G20 Collaborative Actions: With or Without the US

Posted on by
Reply

The common refrain by those examining the multilateral  institutions and organizations seeking greater collaboration at the global level are: ‘legitimacy’ and ‘effectiveness’. Now the fact is these characteristics apply to the national and subnational levels as well, but they are a consistent refrain at the international level, especially in light of the geopolitical tensions in the international system. 

A number of my colleagues have recently focused on what I consider the key global informal governance institution, the G20. These colleagues focus on both critical characteristics with somewhat different views. First there is Danny Bradlow and Robert Wade. Danny Bradlow is a Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria and Senior G20 Advisor to South African Institute of International Affairs. Robert H. Wade, is co-author on this piece, and is a Professor of Global Political Economy, London School of Economics. Both have participated in various CWD events. In a piece in Global Policy entitled, “How to Fix the Representation Problem of the G20” the co-authors described briefly the G20. Some of that is worth repeating: 

“The G20 is an informal gathering, which claims to be “the premier forum for international economic cooperation”. It was established at finance minister’s level in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, and upgraded to summit level, with the same membership,  in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. The summit is held annually, under the leadership of a rotating presidency.”

 

“The membership comprises 19 of the “weightiest” national economies plus the European Union and the African Union. The 19 national economies include  the G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada), Australia, plus China, India,  Indonesia, Republic of Korea,  Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina.   The group, which includes about 10% of the states in the world, accounts for 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade.” 

 

It is in size and the weight of membership the most formidable of what I call the Informals which includes at least  the G7, the BRICS+ and the G20. When it then comes to an evaluation of this key Informal the authors suggest: 

“The G20 has had a mixed record.  It has an intense work programme  focused on addressing many of the most significant international economic, financial, environmental and social challenges. The consistency in G20 membership has proven to be an advantage because it helps foster a sense of familiarity and understanding at the technical level among the permanent members, which is helpful in times of crisis and in dealing with complex problems.”

 

“But its exclusivity and informal status has limited its ability to address these challenges. This is particularly  because in many cases an effective response requires agreement and action by all states.” 

 

“Over time, as tensions in international relations have grown, the shortcomings in the structure of the G20 have become more evident. Despite its economic weight, the G20 has a basic legitimacy problem.  It is a self-selected group whose members, except for the African Union and the European Union, represent only themselves. 

What these authors then suggest, in light of their view that legitimacy is lacking is to adopt a model being used, in this case, at the Financial Stability Board, the FSB: 

“It has established six Regional Consultative Groups (RCGs), one each for the Americas, Asia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan region. The objective is to expand and formalize the FSB’s outreach activities beyond the G20 membership and better reflect the global character of the financial system.”

They conclude their examination with this perspective: 

“Applying the FSB model to the G20 would allow the current members of the G20 membership to continue, while obliging them to establish a consultation process with regional neighbours, thereby creating a limited form of representation for all the world’s states. It would also establish a limited form of G20 accountability towards the international community.”

It is evident that these authors believe the problem for the G20 is a lack of wide representation and apparently the need to enlarge G20 representation. Yet it is somewhat surprising that these two colleagues target representation. I’ve always been of the view that you go with the members you have and seek to move ‘the policy dials’. Whether it is multilateral or minilateral or plurilateral, in an ideal world we would probably enlarge representation but we have learned all too unhappily that universal representation is not necessarily a solution to effective policy action. 

Two other colleagues seem less inclined to see representation as the most serious impediment to advancing G20 policymaking. Indeed these co-authors underscore the critical value of the G20. So, my CWD colleague and lead co-leader, Colin Bradfrord, a Nonresident Senior Fellow of the Global Economy and Development Program at Brookings and his colleague, Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly who is vice president and director of the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings have joined together to examine the G20 role in, “Strengthening Cooperation for a Changing World:  The Evolving Role of the G20 in Global Economic Governance”, a special brief for Brookings and in fact Brookings held a session with a number of esteemed panelists in Washington at the margins of the ‘Spring Meetings’ to examine the G20. As they argue in their Executive Summary:

“While there are areas for improvement, a review of the G20’s evolution highlights a remarkable transformation. From an ad hoc response to the GFC [GlobalFinancial Crisis], it has evolved into a central pillar of international cooperation—shaping global trajectories across finance, economics, technology, health, climate, and society. After 18 years of experience, involving tens of thousands of politicians, policymakers, and societal leaders throughout each year, the G20 has demonstrated that it is indeed “fit for purpose” at this crucial moment of competing perspectives on the global future.

 

“Indeed, the world is undergoing one of the most profound transformations in global economic relations and facing the greatest test of international governance since World War II. In this context, the G20 has proven to be an indispensable platform—not only through its annual leaders’ summits but also through its multilayered, yearlong process involving ministers, sherpas, senior officials, and civil society leaders across a wide range of sectors. Its ability to convene nations with vastly different cultures, interests, and perspectives—and to keep them at the table despite tensions, rivalries, or even war—is one of its greatest strengths. The G20 serves as a vital arena where global governance plays out in real time amid deep uncertainty and geopolitical strain.”

Are matters perfect, of course not. And the authors are alert to point to the limitations: 

“Despite its past success, there is room to enhance the G20’s effectiveness and impact. Key areas for improvement include strengthening personal dynamics among leaders; enhancing continuity and sustained engagement; improving public communication and domestic outreach; and restoring public confidence in leadership and markets. To bolster its credibility, the G20 should also revisit practices from its most effective years—particularly the use of action-oriented communiqués with clear timelines.”

Critically on the plus side the G20 has a significant element of inclusiveness – at least politically. Not only do you have all the members of the G7 but you also have all the original BRICS members, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Critical in my mind, and it seems to be as well for the co-authors, the G20 includes many key actors from the Global South:

“Third, around the same time, the rise of large, dynamic emerging market economies (EMEs) dramatically altered the global economic landscape, reducing the long-standing dominance of the West—namely the United States and Europe—and ushering in a more pluralistic world. This shift integrated key non-Western powers, such as China and Russia along with influential voices from the Global South, into global economic decisionmaking, injecting realism along with tensions into the global governance system.”

In addition, and to aid continuity from year-to-year for the G20 in the face of  passing of the presidency to the next G20 member, the co-authors point to the Troika: 

“Each annual summit marks a formal transition between presidencies, but continuity is ensured through a “troika” system, comprising the past, current, and incoming hosts. At the outset of a presidency, the host country announces its priorities, which are then integrated with ongoing legacy issues. Together, these form the foundation of the annual work plan, which is refined during the first sherpa and deputies’ meetings— typically held in December and January—and officially endorsed at the first finance ministers’ meeting. This process sets the structure for and establishes working groups and ministerial responsibilities.” 

Is it perfect, no. Indeed in the recommendations section the co-authors suggest adding more members to enhance continuity. But the co-authors pay attention to the structure, what I’ve referred to as the ‘Iceberg Theory’ of the G20. The Iceberg is the significant structure of political and administrative actors carrying on the year to year work, maintaining a critical element of continuity,  to move policy actions forward: 

“This expansive framework highlights the G20’s evolution into a dynamic platform for global governance with broad consultations that extend well beyond its core membership. G20 summits are not simply a two-day gathering of world leaders; they are the culmination of a yearlong process involving a wide array of ministerial meetings, working groups, and civil society dialogues aimed at steering the global economy and addressing 21st century challenges.[In fact the significant structure of Ministerials, Working Groups and Task Forces can be reviewed here at the Global Summitry Project (GSP) website].  

Is it  enough? Well, here you have to be a bit cautious. Overall, the representation and structure of today’s G20 seems adequate but with respect to ‘effectiveness’ – collective concerted collaboration – there is still a distance to go. Very much so. The co-authors in fact also urge the following: 

  • “Strengthen personal dynamics among leaders
  •  Enhance continuity and sustain engagement
  • Improve public communication and domestic engagement
  • Restore public confidence in leadership and markets”

All of that would be useful but collective determined policymaking – advancing action on climate change and climate financing, debt management and relief, global development and many more subjects – remain seemingly unreachable at the moment. 

And now, with the completion of the South Africa year we come to the end of the first cycle of G20 countries. That means that the United States is scheduled to return to hosting in 2026. The Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral actions including debt support, climate change, global development are all too evident. While there was talk in fact of the Trump administration deciding not to take up leadership for 2026, that may not be what the Trump administration is deciding to do at the moment. I wonder which is better however: with, or without, the US? I’m not sure. Some see the Summit collapsing without US involvement. But US hosting, with a Trump administration, may collapse forward movement in key global governance policies. There is at the moment no definitive answer. But there will be more to come on this.  

Credit Image: Bahrain

This Post originally appeared asa Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/g20-collaborative-actions-with-or

Taming the ‘Bully and the Dragon’

Posted on by
Reply

It is hard to deal with a ‘Bully’. Usually efforts, even reasonable ones of accommodation only lead generally to further demands – just ask Columbia University. That was why I was pleased to see Harvard University ‘dig in’ rather than try to accommodate the Trump administration. As Philip Stephens, contributing editor of the FT wrote in a recent piece on various allied responses to Trump’s tariff actions titled, ‘Placate or retaliate? Starmer and Carney are both right on Trump’:

“Canada’s Mark Carney has picked up the gauntlet. Britain’s Keir Starmer prefers to look the other way. Japan and South Korea lead the queue to strike a bilateral deal. … Kudos generally goes to those willing to stand up to “the bully”. Carney has transformed his Liberal party’s electoral prospects by relishing the fight. In Europe, Gaullism has gone mainstream. Emmanuel Macron’s call for Europe to break free of the Americans is echoed by chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz in Berlin.”

 

“None of this makes pandering to Trump look heroic, particularly when, with characteristic vulgarity, the president publicly mocks the softly spoken. Opinion polls suggest Europeans would prefer their leaders to join Carney in the ring. Appeasing Trump may simply encourage him. He clearly enjoys humiliating America’s old friends. The answer surely is to show him that Trumpism has costs. Didn’t we learn at school that the way to beat bullies is to fight back?”

So a round of applause for the Harvard folk. But there will continue to be hard times – note the request by Trump to the IRS to end Harvard’s tax-free status. What additionally is needed then to blunt Trump’s actions? What is needed is: collaboration and group support from other universities and then collective action in the courts. Bending the knee to Trump will not work. Nobody said it would be easy.

David Wallace-Wells has pointed out in the NYT what the actions of the Trump administration have led to the following actions by US partners:

“Last week Spain’s democratic-socialist government proudly announced plans to intensify relations with China, after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that doing so would amount to “cutting your own throat.” President Emmanuel Macron of France urged European companies to stop investing in the United States, and the European Union as a whole, which is developing a retaliatory tariff response and plotting potential tax increases on American tech companies, announced it is sending a delegation to Beijing in July.

 

What comes next? Perhaps it shouldn’t be so hard to imagine, given the drift of what’s now called geoeconomics. Already, China commands global trade, and modeling from Bloomberg shows that, as constituted today, the tariffs will only add to the lead — pushing many more countries to work more with China and less with America. According to one model, 30 percent of American trading partners would fully recover from even total cessation of U.S. trade within one year; within five years, more than half would. This is why chaos is rarely the chosen strategy for a hegemon: Barring what Trump calls a “beautiful deal,” the biggest single beneficiary of the whole crusade may well end up being its intended target.”

So how do we deal with the dragon? Clearly there is ‘fire’ and a certain amount of ‘huffing and puffing’. But beyond the aggressiveness, think Taiwan, and even aggression – talk to the Philippines – about that, is there the prospect of securing a deal? And in the more immediate circumstances, is there the prospect of securing a bilateral trade arrangement, or even an enlarged one with China.

Let’s start with an assessment of what the Trump administration is up to. This is not an easy determination. What is the goal of the Trump administration? Kyla Scanlon, author of, the author of “In This Economy? How Money & Markets Really Work” wrote recently in the NYT:

“What is an overarching goal of these actions? Or, what is the purpose of Trumponomics?

In a word, reindustrialization.”

It is hard to see at times what is the end point for Trump and his minions: is it revenues, China decoupling, reshoring of manufacturing – all or none of the above. But for Scanlon it is evident – reindustrialization in the US and she goes on to say:

“To reindustrialize will require investment in people and machines — and a coherent strategy. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to collaboration and the internal contradictions of the factions within the administration, its reindustrialization drive appears disconnected from reality and destined to fail.”

She concludes that a successful strategy in the 21st century today, in her opinion, require the following from the US and its partners ultimately:

“Modern manufacturing is high-tech and requires different skills from those of the 20th century. The focus should be on advanced manufacturing sectors where America can lead through innovation, not just protectionism: pharmaceuticals, clean-energy technology, robotics and semiconductors.

 

Second, it would invest substantially in the foundations for industrial competitiveness like education, infrastructure, research and development (like the CHIPS Act) and work force training.

 

Third, a serious strategy would recognize that alliances matter. Rather than needlessly alienate partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan and the European Union, a sound approach would build cooperative frameworks that reduce dependence on geopolitical rivals while strengthening ties with allies. Selective decoupling would better serve America’s long-term interests.”

But what appears to be evident is that the Trump administration seems dramatically unwilling to work with partners and allies to enhance trade with them and to press China on what remains today a damaging economic policy from Beijing that increases production and exports as opposed to a more determined effort to improve domestic consumption. Yes, Xi Jinping and his associates have once again targeted energizing domestic consumption, but seeing is believing. We shall see.

What then is possible? Tom Friedman describes why it is highly unlikely that Trump will, or can, act in concert. As Friedman put in a recent NYT piece:

“So much crazy happens with the Trump administration every day that some downright weird but incredibly telling stuff gets lost in the noise. A recent example was the scene on April 8 at the White House where, in the middle of his raging trade war, our president decided it was the perfect time to sign an executive order to bolster coal mining.”

 

“It’s commendable that the president honors men and women who work with their hands. But when he singles out coal miners for praise while he tries to zero out development of clean-tech jobs from his budget — in 2023, the U.S. wind energy industry employed approximately 130,000 workers, while the solar industry employed 280,000 — it suggests that Trump is trapped in a right-wing woke ideology that doesn’t recognize green manufacturing jobs as “real” jobs. How is that going to make us stronger?”

 

“This whole Trump II administration is a cruel farce. Trump ran for another term not because he had any clue how to transform America for the 21st century. He ran in order to stay out of jail and to get revenge on those who, with real evidence, had tried to hold him accountable to the law. I doubt he has ever spent five minutes studying the work force of the future.”

 

“But this farce is about to touch every American. By attacking our closest allies — Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and the European Union — and our biggest rival, China, at the same time he makes clear he favors Russia over Ukraine and prefers climate-destroying energy industries over future-oriented ones, the planet be damned, Trump is triggering a serious loss of global confidence in America.”

 

“The world is now seeing Trump’s America for exactly what it is becoming: a rogue state led by an impulsive strongman disconnected from the rule of law and other constitutional American principles and values.”

If indeed the US under a Trump administration is a rogue actor, and on too many days it does indeed look exactly like that. Put simply what is required and the answer may well be: coordination without the United States. And I’d add it begins with the Informals, most notably the G20.

There has been on and off talk that Trump will not attend the G20 Leaders’ Summit which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on November 22-23rd. And senior US officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have failed to show up for at least early meetings. On the other hand, apparently, the United States has been active in the Troika – the gathering of the G20 members – the past host, the present one and future host – in assisting in carrying out a successful G20 Summit. As it turns out the United States is scheduled to take hosting in 2026. But the point is whether the US participates – if it doesn’t the UK would likely take the hosting in 2026 – and indeed possibly US absence might benefit the working of the G20 at the moment – a serious gathering like this may be critical in advancing needed global governance action.

Coordination without US participation – at least during Trump 2.0 – may be the necessary ingredient for advancing critical multilateral action. I will return to this soon.

Image Credit: FT and Neil Hall/EPA

This Post first appeared at Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/taming-the-bully-and-the-dragon

The Latest Post from Alan’s Newsletter – ‘The Spiral of Disorder’ – Building then Destroying Trust – Let’s Continue

Posted on by
Reply

 

 

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally Saturday, Oct. 17, 2020, in Janesville. Angela Major/WPR

“At 9:37 a.m. Wednesday, the president was still bullish on his policy, posting on Truth Social: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!” “But in the end, it was the markets that got him to reverse course.” 

And what brought it about, notwithstanding Trump’s assertion he knows what he’s doing: 

 

“The economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused Mr. Trump to blink on Wednesday afternoon and pause his “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, according to four people with direct knowledge of the president’s decision.”

It is turmoil and it accompanies Trump as we’ve seen both in his first four years and now, I think, in a ramped up version in his second. 

The behavior does not change. Now what is this all about? I think David Brooks, a contributor for the PBS NewsHour and an opinion columnist for the NYTimes pinpointed Trump’s underlying motivation and his behavior. As Brooks recently suggested in a piece in The Atlantic, titled, “I Should have Seen this Coming”: 

“If there is an underlying philosophy driving Trump, it is this: Morality is for suckers.The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must. This is the logic of bullies everywhere. And if there is a consistent strategy, it is this: Day after day, the administration works to create a world where ruthless people can thrive. That means destroying any institution or arrangement that might check the strongman’s power. The rule of law, domestic or international, restrains power, so it must be eviscerated. Inspectors general, judge advocate general officers, oversight mechanisms, and watchdog agencies are a potential restraint on power, so they must be fired or neutered. The truth itself is a restraint on power, so it must be abandoned. Lying becomes the language of the state.” 

 

“Trump’s first term was a precondition for his second. His first term gradually eroded norms and acclimatized America to a new sort of regime. This laid the groundwork for his second term, in which he’s making the globe a playground for gangsters.”

 

“We used to live in a world where ideologies clashed, but ideologies don’t seem to matter anymore. The strongman understanding of power is on the march. Power is like money: the more the better. Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the rest of the world’s authoritarians are forming an axis of ruthlessness before our eyes. Trumpism has become a form of nihilism that is devouring everything in its path.” 

An axis of ruthlessness. Wow! The impact on trade – with the tariff madness is all too apparent. But it is an attack as well  on the alliances and partnerships in the global order that likely brings the most long term damage to the stability of the global  order and these attacks have been ongoing since the first Trump administration. 

This weakening to multilateralism is not just to be laid at the feet of President Trump, however. Some time ago Stewart Patrick, now of the Carnegie Endowment (CEIP) pointed out the faltering of multilateralism. As he wrote in the Oxford journal, Global Summitry, [ a reveal, I was editor at the time] in 2015, he cast back to Obama as he then was, a junior US Senator prior to his first term as President. Obama wrote in 2007 criticizing Bush at that time for the failure to promote greater multilateral action:

“This vision of a multilateral renaissance was premised on the conviction that a new global age had dawned. The core purpose of statecraft was no longer restraining geopolitical rivalry but managing shared dilemmas of interdependence.” 

 

“This broad congruence of interest created unprecedented opportunities for cooperation. But success was not preordained. It required a new international bargain: established powers would grant emerging ones a place at the global head table, and rising powers would accept greater responsibilities for advancing the common good. The administration assumed the United States could engineer global institutional reform on this basis.” 

 

“That confidence proved unfounded. The Obama years show just how resistant formal international organizations are to fundamental change. Two of the most obvious cases are the UN Security Council, whose permanent membership still reflects the world of 1945, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has failed to implement governance reforms that members painstakingly negotiated in 2010. The sources of these logjams are legion. Three of the most important are clashing big power preferences, generic institutional inertia, and inconsistent U.S. leadership (Stein 2008).”

 The weakening of multilateralism accelerated, it seems to me, with Trump, that erosion only slowed somewhat with the Biden years, but now seemingly has returned with a vengeance under Trump 2.0. As Ivo Daalder has pointed to in his recent piece on NATO in FA , titled, “NATO Without America: How Europe Can Run an Alliance Designed for U.S. Control”: 

“Given Trump’s low regard for the alliance and its collective defense commitment, it would be no surprise if his administration decided to withdraw from NATO . In late 2023, Congress passed a law prohibiting the president from doing this without congressional assent—a bill that, ironically, was cosponsored by then Senator Marco Rubio, who is now Trump’s secretary of state.”

 

“Even if he doesn’t withdraw from the alliance, Trump has already seriously undermined it. NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense provision—which says that an attack on any alliance member will be considered an attack on all—derives its credibility less from the formal treaty than from a belief among the members that they are all prepared to come to one another’s defense. In practice, this has meant that the United States, with its vast military, would step up to protect any NATO ally that is attacked. Trump’s words and actions since retaking office—including his direct threats against Canada and Greenland, both of which are part of NATO—have eroded these assumptions.” 

The challenge to NATO’s collective defence with Trump’s uncertainty toward collective action is evident. And many of what I call the Formals, the UN, in particular the UN Security Council and its specialized agencies, the International Financial Institutions, or IFIs, and more are hobbled by the rising geopolitical tensions – the US, Russia and China and the decline in willingness of these and more powers to collaborate. 

Yet as noted above, the weakening in multilateral collaboration has been evident for some time. My colleague, Stewart, reflected on this, and noted the rise of informal institutions. As he then wrote:

“If one focuses solely on formal international organizations, these blockages are grounds for despair. But that pessimistic view obscures a more complicated and promising picture of multilateral cooperation. For what sets the current global era apart is not the absence of international institutions but their astonishing diversity. Faced with resistance to sweeping, transformational change within more encompassing global bodies, U.S. and foreign policy-makers have generated and then exploited a messier form of multilateralism (Haass 2010).” 

 

“Formal organizations persist, but governments increasingly participate in a bewildering array of flexible networks whose membership varies based on situational interests, shared values, or relevant capabilities. States may continue to negotiate and collaborate within conventional bodies like the United Nations or the Bretton Woods institutions. But extensive policy coordination also occurs within parallel frameworks that are ad hoc and temporary rather than formal and permanent.” 

And Stewart noted that another colleague, Miles Kahler had even earlier, much earlier, identified the emergence of what he referred to as ‘minilateralism’ in an article in International Organization ( IO) , titled : “Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers” As Stewart wrote: 

“These institutions are often “minilateral” (Kahler 1992) rather than universal; voluntary rather than legally binding; disaggregated rather than comprehensive; trans-governmental rather than just intergovernmental; regional rather than global; multi-level and multi-stakeholder rather than state-centric; and “bottom-up” rather than “top-down.”” 

And as I and others have noted, a number of what I call Informals have arisen since the 1970s. First there was the G7 and then in 1999 the G20 as a finance and central bank gathering becoming a G20 leaders-led annual gathering in 2008. Finally, there was the creation of the BRICs in 2006 – Brazil, Russia, India, China with a leader-led gathering in 2009 and the addition of South Africa in 2011. I mention these separately since these Informals are more institutionalized and far less ad hoc than many minilaterals. They are hybrids between the formal and the informal institutions.

The real question though is whether these leader-led informals can counter the destructive geopolitical tensions that now dominate global order relations? These tensions are brought home by the current difficulties between the G20 host, South Africa and the Trump administration. Two senior officials, namely Secretary of State Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have failed recently to join their first ministerial gatherings during South Africa hosting. And questions have arisen as to whether Trump will join the G20 leaders summit gathering this year in South Africa. 

The question raised is: can this Informal work to advance the current global governance agenda, without the US? Or, in fact is this the only way possible for this key Informal to move forward. And, if it is the only way, will leaders minus the US be willing to press forward on critical global governance issues? Which then is the more fruitful path for global collaboration?

All of this is critical and bears close attention, now, and going forward. We will follow closely and report frequently. 

Image Credit: WPR 

This Post originally appeared at Alan’s Newsletter https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/the-spiral-of-disorder-building-then-aed

 

‘The Spiral of Disorder’ – Building then Destroying Trust – Let’s Start with Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

It is mind-boggling to watch this second term of Trump, or Trump 2.0. First the flood of ‘executive orders’, though apparently they are technically not really  ‘orders’. And now the long awaited ‘Liberation Day’ announcement of tariffs including Trump’s incoherent ‘reciprocal tariffs’, though, in fact, it is no liberation. As The Economist described the Rose Garden event: 

Speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House, the president announced new “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all America’s trading partners. There will be levies of 34% on China, 27% on India, 24% on Japan and 20% on the European Union. Many small economies face swingeing rates; all targets face a tariff of at least 10%. Including existing duties, the total levy on China will now be 65%. Canada and Mexico were spared additional tariffs, and the new levies will not be added to industry-specific measures, such as a 25% tariff on cars, or a promised tariff on semiconductors. But America’s overall tariff rate will soar above its Depression-era level back to the 19th century.”

As Glenn Kessler in WAPO describes these Trump Liberation Day tariffs: 

Trump’s speech announcing a huge increase in tariffs on American trading partners was riddled with falsehoods and misleading statements on trade that he has made for years. But now they are determining policy that will increase the costs of goods for many Americans.

But as The Economist pointed out about this tariff announcement: 

Almost everything Mr Trump said this week—on history, economics and the technicalities of trade—was utterly deluded. His reading of history is upside down. He has long glorified the high-tariff, low-income-tax era of the late-19th century. In fact, the best scholarship shows that tariffs impeded the economy back then. He has now added the bizarre claim that lifting tariffs caused the Depression of the 1930s and that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were too late to rescue the situation. The reality is that tariffs made the Depression much worse, just as they will harm all economies today. It was the painstaking rounds of trade talks in the subsequent 80 years that lowered tariffs and helped increase prosperity.

Take a look at the tariffs imposed by Trump as described in Upshot at the NYTimes: 

New tariffs for select trading partners

Country New

tariff

 Share of

U.S. imports

 Goods trade

balance
E.U. +20% 18.5% –$241 bil.
China +34% 13.4% –$292 bil.
Japan +24% 4.5% –$69 bil.
Vietnam +46% 4.2% –$123 bil.
South Korea +26% 4.0% –$66 bil.
Taiwan +32% 3.6% –$74 bil.
India +27% 2.7% –$46 bil.
Switzerland +32% 1.9% –$39 bil.
Thailand +37% 1.9% –$46 bil.
Malaysia +24% 1.6% –$25 bil.

Show 50 more rows +

Sources: White House, Observatory of Economic Complexity Notes: Trade balance and import share figures based on 2024 trade data.” 

And Mr Trump’s grasp of the technicalities was pathetic. He suggested that the new tariffs were based on an assessment of a country’s tariffs against America, plus currency manipulation and other supposed distortions, such as value-added tax. But it looks as if officials set the tariffs using a formula that takes America’s bilateral trade deficit as a share of goods imported from each country and halves it—which is almost as random as taxing you on the number of vowels in your name.

Anthony DeBarros, the data news manager at the WSJ, describes it this way: 

The White House’s new tariffs were pegged to amounts it said other countries impose on the U.S. In many cases, those amounts appear to match a basic formula: the size of a country’s goods-trade imbalance with the U.S., divided by how much America imports from that nation.

 

The chart President Trump read from in the Rose Garden [image above] listed tariffs charged on imports from the U.S. as “including currency manipulation and trade barriers.” The numbers don’t necessarily match what foreign countries charge against imports from the U.S.

 

For example, Chinese tariffs against the U.S. were about 23% overall as of last month, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

 

But dividing the U.S.’s  2024 goods-trade deficit with China, of about $295 billion, by the amount the U.S. imported from China results in the 67% tariff value presented by the White House.

 

$295bn ÷ $439bn=67%

 

The math works out that way for at least 71 of the 184 nations, plus the European Union, included in Wednesday’s announcement. In most of those cases, the U.S. is charging a new tariff of roughly half the rate it calculated.

 

And indeed Trump’s chart that he showed with applied tariffs, identifies China with 34% tariffs being applied. 

As for many others, DeBarros points out: 

For the remaining nations, including all those where the U.S. has a trade surplus, the tariff charged on imports from the U.S. was listed as 10%. In these instances, the U.S. set a 10% reciprocal tariff.

And The Economist even offers a solution starting with constraining the desire to hit back. Instead it offers the following alternative response: 

Instead, governments should focus on increasing trade flows among themselves, especially in the services that power the 21st-century economy. With a share of final demand for imports of only 15%, America does not dominate global trade the way it does global finance or military spending. Even if it halted imports entirely, on current trends 100 of its trading partners would have recovered all their lost exports within just five years, calculates Global Trade Alert, a think-tank. The EU, the 12 members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), South Korea and small open economies like Norway account for 34% of global demand for imports.

As many point out, however, China’s distorted trade policy needs to be addressed. China has committed too many harmful trade policies as identified by  The Economist: 

Building a trading system with China is desirable, but will be viable only if it rebalances its economy towards domestic demand to ease worries about dumping. Also, China could be required to transfer technology and invest in production in Europe in exchange for lower tariffs.

As Alan Beattie writes in his FT column: 

There can be no logic-washing of Donald Trump’s tariffs. This isn’t part of a carefully-designed industrial policy or a cunning strategy to induce compliance among trading partners or a choreographed appearance of chaos to scare other governments into obedience. It’s wildly destructive stupidity, and the generations of American, and particularly Republican politicians, who allowed things to slide to this point are collectively to blame.

The message is: on those facing the  Trump craziness, don’t commit the errors of Trump 2.0. Act smarter. Maintaining and deepening global integration should remain the goal and endpoint, notwithstanding Trump. 

As The Economist  concludes: 

If this seems gruelling and slow, that is because integration always is. Throwing up barriers is easier and faster. There is no avoiding the havoc Mr Trump has wrought, but that does not mean his foolishness is destined to triumph.

The message is clear – don’t do what Trump has done. Hopefully, in the longer term major trading partners, friends and foes, will grasp the logic of greater trade with each other and leave the Trump trade strategy by the wayside.  

In the short term, however, it is not likely. I can’t say that is very surprising. Retaliating in the short term is just too attractive  – standing up to the bully.  And, indeed, China has already responded with trade retaliation. As Keith Bradsher and David Pierson report in the NYTimes, the day after Trump Liberation Day:

China has struck back at President Trump.

 

In a rapid fire series of policy announcements from Beijing on Friday evening, including 34 percent across-the-board tariffs, China showed that it has no intention of backing down in the trade war that Mr. Trump began this week with his own steep tariffs on imports from around the world.

 

China’s Finance Ministry said it will match Mr. Trump’s plan for 34 percent tariffs on goods from China with its own 34 percent tariff on imports from the United States.

 

Separately, China’s Ministry of Commerce said it was adding 11 American companies to its list of “unreliable entities,” essentially barring them from doing business in China or with Chinese companies. The ministry imposed a licensing system to restrict exports of seven rare earth elements that are mined and processed almost exclusively in China and are used in everything from electric cars to smart bombs.”

Hurtful and ‘Trump-like’. 

I had hoped not only to examine the impact of Trump 2.0 tariff policy on the global economy but also focus on policy actions that have enhanced, or possibly sustained the multilateral institutions or, alternately, weakened the multilateral institutions. And to that we will move to.

Image Credit: BBC 

This Post originally appeared at my Substack Post, Alan’s Newsletter – https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/the-spiral-of-disorder-building-then

‘Killing the Golden Goose’ – Integration in the Global Economy

Posted on by
Reply

Originally, I started this piece lamenting the ‘failed’ effort to bring China into the global economy following the failure by the CCP – the Party, and the Chinese government to continue early encouraging domestic economic reform efforts in the Chinese economy. That failure has given rise to very negative consequences for the global economy and the central economic players – the United States and the other North American economies, Europe and various players in the Indo-Pacific including Japan, South Korea and others.  I was preparing this week’s Post, reviewing in part a very good piece by Michael Froman, former USTR. And, in fact, I’ll get to that tale in just a moment. But it is impossible right now to overlook the destructiveness that President Trump is now bringing to the global economy, especially to America’s economic allies and partners with his thoughtless tariffs on steel and aluminum, now automobiles and very soon apparently reciprocal tariffs against seemingly all goods on what he, Trump, has come to call ‘Liberation Day’. Some liberation!

It is hard to look at Trump’s most recent tariff actions vis a vis cars and not reflect on the long – decades long effort – to integrate the three North American economies – Canada, US and Mexico – and despair over Trump’s sudden unprovoked effort to tear down the integrated economies of North America.   At least in Trump 1.0 he had the decency to renegotiate NAFTA and agree on USMCA terms of trade raising the percentage of North American content. But who cares about such negotiated free trade  agreements under Trump 2.0? As described by Damien Cave and Steven Erlanger in their NYTimes piece, these are Trump’s current tariff actions:  

“Many of the countries most affected by the new levies, such as South Korea, Japan, Germany, Mexico and Canada, are already reeling from the Trump team’s disregard for free trade deals already signed and his threats to long-established security relationships.” 

 

“Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said on Wednesday that Trump’s move on tariffs was “a direct attack.” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said the result would be “bad for businesses” and “worse for consumers.” Robert Habeck, Germany’s acting economics minister, said, “It is now important for the E.U. to respond decisively to the tariffs — it must be clear that we will not back down in the face of the U.S.”” 

As these reporters pointed out, the Trump actions and allied responses could end in the following very negative way: 

“The tariffs, which threaten both American and foreign carmakers, increase the likelihood of a global trade war. A chain reaction of economic nationalism with tariffs and other measures — perhaps adding costs for finance and services — could suppress economic growth globally, spread inflation and add rancor to already testy negotiations with Washington about security.” 

Ugh, a global trade war. Just what the globe doesn’t need. But Trump policy marches on and there is the real prospect for cranking up the drama: 

“The Trump White House has sought to use every tool of American power, including its military support and consumer market, to extract what Mr. Trump sees as a better deal for Americans. But for countries that have spent decades trusting America and tying their economies and defense plans to Washington’s promises, this feels like a moment of reversal.”

 

“American influence, long built on pronouncements about values and the shared riches of free trade, has hardened into what many analysts describe as “all stick, no carrot.” In the Trump team’s thinking, critics argue, American gains require pain for others — friends included.” 

So that’s the immediate dismaying state of the global economy largely brought to you by Trump 2.0. But there is still reason to dwell a bit on the impact to the global economy of China’s dramatic global economic emergence. This dramatic and in part negative influence on the US, and Trump for sure, but others as well, has added to the downbeat actions from the US and others.  

We’ve never quite recovered from it – that is China’s incorporation into the global economy. Even today strong echoes of a now rather distant debate still can be heard. That debate was, and is, a hard discussion by both experts and former officials. That debate was, and is, over China’s incorporation into the global economy and the decision to provide China with membership in the WTO. I was reminded of this in a strong review piece of China’s integration into the global economy by Michael Froman. Froman is today President of the Council on Foreign Relations. He served, however, as U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) from 2013 to 2017 and before that he was Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs from 2009 to 2013. In an article in Foreign Affairs entitled,  “China Has Already Remade the International System: How the World Adopted Beijing’s Economic Playbook” he reviews China’s integration and its consequences for the condition of the global economy. While there are outstanding questions on whether more should have been insisted on by WTO members especially in terms of reform of China’s economy before permitting its entry to the global economy, it is largely in the rearview mirror today. There was a long discussion and back and forth at the time of discussions for China’s accession to the WTO, especially between the  United States and China. Much of it concerned whether China was a market enough economy to enable it to integrate into the global economy and to gain membership to the WTO. As Froman notes: 

“Jiang [Zemin] and Zhu [Rongji] declared repeatedly that China would inevitably continue to open up. Many in the West went so far as to believe that this economic liberalization would lead to China’s political liberalization, that a capitalist society would become a more democratic one over time.” 

 

“That assumption proved false. China’s leaders never seriously contemplated political reform, but China’s economic advancement was impressive nonetheless. The country’s GDP grew from $347.77 billion in 1989 to $1.66 trillion by 2003 to $17.79 trillion in 2023, according to the World Bank. Hopes were high that integrating China into the rules-based trading system could lead to a more peaceful and more prosperous world.” 

 

“Then President Hu Jintao entered the picture, followed by President Xi Jinping. China’s economic trajectory turned out to be less linear and less inevitable than initially expected. Under Hu, China leaned more heavily into state intervention in the economy by aiming to create “national champions” in strategic sectors through massive subsidies. In other words, the government expanded its role rather than pursuing further market liberalization.” 

 

“In 2004, China made up nine percent of the world’s manufacturing value added, leapfrogging to a massive 29 percent in 2023, according to the World Bank.” 

I am particularly reminded of all of this because of a very small role I played in the lengthy effort to secure China’s accession to the WTO. I worked with a former trade official in trying to address various questions over China’s economy and its reform trajectory following the many Working Party meetings on China’s accession at the WTO in Geneva. It was a several years process. As a successful conclusion approached I remember, vividly, the comment by that official after all those many gatherings and discussions over several years  that it was a mistake to permit China’s accession at that time. That official had reached the conclusion that China was not ready for economic integration in the global trading system.

But China’s accession did occur. And it became clear that the market reform process in China had slowed and then died. And the US actions are now in part as a result. Again here is Michael Froman:   

“In 2009, the Obama administration led an effort to terminate the Doha Round—a multilateral trade negotiation under the WTO launched in 2001. It did so in large part because the resulting agreement would have enshrined China permanently as a “developing country” under WTO rules. This would have allowed China to enjoy “special and differential treatment,” which meant that China would have been able to avoid assuming the same level of obligations and disciplines—on market access, intellectual property rights protection, and other issues—as the United States and other industrial countries.”

 

“Similar concerns motivated the Obama administration to pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a high-standard trade agreement negotiated among 12 countries around the Pacific Rim. This initiative was designed to give countries in the Asia-Pacific region an attractive alternative to the model China offered.” 

 

“By the time TPP negotiations were completed in 2015, however, trade agreements—even those designed to counterbalance China—had become politically toxic at home, and the United States ended up pulling out of the agreement.” 

As Froman then summarizes his trade role and his warnings to China: 

“From 2009 to 2017, I served first as deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs and then as U.S. trade representative. During that time, I consistently warned my Chinese counterparts that the benign international environment that had enabled China’s success would disappear unless Beijing modified its predatory economic policies. Instead, China largely maintained its course of action. If anything, it doubled down on its approach. When Xi came to power in 2012, he effectively ended the era of “reform and opening” that had already stalled under Hu, set China on a course to dominate critical technologies, increased production to the point of overcapacity, and committed to export-led growth.”

And he concludes: 

“Today, as the economist Brad Setser has noted, China’s export volume is growing at a rate three times as fast as global trade. In the automotive sector, it is on a trajectory to have the capacity to produce two-thirds of the world’s automotive demand. And its dominance extends beyond cars; China also produces more than half the global supply of steel, aluminum, and ships.”

 

“Eventually, even American businesses, which had always been the ballast in the bilateral relationship, soured on China as their intellectual property was stolen or forcibly licensed, their market access to China was severely restricted or delayed, and China’s subsidies and preferences for domestic firms ate into their opportunity. Without any semblance of reciprocity, the relationship deteriorated. Politicians of both parties and the American public hardened their stance on China. European and major emerging economies grew hostile to Beijing’s policies, as well. In short, the benign international environment disappeared.” 

So that then is in part how we got to the difficult situation we are now in in global trade and why Froman concludes that Trump global economic policymaking mirrors today China economic policy: “The United States and others are imitating China in large part because China succeeded in a way that was unexpected. Its success in electric vehicles and clean technology did not come from liberalizing economic policies but from state interventions in the market in the name of nationalist objectives. Whether or not the United States can compete with China on China’s playing field, it is important to recognize a fundamental truth: the United States is now operating largely in accordance with Beijing’s standards, with a new economic model characterized by protectionism, constraints on foreign investment, subsidies, and industrial policy—essentially nationalist state capitalism.” 

Where we are today is certainly not where advanced economies at least believed we should be. The Trump aping of state nationalist efforts through repeated rounds of tariffs and other protectionist measures has the feel and smell of defeat and bad, very bad Washington global economic policy making.  

Image Credit: it.china-office.gov.cn

This Post first appeared at my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter. https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/killing-the-golden-goose-integration

Stopping the War; or Maybe Not Yet

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve known for some time by examining history that it’s much easier to start a war than it is to stop one. And I suspect the Russia-Ukraine war will prove to be no different. A ceasefire may well be had but this will occur in spite of Trump’s loud insistence that a ceasefire be reached by both parties not because of it, and him. 

Let’s start though with the larger context – that is Trump as the initiator of the ceasefire efforts. I was interested in a sort of mea culpa moment expressed by colleague, Stephen Walt. Stephen is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University and is also a columnist at Foreign Policy (FP). In a recent piece in FP entitled, “What I Got Wrong About Trump’s Second Term”, he zeros in on the fact that it is Trump pushing the ceasefire effort. As he admits: 

“That said, there’s no question that I got some important things wrong.”

 

“I underestimated Trump’s hostility to our principal democratic allies. It was obvious that he thought our NATO partners were overly reliant on U.S. protection (a view shared by all recent U.S. presidents), but it’s now clear that he’s actively and deeply hostile to the democratic principles that these states embody and is openly encouraging illiberal forces within them. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the administration’s embrace of the European far right is an attempt to promote a form of regime change throughout Europe—in effect, to MAGA-fy it—and to destroy the European Union as a meaningful political institution. I was aware of Trump’s affinity for illiberal leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and I knew people like Steve Bannon were trying to build a transnational coalition of far-right movements, but I didn’t take those forces seriously enough. … although there was every reason to think that Trump would push for a peace deal and eventually reduce U.S. support for Ukraine, I did not expect him to embrace Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position with such enthusiasm, accuse Ukraine of starting the war, or openly attack Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in public. There may, in fact, be some strategic rationale for what Trump is doing—i.e., he may genuinely believe that the only way to stop the war and eventually drive a wedge between Russia and China is to give Putin everything he wants—but that doesn’t mean this approach will work as intended. It also ignores the long-term impact that this behavior will have on the United States’ standing and image. … Moreover, Trump isn’t breaking these rules because the United States is facing a grave national emergency (which would make it easier for other states to give Washington a temporary pass); he’s trying to blow up the whole order because he thinks the United States will be better off in a world where autocracy is ascendant and leaders do whatever they want. I freely admit that transforming the United States from a defender of international order to a malevolent rogue state was not on my bingo card.”

Well, indeed we were witness to Trump, along with his Vice Presidential puppet, J.D. Vance throwing Ukraine, or at least Volodymyr Zelenskyy ‘under the bus’. Now Zelenskyy  may not have handled that strangely open White House meeting with Trump and Vance quite as adroitly as he might have but he did come back with Ukraine accepting Trump’s ceasefire agreement. As Alexandra Sharp pointed out earlier in the week in a FP World Brief: 

“The United States agreed to immediately lift its pause on all military aid and intelligence-sharing to Kyiv on Tuesday following talks with senior Ukrainian officials in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In turn, Ukraine expressed willingness to enact a 30-day cease-fire with Russia and enter immediate negotiations to establish an “enduring and sustainable” end to the conflict—so long as Moscow agrees to do the same.” 

And as she pointed out, Zelenskyy wisely praised Trump’s efforts: 

“Zelensky praised Tuesday’s talks and expressed gratitude for the Trump administration, highlighting the ways that the United States’ plan addressed Kyiv’s initial suggestions. Trump also celebrated the Jeddah meeting, saying, “Hopefully President Putin will agree to that also and we can get this show on the road.” The Kremlin has not yet responded to the cease-fire proposal. But Trump said that he expects to speak with Putin this week, adding, “It takes two to tango.”” 

Now it seems that Putin has seen fit to walk a kinda tightrope on the US ceasefire proposal. An outright rejection would for sure lead Trump to in some manner condemn Putin, probably enhance sanctions on Russia,  and likely ‘throw a bone to Ukraine’ including presumably enhanced military support to pressure a change from Putin. So rather than face any of that immediately we have Putin expressing a kinda tepid yes in a recent press conference but adding a significant number of questions and qualifications. 

As the Italian think tank, ISPI pointed out in an insightful piece titled, ‘Putin and the ‘No’ to the Truce’: 

“Putin is not saying ‘no’ to Washington and Kiev’s ceasefire proposal, but he is not saying yes either. And he is laying out his own conditions , saying he needs “further clarification.” The Russian president, 48 hours into his wait since announcing his proposal for a month-long interim truce two days ago in Jeddah , said any ceasefire must lead to “a final solution” to the conflict that addresses its “root causes.”  “The idea itself is good and we support it unconditionally,” he said, “but there are issues that we need to discuss, and I think we need to discuss them with our American colleagues and partners,” adding that otherwise Ukrainian forces “will be given the opportunity to withdraw, regroup and rearm,” just as the Russian army advances into the Kursk region , the Russian salient captured by Kiev’s troops.”

 

“The preconditions set by Putin for a ceasefire essentially coincide with Moscow’s war objectives: recognition of Moscow’s annexation of four partially occupied southeastern regions ( Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk ) and the Crimean peninsula; Kiev’s commitment to never join NATO; and the organization of new elections that will lead to the replacement of President Volodymyr Zelensky. Russia is also pushing for a NATO retreat, whose expansion to the east, according to the Kremlin’s narrative, would have ‘forced’ Moscow to order the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In fact – according to several observers – Putin’s interlocutory response is due to two needs: on the one hand, he does not want to be accused of obstructing the agreement to which Trump has formally adhered, on the other, he knows that at this moment the war is turning in his favor and he does not intend to give up without obtaining something in return .” 

Now it is the case that Zelenskyy has doubts about the ceasefire effort. First he is dealing with Russia but more pertinently Zelenskyy remains insistent that any agreement that follows the short ceasefire must provide security guarantees for Ukraine. But for the moment the focus is on Russia. And as Mary Ilyushina and Sammy Westfall of the Washington Post noted:

“Putin said Thursday he supports in principle the idea of a 30-day ceasefire — proposed by the United States and to which Ukraine has agreed — but noted that its implementation raises many questions, particularly regarding verification across a long front line. Such a tactic could allow Russia to engage in protracted negotiations without immediately rejecting an offer.” 

 

“Putin also said the 30-day reprieve could be used by Ukraine to regroup and rearm, hinting that he would seek to impose his own conditions on the framework of the pause, such as a halt to Western weapons supplies or a ban on mobilization.” 

Meanwhile, the G7 foreign ministers gathered in Canada and pressed Russia to accept the current ceasefire proposal. In the Statement issued at the end of the meeting the foreign ministers declared:  

“G7 members reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty and independence.

 

They welcomed ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire, and in particular the meeting on March 11 between the U.S. and Ukraine in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. G7 members applauded Ukraine’s commitment to an immediate ceasefire, which is an essential step towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with the Charter of the United Nations.

 

G7 members called for Russia to reciprocate by agreeing to a ceasefire on equal terms and implementing it fully. They discussed imposing further costs on Russia in case such a ceasefire is not agreed, including through further sanctions, caps on oil prices, as well as additional support for Ukraine, and other means. This includes the use of extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilized Russian Sovereign Assets. G7 members underlined the importance of confidence-building measures under a ceasefire including the release of prisoners of war and detainees—both military and civilian—and the return of Ukrainian children.” 

In addition, UK Prime Minister Starmer added further pressure. As described in the NYTimes:

“On Saturday [March 15th], Mr. Starmer convened a video conference with 30 leaders, from Europe, NATO, Canada, Ukraine, Australia and New Zealand, to muster support for his coalition, which Britain is spearheading with France. He said military officials would meet again on Thursday to begin an “operational phase,” though he did not give details about the mission of the force, nor did he announce that any other countries had committed troops to it.

 

“I’ve indicated a willingness for the United Kingdom to play a leading role in this,” Mr. Starmer said at a news conference after the meeting. “If necessary, that would be troops on the ground and planes in the sky.”

And, finally, another piece of the European effort to support Ukraine appears to be falling in place. There now appears to be agreement on a new German government led by Friedrich Merz. As described in the NYTimes: 

“Friedrich Merz, the likely next chancellor of Germany, announced on Friday that he had secured the votes to allow for extensive new government spending, including for defense, clearing the way for a stunning turnabout in German strategic and fiscal policy before he even takes office.” 

 

“The measures would lift Germany’s hallowed limits on government borrowing as they apply to military spending. It would exempt all spending on defense above 1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product from those limits, and it would define “defense” broadly to include intelligence spending, information security and more.

Effectively, that would allow Germany to spend as much as it can feasibly borrow to rebuild its military.” 

The ‘yes but no’ by Putin may not have long to live. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio made it clear following the foreign ministers meeting, as described in the FT that the administration would soon examine the state of the ceasefire proposal and the positions of the two parties:

“Rubio, who has previously indicated Kyiv would have to make territorial concessions, on Friday signalled Moscow would also have to do so. “I’ve never heard President Trump say that Russia has a right to take all of Ukraine and do whatever they want there,” he said. He added Trump’s national security team will convene this weekend after the president’s envoy Steve Witkoff returns from Moscow to examine the Russian position.”

Ending wars is not easy. And the end is not yet in sight, seemingly. Still, pressure appears to remain on. 

This Post first appeared on my Substack, Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/stopping-the-war-or-maybe-not-yet

Image Credit: BBC

 

 

 

Europe into the Breach

Posted on by
Reply

 

It wasn’t long ago that demands for a more ‘strategic autonomy’ approach for Europe seemed to slip away with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As Steven Erlanger of the NYTimes wrote of Europe’s response to Russian aggression at the time:

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the greatest challenge to European security since the end of the Cold War, but the Europeans have missed the opportunity to step up their own defense, diplomats and experts say. Instead, the war has reinforced Europe’s military dependence on the United States.”

Not only was there dependence on the US on the Ukrainian battlefield, the first in Europe since World War Two, but there was a growing acceptance of Biden administration efforts to strengthen alliances and partnerships:

“Washington, they note, has led the response to the war, marshaled allies, organized military aid to Ukraine and contributed by far the largest amount of military equipment and intelligence to Ukraine. It has decided at each step what kind of weapons Kyiv will receive and what it will not.”

 

“But the goal of President Emmanuel Macron of France for “strategic autonomy” — for the European Union to become a military power that could act independently of the United States, if complementary to it — has proved hollow.”

As identified by my colleague, Charles Kupchan, a former Obama official and currently a senior fellow at CFR and a professor of international affairs at Georgetown:

“There is very little appetite for autonomy if that means distance from the United States,” he said, “because the war has underscored the importance of the American military presence in Europe and the guarantee it extended to European allies since World War II.”

But as they say: ‘that was then, and this is now’. Built on Trump’s early efforts to end the war, browbeating, it would seem, Ukraine to accept a cession of fighting, Europe is back. And it starts with Germany and its likely new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. As identified by Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Laura Pitel in Berlin for the FT:

“Chancellor-to-be Friedrich Merz has agreed a deal with his likely coalition partner to inject hundreds of billions in extra funding into Germany’s military and infrastructure, in a “fiscal sea change” designed to revive and re-arm Europe’s largest economy.”

 

“A provision would exempt defence spending above 1 per cent of GDP from the “debt brake” that caps government borrowing, allowing Germany to raise an unlimited amount of debt to fund its armed forces and to provide military assistance to Ukraine.”

 

“The future [German] coalition partners will introduce another constitutional amendment to set up a €500bn fund for infrastructure, which would run over 10 years. They are also planning to loosen debt rules for states.”

The German effort by this likely new government underlines the growing sense of emergency in Europe as Trump threatens to not defend NATO members who fail to adequately spend on in their own defense:

“Germany’s massive fiscal stimulus has also underlined the sense of urgency in Europe, spurred by US President Donald Trump’s threat to unwind the US guarantees that have long underpinned the continent’s security. “This is a fiscal sea change for Germany,” said Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg. “Merz and his coalition-to-be are rising to the occasion.”

The fiscal actions announced are all the more startling given the CDUs earlier opposition to reforming the debt brake:

“Merz’s conservative CDU/CSU had opposed reforms to the debt brake before the February 23 election. However, hours after coming first in the nationwide vote, the staunch transatlanticist declared that Europe needed to achieve “independence” from Washington given that Trump appeared “largely indifferent” to Europe’s fate.”

This defense response doesn’t stop with just Germany in Europe, however. The EU appears also to be stepping up as well. As noted at the Italian research institute ISPI, the EU is stepping up as well:

“Yesterday, for the first time, the approval by the European Council of aplan to increase the defense and security of member states represented a – European – response to the change in the international order underway. The heads of state and government of the 27 have approved the 800 billion euro plan for rearmament illustrated by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen. The agreement provides greater flexibility for member states on defense spending and debt and a 150 billion fund, in addition to opening the possibility of evaluating additional financing options. But above all, it indicates the urgency, matured in recent weeks, to change pace and contribute to the defense of Kiev and the continent, with or without US support.”

The shock of the ‘Trump abandonment’ of Europe is evident. Here is a view expressed by Francoise Hollande in the most recent Economist issue. Hollande served as President of France from 2012 to 2017:

“We need to be clear: while the American people may still be our friends, the Trump administration is no longer our ally. This is grave. It marks a fundamental break with the historic relationship between Europe and America and the link established after the second world war with the creation of the Atlantic alliance. It is unfortunately, however, indisputable. It is no longer merely a question of declarations designed to dumbfound, but of actions that mark much more than a disengagement: a strategic about-turn combined with an ideological confrontation. The signs of this reversal have been accumulating in recent weeks. The bewildering and degrading scenes in the Oval Office were the illuminating culmination.”

 

“In addition to this reversal of responsibility for the outbreak of war in Ukraine, with Volodymyr Zelensky portrayed as a dictator and Vladimir Putin as a leader respectable enough to be a regular interlocutor, there has been an unrestrained attack on the principles on which the Western alliance was previously founded.”

In the end, Hollande sets out what he sees as the necessary European response:

“So we have to admit that our alliance with America is broken for the foreseeable future, and draw all the consequences. I can think of at least three.”

 

“The first is that we must continue to intensify our aid to Ukraine. This means seriously increasing the French contribution, which is currently particularly low compared with that of Germany or Britain.”

 

“The second is the need to prioritise providing Ukraine with security guarantees. It is too early to define the form these will take or to talk about the presence of soldiers on the ground. But it is clear that if Europe wants to protect its current borders, it must shoulder its share of responsibility for the security of its closest neighbour, especially if America abdicates this responsibility.”

 

“The third consequence is the urgency of accelerating European defence spending and beefing up European capabilities.”

And the European response to Trump’s aggressive actions in Ukraine extend beyond the 27, or at least the 26 as Hungary has refused to sign on the EU action, to now include the UK, Norway and possibly Turkey. So from Jeanna Smialek from the NYTimes Brussels office in an article entitled, “Europe Races to Craft a Trump-Era Plan for Ukraine and Defense”:

“Much of Europe is now making a show of standing by Ukraine: Britain and France have indicated a willingness to send troops as a peacekeeping force if a deal is reached, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain has called for support from a “coalition of the willing.””

 

“Ms. von der Leyen’s plan to “rearm” Europe includes the €150 billion loan program and would also make E.U. budget rules more flexible to enable countries to invest more without breaching tough deficit limits.”

And this coalescing in Europe extends possibly to the French nuclear deterrent:

“France is willing to discuss extending the protection afforded by its nuclear arsenal to its European allies, President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday, as the continent scrambles to fend off heightened Russian aggression and diminishing American support.”

 

““I have decided to open the strategic debate on protection through deterrence for our allies on the European continent,” Mr. Macron added.”

But the Trump bullying of Ukraine seemingly has had, it seems, some political results as well, at least for the moment. Ukraine has indicated that it will in the coming weeks join negotiations to end the conflict. As identified in the FT, 

“Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed the talks as he wrapped up a summit on Thursday with EU leaders, who rallied round the Ukrainian president and pledged to increase their own defence capabilities.”

 

“The war must be stopped as soon as possible, and Ukraine is ready to work 24/7 together with partners in America and Europe for peace,” Zelenskyy said in a post on Telegram after the Brussels summit. “Next week, on Monday, I am scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia to meet with the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman]. After that, my team will remain in Saudi Arabia to work with American partners. Ukraine is most interested in peace.””

And, it would appear that the US-Ukraine mineral deal is back:

“Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said the meeting with Ukraine would seek to agree [to] a framework for “a peace agreement and an initial ceasefire”.”

 

“The talks will be focused on the minerals deal that the US has struck with Ukraine as well as a possible ceasefire.”

It has been an exhausting, rather dismaying several weeks of Trump destructiveness. A dramatic turn in strategic partnerships has occurred, and there are now significant questions over the stability of the global order as Martin Wolf writes in the FT: 

“These are merely two sets of decisions in the whirlwind that has accompanied the second Trump presidency. But for the outside world, they are of huge significance. They represent the end of liberal, predictable and rules-governed trading relationships with the world’s most powerful country and also the one that created the system itself. They also represent the abandonment by the US of core alliances and commitments in favour of a closer relationship with an erstwhile enemy. Trump clearly thinks Russia more important than Europe.”

As Wolf points out, it is more than possible that the EU and the UK can replace the US militarily but that can’t occur in the short term:

“The EU plus UK has a combined population 3.6 times Russia’s and a GDP, at purchasing power, 4.7 times larger. The problem, then, is not a lack of human or economic resources: if (a big if) Europe could co-operate effectively it could balance Russia militarily in the long run. But the difficulty is in the medium run, since Europe is unable to make some crucial military equipment, on which it and Ukraine depend. Would the US refuse to supply such weapons if Europeans bought them? Such a refusal to supply would be a moment of truth.”

This Post first appeared at Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/europe-into-the-breach

Image Credit: France 24

 

The Crooked G20/G7 path for the United States

Posted on by
Reply

Well yes a bit late. And a bit shorter. Indeed I am anticipating rather shorter Posts, and possibly later than usual for the next couple of Posts as I am attending the Annual International Studies Association (ISA) meetings – the 66th – in Chicago. Lots of folks and many good panels and sessions on international politics international security and global governance.

Now, I was tempted to reflect on the ‘shit show’ that went down between President Zelenskyy and President Trump and Vice President Vance. But I think I’ll hold off. There will be lots of immediate reaction, and indeed there has been, and I am interested in seeing ‘how the dust settles’ on this grim encounter  before trying to assess the consequences for US-Ukraine, US, Ukraine-Europe, and US-Russia relations.

Instead, I just want to underline the continuing disinterest-distaste the Trump administration appears to be paying to the South Africa Presidency of the G20. It began publicly, as noted in my previous post, with the decision by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to absent himself  from the first Foreign Ministers meeting under the South Africa presidency. As reported by Rob Rose and Sam Fleming of the FT, this was followed by the decision by Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the Treasury not to attend the first G20 Finance gathering. As they wrote:

“US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week he would remain in Washington — a move that followed secretary of state Marco Rubio’s decision to not “waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism” by attending a G20 meeting of foreign ministers in South Africa last week.”

What then followed to was a determination by several other finance ministers to follow suit:

“Among the countries that are not expected to send their finance ministers to Cape Town are India, China, Brazil and Mexico, according to people familiar with the organisation of the meetings.”

As it turned out Japan’s finance minister also decided not to attend as well.

Rob Rose then followed up in a subsequent FT  piece that then described additionally that the finance ministers who did attend in Cape Town were  unable to issue a joint finance statement in part due to Trump’s decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on Europe:

“Trump said this week that he planned to impose 25 per cent tariffs on goods from the EU, saying the bloc’s goal was to “screw the United States”.”

 

“G20 finance ministers have been unable to agree a joint communique of their gathering in Cape Town, intensifying questions over the relevance of this body in an era of waning US support for multilateral forums.”

 

“A European official who attended the G20 meetings told the Financial Times that “harsh words” had been exchanged between European finance ministers and US officials in light of Trump’s threats.

 

““In many ways, the US was alone,” he said. “Its trade position was on everyone’s lips, with many of the discussions being about US tariffs and what is at stake for multilateralism. In general, the European countries are aligned that this protectionism is bad for the world.””

 

“In the chair’s summary of the talks, released at the summit’s close, the G20 said the discussions “reiterated the commitment to resisting protectionism”, and a commitment to a “multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization at its core”.”

The angry Trump words and actions have undermined already two very important ministerial gatherings and may well lead other US ministers to cancel their attendance as well. Such actions and words could sidetrack many G20 meetings and actions. And It is still unclear whether Trump will attend the Leaders’ Summit in November. While there is a significant downside to US absence, on the other hand Trump’s decision to attend also raises questions. If he chooses to attend then the question arises what that may be like. How destructive might he choose to be. GIven the meeting with  Trump and Zelenskyy just last week that could be a terror incident as well.

All that is nerve-racking enough. But we still need to see whether the US is willing to take hosting of the G20 for 2026. With South Africa, as I pointed out in a previous Substack Post, completing its G20 hosting by the end of the year, the G20 cycle restarts with the United States presumably taking the hosting for the year, having taken the first G20 Leaders’ Summit during the George W. Bush’s presidnecy in 2008. Would it be better for the G20 to turn down such hosting in the face of Trump’s current antagonism. How that could occur I’m not at all sure. Finally, this leaves one final question: will Trump play destroyer with his presence at the G7 which this year has Canada – the presumptive 51st state according to Trump, hosting the G7 this current year.

Image Credit: NBC News

This Post originally appearde at my Substack, Alan’s Post.

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/the-crooked-g20g7-path-for-the-united

 

 

The Trump Battering of the Order

Posted on by
Reply

As much destruction, it seems, as this second Trump administration can engineer! And fast! One can’t avoid ‘reeling’ from the current Trump administration actions and plans. And yet we are only 30 days into the second Trump administration. It is truly amazing! 

The real dilemma for me – and for many others –  is the inability to determine whether there is method in Trump’s foreign policy actions; or, whether it is just madness that leads to few good outcomes. Read through  all the experts and you come away completely confused . Some do see method, maybe somewhat accidentally, perhaps, but nevertheless some positive direction – whether with respect to:  trade, Ukraine, Gaza, relations with the allies, especially Europe and Japan, or adversaries – be it Russia or China. But it is very hard to uncover any consistency of approach and any likelihood of valuable or even redeemable outcomes. 

Let’s take Tom Friedman. In a NYTimes piece entitled: “Why Trump’s Bullying Is Going to Backfire” he writes: 

And if all of this is just Trump bluffing to get other countries to give us the same access that we give them, I am OK with it. But Trump has never been clear: Some days he says his tariffs are to raise revenue, other days to force everyone to invest in America, other days to keep out fentanyl.

 

As the Beatles sang, I’d love to see the plan. As in: Here’s how we think the global economy operates today. Therefore, to strengthen America, here is where we think we need to cut spending, impose tariffs and invest — and that is why we are doing X, Y and Z.

 

That would be real leadership. Instead, Trump is threatening to impose tariffs on rivals and allies alike, without any satisfactory explanation of why one is being tariffed and the other not, and regardless of how such tariffs might hurt U.S. industry and consumers. It’s a total mess. As the Ford Motor chief executive Jim Farley courageously (compared to other chief executives) pointed out, “Let’s be real honest: Long term, a 25 percent tariff across the Mexico and Canada borders would blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we’ve never seen.”

 

So, either Trump wants to blow that hole, or he’s bluffing, or he is clueless. If it is the latter, Trump is going to get a crash course in the hard realities of the global economy as it really is — not how he imagines it.

And quite rightly Friedman points out that today’s global trade complex is nothing like the past where the conception was: one manufactured and exported  X while importing from another, Y. As Friedman describes what he nd others see as the world of global trade today: 

My favorite tutor in these matters is the Oxford University economist Eric Beinhocker, who got my attention when we were talking the other day with the following simple statement: “No country in the world alone can make an iPhone.”

 

Think about that sentence for a moment: There is no single country or company on earth that has all the knowledge or parts or manufacturing prowess or raw materials that go into that device in your pocket called an iPhone. Apple says it assembles its iPhone and computers and watches with the help of “thousands of businesses and millions of people in more than 50 countries and regions” who contribute “their skills, talents and efforts to help build, deliver, repair and recycle our products.

We are talking about a massive network ecosystem that is needed to make that phone so cool, so smart and so cheap.” 

The big difference between the era we are in now, as opposed to the one Trump thinks he’s living in, is that today it’s no longer “the economy, stupid.” That was the Bill Clinton era. Today, “it’s the ecosystems, stupid.”

Or turn to regional conflicts, Ukraine for instance. Here is the reaction to recent statements and Trump actions as described by Nicholas Kristof. In a piece titled, “With Trump’s Prostration to Putin, Expect a More Dangerous World”from the NYTimes on February 19th Kristof writes: 

I’m not sure most Americans appreciate the monumental damage President Trump is doing to the post-World War II order that is the wellspring of American global leadership and affluence.

 

He’s shattering it. He’s making the world more dangerous. He’s siding with an alleged war criminal, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, and poisoning relations with longtime U.S. allies. The trans-Atlantic alliance is unraveling. 

 

When I was a young reporter, we referred to countries like Poland and Romania as Soviet satellites; now Trump is doing Putin’s bidding and seems determined to put the United States in the Russian orbit. 

 

The Trump administration has lately sided with Moscow on one issue after another: Ukraine must cede territory, can’t join NATO and should hold new elections just as Russia insists. (Meanwhile, there’s no call for Russia to hold elections.) Trump even suggested that Russia should be readmitted to the Group of 7.

 

In a falsehood-filled rant on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump went further. He denounced Ukraine’s elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a “dictator” who had squandered money and had “better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.” Trump’s post had the tone of statements from the Kremlin.

Now Dan Drezner in a piece from WPR suggests that Trump’s approach to allies in Europe may possibly incorporate a strategic logic: 

Even Trump’s second-term threats directed at longstanding allies can be seen as an example of what Ketian Zhang has labeled “coerce to deter”: In bullying smaller states, Trump is trying to signal what the U.S. could do to great powers if provoked. I have previously expressed deep skepticism about whether this will work during Trump’s second term—but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

This optimistic view, if you want to call it that, was employed by Trump in the first term. As Dan argues: 

Let’s start with the most optimistic scenario for the second Trump White House: that his application of the so-called madman theory works. According to this logic, which Rosanne McManus has critically examined, Trump’s norm-breaking and bullying tactics inject unpredictability into any kind of crisis-escalation calculus, ostensibly deterring other actors from challenging the United States.

However that is only one possible view as Dan suggests. Less optimistically Dan also suggests: 

The other scenarios paint a bleaker picture for the United States. The second possibility is that the Trump administration’s weakening of the U.S. national security state will be interpreted as an invitation for more aggressive Russian and Chinese expansionism. 

And there is even one further possibility as pointed to by Dan: 

There is one final possibility, and it is the most disconcerting outcome for the U.S.: that neither Russia nor China decide to take any provocative action while Trump is president. This is not because he represents a formidable deterrent, but rather the opposite. In this scenario, Trump so weakens the United States’ standing in the world and is so keen to appease autocrats like Putin and Xi that their best option is let him do whatever he wants.

The motivation and consequences of Trump’s actions leave us bewildered. It is at the moment not possible to draw firm conclusions on the Trump approach or the outcomes from administration actions. But most analysts are greatly worried. One other area of concern draws immediate attention. That is Trump’s attachment to, and US policy toward, international institutions and the current global order. My good colleague, Patrick Stewart from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) has raised some real concerns in a recent CEIP Commentary titled, “The Death of the World America Made: Donald Trump’s war on multilateralism is misguided and dangerous”. He writes: 

On February 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order with the potential to upend decades of American global engagement. The directive mandates a comprehensive review within 180 days of all current multilateral organizations of which the United States is a member and all international treaties to which it is party. The explicit purpose of this exercise is to determine whether such support should be withdrawn. … 

 

Of far greater import is the order’s decree that the secretary of state shall review “all international organizations” of which the United States is a member and “all conventions and treaties” to which it is party, to determine whether these “are contrary to the interests of the United States and whether [they] can be reformed.” The secretary will then recommend to the president “whether the United States should withdraw” from those commitments. In principle, the directive could lead to a U.S. abrogation of thousands of treaties and a departure from hundreds of multilateral organizations.

 

It is even plausible that the Trump administration will conclude that an “America First” foreign policy requires pulling the United States out of the UN—and kicking the UN out of the United States. Both are long-standing objectives of conservative nationalists who contend, speciously, that the UN threatens American sovereignty.

Now there seems to be a debate among experts as to whether the Trump administration can actually do so; nevertheless as Stewart suggests: 

As Trump’s first weeks in office have shown, this White House doesn’t do ambiguity—and there are many ways to wreck institutions without formally leaving them.

For my part I am equally worried about Trump’s actions with the Informals – the G7 and especially the G20. Particularly with regard to the latter, the hosting schedule for the G20 ends its first cycle with Brazil this year holding the Presidency and then the G20 returns to the beginning of the cycle with the United States scheduled to host in 2026. The G20 is critical in part because it draws together the significant advanced countries, like the US, Germany, France, Japan and now increasingly influential countries from the Global South such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and others. Already the Trump administration, because of its apparent dislike for South Africa’s ‘domestic policies and its theme focus for this year’s G20 Summit  – Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability – has led Secretary of State Marco Rubio cancelling his appearance at the first Foreign Ministers gathering in South Africa as apparently has Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary for the first Finance Ministers gathering. As Rubio suggested in his cancelling his attendance, as reported in the Hill: 

I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg,” Rubio wrote in a Wednesday post on the social platform X. “South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote ‘solidarity, equality, & sustainability.’ In other words: DEI and climate change.

 

Rubio added that his job is to “advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.

Now the G20 has not operated very effectively as  a so-called Steering Committee but it has displayed value as a Crisis Committee. Without it, I don’t know but I worry.  

Who knows if Trump will show up to the G20 Leaders Summit. And who knows what he will do if in fact he does show up to the Leaders’ Summit on November 22-23rd. Moreover, will the United States take on the hosting for 2026, especially if it has failed to participate in most gatherings. There is much to worry about. But we will follow it closely. 

This Post first appeared asa Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter: https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/157647801/share-center

All comments and Subscriptions to Alan’s Newsletter are welcome.

The Many Possible Shapes for the Global Order: A Quick Look Back & Forward

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump attack on interdependence – particularly economic – has felt foolish and destructive but without question – relentless. What appeared to be a stalling out with Biden’s ill-disguised protectionism, has now turned into repeated blows against an open trading system and a collaborative global order. 

MInouche Shafik, former president of Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and a member of the House of Lords referenced a well-known transformation in  a recent piece in PS: 

““The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” This famous quote, often attributed to Antonio Gramsci, feels particularly pertinent today, as the international order that has defined the past century undergoes a profound shift.” 

What is passing away? And what is emerging? Joe Nye, the very well known International relations maven has examined exactly that in another  recent piece in PS.  As he describes Trump policy actions: 

“Globalization refers simply to interdependence at intercontinental distances. Trade among European countries reflects regional interdependence, whereas European trade with the US or China reflects globalization. By threatening China with tariffs, US President Donald Trump is trying to reduce the economic aspect of our global interdependence, which he blames for the loss of domestic industries and jobs.” 

Can globalization be reversed? Nye argues it certainly has in the past. As he describes: 

“But can economic globalization be reversed? It has happened before. The nineteenth century was marked by a rapid increase in both trade and migration, but it came to a screeching halt with the outbreak of World War I. Trade as a share of total world product did not recover to its 1914 levels until nearly 1970.” 

It is striking how long it took for global economic interdependence to recover to levels that matched the late nineteenth century. But what is also interesting is how not long ago in fact there was much attention focused on an enhanced global order. Take a look at this piece published in 2001. This Introduction was written by one of the book’s principal contributors, and a close colleague, Arthur Stein. Arthur, today, is a Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at UCLA. Arthur has been a significant international relations force at UCLA for years now. He prepared the Introduction for the 2001 volume titled, “The New Great Power Coalition”. As an aside I played a minor role in the volume with a chapter on China’s entry into the WTO.  Now, back to Arthur’s examination. There is no missing the cautious but still optimistic tone that Arthur conveys for this era following the real tensions of the Cold War and the emergence of US leadership. As he writes: 

“In short, we believe that in this era following a global conflict, the prospects for global cooperation conflicts lie in the relations between the Great Powers. Constructing a Great Power concert would make possible the establishment of a cooperative world order and truly global international organizations.” …

 

“In more general terms, however, we conclude that the movement from unilateral to multilateral incentives, norms, and structures appears to be useful in enlisting members in an  encompassing coalition. The world is now in the process of creating new high-prestige and selective clubs in the fields of economics, politics, and even the military. Once enough of these clubs in the fields overlap (regionally and functionally), they will form a linked structure that could combine into an encompassing coalition, with the latter representing the sustaining cooperation developed in separate regions and issue areas.”

Returning to Minouche Shafik this is what she sees as the new global order, one that others, as well, have suggested is emerging: 

“The world today is very different. It is a multipolar world, with China, Russia, India, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa, and the Gulf states challenging the old order, alongside other emerging powers demanding a greater voice in shaping the rules of the international system. Meanwhile, belief in “universal values” and the idea of an “international community” has waned, as many point to the hypocrisy of rich countries hoarding vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic and the response to the Ukraine war compared to the failures to act in response to humanitarian crises in Gaza, Sudan, and many other places.” 

 

“We may be heading to a zero-order world in which rules are replaced by power – a very difficult environment for smaller countries. Or it may be a world of large regional blocs, with the United States dominating its hemisphere, China prevailing over East Asia, and Russia reasserting control over the countries of the former Soviet Union. Ideally, we can find our way to a new rules-based order that more accurately reflects our multipolar world.”

Regional blocs may be in order. Or, possibly the reassertion of a form of geopolitical and ideological blocs. That seems to be what is described by colleague, G. John Ikenberry. In an article in International Affairs, penned at the beginning of last year, entitled, “Three Worlds: the West, East and South and the competition to shape global order”, John writes this about the emerging global order:

“Today, among the many impacts of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the most consequential may be that it marks the moment—the tipping-point—when history reversed course, pushing the world back in the direction of geopolitical and ideological groupings.” 

 

“Today, we might call these three groupings the global West, the global East, and the global South. One is led by the United States and Europe, the second by China and Russia, and the third by an amorphous grouping of non-western developing states, led by India, Brazil and others. Each ‘world’ offers grand narratives of what is at stake in the Ukraine conflict and how it fits into the larger problems and prospects for twenty-first century world order.” 

 

“Each offers ideas and programmes for the reorganization and reform of global rules and institutions. Each has its own constructed history, its own list of grievances and accomplishments. Each has its leaders, projects and ideological visions.” 

 

“These Three Worlds are not blocs, nor even coherent negotiating groups. They might best be seen as informal, constructed and evolving global factions, and not as fixed or formal political entities.”

 

“The Three Worlds are not best defined as poles so much as loose coalitions seeking to shape global rules and institutions. States in these three ‘worlds’ occupy different locations in the global system, creating shared interests and affinities that, taken together, shape patterns of interstate behaviour. The Three Worlds are defined in important respects by diplomacy— that is, by speeches, summit meetings and UN gatherings in which leaders advance their visions of world order. Each grouping has a loose political identity and a range of more-or-less consistent convictions about what constitutes a desirable and legitimate international order.”

I think it is difficult to know where we are at this moment, and more so where we are going. It is evident, however, that the world we have experienced over the last decades is being hammered out of existence especially by Trump 2.0. As David Wallace-Wells describes it in a NYTimes Opinion article, written just the other day: 

“But each declaration of imperial desire is that mercurial kind of Trumpist speech act, in which a given utterance can be both meaningless and full of portent at the same time, self-disavowing even as it also demonstrates the president’s world-shaping power.” 

 

“And whatever comes of Trump’s retrograde dreams of manifest destiny, the implicit challenge to the legacy geopolitical order is just as striking: If we want these things and these places, who is going to stop us?” … 

 

“What comes next? New paradigms rarely arise fully formed. But if we spent the last four years watching Joe Biden’s ineffectual attempt to revive some rickety version of the moralistic postwar order, it is supremely clear what Donald Trump would like to replace that pretense with: the principle that global chaos opens up opportunity for great powers long hemmed in by convention and deference.” 

 

“The MAGA riposte is, Let’s not be naïve and let’s not be suckers: We are all wolves on the world stage, and the game begins when we show our teeth.”

It would be valuable if new rules, principles, and norms emerged but at the moment what we can see is the dramatic impact of power on interstate relations. For the moment we are less driven by the emergence of order but by its opposite.  But we will come back here at Alan’s Newsletter to examine  – likely repeatedly – the shape of the global order as I think there may be surprises, possibly many surprises we have not anticipated given the immediate and dramatic attention to Trump.

The Post originally appeared as a Substack Post at Alan’s Newsletter

https://globalsummitryproject.substack.com/p/the-many-possible-shapes-for-the

All comments and subscriptions are welcome