Contemplating in these Early Days a Harris Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

With just over 70 days until the US election, and with the certainty now of a new 47th President – either Harris or former President Trump – it is not surprising that analysts are scrambling to assess the current US foreign policy course and eyeing its new possible directions.

Obviously, the impact of a return to Trump freezes one’s mind with its MAGA trumpeting, its distaste for allies, and its cozying up to autocrats whether in Russia or North Korea. I’m not going to go there for the moment: the consequences are too depressing to dwell on at this moment in the election cycle. While we may be driven to come back to this depending, of course, on the course of the next 70 days. But for the moment, and just coming out of the Chicago Convention, let’s focus on where we have recently been with a Biden Administration and what direction we might be pointed toward with a Harris win.

A number of folk, including some former Democratic officials, have put their ‘thinking caps on’ already and are analyzing the Biden foreign policy and extending it to a possible new Democratic Administration. It particularly has resonance as Harris has been involved in this Biden Administration.

We start with the current state of play of globalization. Many examining its immediate health focus in particular on US export controls on technology and the maintenance of tariffs against China by the Biden Administration. Analysts also focus on the dramatic increase in sanctions against Russia and those aiding Russia’s war against Ukraine. My colleague Dan Drezner from Drezner’s World focused in a recent Post on the immediate state of global economic integration:

There comes a point when one has to question the resiliency of globalization as we know it. The question is whether that point is right now. For example, the IMF recently noted that despite widespread perceptions, the current global economy is more globalized than a generation ago: “A global increase in the foreign value-added content of exports from about 19 percent in the mid-1990s to 28 percent in 2022 points to continued deepening of trade integration. Meanwhile, services are able to flow more easily across borders thanks to the rise of digital technology.

 

The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World tends to be more sanguine about globalization persisting despite loud pronouncements that it has come to an end. Great power governments and violent non-state actors have done their darndest to push the world towards economic segmentation, and it just ain’t happening. Improvements in information and communication technologies have lowered the costs of cross-border flows. Even if states are erecting higher cross-border barriers, that has been counteracted by declining costs more generally. … I think analysts have to stop being surprised that global economic flows keep rising despite all the geopolitical shocks. Economic globalization continues to be the Economic Engine that Could.

So globalization is still in place. Now let’s turn to the Biden framing of foreign policy recognizing that the Vice President, and now the Democratic candidate for President has played a role in the foreign policy of this current Biden Administration. I was interested in the article by Ben Rhodes in Foreign Affairs, titled ““A Foreign Policy for the World as It Is: Biden and the Search for a New American Strategy”. Rhodes, by the way, served as U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017. Ben underscored how difficult it has been to continue to lead, which it seems remained a Biden foreign policy goal:

It also suggested [the start of the Biden presidency] that the United States could reclaim its self-conception as a virtuous hegemon, that it could make the rules-based international order great again. Yet even though a return to competent normalcy was in order, the Biden administration’s mindset of restoration has occasionally struggled against the currents of our disordered times.

The shadow of Trump left this current Administration struggling to maintain a relatively benign leadership. But in addition, as Ben argues:

Second, the old rules-based international order doesn’t really exist anymore. Sure, the laws, structures, and summits remain in place.

 

But core institutions such as the UN Security Council and the World Trade Organization are tied in knots by disagreements among their members. Russia is committed to disrupting U.S.-fortified norms. China is committed to building its own alternative order. On trade and industrial policy, even Washington is moving away from core tenets of post–Cold War globalization.

Possibly most damaging  to the order – and US leadership – is US commitment to the maintenance of the international rule of law. Most pointedly in this regard is the failure of the Biden Administration to more forcefully insist with the current Israeli government that it cease and desist from Israel’s destructive actions against the civilian populations in Gaza in its quest to dismantle Hamas. Such a failure undermines claims to a benign leadership of the global order, if such is in fact possible.

Yet a number of notable analysts remain convinced that the Biden Administration has successfully navigated toward a more stable global order with strong US leadership. Take the example of Jessica Matthews who is currently Distinguished Fellow of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is the former President of CEIP. In her recent article for Foreign Affairs for its forthcoming September/October issue, titled, “What Was the Biden Doctrine?: Leadership Without Hegemony” Matthew praises US foreign policy action even in the face of major power opposition. And Matthews writes:

But he has carried out a crucial task: shifting the basis of American foreign policy from an unhealthy reliance on military intervention to the active pursuit of diplomacy backed by strength.

 

He has won back the trust of friends and allies, built and begun to institutionalize a deep American presence in Asia, restored the United States’ role in essential multilateral organizations and agreements, and ended the longest of the country’s “forever wars”—a step none of his three predecessors had the courage to take.

 

All of this happened in the face of grievous new threats from China and Russia, two great powers newly allied around the goal of ending American primacy. Biden’s response to the most pressing emergency of his term—Russia’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022—has been both skillful and innovative, demonstrating a grasp of the traditional elements of statecraft along with a willingness to take a few unconventional steps.

 

Biden’s approach to Beijing has occasionally reflected a disappointing degree of continuity with that of Trump and has fostered uncertainty over Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in U.S.-Chinese relations. But unlike the former president, Biden has embedded his China policy in a vigorous matrix of new and restored alliances across Asia. He has arguably pulled off the long-sought U.S. “pivot” to the region, without using that term.

 

Yet his legacy to date suggests the lineaments of a new approach well suited to today’s world. Most important among them is a resolve to eschew wars to remake other countries and to restore diplomacy as the central tool of foreign policy.

Matthews is strongly upbeat and concludes with this paean to Biden foreign policy:

No matter the answers, and despite the symptoms of debilitating political polarization at home, Biden has made profound changes in foreign policy—not to accommodate American decline but to reflect the country’s inherent strength.

Now it seems to me there are questions over the effective use of diplomacy of this Administration but that is for another day. In the current moment this upbeat assessment is carried forward by: the early days following the Harris nomination and in light of her initial positioning set out in her acceptance speech at coming out of Chicago. It appears that the general reaction to her speech was positive including her statements on foreign policy that seemed to position her as forceful on human rights but also on defense and the US security alliances.  From folks at Brookings, specifically Elaine Kamarck, a Senior Fellow of Governance Studies and William A. Galston, a Senior Fellow of Governance Studies, came the following analysis:

Surprising some observers, Harris laid out a tough agenda on defense and foreign policy, promising to maintain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, retain our leading position in NATO, defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, stand up against Iran and North Korea, and take democracy’s side in the struggle with tyranny. She articulated a firm pro-Israel stance while mentioning the suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants and endorsing Palestinians’ right to dignity and self-determination.

 

Taken as a whole, Harris’s acceptance speech positioned her as a center-left Democrat in the mold of Joe Biden rather than Bernie Sanders. It embraced what she termed the pride and privilege of being an American. And, as if to show that Republicans have not cornered the market on patriotism and American exceptionalism, she told her audience that together, they had the opportunity to write the next chapter of the most extraordinary story ever told. She ended her speech in the most traditional way imaginable, by asking God to bless the United States of America.

And, finally, there is this slightly surprising insight from Michael Hirsh from FP where he describes a view that Harris brought great understanding of new technologies and the threats that such technologies bring to foreign policy:

There is not much time to know a great deal more about her approach to foreign policy. But it’s also clear that Harris has created her own path on foreign policy—and that she represents the next generation of national security experts steeped in newer, high-tech threats that the Cold War generation represented by Biden is less familiar with. These encompass an array of ​​cyber threats, including election hacking and surveillance from abroad, allegedly including from state-run companies such as China’s Huawei; threats from space, such as reported Russian or Chinese plots to disable GPS systems; and over-the-horizon risks from artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

In her speech at the Democratic National Convention accepting the nomination Thursday night, Harris briefly mentioned the high-tech threat while affirming that she would prove a tough commander in chief who would “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

I will make sure that we lead the world into the future on space and artificial intelligence; that America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century, and that we strengthen, not abdicate, our global leadership,” she said.

We may need to wait till she becomes President –  if that occurs – with November 5th. But we will continue to monitor what she says about a Harris foreign policy.

Image Credit: Vox

This Post originally appeared at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter.

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/contemplating-in-these-early-days

The Troubles with Multilateralism: Two

Posted on by
Reply

So this week’s Post may be ‘a bit lighter’ than usual. But I have an excuse: there is a celebration afoot in the family this weekend – my younger daughter is getting married – much activity is planned. Still here is this week’s thinking on global order matters on ‘Alan’s Newsletter’.

Now, where were we?  Ah yes, focusing on diplomacy and the difficulties of multilateralism, especially among the Formals. Now Richard Gowan recently wrote a piece examining the UN, especially in the light of the upcoming September UN Summit of the Future. Richard oversees the International Crisis Group’s advocacy work at the United Nations, liaising with diplomats and UN officials in New York. Richard also is a Research Associate and Associate Director for Policy at the Center on International Cooperation at NYU.

As Richard describes it in his article, “Redefining the UN’s Prime Purpose” there is a growing sentiment to diminish the UN’s role in peace and security matters. This seems to go all the way to the top of the UN chain. As Richard writes:

Even some of the organization’s leaders appear to think that the UN may be wise to take a lower profile on security concerns and focus its energies elsewhere. … In 2021, he [Antonio Guterres] published a report on the future of multilateralism entitled ‘Our Common Agenda’… In 2023, Guterres released a fuller New Agenda for Peace. This contained a frank assessment of the poor state of international relations, and urged states to reinvest in diplomacy. It included interesting passages on the security challenges posed by AI, new biotechnologies, and other scientific advances. Yet the document struck a humble note, emphasizing that the UN’s ability to address many conflicts is limited and that international interventions often backfire. Instead, one of its themes is that states should invest more in their domestic conflict prevention efforts.

And the bottom line, according to Richard, is reducing the UN role:

In line with the Common Agenda, the Secretary General has portrayed the summit as an opportunity for presidents and prime ministers to launch new ideas about global governance. Diplomatic discussions about the summit – and a Pact for the Future that is meant to come out of it – have further highlighted the difficulties of talking about security at the UN.

This stepping away from conflict abatement efforts seems to extend through a significant number of UN Members and somewhat surprisingly, or maybe not, depending on your point of view, it appears to be expressed by Members of the Global South. Richard has in fact picked up on this thread of thinking from the Global South:

Many UN members from the so-called Global South have made it clear that the summit and pact should focus on the economic problems that they face today. Scores of developing countries are now carrying unsupportable debt burdens, and want the summit to help them unlock affordable financing.

Many of these UN members from the Global South – what used to be referred to in the past as the Third World, or the developing world, or even as the NAM, the ‘Nonaligned Movement’  have made it clear that the upcoming Summit of the Future and the Pact for the Future should focus on their economic problems, especially in the light of significant and growing debt but also in financing the green transition that they all face today.

The dilemma of course is, if the UN backs away from conflict suppression, then who, or what, can the global order rely on. It is evident that there is a hard limit on what the UN can do in the face of great power conflict for the moment but there are many conflicts where the UN is, and has played a role in limiting, and in some instances ending, conflict. The problem has been that the efforts are slow and too often barely effective and these peace efforts can extend for far too many years. So new approaches are called for and likely include stronger immediate pressure and serious diplomatic actions backed possibly by strong sanctions and in some limited cases early intervention. As Richard concludes:

Even if the UN’s narrowly defined security role is shrinking, multilateral cooperation is still essential to addressing the security of states and individuals in a wider sense. So it is possible that the UN will see its traditional mediation and peacekeeping roles shrink, while still contributing to making the world a safer place through other strands of work.

Reliance on more active diplomacy needs to be considered especially in  a world where there is a growing threat of conflict, violent conflicts such as Ukraine and the Gaza wars. But there also needs to be a shift in thinking how, and when, to turn to force is warranted. Dan Drezner from Drezner’s World, and Tufts, and other things, points to the weakness of diplomatic thinking and action. In the case he discusses this is on the part of one of the leading powers, the United States. As Dan in this Foreign Affairs article titled, “How Everything Became National Security: And National Security Became Everything” points to US thinking and action in foreign policy and how it has become dominated for far too long by an overweening national security mindset:

Consider the history of the National Security Strategy, the report on current threats that the president is supposed to deliver to Congress annually, although in practice it is usually released less often. A review of post-1990 reports reveals a steady expansion of qualifying concerns: energy security, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking, and terrorism, among many others.

 

In the 70 years since, the definition of national security has been stretched almost beyond recognition. New technologies have multiplied the vectors through which external forces can threaten the United States. Furthermore, because security issues command greater staffs and budgets, policy entrepreneurs have strong incentives to frame their interests as matters of national security. The forces that push issues into the national security queue are far more powerful than the forces that lead policymakers to exclude them. Nevertheless,even with this expansion, the United States has been blindsided by events: 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic, the October 7 attacks. Simply having a longer list of threats hasn’t really helped prepare for the unexpected.

The need for strategic recalculation by the US and among the major powers is all too apparent today. What that recalculation is, and how to implement that, is a discussion for another day.

This Post was first posted at my Substack Alan’s Newsletter https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/the-troubles-with-multilateralism?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Comments are welcome as are the free subscriptions

Image Credit: Geneva Environment Network

The Trouble with Today’s Multilateralism: An Intro

Posted on by
Reply

 

So in this week’s Post I was all set to hone in on the struggles over reenergizing faltering multilateralism in the current global order. Today’s  troubles encompass the formal institutions – the Formals – from the UN, and many of its specialized agencies to the international financial ones – the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. And the troubles extend to the Informals, the G7, the G20 to the BRICS+ and more. The struggles over multilateralism are the flip side of the return, seemingly ever more strongly power politics – the wars in the Ukraine and Gaza, and geopolitics, especially the rise in bilateral tensions between China and the United States.

But before I could go there, I couldn’t ignore the just excellent article – recommended by my colleague, and China expert, John Gruetzner – in Foreign Affairs by Zongyuan Zoe Liu, titled, “China’s Real Economic Crisis: Why Beijing Won’t Give Up on a Failing Model”. This very good piece leaned strongly into the discussion I had raised in my previous Alan’s Newsletter Post, ‘China, Seemingly, Stays the Course’. The Post chronicled the disappointment expressed by analysts and experts in the West primarily but in a rather more modulated form in China as well. The disappointment according to these experts emerged over the failure in the Third Plenum to initiate significant economic reform in the Chinese domestic economy and a clear determination to tackle domestic consumption.

Liu gets it right:

The Chinese economy is stuck. … But there is a more enduring driver of the present stasis, one that runs deeper than Xi’s growing authoritarianism or the effects of a crashing property market: a decades-old economic strategy that privileges industrial production over all else, an approach that, over time, has resulted in enormous structural overcapacity.

 

Simply put, in many crucial economic sectors, China is producing far more output than it, or foreign markets, can sustainably absorb. As a result, the Chinese economy runs the risk of getting caught in a doom loop of falling prices, insolvency, factory closures, and, ultimately, job losses.

 

Since the mid-2010s, the problem has become a destabilizing force in international trade, as well. By creating a glut of supply in the global market for many goods, Chinese firms are pushing prices below the breakeven point for producers in other countries. In December 2023, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that excess Chinese production was causing “unsustainable” trade imbalances and accused Beijing of engaging in unfair trade practices by offloading ever-greater quantities of Chinese products onto the European market at cutthroat prices.

 

Despite vehement denials by Beijing, Chinese industrial policy has for decades led to recurring cycles of overcapacity. At home, factories in government-designated priority sectors of the economy routinely sell products below cost in order to satisfy local and national political goals.

Now there continues to be some contention over whether in fact production is below cost but I I was pleased by Liu’s ‘recommendation’ that the two – the West and China – consider options other than just piling on the tariffs. Liu correctly points out the negative consequences of such trade policy:

A China that is increasingly cut off from Western markets will have less to lose in a potential confrontation with the West—and, therefore, less motivation to de-escalate. As long as China is tightly bound to the United States and Europe through the trade of high-value goods that are not easily substitutable, the West will be far more effective in deterring the country from taking destabilizing actions. China and the United States are strategic competitors, not enemies; nonetheless, when it comes to U.S.-Chinese trade relations, there is wisdom in the old saying “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

That is why I have suggested negotiating – and one aspect in this case could be Voluntary Export Restraints or VERS. VERS are not super policy  actions – I get that  but they do encourage bilateral discussions rather than just unilateral penalties. As Liu suggest:

The U.S. government should discourage Beijing from building a wall that can sanction-proof the Chinese economy. To this end, the next administration should foster alliances, restore damaged multilateral institutions, and create new structures of interdependence that make isolation and self-sufficiency not only unattractive to China but also unattainable. A good place to start is by crafting more policies at the negotiation table, rather than merely imposing tariffs. … If the government [China] also implemented voluntary export controls, it could kill several birds with one stone: such a move would reduce trade and potentially even political tensions with the United States; it would force mature sectors to consolidate and become more sustainable; and it would help shift manufacturing capacity overseas, to serve target markets directly.

While working through the WTO might be preferable, and many analysts suggest such an approach for multilateral trade frictions, realistically that course of action is out of reach for the moment.

So there you are on the Third Plenum and global trade.  Let me at least turn to the original subject for this Post; let’s at least open the discussion on multilateralism and its problems. I was particularly attracted to a piece published recently by Pascal Lamy. Pascal Lamy (pascallamy.eu) is currently the Vice-President of the Paris Peace Forum, and coordinator of the Jacques Delors Institutes (Paris, Berlin, Brussels). Importantly, Pascal Lamy served two terms as Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) from September 2005 to September 2013. He is someone that is very familiar with critical aspects of the multilateral system. Recently his piece, ‘Reshaping the Global Order’ was published in a large edited volume by colleagues from the Center for China & Globalization, CCG,  Henry Huiyao Wang and Mabel Lu Miao, Enhancing Global Governance in a Fragmented World: Prospects, Issues, and the Role of China. Now Lamy sets out the critical structural issues that impair today’s multilateralism efforts. As he says:

The main long-term, structural factors at play can be summarized by sovereignty as a founding principle of an international order, by the obsolescence of the previous order, and by the US-China rivalry.

It is not surprising that he identifies ‘sovereignty’ as the first key to multilateralism’s problems:

Sovereignty has been, is, and will remain the main obstacle to building a fully fledged international order as long as it is accepted as the core principle of international law.

So many analysts acknowledge the burst in new actors in the international system: substate actors, regions and cities and also non-state actors like NGOs, large public and private corporations but all struggle against dominant state actors. National sovereignty dominates international relations and often leads to unilateral actions that undermines wider cooperation.

Then there is ‘obsolescence’.  This focuses around the elements of the system, especially the Formals that were put in place at the end of World War Two at a time when the Global South that has had such a recent impact on international relations existed primarily as colonies of the West:

Obsolescence has to do with the origins of the current global system, the architecture of which dates from arrangements made after the Second World War. The ‘universal’ nature of these arrangements is increasingly seen as a product of a past pattern of Western dominance at a time when new nation states are now reshuffling the old power distribution …

Lamy then targets the impact of the evolving international order:

All in all, the previous international order is being shaken by increasing North-South and East-West tensions and frustrations, and by a change in the balance between geoeconomics and geopolitics, the former losing the force it had gathered in recent decades, and the latter regaining its past dominance over world affairs. We are thus moving toward less of a rules-based system, and more toward the use of force. This context obliges us to consider new paths, tentative as they may be.

And finally Lamy underlines the rise of geopolitical tensions, especially between China and the United States, and the impact that these tensions have had on the current multilateral order:

The intensification of the US-China rivalry is the third main factor shaping the demise of the international order, as this rivalry increasingly pits the two main world superpowers against each other. Indeed, they now believe they have become dangerously vulnerable to each other—hence a change of view on both sides about globalization. Whereas the US and China previously celebrated the benefits of increased economic interdependence in fostering development and reducing poverty, they are now trying to address what today they consider as overdependence and have embarked on a decoupling journey which challenges the rest of the world with hard binary choices and which permeates international life in the form a sort of ‘cold war 2.0.’

So what is to be done? How can a multilateral system be revivified and made effective – bringing greater stability to the global order and energizing transnational global governance efforts?

That’s where we will start in the next Post.

Image Credit: Geneva Interdisciplinary Centre for Economics and Law

This Blog originally appeared as a Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter – https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/the-trouble-with-todays-multilateralism?r=bj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Free Subscriptions are welcome as are comments

 

China, seemingly, stays the course

Posted on by
Reply

It is hard to resist not commenting on Donald Trump’s views, so I will if just briefly. In this instance the comment is over Kamala Harris’s racial makeup. It is ‘weird’ as the Democrats have started saying. In fact that barely describes his comments on her. Mind you, I doubt that it is the last time we will hear such ‘jaw dropping insights’ from Trump when it comes to his likely opponent Kamala Harris.

All right, let’s turn to today’s focus – the state of US-China relations following China’s Third Plenum – really focusing on the Third Plenum. This gathering is the Third Plenum of the 20th Party Congress, which brought together the Party’s top leadership, including all the members of the Central Committee and the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party.  Third Plenums in particular have especially been closely followed. Why? Well, it really began with the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress in December 1978. That Third Plenum ushered in a series of policy changes championed at the time by Deng Xiaoping. This Plenum was in retrospect the start of the ‘Reform and Opening Era’ which was followed by the Third Plenum of the 14th Party Congress when the leadership identified the goal of creating a ‘socialist market economy’. And, at the 18th Party Congress in November 2013, the CCP emphasized in that Third Plenum,  “the decisive role of the market in allocating resources,”. So, it is not unreasonable for experts, officials, etc. to look at each 5-year Third Plenum to identify signals for domestic economic reform which many then anticipate impacts on the global economy with China’s increasingly central role on the international economy.

It’s not a surprise, then, that there was a degree of anticipation for this Third Plenum which had been postponed for months, especially given the flagging Chinese economy. Our colleagues at CSIS including Jude Blanchette and Scott Kennedy described the tortured passage of policy creation:

According to a CCP website, the document went through 38 drafts. Right after the conclave ended, the CCP issued a communique (English, Chinese) summarizing the results of the meeting. On Sunday, July 21, the text of the full, far more detailed Decision (English, Chinese) was issued, which provides a stronger foundation for evaluating the meeting’s significance.

So where are we and what consequences are likely to follow the policy pronouncements?

There was a lot of anticipation. As pointed out by Bert Hofman in his Substack Post: 

This year’s third plenum was highly anticipated due to several factors.  The multitude of structural challenges that China’s economy is facing—debt, demographics, demand, deflation, and decoupling—require the robust economic reforms that third plenums tend to deliver. Second, China’s propaganda machine had built up the plenum’s importance, comparing it with breakthrough plenums of the pasts.

But for most analysts the outcomes have been rather disappointing. As pointed out, again by Bert Hofman, the hoped for policy tilt and more toward markets and/or greater domestic consumption is not evident in the Declaration:

This year’s plenum has dropped the decisive role of the market.  Instead, it  proposes that the party should “better leverage the role of the market.” This is hardly an encouragement of the private sector, whose confidence is still recovering from regulatory crackdowns and COVID lockdowns.  At the same time, in a press conference after the conclusion of the plenum Han Wenxiu, deputy director of the Central Financial and Economic Affairs Commission’s general office, and a main drafter of the plenum decision document, said that it was “necessary to create a favourable environment and provide more opportunities for the development of the private sector” in China.

Nevertheless, the omission of the market’s decisive role is in line with the more statist view on development that has been gaining grounds under Xi Jinping, and that the private sector will be increasingly guided by the party and restricted by regulation.

 

But the nature of reforms has changed—whereas in previous plenums reforms were predominantly aimed at facilitating marketization and liberalization of China’s economy, they are now meant to strengthen the policies and institutions that underpin Xi Jinping’s view of the world.

The party-state dominance seems to be fully in charge. And China can be expected to stay the current course for domestic economic growth and prosperity. As Scott Kennedy argues:

The Communique and Decision give the distinct impression that despite the economy’s various structural problems and cyclical downturn, the CCP is not going to change course, but instead will intensify its efforts to steer the economy on to a sustainable long-term path. The central focus for generating “high-quality development” will be on expanding focus on advanced technologies, what are now ideologically described as “new productive forces” (新质生产力).

 

That said, the Plenum’s analysis and policy proposals on the economy are likely to draw a more skeptical reaction from a variety of corners, domestic and international, because of its deeply statist focus: 1) A strong emphasis on the central role of China’s party-state in directing the economy; 2) The prioritization on investment and production as the drivers of growth and far less attention to consumption and households; 3) Continued support for the “public sector” and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) even while pledging to create a level playing field for private firms; 4) A discussion of the global economy that proposed incremental expanded market access to China while stressing the need for China to leverage its large market for its own benefit; and 5) The expansive discussion of national security and the need to align economic policy with national security, which as Jude Blanchette notes, is centered around the security of the CCP.

Scott’s colleague at CSIS, Claire Reade, underlines that trade partners are unlikely to be fooled by this Plenum Declaration and trade tensions as a result are unlikely to abate and that’s without taking into account the likely economic earthquake of a second Trump Administration:

The latest Third Plenum Decision declares that “overall, we have accomplished the reform tasks” set out in 2013. Since this is patently not the case, it is particularly discouraging. The decision ironically then highlights the gap between its triumphant conclusion and reality by going on to pledge that by 2029, the market will determine the allocation of resources, and private domestic and foreign enterprises will obtain equal treatment with state-owned enterprises.

On balance, trading partners need to continue to be savvy and proactive in taking steps to protect their economies against this massive, state-heavy economy, and companies need to look carefully at their own risk management.

It is not surprising that various Chinese experts are suggesting that a more incremental approach was always a more likely approach of the President and the Party. Here is Huang Yiping, who is the Dean of the National School of Development at Beida, or Peking University, assessing on the Pekinology Substack Post the policy approach coming out of the Third Plenum:

The first point you probably all saw is that the Asian market dropped after the Third Plenum, especially after the full document was out. So some people felt a little bit pessimistic. My own sense, my take, is that the market was probably too optimistic about what they should expect.

So some people felt a little bit pessimistic. My own sense, my take, is that the market was probably too optimistic about what they should expect.

 

In fact, if you were paying attention to what the President himself was saying and the message government officials were trying to convey to the public. It was pretty clear this would not be a grand-scale liberalization program. This will be about reform, about modernization. But the key approach, the President outlined himself very clearly. He called it running towards the problems and trying to correct them. So it’s more like a down-to-earth and very practical approach—when you try to see the problems, you try to overcome them.

 

So when you say, well, the market is disappointed. That’s probably true, but either because the expectation was just overly too high or No. 2, I think the reason why investors are not very upbeat at the moment is because the macroeconomy is not doing particularly well.

Huang Yiping is aware, however, of the consumption problem:

Weak consumption causes two problems. No. 1 is you obviously would easily end up with a domestic overcapacity problem, right? You produce a lot, you invest a lot, and then the final consumption demand is very weak. That means there will be a certain portion of the capacity you cannot find domestic buyers for, and you call it overcapacity. That’s why during the last 45, 46 years of Chinese reform, we almost always had the overcapacity problem.

I think the macroeconomic problem is there is a macro imbalance. Consumption and demand and supply are not very balanced. So that’s one big issue.

So where does that leave us? I anticipate there will be continuing if not growing trade tensions with the US and with Europe as well as China continues its ferocious pace of manufacturing exports and fails to encourage greater domestic consumption. At least to constrain these tensions and protective trade actions in the absence of the WTO, it might be useful to try and negotiate VERs – ‘voluntary export restraints’ with China. It is not optimal – far from it – but it could avoid a trade ‘bloodbath’.

An important opportunity has been missed for the moment and may in fact be even more dramatically lost if Donald Trump wins the next election in  November. Let’s hope the US electorate is smarter than that.

Image Credit: CNN

The Intensity of the US Presidency – and the Race

Posted on by
Reply

So many eventful happenings again this past week. As a consequence this Post will be a quick ‘dip and serve’ of several consequential matters. First from my international law colleague, Ooa Hathaway from Yale Law School and the Department of Political Science at Yale. She is one of the best. She and her colleague, Scott Shapiro wrote a terrific book in 2017, The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. And it was interesting to see this past week that her piece on the Presidential Immunity case, Trump v the United States, appeared in Foreign Affairs, the journal not particularly notable for publishing international law issues. Nevertheless, the piece is quite interesting by pointing out that this examination of Presidential Immunity domestically has long been examined internationally – and the consequences have not been good. As Oona writes: 

What most analysts have failed to note, however, is that this lack of legal accountability for decisions by the U.S. president, including decisions to direct the military to use lethal force, is nothing new. It has long been the reality for most of the world outside the United States.

As Oona points out there has been a long effort to reign in such ‘extra-legal’ Presidential behavior:

What most analysts have failed to note, however, is that this lack of legal accountability for decisions by the U.S. president, including decisions to direct the military to use lethal force, is nothing new. It has long been the reality for most of the world outside the United States.

 

For years, attempts have been made to hold the United States accountable for its unsanctioned violence. Lawyers in the United States and overseas have filed case after case challenging U.S. military and CIA operations abroad, but few have made it past procedural and jurisdictional hurdles. As a result, the U.S. president has long been a “king above the law” when it comes to actions outside the United States.

As Oona, perhaps, vainly concludes: 

The problem of presidential immunity—and the capacity of the president to act outside the law—was not created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. It was simply exposed and expanded by it. Outside the United States, American presidents have long been able to violate the law with impunity, inflicting death and property destruction on civilians in the process. Now that this is also true in the United States, perhaps there will be the will to do something about it.

The acknowledgement of some immunity for ‘official acts’ – still to be determined of course, is just one aspect of presidential intensity that I recognized in the past week. The obvious other matter is the gathering US presidential race. It has been a whirlwind of change for the Democrats of course, but it seems for the Republicans and the Trump campaign as well. 

First was the incredibly speedy replacement of President Biden with his Vice-President, Kamala Harris. The ultra speedy consolidation of her position as the presumptive nominee for the Democrats was startling and indeed head spinning.  As Shane Goldmacher described in his recent NYT piece, titled, “How Kamala Harris Took Command of the De​​mocratic Party in 48 Hours”:

Time was of the essence. A sprawling call list of the most important Democrats to reach had been prepared in advance, according to two people with knowledge of the situation. The vice president, in sneakers and a sweatshirt, began methodically dialing Democratic power brokers.

 

I wasn’t going to let this day go by without you hearing from me,” Ms. Harris had said over and over, as day turned to night, according to five people who received her calls or were briefed on them.

 

The blitz demonstrated exactly the kind of vigor and energy that Mr. Biden had lacked in recent weeks. Mr. Biden had reportedly made 20 calls to congressional Democrats in the first 10 or so days after the debate, while his candidacy hung in the balance. Ms. Harris made 100 calls in 10 hours.

 

Within 48 hours, Ms. Harris had functionally cleared the Democratic field of every serious rival, clinched the support of more delegates than needed to secure the party nomination, raised more than $100 million and delivered a crisper message against former President Donald J. Trump than Mr. Biden had mustered in months.

The speed and impact on the Democratic Party of Harris assuming leadership, and the invidious comparison with Biden and his now ended campaign appears quite stark. As described by Goldmacher:

Even some at the White House and the newly transformed Harris campaign in Wilmington, Del., privately confided that the vice president’s energetic early appearances were a refreshing change from those of the 81-year-old president, whose verbal stumbles were constant fodder on the right.

The heaviness and distress of the prior campaign was only underlined by the President’s ‘stepping aside’ Oval Office appearance and statement this last Wednesday. It was quite the downer and it certainly lacked insight and explanation. Susan B. Glasser of TheNewYorker did a good job of describing the very short Biden speech: 

The short, awkward speech—a mere eleven minutes, though it felt longer than that, listening to Biden’s painful communion with the ghosts of Presidents past as he justified his decision to step aside a few months before the election—served as yet another reminder of why Democratic officials had felt such an urgency to act. … Lyndon B. Johnson was the only other modern President to choose not to run again for a second term, and, in the address he gave to the nation making his surprise announcement, in March of 1968, the trauma of Vietnam that prompted his decision did not seem at all comparable to Biden’s quieter tragedy of an octogenarian in decline and denial.

 

Years from now, I suspect it will not be Biden’s speech that I’ll remember so much as the few heady days of pure political joy among Democrats that preceded it: the race against Trump, practically given up for lost, suddenly looked winnable again.

That sudden energy and excitement that appeared to surge through the Democratic Party seemed very evident if not palatable. Now, let’s be clear, it is far too early to tell if the Harris ascension has in fact altered the trajectory of the race. And it will take some time to get some electoral evidence impact. Any numbers at the current moment can only be received with restraint if not outright skepticism. Still, here is just an early dip into the electoral waters at this very early stage by folks at the NYT under the heading: “Harris Narrows Gap Against Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds” : 

Overall, Mr. Trump leads Ms. Harris 48 percent to 47 percent among likely voters in a head-to-head match. That is a marked improvement for Democrats when compared to the Times/Siena poll in early July that showed Mr. Biden behind by six percentage points, in the aftermath of the poor debate performance that eventually drove him from the race.” … Because the survey was of voters nationwide, the impact of Ms. Harris’s candidacy in particular battleground states was not immediately clear.

And my colleague Dan Drezner from Drezner’s World,  a noted Substack provider not to mention a Distinguished Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School  of Tufts University set out ‘Ten Things I Think I Think About the 2024 Presidential Race After Joe Biden’s Exit’. Here just one point:

Until then, [the Convention] I have ten thoughts — some of which are pretty banal but nonetheless worthy of mention:

 

2. Despite all the shocks, the race remains mostly unchanged. In the past ten days there has been an assassination attempt, multiple court rulings favorable to Trump, his choice of J.D. Vance to be his vice president candidate, and the pageantry of the Republican National Convention. Despite all that, Trump has not received much of a bump. To be sure, he’s in the lead, which is something. Still, despite a month’s worth of good news, it’s still a pretty tight race. That is mostly because Trump is a historically unpopular politician. Never forget that although Trump has a high floor of support, he also has an incredibly low ceiling.

 It is clearly, at this moment, a real contest again. Phew! And, enjoy the Olympics!

Image Credit: CNBC 

Violence and Political Disorder in the United States

Posted on by
Reply

It’s rather foolish to believe that even a ‘bullet wound’ would alter Donald Trump. His speech accepting the nomination for the Republican Party on Thursday night – over 90 minutes – proved that.  What you see is what you get. But let me reflect for a moment on the consequences for Trump, and the political system, of this attempt on his life.  Its impact it seems on American politics, and more particularly on the Trump third presidential run – well, at least for the moment, appears rather negligible. As Susan B. Glasser of The NewYorker wrote:

Trump’s supposed pivot to the center was silly spin, and yet all week long I marvelled at the collective susceptibility to this narrative, so seductive, so absurd. … Soon enough on Thursday night, the audience was back to its comfort zone, booing as Trump criticized “crazy Nancy Pelosi” and warned that the hated Democrats were “destroying our country,” cheering him on as he demanded the firing of union leaders and rambled about the “China virus” and the “plunder” of our nation by rapacious foreigners. The second coming of George Herbert Walker Bush this was not.

He may have had a brush with death but he has not been reborn. He is the same Trump, only four years older, angrier, and far, far more incoherent than anyone who has any business being President of the United States. If Biden can’t beat him, then surely someone else can—and must.

Okay, so it was, I suspect, a rather a vain hope. But it is worth reflecting here on the incident and what it says about American political violence. It certainly appears that many view the shooting – public and commentators alike – as being strongly linked to political violence in the United States. Numerous commentators reprised repeated views and analysis that first reflected on heightened political polarization in the US body politic and then suggesting the tie to instances of political violence. Foreign Affairs reflected on this causal chain with an interview with Robert Lieberman, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins,  who with his colleague from Cornell, Suzanne Mettler in 2020 had written an FA piece titled, “The Fragile Republic: American Democracy Has Never Faced So Many Threats All at Once”. In that piece the two argued:

Polarization is not a static state but a process that feeds on itself and creates a cascade of worsening outcomes. Over time, those who exploit it may find it difficult to control, as members of the party base become less and less trustful of elites and believe that none is sufficiently devoted to their core values.

The culmination of polarization can endanger democracy itself. If members of one political group come to view their opponents as an existential threat to their core values, they may seek to defeat them at all costs, even if it undermines normal democratic procedures. They may cease to view the opposition as legitimate and seek permanent ways to prevent it from gaining power, such as by stacking the deck in their own favor. They may become convinced that it is justifiable to circumvent the rule of law and defy checks and balances or to scale back voting rights, civil liberties, or civil rights for the sake of preserving or protecting the country as they see fit.

And then as Lieberman reflects in his very recent interview on the current political landscape that we face in the aftermath of the shooting:

There are four features that help cause democratic crises. The first is political polarization, the second is conflict over who belongs in the political community, the third is high and growing economic inequality, and the fourth is excessive executive power. At least one of these forces has been present at every moment of democratic turmoil in U.S. history.

What makes the last four years different is that all of them are present. They helped fuel Trump’s rise and were part of why the country was vulnerable to an incident like the storming of the Capitol on January 6. And unfortunately, every such event only further weakens the country’s democracy. It makes the Trump shooting even more dangerous and provocative than it otherwise would be.

So I really worry that if Trump and his people start talking about this in an inflammatory way, you could see not just sporadic attacks—which is what this shooting seems to have been—but more collective and organized forms of violence.

What is interesting is that  a number of current commentators draw the link between the current instability and then tie it back to the origins of the political community. Here is Nick Bryant, the former reporter for the BBC in New York reflecting in FP:

Now, though, I would amend my advice. I would urge young reporters to reach back even further into history. The roots of modern-day polarization, and even the origins of former President Donald Trump, can be located in the country’s troubled birth. Division has always been the default setting.

So many contemporary problems can be traced back to those founding days. U.S. democracy has become so diseased because for most of the country’s history, it has not been that healthy. “We the People,” the rousing words that opened the preamble to the Constitution, was not conceived of as an inclusive statement or catchall for mass democracy. Rather, this ill-defined term referred to what in modern terminology might be called the body politic.

So there are multiple explanations for this instance of political violence, some anchored to the founding of the nation, but most tethered to deep political polarization and dire concerns of immediate political consequences. But there is a particular difficulty, in my mind, in understanding the current circumstances and its political consequences. And to me this understanding the motivation for the shooting by Thomas Crooks. Though much scrutiny has occurred, and I am sure there is likely more to come, there does not appear to be a political motivation involved. In the most recent inquiry by a number of NYT reporters concluding 60 interviews with classmates, teachers, neighbors and officials in Bethel Park, Pa., and reviewed law enforcement bulletins and extensive school records for the article, there is no evidence to date of a political motive:

Experts who study the histories of gunmen said the emerging picture of Mr. Crooks looked more like a 21st-century school shooter than a John Wilkes Booth.

“When somebody attacks a president, our gut instinct is to say, ‘That must be politically motivated,’” said James Densley, a founder of the Violence Project, which has compiled a comprehensive database of mass shootings. “What we might be seeing here is: This was somebody intent on perpetrating mass violence, and they happened to pick a political rally.”

From the near outside – which is where I am situated, it is perplexing that so few commentators reflect on the obvious – the dramatic presence in the United States of too many guns in the country. Not ignoring this, however – and what appears to me to be the obvious as well, is the reflection by Opinion Writer for NYT, David Wallace-Wells. And he writes:

But many others were not so obviously motivated by ideology or a sense of political crusade, including the country’s deadliest attack, in Las Vegas. In Connecticut, Adam Lanza left no manifesto before marching into Sandy Hook Elementary School, and though Virginia Tech’s Seung-Hui Cho left an epic paper trail, it primarily documented deep social resentment and incel-style sexual frustration like that which pushed Elliot Rodger toward violence in the 2014 Isla Vista killings. Other rampages — including in Uvalde, Lewiston and Aurora — have been rendered in national memory not just as horrifying acts of spectacular violence but enigmatic ones, too, with inscrutable motivations.

In the aftermath of the shooting at Trump’s rally, it seems everyone had a story to tell or an argument to make about it. But conspicuously absent was the subject that often takes center stage in the wake of a shooting: guns.

Everyone knows this country is an unusually violent place, but few appreciate just how unusually so. Our gun homicide rate is 22 times as high as it is in the European Union; this means that, on a per-capita basis, for every European who is killed by a gun every year, 22 Americans are. One conservative estimate put the number of guns in America at almost 378 million, increasingly concentrated in a smaller number of households. Perhaps 44 million are AR-15-style rifles.

And while American murder rates are in long-term decline, mass shootings, though only a tiny fraction of the total, are becoming only more common. About a decade ago, it was sometimes pointed out that, contrary to the public narrative, mass shootings hadn’t meaningfully increased in America; instead, they had simply become more salient in an age of, first, cable news and, then, social media. But if you define “mass shooting” as an attack with four or more victims, killed or injured, the number more than doubled between 2014 and 2023.

Experts, analysts and opinion writers need to face these very striking figures. And, if necessary, ignore the politics.

Image Credit: The New York Times

Responding to Disorder

Posted on by
Reply

 

I have to start with the Biden press conference last night, of course. I wish Biden’s performance could allay concerns about his competence but, unfortunately, it was not good enough to do that.  Biden was certainly less combative than what was on display earlier but the stubbornness has not abated. And the mistakes remain. So, the Democrats are stuck for the moment.

Let’s turn now to the focus of this Post: coping with the disorder in the current international system and the real fear for the electoral outcome.

My close colleague, Yves Tiberghien, Professor of Political Science and the Konwakai Chair in Japanese Research, and also the Director of the Center for Japanese Research at the University of British Columbia put his finger on the stability/instability tension in the current global order. As he wrote recently for the Asia-Pacific Foundation:

In the current moment we are witnessing a rapidly changing geopolitical environment, with several dangerous hot spots and an acceleration of tit-for-tat dynamics.

The prime movers in this situation are China and the U.S., each animated and constrained by their domestic politics that sometimes limit their ability to deeply understand each other and engage in strategic, long-term calculations. The moves that each of them makes – which are usually framed as being defensive and reactive – are feeding a cycle of interactions that is transforming the region.

The central tension between the two leading powers is not aided by the current fallout from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the war in Gaza but the macro disorder is driven in the first instance by difficult US-China interests. And, it is because of the knotty interactions and the prospect for even greater bilateral tensions that so many of us are kinda ‘quaking in our boots’ over the impending national US elections. I was caught by the insight and ‘unexpressed’ emotion of one of the NYT’s most well known Opinion Columnists, Tom Freidman. He just recently wrote in the NYT, a piece titled: “The Devil May Be Enjoying This Election Season, but I Am Not”:

Both men running for president right now are unfit for the job: One is a good man in obvious cognitive and physical decline, and the other is a bad man who lies as he breathes, whose main platform is revenge — and who is in his own cognitive tailspin.

It kinda chills one’s ‘political soul’ when contemplating current US politics and policy.  It leaves open the prospect of dangerous international politics that demands effective Presidential leadership – which is exactly what seems to be missing in the current presidential contest. As Friedman writes:

At the same time, we are in the middle of defining the post-post-Cold War order, now that the U.S.-dominated post-Cold War order has come unstuck since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Managing a hostile Russia — aligned with an increasingly hostile China, aligned with malign actors like Iran and North Korea, and super-empowered nonstate actors like Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah — will take not only incredibly wise U.S. leadership but also a U.S. leader able to forge multiple alliances. The post-post-Cold War world can’t be managed by a lonely American superpower telling all its allies to spend more on defense or we will leave you to the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin.

Turning back to Yves Tiberghien for a moment, Yves identifies 3 hotspots in the current international scene: The Philippines, North Korea and Taiwan. Let me look at just one, what Yves identifies as the number one hotspot, the Philippines:

This is the top hot spot right now, and one without good safeguards or guardians. Some view it as perhaps the closest example in the region to a 1914 scenario. There is an urgency for talks between high-ranking officials in the U.S. and China talks, but the Biden Administration is distracted.

Now I will avoid any comparative historical references, – you know, it is just like World War I, or just like the Iraq decision etc.  I am not attracted to this form of analysis. And you should be careful as well. For my part having examined, rather long ago, the dramatically complex interactions and unique diplomatic actions of long ago political figures, including especially those political decisions leading up to World War I – thank you James Joll, these comparisons fail to attract me. The primary reason is most analyses comparing historical crises focus on the similarities but almost never examine the often dramatic differences in these historical comparisons. There are not only similarities but differences as well. And both must be examined, though they seldom are.

So let’s leave historical comparisons aside and let’s turn to a recent analysis. I was very pleased to see a just released piece by Ryan Hass in Foreign Affairs, titled: “Avoiding War in the South China Sea”. Ryan is from Brookings and is currently the Director of the John L. Thornton China Center, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center and he is also the Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies. Ryan served from 2013 to 2017, as the director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia at the National Security Council (NSC) staff. From what I know he retains links with many in the Biden Administration.

There are a number of valuable insights that Ryan conveys in the current problem. Let’s first start with the problem. The South China Sea (SCS) dispute arises over the Spratly Islands with ongoing territorial disputes among Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam concerning “ownership” of the Spratly Islands, a group of islands and associated “maritime features” (reefs, banks, and cays etc.) and strong positioning in the South China Sea. The central bully in this story is China that essentially claims all of the South China Sea.  Nevertheless, the others also maintain their individual country claims. In 1999 the Philippines ran an old vessel, the Sierra Madre aground on the Second Thomas Shoal. China initially demanded that the Philippines remove the vessel and has harassed the Philippine efforts to resupply the military personnel that remain on the vessel though to this point China has been unsuccessful in preventing Philippine resupply. As Ryan points out:

The risk remains high that an incident could result in the death of a Filipino soldier, potentially triggering the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty and bringing American and Chinese forces to the brink of conflict.

That is the heart of the problem for the US, China and the Philippines. Threading the needle is what it will take; and of course that is exactly what chills those of us looking at the current race for the presidency. But Ryan suggests a policy that enhances deterrence and limits what Yves described as ‘tit-for-tat’ actions.

For Washington, success is upholding the credibility of its alliance commitments, avoiding conflict with China, and preventing Chinese occupation of Second Thomas Shoal. Achieving these results will require Washington to weigh every policy decision against whether it does more to prevent or provoke a crisis. Second Thomas Shoal is a strategic challenge with a military dimension.

It is a touchy balance of maintaining commitment, and thereby deterring China and at the same time not giving full rein to the strategic – and not so strategic actions in the US and in fact in the Philippines,  to tip over into conflict. Reflecting this balance is Ryan’s positioning:

It is not a military problem with a military solution. Washington must resist pressure to frame this issue as a test of wills between the United States and China and instead leverage Beijing’s bullying at Second Thomas Shoal to strengthen its relationships in the region.

Given the conflicting imperatives of the three major participants, the United States will need to walk a tightrope. It cannot allow itself to beseen as passive in the face of Chinese pressure against its treaty ally. On the other hand, Washington must preserve its position as defender of the status quo, thereby sharpening the contrast with China’s revisionist attempts to alter the situation at Second Thomas Shoal.

It is, as Ryan points out, critically important to signal soundly to China, US commitment without creating reactive offense:

U.S. policymakers must resist the urge to turn Second Thomas Shoal into a contest of wills between the United States and China and urge Beijing to do the same. The more the standoff becomes publicly framed as a showdown between great powers, the more likely that nuclear-armed rivals could find themselves in a nose-to-nose confrontation over a rusting boat.

And I think sensibly Ryan urges the following:

Washington should enlist as many concerned countries as possible to privately counsel Beijing against further escalation. Greater engagement by more actors, especially the Southeast Asian states that Beijing seeks to pull closer, will make the current dispute seem less like a binary clash between the United States and China.

The United States’ best option for limiting risk is to chart a middle path between succumbing to a military test of wills and putting pressure on the Philippines to give in to Chinese pressure. Conflict is possible, but far from preordained.

All this examination underscores the complexity and careful steps required to contain tit-for-tat US-China actions that could lead to a security disaster. It is hard now not to contemplate the worst with either crazy Trump, for sure but now possibly a seriously diminished Biden. We can only hope that the presidential outcome is not as currently predicted.

Image Credit: Al Jazeera

 

What is Needed for MPD Success?

Posted on by
Reply

It is really not possible to begin this Substack Post without a quick glance at the first US Presidential debate of 2024. It was ugly. It was a tough night, especially for President Biden but I will let the political pundits to have their say.

Now to the  subject of this week’s Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter – a focus on Middle Power Diplomacy (MPD) and the capacity of Middle Powers to drive global governance activities. We start with an examination first on multilateralism. There is a strong logic to this starting point given we are beginning by targeting the institutional apex of the international multilateral system – the UN and its agencies. This introduction is also understandable given that the UN will, this September, complete a UN summit cycle which I have referenced in past Substack Posts. This UN summit cycle commenced in 2023 with the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) Summit and it will complete with the critical Summit of the Future (SoTF) this September in New York with the finalization and issuing of the Pact for the Future. In preparation for the UNGA 79th edition, and its opening gathering of Heads of State and Government for  the SoTF, and as described by IISD, the UNGA has elected its newest President:

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) has elected, by acclamation, Philemon Yang, former Prime Minister of Cameroon, to serve as President of its 79th session. His tenure will be guided by the theme, ‘Unity in diversity, for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity for everyone everywhere.’

And with the usual optimism and urgency the new President declared:

I am convinced that through dialogue, through consensus, talking together and looking to the future together, we can solve problems,” Yang said speaking to journalists following the elections.

Yang underscored the continuing multilateral wish:

Outlining the thrust of his Presidency in his vision and mission statement, Yang describes the UNGA as the highest, most representative deliberative body at the global level, which serves as “the lone forum where, based on sovereign equality, States in their diverse opinions meet to jointly seek solutions” through the free expression of diverse convictions, opinions, interests, and  approaches.

To preserve peace, promote sustainable development and protect the planet,” Yang underscores, “the international community should ensure that the objectives jointly set by Member States… are achieved.” According to his statement, the need to fast-track the measures to be taken by the UNGA to ensure the effective implementation of mutual commitments will be one of Yang’s priorities.

The collective effort is heartfelt without question but after the last several decades it has to be accepted as wishful thinking, nothing more. I don’t know how else to describe the effectiveness of the UN.

If formal institutional multilateral action has faltered in the growing international disorder: the rising tensions between the two great powers US and China, and recourse to aggression in the Russian war on Ukraine,  and the Hamas-Israel Gaza war, then where can the global order firm up international stability and advance collective efforts?  Where can the  global order save the planet and improve collective efforts in critical areas of global finance, cybersecurity and AI just to mention three critical subjects?

In our discussions and work at the China-West Dialogue (CWD) we have examined MPD with growing positive reflection and a nod to Middle Power action in the face of weakened multilateral progress. The CWD lead Co-Chair, Colin Bradford has pivoted to an examination of MPD. He does this in a recent article, “Toward a New Era in Global Relations: The Potential of  Middle Power Diplomacy” in the 2024 Global Solutions Summit edition of  Global Solutions Journal. Now almost without exception raising the MPD configuration immediately encourages a discussion over what is, and what is not, a Middle Power. We found that out in one of our recent CWD gatherings. As fun as that discussion can be there is no real conclusion to it and I would note that Colin has avoided that seemingly inevitable discussion by targeting the G20. As Colin points out, the G20 consists of the following:

The 9 EMPs [emerging market powers] along with the 9 AIC [advanced industrial countries] MPs constitute a significant and diverse number of Middle Powers that have the potential to change the global landscape, if and as they choose to exercise global leadership in ways that cut across traditional groups, incorporate contradictory viewpoints and focus hard on practical policy issues and avoid ideological polemics and geopolitical theatrics.

From the start, then, Colin turns his MPD focus on the role of those Middle Powers in the G20 and more particularly the series of immediate G20 presidencies beginning with Indonesia in 2022, followed in 2023 by India, Brazil in 2024, and South Africa in 2025. As he writes:

The argument in this paper is that, as a result, 2024 could be a year of opportunity for advancing global governance in addressing global challenges by capitalizing on latent, underlying global political dynamics to tee up a new era in which global governance can advance, even as systemic competition continues between the US, China, and Europe. … The Brazilian and South African G20 presidencies during 2024 and 2025, with the US to follow in 2026, could become pivotal focal points for the transition to a new era in global relations in which middle-power diplomacy demonstrates the feasibility of advancing humanity’s quest for systemic sustainability, despite the necessary acceptance of geopolitical tensions as a reality.

What Colin then suggests is:

Middle Powers exist today and have agency and influence precisely because they are:

• Independently concerned with global threats and seek to play a role in addressing them rather than seeking a prominent role in international relations only as a projection of national strength and identity;

• Capable of self-interested contributions to global decision-making characterized by diversity of perspectives, competitive behaviors, and shifting coalitions of consensus rather than fixed allegiances based on normative values; and

• Basing their actions and behaviors in the international arena on national interests and pragmatic articulation rather than values which have resulted in ideological differences and confrontational tensions.”

And as he then concludes:

As these brief examples suggest, there could be a new global order based on secular interests, non-ideological formulations, and multiple sources of global leadership which interactively generate composite outcomes embodying contradictory but valid perspectives from different vantage points that move the world forward to addressing systemic global challenges in significant ways. This shift in the global political dynamic toward pluralism driven by middle power diplomacy does not inevitably lead to “a new global disorder”, but rather could become a more inclusive, integrated network of significant countries to drive global solutions, defining a new global order.

Middle power diplomacy is based on listening, learning, brokering, give and- get bargaining, inclusion, embracing diversity, being as comfortable with “difference” as with “like-mindedness,” understanding that “shifting coalitions of consensus” is better for global governance than fixed alliances and blocs, and adjusting pre-positioning by being open to enabling unexpected insights and different ways of seeing issues and opportunities to shift perceptions and change positions.

So Colin hones in on ‘pluralism’ and the impact of MIddle Power ‘coalitions of the willing’ in advancing global governance policies even in the face of geopolitical tensions. The diverse collective effort, it is presumed, can advance global governance policy.

This line of reasoning is underlined by Bob Carr and Gareth Evans, both former foreign ministers of Australia in an article titled, “Detente: Towards a balance of power between the USA and China”, identified by Colin and focused on Australian action in a competitive geopolitical environment. As these two former foreign ministers see it:

Lasting peace is always best achieved with others, not against them. Of course we have to prepare for worst-case scenarios, but it is in Australia’s interests to bring diplomacy back to centre stage, resist policies of containment and confrontation of China, and promote a political accord between the United States and China that could help ease tensions in the South China Sea and over Taiwan and the Korean peninsula.

Here then a further nuance of Middle Power action targeting Australia as an Indo-Pacific actor.  So it appears that there is a strong favoring of Middle Power action. It is a starting point but more needs to be fleshed out. While we can acknowledge pluralism and the construction of ‘coalitions of the willing’, where have we seen MPD in action especially in the face of great power interests that may not accord with the Middle Power goals. When does the dynamic of Middle Powers action draw together a coalition of the willing that ‘drives global solutions’? How does this dynamic gather and then advance policy? We need more on the mechanics of MPD.

More on that to come.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

 

Challenging Leadership and Stability in the Global Order

Posted on by
Reply

There are some recent insights worth examining. These insights underscore the current difficulties of US leadership in the global order. There are at least three critical issues that challenge US foreign policy leadership today. These include: the ‘shadow of Trump’; the continuing primacy demand of US leadership; and the harm inflicted by current US economic policy making. All three and more undermine continuing US foreign policy leadership in a changing global order.

First there is the ‘shadow of a Trump return’ to the US presidency. As quixotic as the first Trump term was, it appears that this prior Trump term likely will be a pale shadow of how a second Trump presidency will conduct itself. There are strong indications that Trump will direct retribution on those such as the Justice Department that he believes undermined his first term as President. And there will be others. And his inconsistent nationalist-isolationist impulses will likely once again be on full display in his relations with NATO, Ukraine, Russia and China. Buckle up!  It could be very ugly. But meanwhile the shadow of his return has caused friend and foe alike to hedge their relations with the US allies, Global South and Middle Power players, and, of course, presumed foes.

So, that is one source of current harm to US leadership. Then there is the continuing determination by the Biden Administration to maintain the US sole superpower leadership role. This can also be read as the US hegemonic position in the global order. The dilemma of US leadership in a changing power order is all too evident. And it is likely to carry forward into the next administration whatever the political stripe it is.

We were alerted to this dilemma really some time ago and by none other than former National Security Advisor, H.R.McMaster. McMaster was appointed in 2017 by President Trump and after leaving office he wrote about his career in: “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World”. There he raised the notion of ‘strategic narcissism”. While there is some contention over whether this concept was first voiced by the great international relations theorist, Hans Morgenthau, and McMaster raises that possibility, the point is the concept itself. Morgenthau did write an essay in 1978 called, “The Roots of Narcissism,” but McMaster in his book carried the concept forward in his description of ‘strategic narcissism’. For McMaster, ‘strategic narcissism’ was:

the tendency to view the world only in relation to the United States and to assume that the future course of events depends primarily on U.S. decisions or plans.

I believe this concept and its elaboration helps us with a central concept in US foreign policy making. This framing aids us in understanding US approaches to leadership in international relations. That view was underlined in the recent piece by Ben Rhodes. It is well worth reviewing the insights provided by Rhodes in this very recent Foreign Affairs (FA) article. Rhodes has been directly involved in US foreign policy where from 2009 to 2017, he served as U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting in the Obama administration. He has been close to Democratic policymaking for a long time including being close with many in the current Biden Administration. As he wrote recently in the FA piece outlining what he sees as a needed reassessment of Democratic foreign policy making:

An updated conception of U.S. leadership—one tailored to a world that has moved on from American primacy and the eccentricities of American politics—is necessary to minimize enormous risks and pursue new opportunities. … Meeting the moment requires abandoning a mindset of American primacy and recognizing that the world will be a turbulent place for years to come. Above all, it requires building a bridge to the future—not the past.

In particular Rhodes points to the Trump ability in current presidential competition to build on the negative reaction to Democratic policy making in the period after the end of Cold War and the ‘triumph’ of US leadership:

Trump has also harnessed a populist backlash to globalization from both the right and the left. Particularly since the 2008 financial crisis,

large swaths of the public in democracies have simmered with discontent over widening inequality, deindustrialization, and a perceived loss of control and lack of meaning. It is no wonder that the exemplars of post–Cold War globalization—free trade agreements, the U.S.-Chinese relationship, and the instruments of international economic cooperation itself—have become ripe targets for Trump.

And these insights also alert us to yet another weakness in the international system – the fading of multilateralism, at least formal institutions. As Rhodes points out:

Second, the old rules-based international order doesn’t really exist anymore. Sure, the laws, structures, and summits remain in place.

But core institutions such as the UN Security Council and the World Trade Organization are tied in knots by disagreements among their members. Russia is committed to disrupting U.S.-fortified norms. China is committed to building its own alternative order. On trade and industrial policy, even Washington is moving away from core tenets of post–Cold War globalization.

Even the high-water mark for multilateral action in the Biden years—support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia—remains a largely Western initiative. As the old order unravels, these overlapping blocs are competing over what will replace it.

Finally, and raised by Rhodes in his article is the Biden Administration’s turn away from free trade and access to the US market as others lower their barriers to freer trade. Protectionism has become rife under the Biden Administration guise of ‘industrial policy’ and such protectionism has been defended, I’d say promoted by Biden folks such as Jake Sullivan. As Sullivan argued early in the Administration, in fact before that in fact, he promoted quite loudly a policy for the middle class. As reported by Michigan State Representative Mari Manoogian, Sullivan urged:

In February 2021, national security advisor Jake Sullivan clearly defined the overarching theme of President Joe Biden’s foreign policy strategy as “foreign policy for the middle class.” The Chicago Council for Global Affairs contends that this Biden doctrine “recogniz[es] the linkages between American domestic strength and U.S. ability to maintain international competitiveness.” Under this new framework, foreign policy decisions, Sullivan indicated, would use the following simple rhetorical question as a basic metric for success: “Is it going to make life better, safer, and easier for working families?

But as FTs Martin Wolf has been loudly pointing out for some time in fact this is a strategy of trade protectionism cloaked within the frame of industrial policy all too frequently.  As Wolf recently wrote at his FT column:

Industrial policy works if it changes the structure of the economy in a beneficial direction. Unfortunately, there are well-known reasons why the attempt could fail. Lack of information is one. Capture by a range of special interests is another. Thus, governments may fail to pick winners, while losers may succeed in picking governments. The more money is on the table, the more the latter is likely to be true. … So, how should we assess this shift in US policy towards industrial policies, matched, on the Trumpian right, by a desire to return to the high tariffs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries?… The answer is that there are now at least three bipartisan positions: nostalgia for manufacturing; hostility to China; and indifference to the international rules that the US itself created. This, then, is a new world, one in which the international trading order could reach a breaking point quite quickly.

All of this is a dramatic threat to the stability and prosperity of the current global order.

Image Credit: E-International Relations

 

 

 

More than Just Sustaining the G7 – The G7 at 50

Posted on by
Reply

The 50th annual G7 meeting was just held in Apulia Italy as leaders work, so they say, to coordinate economic policy in the context of rising geopolitical tensions. It  seems at this 50th G7 gathering, however, it is far more about geopolitics, and the shadow of Trump, than it is about global governance policy efforts.

The G7  leaders, the U.S., UK, Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy, and France have been tasked with host Italy to discuss in various sessions:  climate change, migration, and international development, as well as a discussion on AI led by Pope Francis. But that is not the ‘heart’ of summit discussions at this G7. It is rather discussions on Russia and the Ukraine War. Most pertinently, G7 leaders reached agreement to utilize Russia’s seized assets, most of which were frozen in the EU financial system, to provide a loan of up to $50 billion in support for Ukraine.

And there was a heavy emphasis, identified in the G7 Leaders’ Communique, of China. The Communique took on China for its continuing support for Russia. As noted by FT contributors Henry Foy and James Politi:

The joint statement at the end of their summit in Italy included a far tougher stance towards China than in the past, exposing the escalating frustration both in the US and Europe with Beijing’s critical support to Russia during the war in Ukraine.

 

We will continue taking measures against actors in China and third countries that materially support Russia’s war machine, including financial institutions, consistent with our legal systems, and other entities in China that facilitate Russia’s acquisition of items for its defense industrial base.  In this context, we reiterate that entities, including financial institutions, that facilitate Russia’s acquisition of items or equipment for its defense industrial base are supporting actions that undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. Accordingly, we will impose restrictive measures consistent with our legal systems to prevent abuse and restrict access to our financial systems for targeted individuals and entities in third countries, including Chinese entities, that engage in this activity. We will take robust action against actors who aid Russia in circumventing our sanctions, including by imposing severe costs on all those who fail to immediately cease providing material support to Russia’s aggression and by strengthening domestic enforcement and stepping up our business engagement to promote corporate responsibility. We call on financial institutions to refrain from supporting and profiting from Russia’s war machine. We will take further steps to deter and disrupt this behavior.

Concluding on China, the FT suggested G7 leaders no longer underestimated China’s strategic actions toward Russia and economic ones toward all the G7 countries:

A second person familiar with the talks said: “The era of naivety towards Beijing is definitely gone now and China is to blame for that, honestly. … “China is everywhere in the G7, to be frank,” said a senior EU official. “The question we have is how to calibrate our actions to take in response.”

For analysts and officials the G7 Communique expressed much about taking on China and heightening the ‘new Cold War’ rhetoric. A good example,  David E Sanger of the NYT and author of New Cold War: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion, and America’s  Struggle to Defend the West.

The point here is the noted diminishment,  if not outright absence of global governance policy expression and leadership. At the G7. Of course it is not that the leadership didn’t identify collective economic policy. How could it not in ever too long annual Statement – yes 36 pages – which started with a series of presumed priorities including a long list of notable global governance priorities:

Engaging with African countries, in a spirit of equitable and strategic partnership. As they work to deliver sustainable development and industrial growth for their people, we are advancing our respective efforts to invest in sustainable infrastructure, including through the PGII, and we launched the Energy for Growth in Africa initiative, together with several African partners.

 

Acting to enable countries to invest in their future and achieve the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals (SDGs), recognizing that reducing poverty and tackling global challenges go hand in hand.We are doing our part to achieve better, bigger and more effective Multilateral DevelopmentBanks, making it possible for the World Bank to boost its lending by USD 70 billion over the next ten years. We are calling for action from the international community to address debt burdens.

 

Reinforcing global food security and enhancing climate resilience, including by launching the Apulia Food Systems Initiative.  https://www.g7italy.it/wp-content/uploads/Apulia-G7-Leaders- Communique.pdf 2

 

Reaffirming our commitment to gender equality. Together with International Financial Institutions, we will unlock at least USD 20 billion over three years in investments to boost women’s empowerment.

 

Taking concrete steps to address the triple crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss, including by submitting ambitious 1.5°C aligned Nationally Determined Contributions. We will spearhead global efforts to preserve forests and oceans, and to end plastic pollution.

 

Affirming our collective commitment and enhanced cooperation to address migration, tackle the challenges and seize the opportunities that it presents, in partnership with countries of origin and transit. We will focus on the root causes of irregular migration, efforts to enhance border management and curb transnational organized crime, and safe and regular pathways for migration. We launched the G7 Coalition to prevent and counter the smuggling of migrants.

 

Deepening our cooperation to harness the benefits and manage the risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We will launch an action plan on the use of AI in the world of work and develop a brand to support the implementation of the International Code of Conduct for Organizations Developing Advanced AI Systems.

 

Fostering strong and inclusive global economic growth, maintaining financial stability and investing in our economies to promote jobs and accelerate digital and clean energy transitions. We also remain committed to strengthening the rules-based multilateral trading system and to implementing a more stable and fairer international tax system fit for the 21st century.

 

Acting together to promote economic resilience, confront non-market policies and practices that undermine the level playing field and our economic security, and strengthen our coordination to address global overcapacity challenges.

But this was a gathering where Russia-Ukraine and then China’s support of Russia dominated, so we are told, leader discussions. As note by David Sanger in the NYT: 

But the change in views about China reached far beyond the questions swirling around an endgame in Ukraine. European countries that had worried a few years ago that the United States was being too confrontational with China, this year signed on to the communiqué, with its calls for more robust Western-based supply chains that were less reliant on Chinese companies.

A CSIS report led by John Homre and Victor Cha urged that the G7 expand its membership and “foster a more stable and predictable world order.”

This CSIS report speaks to the global need to elevate the Group of Seven (G7), a bloc of industrialized democracies—the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union—to foster a more stable and predictable world order.

The authors urge an enlargement of the Group – suggesting:

… Australia and South Korea. They bring significant capabilities to the nine priorities identified by G7 leaders, are like-minded partners, and display the trust and reliability required of G7 members.

 

The G7 should establish a formal leader-level outreach mechanism to the Global South and middle-power economies to demonstrate inclusivity and confer legitimacy on the body as a global governance institution. The outreach partners should include the African Union, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China, the G20, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

But realistically that is not where the G7 is. It is about critical geopolitical matters to Europe and the United States. If anything, any long view of this Summit – 50 years on – and for a number of us one can cast back to 1975 and Rambouillet, this Informal is much shrunken and quite isolated.

It is worth noting Paul Poast’s assessment in WPR of the G7 at this 50th year:

While the group has evolved, its long-term survival is once again unclear. There are concerns that Trump’s disdain for international cooperation could return in 2025. Nations in Europe, notably Germany and France, are witnessing a far-right resurgence, which could also undermine the G7’s coherence as a gathering of the liberal democratic world’s leading nations. For that matter, this year’s host, Italy, is currently governed by the far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose party has its origins in the country’s fascist movement.

 

Hence, there are once again questions about the summits’ future, let alone whether they will produce more iconic images and momentous outcomes. In short, it’s unclear if the G7 will make it through another five, let alone another 50, meetings.

The shadow of Trump – and his possible return – explains many pronouncements by the current G7 Leaders. Diminished and ‘in a crouch’ seems to best define today’s G7. But even so, it is fair to say that our gaze shifted long ago to the G20. Trump, no Trump, key Middle Powers represent a significant presence and influence in the G20. That’s where to turn our gaze and focus.

Image Credit: Organizer