ireland context — namely, power sharing.
Nevertheless, the dynamics are shifting. Medium-sized countries such as Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are demanding a bigger say in global affairs and some have leverage to match. Weaker countries are making their voice heard, too, on the existential issues of climate, poverty, conflict and migration. They say time is running out — and they are right.
These countries have found an impressive champion in Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley. She backs a transformational approach to climate challenges and global development involving a historic redistribution of wealth to poorer nations. It is a big break with the old ways. Yet the old ways are badly broken.
What manner of new global order will ultimately emerge? It is plain to see that the old great-power games are unsustainable when the planet is on fire, the ice is melting — and rules are ignored.
To survive, let alone prosper, in the 21st century, the world needs to replace nationalistic, zero-sum rivalries and power blocs with a more equitable, genuinely multipolar dispensation.
In short, political leaders need the courage to change. It might sound improbable, but as the saying goes, everything is possible if you work for it.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS