“What Can We Expect?”: In the First Instance

Posted on by
Reply

Now you might think, with that title, that I’d be delving into Trump 2.0. Well, not exactly in the first instance. Instead, I am trying to focus on the end of the Biden administration: what folks conclude about the Biden initiatives and where that then leads, possibly, for the upcoming Trump administration. Now, to be clear, I’m not trying to guess where the Trump administration is likely to take us. Not with the inconsistent Trump at the helm again; but it would be good if the incoming administration might choose to take a hard look at what the Biden administration hoped to achieve with its policy initiatives and where, in fact, it found itself in the increasing disorder in the international system. We are particularly interested, not surprisingly, in the state of US-China relations in the face of four years of Biden strategy and policy. What has China done in reaction to Biden strategic competition? And what does the United States do now in the face of today’s US-China competition?

Just the other day, Tom Friedman from the NYT gave us a peek of what he saw in a recent visit to Beijing and Shanghai. Where is China today in the face of the challenging US relations: the end of US engagement, the rise in tensions with Trump 1.0 and the Biden strategic competitive policy. Friedman in an opinion article titled, “How Elon Musk and Taylor Swift Can Resolve U.S.-China Relations” makes “no bones about it” and early in the opinion piece he writes:

I just spent a week in Beijing and Shanghai, meeting with Chinese officials, economists and entrepreneurs, and let me get right to the point: While we were sleeping China took a great leap forward in high-tech manufacturing of everything.

And he starts with Trump 1.0:

If no one has told Donald Trump, then I will: His nickname on Chinese social media today is “Chuan Jianguo” — meaning “Trump the (Chinese) Nation Builder” — because of how his relentless China bashing and tariffs during his first term as president lit a fire under Beijing to double down on its efforts to gain global supremacy in electric cars, robots and rare materials, and to become as independent of America’s markets and tools as possible.

What Trump 2.0 now faces in today’s China that he helped to create is, according to Tom:

The China that Trump will encounter is a much more formidable export engine. Its advanced manufacturing muscles have exploded in size, sophistication and quantity in the last eight years, even while consumption by its people remains puny.

 

China’s export machine is so strong now that only very high tariffs might really slow it down, and China’s response to very high tariffs could be to start cutting off American industries from crucial supplies that are now available almost nowhere else. That kind of supply-chain warfare is not what anyone, anywhere needs.

Further, Tom signals what a Trump administration must now do in the face of much more evident competitor:

But if we don’t use this time to respond to China the way we did to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, with our own comprehensive scientific, innovative and industrial push, we will be toast.

So for Tom what it requires is a ‘full court press’ – ‘A Sputnik Moment’ by the US under a second Trump administration. Hmm, if really required one has to wonder if given today’s US politics there is anything even somewhat similar to that much earlier, “all hands on deck” type US strategy.

Tom Friedman, however, is not the only one calling for a concerted US national effort to deal with a charging China that the US helped to create. More focused on the technology/science/innovation front is the examination by my good colleague Scott Kennedy from CSIS. Scott is senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at CSIS and recently he examined the US-China technology competition in Foreign Affairs, in an article titled, “How America’s War on Chinese Tech Backfired And Why Trump’s Plans Would Make Things Even Worse.

But just before going there I thought it was worth setting up that examination by focusing on probably one of Joe Biden’s last public talks as President, this at Brookings in Washington, just a few days ago on December 10th. The remarks were titled by the White House as, “His Middle-Out, Bottom-Up Economic Playbook”. There was a fair bit of coughing and missing words in the transcript but the message was clear enough:

Today, here at Brookings Institution, I would like to talk about pivotal actions we’ve taken to rebuild the economy for the long haul, you know, and how we’re — how we’re at a critical, in my view, moment in the direction the economy is going to take.

 

After decades of trickle-down economics that primarily benefited those at the very top, we — we’ve written a new book that’s growing the economy — the middle-out and the bottom-up — that benefits, thus far, everyone. And that’s going to be the test with go- — going forward.

 

I was determined to restore U.S. leadership in industries of the future.

 

We understood we needed long-term investments for the future. Investing in America agenda, which includes my Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act — together, they mark the most significant investment in America since the New Deal. And that’s a fact. I mean, whether it’s good or bad, that’s the fact.

 

We not only — we not only beat the pandemic; we broke from the economic orthodoxy that has failed this nation, in my view, for a long time — a theory that led to fewer jobs, less economic growth, and bigger deficits.

 

And the best way to build that in America was to invest in America, invest in American products and invest in the American people — not by handing out tax breaks to those at the top.

But the tools employed by the Biden administration, as described by the President, barely touched the protections initiated by Trump 1.0 and advanced further in some cases by the Biden administration. But Scott targets exactly those initiatives by the Biden administration, particularly in the technology innovation sectors. As he describes:

Washington’s array of tools is highly expansive: export controls, tariffs, product bans, inbound and outbound investment screening, constraints on data flows, incentives to shift supply chains, limits on scholarly exchange and research collaboration, industrial policy expenditures, and buy-America incentives.

 

The goals of these measures are equally diverse: slow China’s progress in the most advanced technologies that have dual-use potential, reduce overdependence on China as a source of inputs and as a market for Western goods, deny China access to sensitive data, protect critical infrastructure, push back against economic coercion, protect the United States’ industrial competitiveness, and boost its manufacturing employment.

And he concludes by arguing:

Beijing’s shift toward a more expansive and assertive form of mercantilist techno-nationalism poses genuine risks to the prosperity and economic security of the United States and others. Something must be done, to be sure, but Washington’s increasingly restrictive policies have yielded highly mixed results.

So it’s not that China doesn’t pose a challenge but the solutions chosen by the Biden administration, in part built on the earlier Trump years, raise serious concerns and pose real questions in the face of Trump 2.0:

As President-elect Donald Trump returns to power, his administration would be wise to reflect on the fact that existing restrictions on Chinese technology have yielded decidedly mixed results. The Biden administration has described its strategy as a “small yard, high fence,” or placing high restrictions on a small number of critical technologies. That yard is already growing, with negative unintended consequences for the United States.

What then can be done, according to Scott. It seems to be in several parts. First, according to him:

Washington needs to set clear priorities, identifying the most urgent threats that deserve a response. Otherwise, the United States will be dragged into a game of whack-a-mole or, more worryingly, try to block all commercial ties with China. To the extent that the United States attempts to deny technologies to China, the only sustainable approach involves working with allies and other countries so that the United States will not be outflanked by China and lose technology leadership in the rest of the world. If the Trump administration pursues extensive decoupling from China, the result will most likely be an isolated, poorer, and weaker United States.

And additionally Scott targets international organizations and multilateral initiatives:

The Trump administration would also be unwise to ignore global institutions, such as the World Trade Organization, as doing so would dramatically raise the likelihood of unbounded conflict. Instead, Washington should intensify multilateral cooperation to set new rules for global economic activity in order to avoid a race to the bottom.

 

The United States may in some instances need to take unilateral steps to maintain its relative technology superiority, but excessive economic security measures will mean less innovation, slower economic growth, reduced profits, and fewer jobs. With a combination of wise domestic policies, collaboration with allies, and investment in international institutions, the United States can achieve both prosperity and security.

This latter focus is welcome, it seems to me. As bad as some of the Biden tariff and sanction approaches have been, certainly the dismantling of the WTO trade and investment policies stand out, in particular, because earlier administrations were vital to the creation of the multilateral trade framework. While it was, and is imperfect, as any multilateral instrument is, it is a ‘damn sight better’ than where we are today. Geneva at the moment is dead.

But it is not just the economy/technology front that demands apparently a concerted Trump administration effort. There is also national security. The message, it seems, is being delivered by one of the key figures over decades, that is none other than Senator Mitch McConnell.

I plan to return to Senator McConnell, and a number of others on national security, after the holiday break. But it is holiday time and I plan to put down my pen for the holidays. Look for me back here at Alan’s Newsletter in the week of January 6th – 2025, if not earlier. Have a great Holiday time!

This Post first appeared as a Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter.

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/what-can-we-expect-in-the-first-instance

All comments and Subscriptions are welcome.

Image Credit: USNews.com

A Start on Middle Powers and Their Diplomacy

Posted on by
Reply

It is kinda like wading into a well-developed cornfield; no, maybe it’s more like a cornfield with some incendiary devices strewn throughout. Anyway, this fall the China-West Dialogue (CWD) has waded into a rather concentrated discussion with colleagues and experts around the globe on an examination of Middle Powers (MPs) and their behaviors and policies – Middle Power Diplomacy (MPD).

So, where did we look? We in fact used the fall to showcase a number of possible MPs and to examine the policies and political behaviors of them. At CWD we held the following Zoom sessions:

At CWD we held the following Zoom sessions: 

  • Our lead off was on Japan with Mike Mochizuki (GWU) as the Lead Organizer;
  • then Active Non-Alignment with Latin America, led by Jorge Heine (BU) and former Ambassador for Chile as the Lead Organizer;
  • South Korea with Yul Sohn (Yonsei University) as the the Lead Organizer;
  • Australia and New Zealand with Shiro Armstrong (ANU/EAF) as Lead Organizer assisted by our own Richard Carey (OECD Alumnus); and 
  • INDONESIA and ASEAN with Maria Monica Wihardja (ISEAS) as the Lead Organizer.

These were all really terrific sessions with ‘super’ efforts to bring speakers to the sessions who could speak to MP characteristics and describe MPD. Now, these sessions were all held under Chatham House Rules but I have received remarks from some of our speakers and permission to quote these remarks here at this Post.  

 So, why was the CWD looking at questions of MPD? Certainly, for one, we were examining first which states seemed to qualify as MPs  in today’s global order/disorder?  Then we were interested in what influence, or potential influence these MPs expressed in the growing global order/disorder – growing tensions between the United States and China and the unremitting regional conflicts in the Middle East and Europe.  Where, if anywhere, were MPs influencing international relations and enhancing, perhaps, international stability and advancing global governance actions especially in such critical areas as climate transition, climate finance, debt management, global financial regulation and more? These efforts, we anticipated, could stabilize global relations in the face of current damaging international actions and the sour relations held by the leading powers, China and the US of each other. We were determined to look at MPs especially with the return of a US Trump administration and the possible significant impact of Trump 2.0 on global order stability.

Let me turn in this Post to the remarks of some of our speakers in the Australia and New Zealand session.  All the sessions were great but interestingly, two of our speakers in this session described diametrically opposing views of the impact of MPs on the current international order. One was Gareth Evans, a strong proponent for MPs and their influence in international relations. Gareth is rather well known of course. He was an Australian politician, representing the Labor Party in the Senate and House of Representatives from 1978 to 1999. He is probably best known as the  Minister for Foreign Affairs, a position he held from 1988 to 1996. Like most inquiries, Gareth starts by trying to define what a MP is. It is not an easy task. As he writes: 

For me, there are three things that matter in characterizing  middle powers: what we  are not, what we are, and the mindset we bring to our international role.

As he then describes it: 

‘Middle powers’ are those states which are not economically or militarily big or strong enough to really impose their policy preferences on anyone else, either globally or (for the most part) regionally.  We are nonetheless states which are sufficiently capable in terms of our diplomatic resources, sufficiently credible in terms of our record of principled behaviour, and sufficiently motivated to be able to make, individually, a significant impact on international relations in a way that is beyond the reach of small states.

 

And we are states, I would argue, which generally (although this can wax and wane with changes of domestic government) bring a particular mindset to the conduct of our international relations, viz. one attracted to the use of middle power diplomacy. I would describe ‘middle power diplomacy’, in turn, as having both a characteristic motivation and a characteristic method:

 

  • the characteristic motivation is belief in the utility, and necessity, of acting cooperatively with others in addressing international challenges, particularly those global public goods problems which by their nature cannot be solved by any country acting alone, however big and powerful; and
  • the characteristic diplomatic method is coalition building with ‘like-minded’ – those who, whatever their prevailing value systems, share specific interests and are prepared to work together to do something about them.

Gareth reviews policy initiatives he sees advanced by MPs over the years and described by him as: 

Our [MP] impact I think is more likely to be on individual issues, involving what might be called ‘niche diplomacy’, than across the board.  But that said, some of those niche roles, as I have just listed. can be of much greater than merely niche importance.

Finally, Gareth sets out what he believes are likely to be possible future initiatives, by at least Australia acting as a MP:

Looking to the future, there are a number of areas in which Australian middle power diplomacy can potentially make a real difference, whether by way of agenda-setting, North-South bridge-building (an aspiration of the MIKTA group within the G20), or simply building critical masses of support for global or regional public goods delivery. These areas include:

 

–   working to make the East Asian Summit become in practice the preeminent regional security and economic dialogue and policy-making body it was designed to be;

 

–   maintaining a leading advocacy role in support of free and open trade, including globally through the WTO and regionally through RCEP and the CPTPP, and vigorously resisting likely protectionist assaults by the Trump administration;

 

–   working to harness, without over-relying on an increasingly erratic US, the collective middle-power energy and capacity of a number of regional states of real regional substance – including India, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam –  to visibly push back (through mechanisms like a Quad+, optically useful though not purporting to be a formal military alliance)  against potential Chinese overreach in the region;

 

–   at the same time, actively arguing for the US as well as China to step back from the strategic competition brink, and embrace and sustain over time the spirit of détente which, which dramatically thawed relations between the US and Soviet Union: this would involve both sides living cooperatively together, both regionally and globally, respecting each other as equals and neither claiming to be the undisputed top dog;

 

–   building on our longstanding nuclear risk reduction credentials, bridging the gap between those who, on the one hand, will settle only for the kind of absolutism embodied in the Nuclear Ban Treaty, and on the other hand, the nuclear armed states and those sheltering under their protection who want essentially no movement at all on disarmament;

 

–   becoming an acknowledged global leader, not just bit player, in the campaign against global warming, putting our green energy transition money where our mouth is.” 

 

It is a MPD projected to counter at least some of the likely erratic behavior of Trump 2.0 international actions. 

It is evident that Gareth Evans accepts, in fact promotes, the current and continuing reality of MPs and their capacity to act positively even in a turbulent international setting. This positive MP and MPD view is, as it turns out, in dramatic contrast to another of our Australia speakers, Andrew Carr. Andrew Carr is an Associate Professor at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. His remarks contrast vividly with those of Gareth Evans. While, as I pointed earlier, Chatham House Rules prevail at CWD, fortunately Andrew and a colleague Jeffrey Robinson of Yonsei University published a recent piece in International Theory, “Is anyone a Middle Power? The case for Historicization”. There Andrew and his colleague lay out their view of MPs and MPD. 

We find that while there is some variation, middle power theory can no longer help us distinguish or interpret these states. As such, we conclude the middle power concept should be historicized.

 

In blunt terms, the middle power concept does not capture anything substantive about the behaviour of mid-sized states. It should therefore not be used by scholars any further.

Andrew sees the concept as historically grounded and no longer sustains relevance and in his view must be assigned to a historical period of international relations. The two experts make it clear that using MP and MPD has outlasted its usefulness.

This is a rather clear statement and probably needs some further explanation. Now, interestingly the two researchers examine six MPs – the traditional MPs, Australia and Canada but as well newly emerging MPs – Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea and Mexico. Now Carr and his colleague suggest that there are 30 MPs but their analysis relies on the six just identified. They come away, however, suggesting this:

Argument 1: the middle power concept is unable to shed its 20th century historical legacy 

 

Argument 2: contemporary states no longer reflect the core theoretical propositions of the middle power concept 

There is much insight from the analysis of these two experts. Yet the bottom line is clear: 

The evidence from our six case studies is not universal, but clear trend lines and patterns can be observed. As the 21st century has worn on, these states have all been less internationally focused, less supportive and active in multilateral forums, and shown sparse evidence of being ‘good citizens’.

Put another way the changing international structure is reshaping the behavior of MPs:

As international structures change so too will the power, status, and actions of non-great power states. The changes occurring today are removing the foundations upon which the middle power concept was explicitly created, as supporters and legitimizers of the US-led liberal international order.

So, where does that leave us in understanding which states are the MPs and what can we expect from MPs? Is there a MPD? Does such MPD correspond to what Gareth Evans describes; or are we in a global  order today where such MPD can only be seen ‘in  the rear view’ as Andrew Carr explains with his colleague Jeffrey Robertson?

Well, this is only the beginning of an answer but it is useful to look to a recent piece by Dr. Dino Patti Djalal. Now, Dr. Djalal is the founder and chair of the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia (FPCI) and chair of the Middle Power Studies Network (MPSN). In November Dr. Djalal published Middle Power Insights: 1st Edition. What is immediately evident is the membership of MPs in this Report was somewhat distinct from previous authors, at least from Gareth Evans. 

Like others, of course Djalal attempts to identify the current universe of MPs and what policies they promote. As Djalal describes: 

In this article, I refer to middle powers as countries that, by virtue of their considerable size (population and geography), weight (economic, diplomatic, and military strength), and ambition, are placed between the small power and great power categories.

While the objective measures, size and weight are fairly well described, ‘ambition’ is not so easily determined. With these features Djalal suggests: 

Of the 193 countries in the world today, around two dozen qualify as middle powers – some are in the Global North but the majority are in the Global South.

Here, then, is an emerging shift in today’s MPs. We are looking at MPs many of whom today are in the Global South and their behavior is also shifting: 

While all of the middle powers of the North are committed to military pacts, most middle powers in the Global South are non-aligned and tend to pursue strategic hedging. In fact, while the middle powers of the North have developed a fixed view against China, those in the Global South (except India and South Korea) tend to have an open mind and are keen to explore closer relations with China.

 

Unlike those in the North, middle powers of the South are also generally more averse in using sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy. 

 

It also matters that the Middle Powers of the Global South, relative to those of the Global North, are generally strong proponents of “non-interference” and are more sensitive about the principle of “equality”.

So their policy behavior is less intrusive and by implication less committed to global policy. It would seem to suggest that many of today’s MPs target their actions at the region. As Djalal describes: 

More and more, middle powers are positioning themselves to be a driving force in shaping regional architecture, thus compelling them to step up their response to the challenges inherent in their neighborhood. They are also spearheading various minilateral initiatives that can potentially supplement the provision of global public goods and also enhance the space for meaningful dialogue.

 

By constantly resorting to strategic hedging and diversifying their strategic relationships, middle powers can render multipolarity less volatile and more stable.

At a minimum, then, according to Djalal, the new Global South MPs exercise their MPD at the regional level and possibly in small groups, minilaterally, at the international level. More clearly needs to be examined here. 

So, today was a start but just a start. Much more will need to be examined. We will return to today’s Middle Powers and their Middle Power Diplomacy, especially as the Trump administration unveils its foreign policy actions. 

Image Credit: geopoliticalcompass.com

Focusing on the Future – Where are we on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and some other things?

Posted on by
Reply

Now I’m not in New York City; at least not at the moment. And I am not particularly plugged in to UN sources or other related IOs. However, it seems to me as though the SDGs – following two very publicized UN Summits, the SDG Summit in September 2023 and the Summit of the Future (SoTF) in September 2024 – have both ‘dropped like rocks’ into the international deep. Silence now seems to dominate both their efforts.

Now, before I look a little more closely at the evidence, it is worth noting, rather gloomily I must admit, the recent raft of summit gatherings including: COP29 on climate from Baku Azerbaijan, COP16 the Biodiversity Conference from Cali, Colombia and the Plastics Conference in Busan, South Korea.

At the annual climate change conference, this year COP29 in Baku Azerbaijan, a petrostate even, there was unsatisfactory progress as the global average temperature continues to rise. As noted in the NYTimes:

Negotiators at this year’s United Nations climate summit struck an agreement early on Sunday in Baku, Azerbaijan, to triple the flow of money to help developing countries adopt cleaner energy and cope with the effects of climate change. Under the deal, wealthy nations pledged to reach $300 billion per year in support by 2035, up from a current target of $100 billion.

 

Independent experts, however, have placed the needs of developing countries much higher, at $1.3 trillion per year. That is the amount they say must be invested in the energy transitions of lower-income countries, in addition to what those countries already spend, to keep the planet’s average temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Beyond that threshold, scientists say, global warming will become more dangerous and harder to reverse.

And with respect to the urgency to move away from fossil fuels, well:

The agreement on finance ultimately affirmed a commitment to last year’s consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels. But delegates rejected a separate document that, in theory, focused on the transition away from fossil fuels, but that after many rounds of editing ended up not even mentioning them.

And with respect to the Biodiversity Conference COP 16, held this year in Colombia:

The COP16 biodiversity summit came to an abrupt halt after countries failed to reach consensus on the creation of a new fund during a mammoth 10-hour final plenary session.

Countries debated through the night on Friday in Cali, Colombia, in an attempt to get through the many items on COP16’s agenda.

 

But, as the talks dragged on into Saturday morning, a large number of developing-country delegates were forced to catch flights home, leaving parties without the “quorum” needed to reach consensus on key issues.

Finally, with respect to the Busan, Korea meeting on plastics, here reporting from the Washington Post:

Negotiations in Busan, South Korea, to finalize a global treaty on plastic pollution collapsed earlier today, as oil-rich nations pushed back on a plan by more than 100 countries to include measures that would reduce plastic production, arguing the treaty should focus only on pollution. The talks were the last of a scheduled five, but negotiators are pushing to add another round and adopt a ‘Chair’s Text’ as the basis for 2025 negotiations.

The breakdown came after a week of late-night negotiations involving hundreds of diplomats as plastic industry officials and environmentalists watched from the sidelines in the hallways of the Busan Exhibition and Convention Center. The outcome underscores the difficulties in dialing back the use of a material that is ubiquitous and underpins a global multibillion dollar industry.

Now let’s return to the SDGs. I wrote in September 2024, in an Alan’s Newsletter Substack Post, just before the SoTF:

There will be serious efforts at the UN meetings to urge all to focus on the SDGs and accelerate efforts to achieve these goals. But there is a huge problem – a serious disconnect. And it spells continuing problems for collective global governance efforts. There is an unfortunate glaring disconnect here. The urging is [coming from] the multilateral level but the implementation is at the national level. And efforts at the national level are either underwhelming or, sadly, non-existent. Multilateralism is built and moves forward at the national level and as I have pointed out before, key member states, read that the United States – are disengaged from any national effort. US executive and congressional budgeting processes and finance and development policy implementation are simply void of any SDG policy efforts. And the US is not the only member state in this situation. The rhetoric may be there at the international level but today it does not link to national policy action.

At that time in that Post I said I’d return to the SDGs and so here we are.

In looking back, it seems that coming out of the pandemic there appeared to be some signs of encouragement that the SDGs were ‘on the move’. My good colleague, Homi Kharas from Brookings who has played a valuable role in focusing on the SDG efforts including helping to launch the SDGs by advising the U.N. Secretary General on the post-2015 development agenda (2012-2013) and leading the Report that was presented on May 30, 2013, “A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development” wrote in early 2022:

Entering 2022, then, the prospects for improved financial, scientific, and institutional backing for public health—while not sufficient—are grounds for optimism.

Homi further suggested that there was, as he described, an “under the radar story about wider awareness of the SDGs:

… but the upswell in awareness of the SDGs is palpable and significant. Awareness builds change, and change builds greater awareness and learning. A positive cycle is established.

One consequence of this growing awareness, according to Homi was the following:

It is early days, but sustainable and green finance are entering the mainstream with the prospects of more growth, standardization, and attention to avoiding greenwashing in 2022.

Even more pointedly, Homi suggested that a vein of optimism was called for. The reason: technology could provide the necessary fillip to efforts to achieve the SDGs. Under the header, “ Technology is finally delivering on its promise to make major economic production and consumption structures more sustainable”, Homi provided this example of the significant role of technology in achieving the SDGs :

There is now evidence to support the idea that when technology and economics provide the right conditions, countries can overperform on their climate pledges by a large margin. As one example, India pledged, in 2015, to generate 40 percent of its electricity in 2030 using nonfossil fuels. It reached that target last year, nine years ahead of schedule.

The technology initiatives that Homi pointed to have no doubt been helpful for economic growth but it seems to me that technology has not provided the widespread impact that at least was hinted at by Homi and described in the book that he and John McArthur and Izumi Ohno published at Brookings in 2022: The Promise of Frontier Technologies for Sustainable Development.

Nor have other optimistic signs that Homi and his colleagues pointed to in 2022. Besides greater awareness of the SDGs, and the impact of technology and better global public health there is also a more favorable outlook for world population. Still, the more recent assessment by Homi and his colleague John McArthur in a Brookings piece titled, “How is the world really doing on the SDGs?”, published this November, fairly assesses, sadly, I think, the global ‘state of play’:

Even if the pace of progress is not sufficient to achieve what 193 countries committed to delivering, this does not mean everything is getting worse. Our study examined 24 SDG-relevant, country-level indicators and started with a basic question: Have things improved since 2015? We found humanity-wide improvements for 18—ranging from the enlargement of marine protected areas to expanded access to water and sanitation. Such gains do not minimize the pain of backsliding on the six remaining measures, especially those linked to hunger and food security, not to mention the horrendous health and educational consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. But they do show why we need to differentiate progress toward the SDGs more systematically.

 

When we investigate which trends have changed since the SDG agreement in 2015, the results are more muted. The clearest accelerations in progress are in HIV incidence, antiretroviral coverage to treat AIDS, and access to electricity.

 

For eight indicators, however, we found no change in the long-term rate of progress, and spotted signs of a slowdown in nine others. (For four indicators, we did not have sufficient pre-2015 data to assess long-term changes.) The takeaway is that there is no single overall story to tell about the SDGs. Most countries are doing better on some issues and worse on others, suggesting that the world needs a more balanced scorecard for cataloging successes and failures.

If folks were hoping for a broad and systemic effort to achieve the goals set for global development under the SDGs, well that is not where we are though there has been progress on at least a number of goals.

I couldn’t quite leave it there so I decided to ring up my colleague, Homi, to get his most recent view of the world’s advancement through the lens of the SDGs. Homi did note of course that on several goals, those mentioned in his recent Brookings pieces, the efforts of states have bent the curve on those goals. But he also admitted that the case that has been made for a comprehensive approach with speed and urgency, that has been called for by the UN and particularly by the Secretary General of the UN, António Guterres, that case isn’t being heard globally. Given the rising geopolitical tensions and the series of regional conflicts, the collaborative underpinnings identified, and in fact needed by the SDGs and the collective efforts targeted by Agenda 2030, do not match up well with today’s global political interactions. Nevertheless, Homi defended the ‘plan’ as set out by Agenda 2030 suggesting that Agenda 2030 was the only plan, the sole common language framing global development today. He even suggested that come a future crisis, whether in nature, climate change, debt distress, climate finance, whatever, the SDG framework will be there and available to be taken up at that moment to meet that crisis.

Looking to the near future Homi suggested that renewal or reshaping of the SDGs are likely to be taken up in 2027 and shift into high gear likely will begin by 2028. Is renewal a realistic possibility, yes? But the shadow of President Trump and his second term cannot be ignored either. Such Trump concern could extend to the UN, itself, with the real prospect of a growing unwillingness on the part of a Trump administration to work with the UN, possibly even withdraw, or Trump 2.0 might be unwilling to pay its UN dues or arrears. And that would be a crisis.

But that’s for a separate examination. Meanwhile, there is advancement towards selected goals but overall, the current bottom line is described by Homi and another colleague, Zia Khan, the Chief Innovation Officer for Innovation at The Rockefeller Foundation in an August piece at Brookings titled: “Rebooting the Sustainable Development Goals” :

With six years remaining until the 2030 deadline, the world is far from achieving most of these goals. Despite significant improvements in some areas – such as a million more children reaching their fifth birthday each year – progress has been too slow in many others.

 

While financing gaps are rightly often cited as a key factor, the biggest obstacle to achieving the SDGs is the lack of systematic approaches to creating scalable solutions. Slow and steady gains can lead to significant advances over time, but if progress becomes too slow, the sense of achievement and hope for the future can dissipate.

 

In 2015, the SDGs were launched with a call for transformation. But calling for transformative solutions is easier than developing them. Although markets are powerful drivers of innovation, we need solutions capable of tackling broader public interests. Progress often requires new forms of collaboration between public, private, scientific, and civil-society institutions, or even the creation of new ones. But many organizations have difficulties updating their goals or building partnership strategies.

 

Siloed professional communities are difficult to unite, leaving vested interests and the forces of inertia to crowd out innovation. Consequently, partnership remains more an aspirational value than a skills-based discipline, and policy debates often prioritize ideology over practical solutions.

So individual goal progress but no overall advancement at achieving the SDGs. The world is, of course, worse for it. Besides a renaissance in US thinking on the SDGs are there alternative pathways? Maybe. The China-West Dialogue (CWD) has been exploring the possible role of Middle Powers in the near future and their capacity to move global order issues forward without the leading or even the major powers. Devising collective actions among groups of the Middle Powers might advance collective efforts and move towards the goals of the SDGs.

But more on that later.

This Post first appeared as a Substack Post from Alan’s Newsletter.

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/focusing-on-the-future-where-are

Image Credit: Jane Goodall

Informal global leadership can help steady the ship – from EAF November 26, 2024

Posted on by
Reply

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend – Enjoy!

This piece forst appeared at EAF – https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/11/26/informal-global-leadership-can-help-steady-the-ship/

“All evidence suggested that Brazil’s G20 Summit was going to bean exceptionally difficult summit for the United States and its departing President Joe Biden — and it proved to be so with the USPresident appearing as all too evidently a ‘lame duck’ and the shadow of Biden’s successor, Donald Trump, all too evident in leaders’ discussions.

It has been a busy period for the informal international forums(‘Informals’). The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) met inPeru on 15–16 November, followed immediately by the G20Leaders’ Summit in Brazil on 18–19 November. If these two summits were not enough, the BRICS+ Summit ran in Kazan,Russia on 22–24 October and the East Asia Summit also met inOctober. Leaders and their ministers have had significant opportunities to engage with other heads of government and state.

The question is whether these summits advanced globalgovernance policies or handled the current international context rifewith geopolitical tensions built on the back of conflicts in the Middle East and in Europe, US–China strategic competition and the growing populist and illiberal governments challenging the liberal order? The influence of Informals — especially the G20 but tovarying degrees the G7, BRICS, APEC and the many minilaterals such as the US–Japan–South Korea and China–Japan–South Korea trilateral frameworks — may grow in the increasingly fragmented global order.

The role of Informals has evolved before. Following the eruption of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, there was discussion among experts about whether the just created G20 Leaders’ Summit was a‘crisis committee’ or a ‘steering committee’. In either case, it was presumed to be a capable of generating collective efforts of these key countries. There was strong approval of the G20 efforts to tackle the financial crisis and most observers would agree that their collective efforts aided at the time in getting past the financial crisis.

There was a tendency, naturally, to hone in on the collective G20 leaders’ efforts in the years that followed. The G20 announced efforts to coordinate among its 19 countries and the European Union — and now the African Union — with statements of implementation and agreed coordinated efforts expressed in verylengthy leaders’ communiques or declarations. Yet there was limited implementation by national governments and the international organisations.

The hope was then that the annual gatherings of G20 leaders would allow leaders to finalise collective efforts to make globalisation work for all and to provide a setting where advances could be secured for critical global issues like institutional financial reform, debt management and climate financing. These meetings also sought to achieve collective agreement to press forward on theSustainable Development Goals unanimously approved at the United Nations in 2015. But little of any of this was concluded.

The annual leaders gatherings, especially the G20, have provided at least valuable opportunities for leaders to reach beyond the collective gathering and arrange highly helpful bilateral meetings.For example, the 2023 APEC Summit in San Francisco enabled Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden to meet on the margins. This bilateral meeting is widely recognised as stabilising US–China relations and reopening various lines of communication, including military-to-military communication that had been suspended following the visit to Taiwan by then speakerof the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.

At the 2024 Peru APEC Summit, the two leaders met again. In thefading days of his presidency, Biden hoped to advance US–China relations. While the leaders were able to publicly express the hope for further cooperation, and there was agreement to maintain human control over nuclear weapons, the shadow of incumbent US president Donald Trump’s return clearly cooled the opportunities for further advancing efforts and left Xi warning over Taiwanese independence and other ‘red lines’.

Besides serving as the setting for leaders of the two leading powers to talk, the Peru APEC meeting also provided the setting for other leaders to hold critical meetings. One clear instance was Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korean President YoonSuk-yeol. The two leaders held their second meeting in just over a month and enabled the two leaders to discuss the threat posed by recent North Korean efforts. They also pledged to continue ‘shuttle diplomacy’. Given the fraught relations between the two countries the meetings proved quite valuable.

The annual informals have created it seems numerous instances of leaders ‘huddling’ together, which has aided diplomacy. These diplomatic instances should not be underestimated, with the G20 representing two-thirds of the world’s global population and 85 percent of global GDP. Further, the G20 gathering in Brazil will have created space for various leader discussions on the eve of Trump’s return. Future gatherings at these summits may prove to be evenmore critical as opportunities to collaborate on trade, finance or climate in the face of Trumpian chaos will be difficult to come by otherwise.

While the Informals’ value for the global order it seems is largely inthe opportunity for leaders to connect and make diplomatic and security progress, the collective efforts of these gatherings cannot be completely dismissed. They may not support collective policy implementation as was once hoped but these summits do enable leaders — often the host country leaders — to amplify critical policy initiatives.

This has proven the case for the Brazil G20 Summit whereBrazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva used his G20 presidency to highlight the need for a global wealth tax on billionaires in a larger effort to support middle- and low-income countries. And the Declaration did at least create the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty. The Alliance is an initiative of Brazil that aims to create instruments to combat hunger and inequality at a global level. The Brazilian wealth tax on billionaires proposal could have raised hundreds of billions of dollars but such a commitment failed to make the Rio de Janeiro Declaration.Nevertheless, the collective expression in the Declaration and the Alliance that was created did hopefully provide a marker for the future.

The way Informals bring leaders together and foster collective diplomatic action will be increasingly important for upholding therules-based order, protecting international peace and spurring policy progress in an increasingly fragmented global order —especially with Trump’s return on the horizon.

Alan Alexandroff is Director of the Global Summitry Project and Co-Chair of the China-West Dialogue (CWD). When he teaches, he does so at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

 

Image Credit – G20

 

The New Global Leadership, perhaps

Posted on by
Reply

So there is a lot of spinning now that it is clear – he’s coming back. And as we look out on the global order the current international system appears chaotic enough, even before Donald Trump returns to the White House. As described by Flavia Krause Jackson in Bloomberg: 

North Koreans are fighting in Europe for the first time. Israel is resisting US efforts to halt fighting with Hezbollah and Hamas. China regularly conducts military exercises surrounding Taiwan. Nuclear war is suddenly a risk amid surging tensions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

And that’s even before Donald Trump returns to the White House.

What are possibly answers to this growing chaos? One very clear note appears to be Middle Powers and their capacity to gain influence and importantly perhaps maintain greater openness notwithstanding a world dominated by Trump 2.0.  And these tensions are already apparent as Flavia summarizes the just recently concluded Brazil G20 Summit:

This was the week Lula was supposed to cement his status as the preeminent leader of the developing world. Instead, the chaotic summit he hosted in Rio highlighted his inability to bridge growing divisions between global superpowers. In a surprise anti-climax, Lula even canceled his end-of-summit press conference two hours after it had been scheduled to start.

Still, the first big unknown is how chaotic the new Trump administration can wind up the international system and are there possibilities to ease some of this Trump chaos? How, and who, possibly will seek to temper the chaos and propel forward both global political and economic relationships. Here, Shiro Arnstrong in an EAF piece titled, “Trump-proofing economic security in Asia” sets the stage:

The United States has gone from enforcer to spoiler of the rules-based economic order as it deals with domestic challenges and threatens a return to its pre-World War 2 isolationism. The rest of the world has to avoid the United States dragging the global economy down with it.

In the presumed Trump withdrawal from alliances and partnerships, his determination to close the open trading world with Trump’s loud noises over America First, and its many tariffs, there is a noticeable attention shift to the potential role of Middle Powers in retaining and augmenting, possibly, the global economy for one.

Now, there are all sorts of questions surrounding this attention to Middle Powers and their influence in advancing  the global order. Needless to say it starts with who are the Middle Powers. And, not surprisingly, there is no agreement on who the likely actors are under that apparently highly fungible label. So we know there is the ‘traditional’  Middle Power label that describes at least Canada and Australia. Then there are the new ‘Big Boys’ today – Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and at least for some South Africa and even Nigeria. And then there are the relatively close US partners, or other possible regional powers, so, Turkey, Mexico, Japan and South Korea.  What can I say, it is a recipe with the main ingredient up to the expert or analyst.

And then there is the logic and possible action of Middle Power policy. Now this is a tough category often rather muted in current analyses.  But Shiro gives us some direction here. He targets Trumpworld:

There will be pressure all over the world to ‘protect’ domestic production from a flood of Chinese and other goods shut out of the US and looking for new markets.

There will of course be pressure to cut losses by dealing with Trump 2.0:

The incremental choices of countries to do deals with Trump’s United States — managed trade deals and voluntary export restraints — may be diplomatically expedient but will weaken the rules that underpin global trade and are against their core long term interests. That would reinforce the trajectory of the global economy heading towards an economic nosedive of the kind it suffered in the 1930s.

The Middle Power alternative:

It will be up to the middle powers like Australia and Japan — that cannot change the status quo unilaterally but are large enough to mobilise coalitions of countries for change — to keep the global economy open and save the furniture of the multilateral trading system.

 

Middle powers must convince China and the European Union that their best course of action is to avoid large-scale retaliation and go in the other direction, opening up their economies further. That will make them better off and make the global economy larger, even with restricted access to the US market. …

 

The economic coercion that China deployed against Australia in 2020 and Japan earlier was blunted by the multilateral trading system which, despite its weaknesses, allowed Australian exporters, for example, to find alternative markets and provide an exit ramp from the problem, with the last of Chinese trade restrictions lifted in October 2024. The open global trading system crucially ensures that there are alternative buyers and sellers.

As Shiro concludes, enlarging if possible but at least maintaining the open trade world – with as wide a set of actors as possible, is slightly counterintuitively called for and the answer presumably to Trump tariffs:

The multilateral trading system is the biggest source of economic security for open trading nations. That includes Southeast Asia, which is more exposed than other countries with its high trade shares that are its source of prosperity and security.

 

Utilising platforms in ASEAN-centred institutions and connecting them to other efforts in Europe to promote collective action is where the strategic focus needs to be now, on trade, climate action and other global public goods, otherwise we risk a much smaller, poorer and less secure world.

Interestingly, and as noted earlier, there is a growing interest in Middle Power action in the face of the about to reappear Trumpworld. Another proponent for Middle Power action is Dani Rodrik. Rodrick, a deep thinker when it comes to the global system, has written recently on the role of Middle Powers in the evolving global order. Rodrik is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is co-director of the Reimagining the Economy Program at the Kennedy School and of the Economics for Inclusive Prosperity network. In a recent piece in Project Syndicate (PS),  Rodrik suggests that while Middle Powers are unlikely to become a bloc but rather quite possibly able to possibly shape a variety of paths prompting a far more multipolar environment:

While some American national-security elites seek continued US primacy, others seem resigned to an increasingly bipolar world. A more likely outcome, however, is a multipolar world where middle powers exert considerable countervailing force, thus preventing the US and China from imposing their interests on others.

 

The middle powers are unlikely to become a formidable bloc of their own, mainly because their interests are too diverse to fit into a common economic or security agenda. Even when they have joined formal groupings, their collective impact has been limited.

 

Perhaps the most important contribution middle powers can make is to demonstrate, by their example, the feasibility of both multipolarity and diverse development paths in the global order. They offer a vision for the world economy that does not depend on either America’s or China’s power and goodwill. But if middle powers are to be worthy role models for others, they must become responsible actors – both in their dealings with smaller countries and in promoting greater political accountability at home.

A world that does not depend on the leading powers that is the vision from Rodrik. For this, and other perspectives, the China-West Dialogue (CWD) has directed recent energies this fall to sessions on Middle Powers and Middle Power Diplomacy (MPD). With great thanks to our Lead Co-Chair, Colin Bradford CWD constructed a series of sessions on a number of key Middle Powers. We began this Middle Power Diplomacy series with a Zoom session on Japan with lead organizer, Mike Mochizuki of George Washington University. From there we turned our attention to Latin America in a Zoom session led by our good colleague Jorge Heine from Boston University and a number of colleagues who published a recent volume: “Latin American Foreign Policies in the New World Order: The Active Non-Alignment Option”. From there we shifted to a session on South Korea prepared by the lead organizer, Yul Sohn from Yonsei University. And most recently we turned our attention to Turkey with colleague Guven Sak as the lead organizer. Guven is from The Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV). Still, to explore are sessions on Australia and New Zealand with lead organizer Shiro Armstrong from ANU and EastAsiaForum (EAF) and Indonesia and ASEAN with lead organizer Monica Wihardja from ISEAS in Singapore.

There is much learning at hand and hopefully we will be able to draw out the means for Middle Powers to resist the more destructive Trump 2.0 efforts. We will return to these conclusions in the future.

This first appeared as a Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter. Comments and subscriptions are welcome.

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/152039338/share-center

Image Credit: G20

 

The Impact of Trump 2.0

Posted on by
Reply

They were obvious moves by Trump, I suspect. Nevertheless, some of the choices by Trump for his senior appointments were startling – and what one might otherwise describe as ‘dismaying’. For many of us not a particular surprise. So we have House of Representative Matt Gaetz nominated as Attorney General. As The Guardian declared:

Donald Trump’s decision to nominate the far-right Republican congressman Matt Gaetz as attorney general has sent shockwaves through Washington, including the president-elect’s own party.

 

Trump on Wednesday announced Gaetz as his pick to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer in the justice department, a role that directs the government’s legal positions on critical issues, including abortion, civil rights, and first amendment cases.

Michelle Goldberg, writing for the NYT had some choice words for this Trump nomination:

Of all the people Trump was considering for A.G., Gaetz is unique mainly for how much he is hated by other Republicans, and not just moderate ones. In the final months of the last Trump administration, the Justice Department opened an investigation into whether Gaetz had a relationship with an underage girl that violated federal sex trafficking laws.

 

It should go without saying that Gaetz is not, by any normal standards, even a tiny bit qualified to be attorney general. He practiced law for only about two years before running for office, handling small-time civil matters, like suing an old woman for money she owed his father’s caregiving company.

Then, there was the equally startling nomination of Robert F Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic and more that Trump has nominated for the head of Health and Human Services. And then there is Pete Hegseth nominated for Secretary of Defence and Tulsi Gabbard nominated for Director of Intelligence. Each in their own career and experience raising questions over their appointment. And then, finally,  there is the appointment of Elon Musk Trump’s now seemingly close buddy to a Commission to bring efficiency to the US federal government. As Ed Luce at the FT commented:

What you might feel less comfortable in admitting is that Trump is giving utterance to America’s soul. The US is driven by the spirit of limitless resources and surmountable frontiers. Its mission is “To explore strange new worlds . . . to boldly go where no man has gone before”, as James T Kirk put it. On Tuesday Trump promoted Elon Musk, his own Captain Kirk, to Starfleet Admiral. Musk’s USS Enterprise is the department of government efficiency (Doge).

Notwithstanding the name the Musk initiative is unlikely to be a government department as noted by Luce:

It is unclear whether Doge will have any statutory authority, which would require an act of Congress, or simply be a super-advisory body to the Trump administration. Either way, Musk’s goal is to close down regulatory agencies in Washington or drastically pare them back. He recently said he would also cut almost a third from the federal government’s $6.7tn budget.

Government authority or not, Musk will be disruptive, as are likely to be all these recent appointments, and that is the point. Disruption, chaos and controversy  – the Trump modus operandi. As noted again by Luce on the choice of Musk:

But Musk will probably get a lot of his way on deregulation. If you work for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, the US Federal Reserve, the Bureau of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Agriculture or the departments of energy and education, be afraid; be very afraid.

For those poor souls who suggested that Trump wouldn’t follow through on some of his crazier actions, often after plaintively admitting that they had voted for him, these appointments seem to put ‘stop’ to that benign view of Trump governing.

And raising the spectre of serious policy steps likely leading to disruption, chaos and controversy, Trump 2.0 will have a significant impact on US foreign policy efforts. Here, it is worth examining the recent comments by my colleague, Susan Thornton. Susan is currently a Senior Fellow at the Paul Tsai China Center at the Yale Law School. She also participates in many of the China-West Dialogue (CWD) discussions that we have held over the last few years. Susan retired as a senior diplomat after almost three decades of experience with the U.S. State Department in Eurasia and East Asia. She retired, in fact, as Acting Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the Department of State.

Susan does not underestimate the prospect for a dramatic impact by Trump on American foreign policy driven, as Susan sees it, by an American public that is no longer willing to bear the burden of a leading US role in the global order. As she wrote recently at the East Asian Forum, the US public, from Susan’s view, is determined to stand down the United States:

Americans are no longer confident in the promise and effectiveness of their institutional system, they reject the obligation of answering the world’s fire alarms, they are weary of bearing the cost of global security and they see clearly that other states are free-riding on US largesse. The US electorate has been consistently ahead of its politicians in its rejection of the role of ‘world policeman’.

In Susan’s view the election of Trump satisfies, it seems, a desire among many in public to wind down US entanglements in the global arena:

Trump, and certainly his national security team, does not appreciate that he was put in power to dismantle US global hegemony. But Trump’s bullying transactionalism, his aversion to commitment, his penchant for tariffs and complete indifference to the potential impact that the United States has on other countries can have no other outcome.

 

It is obvious that permanent damage will be done to the United Nations, international economic institutions, multilateral organisations in which the United States is a member and any international effort to combat transnational challenges. The dissolution began during his first term and will be irreversible after the coming four years. The Americans who elected Trump as their standard bearer will cheer their demise.

And, the Trump actions, according to Susan, will only raise the temperature in the key global relationship, the US and China. As Susan suggests:

There will be a further sharp disconnect of the US and Chinese economies. Trump and the Republican Congress are likely to invoke more tariffs, export controls and sanctions leading to global fragmentation, rising costs and slower growth. Businesses will face an ever more complicated picture and are already strategising how to adjust. Many countries in Asia are devising economic hedging strategies and will try to walk a middle line amid deteriorating US–China relations. Whether and how a Trump administration might impose costs for such an approach remains an open question.

Susan further suggests that, in fact, Trump is the instrument of many in the US electorate that are tired with the burden resulting from the US leading role in the global order:

We have already entered the transition to a post-Pax Americana world — Trump is an accelerant. This does not mean that the United States will disappear. It will remain the most powerful and wealthy country in the world. But it does leave a vacuum in the international arena and US partners will hopefully step in to provide leadership and public goods.

My colleague Dan Drezner agrees with Susan at least with the impact of a second Trump administration. Dan is the Distinguished Professor of International Politics and Associate Dean of Research at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and among other things, the author of the Substack, Drezner’s World. In a FA piece entitled, “The End of American Exceptionalism: Trump’s Reelection Will Redefine U.S. Power”, Dan declares:

Trump will navigate world politics with greater confidence this time around. Whether he will have any better luck bending the world to his “America first” brand is another question entirely. What is certain, however, is that the era of American exceptionalism has ended. Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy will cease promoting long-standing American ideals. That, combined with an expected surge of corrupt foreign policy practices, will leave the United States looking like a garden-variety great power.”

 

He [Trump] believes that the U.S.-created liberal international order has, over time, stacked the deck against the United States. To change that imbalance, Trump wants to restrict inward economic flows such as imports and immigrants (although he likes inward foreign direct investment). He wants allies to shoulder more of the burden for their own defense. And he believes that he can cut deals with autocrats, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin or North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, that will reduce tensions in global trouble spots and allow the United States to focus Inward.

For Susan the change in foreign policy is driven by the American public; for Dan the direction comes from Trump and his acolytes but the outcome appears to be the same. The end of American leadership as we’ve understood it for seven decades and more.

So how, or what will provide the leadership that can manage the global order? Who can help shape and critically, who can presumably stabilize the increasingly fractious international environment?  Positively, who can promote international development, energize the efforts to meet the climate crisis, and reform international financial reform and meet the growing debt crises for many? Who will energize the multilateral institutions that can promote peace and security and advance global governance? Where is the leadership?

Here Susan gives us a bit of a hint. As she suggests:

In this more fragmented, disordered world, US partners in Asia should also pursue more networked security cooperation and regional integration to safeguard peace and mitigate the negative effects of deglobalisation for their economies. Such measures are useful on their own merits, no matter who is in the White House, as the world is set to become a more difficult and dangerous place.

We have, at recent gatherings of the China-West Dialogue, been exploring the role of Middle Powers. I hope to turn back to the potential key roles that Middle Powers may bring to the growing threats to the global order. I think that may be a hopeful direction.  I will return to this subject.

Image Credit: ABC News

This Post first appeared as a Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter. Feel free to comment and subscribe to Alan’s Newsletter.

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/the-impact-of-trump-20

 

 

 

In a Trump World, ‘Widening the Who’ in the Global Order

Posted on by
Reply

Now we are out a bit early. But that’s not surprising because of the US national elections on Tuesday night. So a few thoughts on that and then a redirection to the, “what do we do about the global order in the light of Trump’s return, including many of his former advisers, to the White House”

The electoral equation in the end proved to be rather simple if also somber. Harris lost too many non-college and latino men and she won women – but not by nearly enough. With the Latinos, Trump won 32 percent in 2020; in 2024 Trump won about 45 percent.  Harris,  on women, won 54 percent but Biden in 2020 won 57 percent. The Harris statistic on women is dismaying.

Now I am not one to focus and comment on US elections – other than as a ‘somewhat informed’ but non-expert – but it does seem to me that the Harris campaign did not strategically break through with a host of electoral groups with her message. And she needed to to secure the Presidency. As Michael Hirsh described in FP: 

Despite overpowering Trump in their only debate on Sept. 10 and raising more than $1 billion in donations in just three months—a new record—Harris often floundered when challenged to deliver a convincing summary of her agenda on critical issues such as the economy and immigration. She also fumbled badly in explaining her flip-flops on issues such as fracking (which she once opposed and later supported, but without pointing out the simple fact that improved technology had made it environmentally safer). That led Wall Street Journal commentator Peggy Noonan to label Harris an “artless dodger.”

Worse, possibly, was the view expressed by Opinion Writer Peter Baker who suggests that Trump represents a significant current of American thinking. As he wrote in the NYT:

The assumption that Mr. Trump represented an anomaly who would at last be consigned to the ash heap of history was washed away on Tuesday night by a red current that swept through battleground states — and swept away the understanding of America long nurtured by its ruling elite of both parties. … With his comeback victory to reclaim the presidency, Mr. Trump has now established himself as a transformational force reshaping the United States in his own image.

 

No longer can the political establishment write off Mr. Trump as a temporary break from the long march of progress, a fluke who somehow sneaked into the White House in a quirky, one-off Electoral College win eight years ago. With his comeback victory to reclaim the presidency, Mr. Trump has now established himself as a transformational force reshaping the United States in his own image.

 

Populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proved to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized. Mr. Trump’s testosterone-driven campaign capitalized on resistance to electing the first woman president.

In fact, according to Baker, Trump was appreciated for all his effrontery and racism:

Rather than be turned off by Mr. Trump’s flagrant, anger-based appeals along lines of race, gender, religion, national origin and especially transgender identity, many Americans found them bracing. Rather than be offended by his brazen lies and wild conspiracy theories, many found him authentic.

So with Trump in the White House and his people in the Administration where do we go? On the immediate geopolitical front we are very likely to see rising tensions with China – though I believe there is a path to less tension. We are very likely to see pressure on Ukraine to halt the conflict with Putin even at the cost of transferring Ukrainian lands to Russia – a real cost and speaking of costs we are likely to see a blizzard of tariffs on Chinese goods and possibly beyond. But it is a bit early to fill in the contours of Trump 2.0 foreign policy.

But, instead, let me look at the outline of the direction we saw coming from Democrat and Democrat-leaning experts and operatives. In particular let me look briefly at the design described by Anne-Marie Slaughter in a recent Foreign Affairs piece titled: “How America Can Succeed in a Multialigned World: The Importance of Building Truly Global Partnerships”. Anne-Marie is currently CEO of the think tank New America. From 2002 to 2009, she was Bert G. Kerstetter ‘66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs and Dean of the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. In 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her as the first woman Director of Policy Planning in the U.S. State Department. She has been a ‘close in’ Democratic voice and it is why I refer to this article to give an inside possible glimpse at where the Harris administration might have moved had she been elected and indeed the possibility of Anne-Marie’s very real likely participation.

Anne-Marie is quite aware that there are two challenges this Biden administration faced and would be front and center for a Harris administration – the rising geopolitical tensions with Russia, and with China and with Iran, but also the existential global governance threats, climate, finance and weakened multilateralism and the institutions that no longer served global order purposes. Anne-Marie moved back to gaze at the Biden administration and its effort to build not just an alliance system but beyond that to a ‘multipartner world’. As Anne-Marie declared:

It [the Biden administration] has reanimated and expanded traditional alliances such as NATO and strengthened and created a host of new diplomatic and security partnerships. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described in Foreign Affairs a network of “partners in peace,” the result of an intense diplomatic strategy to safeguard U.S. interests abroad while rebuilding competitiveness at home.

Yet as she described the effort:

 These partnerships are important and valuable. Still, the Biden strategy overall has tilted too far in the direction of geopolitical competition over global cooperation, even as it tries to do both at once. To strike the right balance, the next administration must partner with a wider variety of global actors, focus those partnerships more on existential global threats, and accept a more decentralized, messier world that welcomes leadership from many different quarters.

 

The concept of “multistakeholder governance” holds that all actors who have a stake in the outcome of a specific decision, whether a state, an international institution, a corporation, or a municipality, find a place at the table at some point in the decision-making process.

So the future of multipartnering was just not just constructed on state, regional and international organizations but extending to non-state and substate actors. As Anne-Marie argues:

The concept of “multistakeholder governance” holds that all actors who have a stake in the outcome of a specific decision, whether a state, an international institution, a corporation, or a municipality, find a place at the table at some point in the decision-making process.

Her conclusion for this multipartner approach is as follows:

A national security strategy dedicated to building a multipartner world will still leave plenty of room for the United States to lead on the global stage. Moreover, embracing multisector partnerships gives open societies such as that of the United States a leg up in in geopolitical competition, given the autonomy and energy of American civic, corporate, philanthropic, technological, scientific, and educational institutions.

This wide multipartner approach, as described in part by Anne-Marie Slaughter, is unlikely to be captured and furthered by the incoming Trump administration. But it is worth keeping in mind and may well be an approach that will be valuable for many national, regional and international actors in the near future, even if not for a Trump America.

Meanwhile, another piece in a multipartner world is a possibility. And we at the China-West Dialogue (CWD) are keenly examining the role today of Middle Powers in furthering efforts to meet the challenge of global threats and to diminish the ratcheting up of geopolitical tensions. We are currently examining with colleagues across the globe the potential for Middle Power Diplomacy (MPD)  to tackle global threats and stabilize the global governance environment. As the lead co-chair of the CWD, Colin Bradford has written:

Global pluralism, developed in 2020-2023, posits the existence already of “autonomous” strategies and independence in foreign policies as a “global political dynamic” in global relations.  Pluralism is a core concept for CWD, in that it leads to the “pluralization” of relations with China as an “alternative framework” to address the toxic tension in the bilateral China-US relationship in recent years. This has been the goal of CWD from its foundation.

 

In the last year of CWD exchanges, the importance of Middle Powers and Middle Power Diplomacy has arisen as the domestic driver of pluralism.  This new CWD series seeks to elucidate the factors enabling countries to be Middle Powers and the features of their international behaviors which are effective in addressing global systemic challenges.

 

A better understanding of these factors and features could facilitate proactive national efforts to deliberately contribute to global pluralism by “punching above their weight” and to influence global governance outcomes that include China and the US but which “globalize” those outcomes, rather than narrow them by allowing great power dominance to prevail.

We have examined with colleagues globally, and always with our colleagues from China in the CWD process, Middle Power actions from Japan and Latin America, especially Brazil, and Korea shortly with Turkey, Indonesia and the ASEAN to come and also with examinations of Europe and the US and China and MPD.

Trump America with its hypernationalist focus and its likely transactional initiatives fails to promote any kind of global order optimism; but there are other pathways. We need to explore these further and promote those that appear promising.

This was first posted as a Substack POst at Alan’s Newsletter. All comments and free subscriptions are welcome

https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/in-a-trump-world-widening-the-who?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Image Credit: ABC News

 

 

 

The ‘Global Order’: ‘Who is on First’

Posted on by
Reply

I was trying very hard to ignore the impending vote for US president upcoming next week. We will have plenty of time to contemplate the action and consequences of the presidential choice on US foreign policy and global leadership.

But then again I was not fully able to ignore the consequences for the international order of this event. I was caught by a very recent Special Report from CIGI on: “Scenarios of Evolving Global Order”. Now CIGI is located in Waterloo Ontario and CIGI stands for the Centre for International Governance Innovation. I have a small soft spot for the think tank as I and a number of close colleagues spent some good years there when it launched as a global affairs outfit and, I think produced some good early work on global governance, among other things.

Anyway, the Report is interesting as it attempts to:

… fill a gap between the analysis of current trends and mapping of potential futures by outlining five possible scenarios for an evolving global order. These five scenarios represent a spectrum from the most modest plausible change (reform of the current system) to the most radical (transformation of the whole system due to a global shock).

There clearly is much current discussion over the evolving global order in the context of significant geopolitical tensions between the two leading powers and the numerous conflicts burdening international relations. So the Report describes 5 different scenarios built on these assumptions:

• The current international system is not working; international institutions, including the United Nations and Bretton Woods institutions, are unable to address most contemporary challenges.

• Responses to contemporary global challenges are siloed, nationally and institutionally.

• The United States’ global leadership is waning due to reduced capacity and internal focus.

• The relative economic power of liberal democracies is diminishing.

• Emerging powers — including, but not limited to, China and India — are increasingly asserting their influence and driving change.

• Finding new pathways of international cooperation on security issues may be more elusive, meaning attention may focus on cooperation on economic issues.

• Deglobalization, and regional integration as an alternative to multilateralism, continues to accelerate by many, but not all, measures.

• Momentum for nationalist and isolationist policies continues to build in many countries.

The result five different scenarios as filled out by the author team:

Scenario 1: Reform of the Existing Global System

Scenario 2: Replacement of the Existing Global System

Scenario 3: The Emergence of a Bloc-Based Global System

Scenario 4: A Case of Disorder

Scenario 5: Transformed Global Order

Each scenario is interesting and for every scenario there are two pathways described by the authors leading to an identified outcome:

The authors’ view is that these five scenarios broadly represent core directions that global order may evolve toward in the coming months and years. They acknowledge that there are numerous potential pathways that the five scenarios could take — by choosing only two for each, many possibilities remain for further exploration.

Now each scenario is worth assessing – and I will try and examine some perghaps at a later date, but I was struck by the perspective the authors identified for the structure and the dynamics for all five scenarios. As the Report suggested:

All of the scenarios explored assume the current and evolving global dynamics are multipolar (rather than other forms such as bipolar, hegemonic or concerted). It is, of course, possible that global order does not continue to evolve in  a multipolar way — for example, that one group of states forms a security and economic coalition in a way that dominates all the rest or that the world devolves into a bipolar world utterly dominated by American and Chinese spheres of control. The world is currently operating with multipolar dynamics on most issues, and this is likely to continue into the future.

Now that assumption of a multipolar system struck me. The reason is I came across an interesting Substack Post from Clarence Gu and Chenghao Sun, ChinAffairs+ describing in the Post titled “Yan Xuetong & John Mearsheimer Conversation: Who Shapes Global Order, and Who Will Win the Competition?”an interesting encounter, the third in fact, between these two experts. Now Yan Xuetong is the Dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, a highly prestigious university in China and John Mearsheimer is, as he describes himself, “the  R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982 and an international relations theorist. More specifically, I am a realist.”

Now I have known John for many years as we were graduate students together at Cornell University with the same adviser, the recently passed Richard N Rosecrance, renowned international relations expert. But we were seldom on the same side of the fence when describing the underlying dynamics of the international system. But that is neither here nor there.

Both Yan Xuetong and John are known for their focus in international relations on ‘realism’, and in fact John’s  writings identify what is known as ‘offensive realism’. And while the two differ to a degree in this encounter at Tsinghua in Beijing they both strongly endorse the notion that the system is driven by the need by states to maintain dominance in a current bipolar not multipolar world (You will note by the way that the quotes that follow have been slightly edited due at times to  imperfect transcription). As John describes the international system:

How do you survive the international system? The system is where there is no higher authority. The answer is very simple. You want to be very powerful. You want to maximize your power, you cannot be certain of the intentions of those other states. It pays to be really powerful, to pay to be a hegemon.

 

If you think more specifically, the argument is that you can only be a regional hegemon, number one. Number two, you want to make sure that no other state is a regional hegemon. The ideal situation is to be the only regional hegemony in the international system.

 

All of this is to say we are involved today, in an intense security competition. It shows no signs going away. And if anything will get worse with the passage of time. This is a tragic situation. It has nothing to do with Chinese culture or American culture. And many people in China blame the United States for this trouble. … So my argument is, it’s the system that has caused this intense security competition.

Yan Xuetong is even more direct. He states:

The new trend of global order is Counter-Globalization. Then certainly today, I think because today’s title is Global Order and US-China relationship, we have to talk about how the relationship between China and US impact the current global order, my understanding is that the China-US relationship just like John argued that it will be intensified in terms of conflicts.You cannot expect China and US suddenly find a way to set down those disputes become the partners. If that happens, it means our theories are wrong. And actually, why the China-US conflicts are increasing and intensifying. It’s because now we’re in a bipolar configuration. The power structure is not multipolar.

 

The power structure is not multipolar. The current power structure is bipolar. And in the IR community, we all agree the situation after the World War One was multipolar, and after World War Two is bipolar.

 

What I mean is that the historic experience tells us, today we still have to understand what the international configuration is. It is not multipolar, not unipolar, it is bipolar, because except China no other major powers have capability or national power that account for 1/3 of the United States. None of them, except China. I don’t know how exactly we can do the measurement, but at least China’s capability is larger than 1/3 of the United States, possibly I would say 2/3 of the US.

Well, I won’t go into the five scenarios at this point though they are worth reviewing. The point here is to raise concern over analyses that are largely driven by structure rather than dynamics generated by policy – security, economic and political. These are the drivers that shape international outcomes. It is difficult at this moment to determine whether the structure is slightly less hegemonic, or is already bipolar, or in fact has become multipolar. The real analytic need, however, is to focus on the leading states and their foreign policy determinations. Structure is there, of course, but it does not drive foreign policy action or outcomes.

This Post first appeared at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter. All comments and free subscriptions are welcome

Image Credit: Clarence Gu

 

Is it Trade Policy or is it Security Policy?

Posted on by
Reply

It is more than passingly odd that a lead spokesperson apparently for Biden, if not Harris’s, global economic policies comes from Jake Sullivan, the National Security Adviser. Now don’t get me wrong. Jake is a very bright fellow who I have known for a number of years. Still, his repeated statements for the current economic policy seem, well, somewhat weird.

In any case Jake just recently returned to the Brookings Institution – in fact just the other day to provide an update on his original talk titled: “Renewing American Economic Leadership”. This original talk was delivered by Jake on April 27, 2023. Now, again in the realm of strange, it seems to me odd to have Jake providing an update when we are less than two weeks out from a Presidential vote. And while the Democrat may win the presidency, it will not be Joe Biden. Yes, the Vice President was part of the preceding administration, but still. And it may be, of course, that Jake might well assume a prominent role in a new Harris administration, if she were to win. Still, I am sure that the next administration will seek to design and announce its own global trade and investment strategy. And that says nothing if the other guy wins.

In any case it was good to listen to Jake review his original proposals. When he spoke in 2023 Jake pointedly framed the changed global landscape. As he said:

After the Second World War, the United States led a fragmented world to build a new international economic order.  It lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.  It sustained thrilling technological revolutions.  And it helped the United States and many other nations around the world achieve new levels of prosperity.

But the last few decades revealed cracks in those foundations.  A shifting global economy left many working Americans and their communities behind. A financial crisis shook the middle class.  A pandemic exposed the fragility of our supply chains.  A changing climate threatened lives and livelihoods.  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscored the risks of overdependence.

“So this moment demands that we forge a new consensus.” In broad strokes then, Jake proceeded to describe the changed landscape:

That’s why the United States, under President Biden, is pursuing a modern industrial and innovation strategy—both at home and with partners around the world.  One that invests in the sources of our own economic and technological strength, that promotes diversified and resilient global supply chains, that sets high standards for everything from labor and the environment to trusted technology and good governance, and that deploys capital to deliver on public goods like climate and health.”

And what were the challenges that the early years of the Biden administration faced:

First, America’s industrial base had been hollowed out. …

 

The second challenge we faced was adapting to a new environment defined by geopolitical and security competition, with important economic impacts. …

 

The third challenge we faced was an accelerating climate crisis and the urgent need for a just and efficient energy transition. …

 

Finally, we faced the challenge of inequality and its damage to democracy.

According to Jake the administration knew what it had to do. As he declared:

When President Biden came to office, he knew the solution to each of these challenges was to restore an economic mentality that champions building.  And that is the core of our economic approach. To build.  To build capacity, to build resilience, to build inclusiveness, at home and with partners abroad.  The capacity to produce and innovate, and to deliver public goods like strong physical and digital infrastructure and clean energy at scale.  The resilience to withstand natural disasters and geopolitical shocks. And the inclusiveness to ensure a strong, vibrant American middle class and greater opportunity for working people around the world.

And you’ll not be surprised to hear that in his recently stated update the Biden administration has taken on these challenges and the policy initiatives are achieving results.

Now, I may well come back at a later moment to look at more of the Biden policy initiatives but I did want to examine at this time at least one of the challenges,  the concerted effort to move away from freer trade – reducing tariffs, and instead focusing on targeted actions against a China that in Jake’s words:

The project of the 2020s and the 2030s is different from the project of the 1990s.

 

We know the problems we need to solve today:  Creating diversified and resilient supply chains.   Mobilizing public and private investment for a just clean energy transition and sustainable economic growth.  Creating good jobs along the way, family-supporting jobs.  Ensuring trust, safety, and openness in our digital infrastructure.  Stopping a race-to-the-bottom in corporate taxation.  Enhancing protections for labor and the environment.

So Jake in the update reflects on the Biden administration efforts and their result:

Advancing fairness, creating high quality jobs and revitalizing American communities can’t be an afterthought. Which is why we’ve made them central to our approach. In fact, as a result of the incentives in the IRA to build in traditional energy communities, investment in those communities has doubled under President Joe Biden.

The determination to build out the middle class underlies Biden economic policy. But how has it worked? Well, here, there seems to be some serious doubt notwithstanding the upbeat portrayal by Jake. Why do I say this? Let me turn to Robert Z Lawrence, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) and the Albert L. Williams Professor of Trade and Investment at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Lawrence recently reviewed Biden administration trade policy in a Report for PIIE: “Is the United States undergoing a manufacturing renaissance that will boost the middle class?”

Lawrence points out the continuing struggle to bring back manufacturing jobs to the United States:

The historic trend of the declining share of jobs in manufacturing in the United States has bedeviled politicians and policymakers over many years. Elected in 2020 in the wake of an economic downturn aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. made the goal of his economic policies to “build back better” and restore the middle class by reviving industrial jobs, especially in the Midwest, which he labeled “growing the economy from the bottom up and the middle out.

The emphasis on manufacturing was reinforced by an economic nationalist goal of returning jobs supposedly sent overseas back to US shores—“making and building it in America,” as the administration proclaimed.

Now Lawrence goes into some detail on Biden administration efforts that are probably worth reviewing:

This emphasis is reflected in the special incentives for US manufacturing in President Biden’s programs. He raised the threshold local content requirement for procurement by the US government. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) requires that all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in its projects be made in America. The CHIPS and Science Act appropriates $24 billion in tax credits for manufacturing semiconductors in the United States and another $39 billion to provide incentives for investment in chip facilities and equipment in the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides tax credits for clean energy investments and production and the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs) that are assembled in North America and have batteries that use minerals that are mined and refined in the United States or a country with which the United States has a free trade agreement.

Lawrence’s conclusion is stark and suggests an administration optimism that fails to match the desired growth hoped for:

The administration’s policies have expanded the base of manufacturing employment on the margins in recent years. But despite their appeal, these policies are unlikely to be the key to achieving middle class growth, because manufacturing no longer plays the role it played in the past in providing opportunities for workers without college degrees to join the middle class. Manufacturing can still help achieve other goals, such as providing hardware for the digital revolution; weapons for national security; and the EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels that are vital for decarbonization. But the sector is now too small to play a major role in reviving America’s depressed regions and providing significant opportunities for American workers.

The final conclusion is sobering:

Although it will spur rapid manufacturing employment growth in nontraditional locations, the Biden programs have not created a broad renaissance in US manufacturing, and they are unlikely to do so in the future. The effects of the programs on the Rust Belt states that experienced large manufacturing employment losses since 2000 are likely to be modest, and the impact will not significantly change the sectoral composition of the US labor market.

 

Manufacturing still has an important role to play in providing the goods necessary to rebuild US infrastructure, promote the digital revolution, and ease the transition to a decarbonized US economy. But because of its relatively small overall employment share—and the growing bias toward hiring more educated workers—the sector no longer provides non college workers with the opportunities it used to.

 

Although the Biden programs may achieve important social objectives, they are therefore unlikely to improve the opportunities for most workers without college degrees or help most of the country’s disadvantaged places.

To achieve a broad renaissance, obviously desired by the current administration, other tools are required. Greater targeted financial support and a concerted focus on training workers that in the past have proven difficult to develop in the US political and administrative context are required. It is a steep ask and difficult to achieve.

This Post originally appeared at my Substack Alan’s Newsletter – https://substack.com/home/post/p-150726560

Image Credit: Brookings Institution

 

 

Leadership – or Not

Posted on by
Reply

The killing of Yahya Sinwar in Gaza, as many observers have suggested, may impact on the continuation, or a possible cessation of the conflict in Gaza. Some like Tom Friedman of the NewYork Times, and other commentators have even suggested that it could have possibilities beyond just the Gaza conflict. But all this rightly raises again the influence – and dare I say the leadership – of the United States. This question of US leadership brings attention not just to Israel and the region but beyond and raises real questions of US leadership with the global order.

On the Middle East front the US has expressed strongly its belief that it is time to end the war. As David Sanger of the NYTimes suggested in his  analysis of the current state of relations:

Within hours of the death of the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar on Thursday, President Biden and his aides scrambled to design one last push for a broad de-escalation of violence in the Middle East: a cease-fire and hostage deal in Gaza, a pullback from Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon, a confident declaration of victory by Israel that might allow it to forgo a major retaliation against Iran.

It is time for this war to end,” Mr. Biden said as he emerged from Air Force One when it landed outside Berlin late Thursday. He added that he had called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and urged him to “move on” from the war and focus on building a new political landscape for the region.

Tom Friedman elaborated on what was required beyond just a ceasefire, if the cessation is to have a real impact on international stability:

The broad idea is for the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, to agree to appoint the economist and former P.A. prime minister Salam Fayyad — or someone of his sterling reputation for incorruptibility — as the new Palestinian prime minister to lead a new technocratic cabinet and reform the Palestinian Authority, root out corruption and upgrade its governance and security forces.

Such a reformed Palestinian Authority would then formally ask for — and participate in — an international peacekeeping force that would include troops from the U.A.E., Egypt, possibly other Arab states and maybe even European nations. This force would be phased in to replace the Israeli military in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority would then be responsible for rebuilding Gaza with relief funds provided by Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and other Arab Gulf states, Europeans and most likely the U.S.

 

A reformed Palestinian Authority, with massive Arab and international funds, would attempt to restore its credibility in Gaza, and the credibility of its core Fatah organization in Palestinian politics — and sideline the remnants of Hamas.

The problem, at least immediately, however, is as David Sanger points out is that there is no interest by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it seems at this moment, to accept even a ceasefire let alone steps beyond:

Nothing in his face-offs with Mr. Netanyahu suggests that the Israeli prime minister will take his advice or seize the chance to turn the military victories into a lasting political accomplishment. One of Mr. Biden’s senior aides said the administration’s concern was that the killing of Mr. Sinwar, and before him the killing of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, ratifies in Mr. Netanyahu’s mind his certainty that he was right to deflect American calls for de-escalation over the past few months.

These observations seem to target the immediate difficulties that such a US plan envisages. But it is beyond that. The underlying question that is there, and ultimately more impactful, is the influence of the US in this situation but beyond it in other international arenas such as the Ukraine, the South China Sea and Taiwan. What is the capacity and policy chops of the US to influence and indeed to pressure allies and foes alike to accept outcomes that the US identifies as improving the state of relations and hopefully terminating conflict and stabilizing, or even possibly improving relations among the countries and more broadly the system?

As Ross Douthat of the NYT recently wrote in an article titled, “America needs a President”:

In neither case, though, does the world’s most powerful country seem to have a real handle on the situation, a plan that it’s executing or a clear means of setting and accomplishing its goals.

He further argues:

Scenarios where great powers end up led around by their allies and clients are not historically unusual. But it’s hard to escape the impression that America’s current difficulties are linked to a very specific problem: the vacuum at the heart of this presidency, the slow fade of Joe Biden from the normal execution of his duties, the general uncertainty about who is actually making decisions in U.S. foreign policy.

But it seems to me that a focus on the twilight of the Biden years as an explanation for US inability to shape conflict outcomes is a bit of a cop out. Rather as I see it, it seems to me that the US has come to a point where it is unwilling to fashion credible threats on friends and more importantly on foes. The key action mechanics of leadership – credible threats and equally credible assurances – are increasingly missing.  As noted by Douthat:

Today’s restoration of deterrence could become tomorrow’s overreach or quagmire. For another, America has global responsibilities, not just regional ones, and a widening war in the Middle East could be bad for the American position in Asia and Eastern Europe no matter its outcome for the immediate participants. If the United States can’t exert real leverage over countries that it arms and supports, a weakening Pax Americana will end up hostage to too many interests not our own.

And that is the concern and the nub of the global order issue. And while there is a reflection, as noted above, that it is this President who has lost influence recently as he comes to the end of his Presidency, the weakness of America’s efforts extend beyond this, it appears to me.

The dilemma in my mind lies more with the rise of nationalist, even populist politics. We need not go to the most extreme versions of this populist view, as expressed by Donald Trump.The fact is it has spread to Democratic politics with Biden but it would appear with his advisers and to Democratic Presidential candidate, Vice President Harris as well. It can be seen most prominently with US trade policy. You need go no further than this administration’s determined effort to neuter the international trade dispute mechanism, the WTO. In addition, it extends to the growing willingness of US administrations, starting with Trump but infecting the Biden administration also to use tariffs, and increasingly so, as a trade policy. Michael Froman, currently President of the Council on Foreign Relations, and who served as the U.S. Trade Representative from 2013 to 2017 during the Obama Administration has examined current US trade policy:

For much of the last century, in response to the disastrous 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the United States’ international economic policy was focused on liberalization and integration. Competitiveness, efficiency, and growth were the metrics of success. This framework achieved many of its objectives, contributing to the biggest reduction in poverty in human history, opening vast new markets to U.S. exports, and greatly strengthening the comparative advantage of U.S. firms. At the same time, attention it paid to particularly vulnerable groups of workers and their communities. The advent of China as a strategic competitor further highlighted the limitations of that approach. The rules-based system was not designed to accommodate an economy that is so large and so integrated and yet is determined to follow a fundamentally different set of rules.

The result is the enlargement of protectionism signaled by National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan:

April 2023, U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan delivered a critique of the neoliberal consensus that had served as the foundation for international economic policy for nearly a century. In a prominent speech, Sullivan suggested that the United States was moving on from an agenda of global integration and trade liberalization.

 

To protect Americans and to take on China, Sullivan contended, Washington would no longer shy away from raising tariffs, imposing restrictions on exports and foreign investment, and engaging in domestic industrial policy. It was an important speech for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that it was delivered by the national security adviser, not the treasury secretary, commerce secretary, or U.S. trade representative. …

 

Consistent with Sullivan’s framework, the Biden administration has embraced a range of economic tools: export controls, restrictions on inward and outbound foreign investment, tariffs, industrial policy, and antitrust enforcement. Many of these tools enjoy broad bipartisan support.

 

If they are to form the basis of a new, enduring Washington consensus, however, the next president—whether Trump or Kamala Harris—will need to develop a more systematic approach to using them. That means understanding their limitations, developing principles to guide their use, and grappling fully with the tradeoffs they involve.

But I am not heartened by this approach on trade, and the wider implications of a nationalist approach to policy well beyond trade policy. The direction of US leadership is troubling. We are only too aware of where it could go with Trump but the signals are not positive for a Harris administration either.

Image Credit: US Institute for Peace

This Post first appeared at Alan’s Newsletter and is a Substack Post from there. All comments and free subscriptions are welcome.

https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/leadership-or-not?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true