The world finds itself at a crossroads. Nations can emerge from the pandemic and embrace the opportunities for cooperation and mutual global progress, or the world can continue down the road of division and leaderlessness which inevitably leads to stagnation and perpetual conflict and where authoritarianism reigns over democracy. The West, through the power of multilateral cooperation, has an opportunity to remake itself and prevent China from destabilizing the global world order. This week’s articles explore the opportunities for the G7 to reinvigorate global cooperation and the threat China poses to global stability. 

The return of the West: can the G7 nations rebuild a global alliance?

Jeremy Cliffe, NewStatesman

Read the full article here 

In February 2020, the Munich Security Conference’s annual report declared a new age of “Westlessness” in which the West “is in retreat, in decline, and under constant attack-both from within and without.” This year’s report, titled “Beyond Westlessness” was slightly more optimistic as the analysis cited Joe Biden’s presidency as “a chance to reinvigorate the West” and the pandemic as a wake-up call for the West. The West’s ability to rebuild and move beyond Westlessness will be tested at the Group of 7’s (G7) summit next week in Cornwall. While US President Donald Trump’s time in power did accelerate the West towards a “G-Zero” world – where the G7 is ineffectual in an “each nation for itself” era – there were major cracks in the G7 alliance before Trump’s arrival. The pandemic was accompanied by a deterioration in the quality of democracy around the world, including within the West, but it also brought an opportunity for the West to remake itself in the face of a growing and aggressive China. China has stepped up its threats to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea, but it has also become less cautious as it is convinced of the West’s “terminal decline”, presenting a possible opportunity for the West to make up lost ground. The author of the article presents three scenarios that could occur after the G7 summit which he calls Westlessness, Westfullness, and Westishness. A Westlessness scenario would be one in which China overtakes the West technologically and economically and the West is potentially drawn into conflict with Beijing, causing other global crises to flare up. Westfullness would entail an era where Western strengths are reasserted through new investments in green energy which renew Western economies and balance China’s power as Beijing also struggles to deal with internal strains. Finally, a Westishness scenario is a middle-ground outcome where some of the West’s values endure but others fall apart and Europe drifts into a midway position between the US and China. The West will have to regain its confidence and also take a hard look at its flaws and factions if it hopes to find itself in any scenario other than Westlessness.

Biden’s Asia Czar Says Era of Engagement With China Is Over

Peter Martin, Bloomberg
Read the full article here

“The dominant paradigm [of U.S. policy towards China] is going to be competition,” says Kurt Campbell, U.S. coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs on the National Security Council said Wednesday. Much of this shift is a reaction to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s increasingly aggressive policies, including contentious relations with India and an “economic campaign” against Australia. These notably blunt comments indicate how tensions have risen between the two countries in the wake of international calls for further investigations into the origins of the coronavirus and China’s initial role in permitting its spread. While Chinese counterparts have emphasized cooperation in the relationship, long running disputes over China’s claims in the South China Sea, human rights abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere, and the Taiwan and Hong kong situations remain chilling factors to mutuality. One fundamental difference has been the U.S’s approach to engagement, which has as its goal the induction of China into its systems of economics and politics. Much of the problem lies with the consolidation of power at the top of Xi’s regime, exacerbating ideological conflict and reducing opportunities for collaboration. Given the standoffish nature of the relationship, key allies will be a central source of strength to both sides as the conflict evolves. While few can say what the future of U.S.-China relations holds, it will undoubtedly continue to heat up as both sides continue to draw lines in the sand.

Iran Needs the Nuclear Deal to Keep Russia and China at Bay

Jamsheed K. Choksy and Carol E. B. Choksy, Foreign Affairs
Read the full article here 

The economic and geopolitical benefits that Iran stands to gain from a nuclear deal outweigh the advantages of Iran stepping away from a deal altogether. Though sides have been playing hardball, at least in their comments to the press, the “diplomatic door” is open for the US and Iran to reach a more robust deal. Resuming compliance with a nuclear deal would cost Iran very little in military capabilities and, with its recent build-up of uranium, it can stay at nuclear breakout capability or proceed with its “nuclear quest” after a deal reaches its end or is renegotiated at a later date. However, if a deal is not reached, the country’s economy and geopolitical status will continue struggling greatly from the US sanctions imposed when the US withdrew from the nuclear agreement in 2018. The pressure from economic and financial sanctions has made Iran dependent on very few trading partners, including Russia and China. China has gained control of nearly half of Iran’s exports and more than a quarter of its imports. Furthermore, Beijing is seeking a 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Tehran which includes $400 billion in Chinese investments and would give it greater control of the Iranian economy. Iranian industry leaders are skeptical that the deal would give up too much domestic control and are therefore in opposition to the agreement. On the military front, Tehran has had little choice but to seek security and collaboration from both Russia and China. Reviving the nuclear deal with the US and the deal’s other signatories would lessen Iran’s dependence on foreign powers and increase its geopolitical autonomy.

G7 tax deal is ‘starting point’ on road to global reform

Chris Giles and Delphine Strauss, Financial Times
Read the full article here

The Group of 7 (G7) ministers have backed a global minimum tax of at least 15%, marking a revival of international cooperation. While the G7 ministers are in agreement, it will take some time before such a global tax can actually be implemented. France has referred to the deal as a “starting point, to ensure the minimum corporate tax rate is as high as possible”. The deal aims to stop large multinational corporations from running to tax havens to increase their profits. However, the nuances of a global minimum tax deal, such as which companies fall within its scope and how to define the tax base, will have to undergo negotiations between the 139 countries at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The G7 will be keen on getting the support of the G20 group of countries in order to strengthen the backing of the deal. Estimates from the OECD say the proposal could generate an additional $50-$80 billion a year in tax revenues, but the actual amount will vary widely depending on the rate at which the minimum is agreed upon and whether countries that implement the tax can levy it on revenues generated in countries that do now impose the tax.

China’s Inconvenient Truth

Elizabeth Economy, Foreign Affairs

Read the full article here

Wold Warriors Killed China’s Grand Strategy

Sulmaan Wasif Khan, Foreign Policy

Read the full article here

In Chinese culture, the concept of mianzi (面子, meaning “face” or “reputation”) is a crucial component of both private and public life. Many of China’s seeming idiosyncrasies in international relations can be at least partially explained through the lens of “saving face,” a well-documented but somewhat foreign concept to Western audiences. For this reason, the recent departure of the traditionally conservative Chinese foreign service from its historically reserved public demeanor is notable. The so-called “wolf warrior” diplomats are the product of an unmoored nationalist sentiment in China’s public rhetoric, the irrational extension of a policy suddenly disconnected from decades of political grand strategy. For much of the PRC’s existence, domestic and foreign policy has had the singular focus of securing the country against threats on all sides. While the current administration has engaged in a good deal of triumphalist posturing, several cultural dysfunctions which have plagued the Middle Kingdom for decades are rearing their heads in new and destructive ways. Under Xi, former president Jiang Zemin’s goal of uniting China’s multitude of ethnic and religious diversity was replaced with monocultural ethnocentrism, as demonstrated in the genocidal treatment of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslims. Reactionary anti-feminist policies have stifled women’s opportunities, with the wage and labor participation gap widening and feminists labeled as “extremists” in public discourse. Strict limits on expression have stifled China’s creative class, the indispensable dynamo of economic development and social progress. Despite these well-known issues, Chinese leadership seems to have believed its own self-presentation; when the party line of China’s inevitable rise to global dominion is challenged, the wolf warriors are quick to bark back. While this rhetorical pugilism has destabilized several of China’s key international relationships, there has been little significant blowback against an increasingly nationalistic and assertive China. In short, China feels it has not lost face for all its aggression and sees this as intrinsic acceptance from both the international community and its own people. Whether their hypothesis holds water remains to be seen, and the stakes of failure are high.