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.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS