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.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS