For this week’s examination of the geopolitical forces shaping the world of tomorrow, we look at how the rules of yesterday have begun to fracture under the weight of new challenges. We begin with a historical exploration of how several crises have produced long-lasting positive policy solutions. Our second set of articles deal with the growing pressure on China’s job market, with potentially dangerous implications for Taiwanese sovereignty. Our third article shows how countries at both ends of the economic spectrum are abandoning international organizations, seeing them as lacking the ability to deal with the problems they face. Our fourth article deals with the “second pink wave” of left-wing leaders in Latin America, showing how these shifts in leadership have important implications for the region.

Why Superpower Crises Are a Good Thing

Hal Brands, Foreign Policy

Read the full article here

“Welcome to an era of grave and persistent tension, one in which great-power crises will be frequent and intense.” Despite this tumultuous and uncertain reality, Cold War history demonstrates that some of the greatest initiatives and investments came out of crises. For example, the Truman Doctrine emerged out of a communist insurgency in Greece, Soviet diplomatic intimidation of Turkey, and the collapse Britain’s influence in the Europe. The Marshall Plan – put together in just three weeks – was created out of growing US-Soviet tensions over occupied Germany and worsening economic conditions in Europe. And the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) was urgently constructed following the Soviet-backed takeover of Czechoslovakia and subsequent Berlin blockade. While no one can truly predict what the next superpower crisis is going to be and where it is going to pop up, Hal Brands believes the US can put crises to “good strategic use.” First, crises can reveal an adversary’s true intentions. This has certainly been the case with Mr. Putin who for years was thought of by many as a normal statesman resentful of NATO expansion and not the “unrepentant aggressor” the war in Ukraine has exposed him to be. Second, crises can reveal the vulnerabilities of the US military and offer the opportunity to correct them. Third, crises can speed up the formation of balancing coalitions and/or bolster existing multilateral groups, like we’ve seen in the expansion of NATO over the last few months. Fourth, crisis can “cut through gridlock,” allowing problem-solving initiatives to be formed at remarkable speeds, similar to the Marshall Plan discussed above. Finally, crises can be opportunities to build political consensus and ​​“jolt democratic systems out of their complacency.” It is no question that more crises are coming, but whether the US can capitalize on their opportunities remains to be seen.

Xi’s Great Leap Backward

Craig Singleton, Foreign Policy

Dangerous Fatalism About a US-China War

Gideon Rachman, Financial Times

Xi Jinping and the CCP may have bitten off more than they can chew in the central management of the Chinese economy. In a bid to placate its restless youth following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, China expanded university access for its young citizens, pushing a larger portion of its population to seek higher education. As more students graduate into a slowing economy, jobs have become more and more scarce, especially in the heavily populated urban areas. This has prompted central planners to begin incentivizing industrious young people to move to the countryside to start businesses in a move reminiscent of Mao Zedong’s infamous “Down to the Countryside” movement, which aimed to cure urban unemployment by forcibly moving children of the wealthy to rural areas. Despite the campaign being labeled a “catastrophe” by later iterations of the CCP (in a rare condemnation from the party), Xi’s solution to the jobs crisis bears many similarities. A potential solution may be found in China’s military-industrial complex (as was the case in the post-war US), an engine which may soon be put to use in Taiwan. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the island certainly raised the temperature of the conflict, which has been under threat of annexation from China since its government was driven out by Mao in 1949. Domestic issues seem to have pushed up Xi’s timetable to make a move on the island; he sees “reunification” as necessary within his lifetime. Indeed, the election of pro-independence President Tsai Ing-wen and the US’ increasingly defensive posture regarding Taiwan have greatly reduced the likelihood of a peaceful integration of the island. The younger population of Taiwan considers itself independent of the mainland; the brutal treatment of democracy in Hong Kong, long held out as the model for integration, has further soured Taiwanese sentiment towards Beijing. Much depends on the posture of the US and how far it would be willing to go in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan – an event that could easily spark an all-out conflict between the two superpowers.

Nobody Wants the Current World Order

Shivshankar Menon, Foreign Affairs

Read the full article here

The world is currently in a state of flux wherein the major powers of the system – the United States, Russia, and China – are increasingly disinterested in maintaining the “rule-based international order” and are instead pursuing revanchist policies with the other powers following suit. While Russia violates international norms through its invasion of Ukraine, China, too, engages in regional territorial disputes with its Asian neighbors such as with Taiwan, India, and Japan. On the other end, the US has similarly begun abandoning the system, as shown through its withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the ongoing debate between modern isolationism and fixing the system through “Build Back Better World” and the pursuit of a demarcation between democracies and autocracies. Even other powers such as Japan and Germany have begun reversing a half centuries’ policy regarding militarization to beef up their armed forces. Middling and minor powers, particularly in the Global South, have lost faith in the order as well. They see global institutions such as the United Nations as having failed to back up sanctions and military force through the Security Council, opting instead for the use of hard power from the West. Furthermore, other international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and the G-20 have, in their eyes, likewise failed to assist with their ballooning debt crises and the problems arising from the COVID-19 and energy and food price inflation caused by the war in Ukraine. With the norms of international law fraying and no great power within the system articulating a cohesive vision to promote the common good, the world will fracture, as can be seen in the modern trend of the formation of ad hoc coalitions, such as the Quad, BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the I2U2 grouping, and even in other regional associations, such as the Association of South Eastern Asian Nations and the Abraham Accords. The global economy, too, is fracturing into regional trading blocs. As a consequence, the powers will trundle from crisis to crisis as dissatisfaction with the international system grows and anarchy creeps further and further into international relations.

In Latin America, a ‘New Left’ is Coming to Power

Angeline Montoya, Frédéric Saliba, Marie Delcas, and Amanda Chaparro, Le Monde

Read the full article here

The election of Gustavo Petro in Colombia marks a clear shift to the left in the Latin American region. Petro’s inauguration follows that of other left-wing leaders in Central and South America, including in Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, and Chile. Politicians and scholars are calling this change a “second pink wave” because it resembles the first pink wave of the early 2000s. However, there are some notable differences between the leftist leadership in the early 2000s and the current progressive movement. For one, we are seeing a generational shift in leaders like Gabriel Boric who is just 36 years old. He, among other young rising leaders, embodies a new perspective on social and power relations that is much different than his leftist predecessors. Perhaps more prominent, is the amount of attention being given to the environment this time around. The progressive leaders of the first pink wave built their power on the same extractivist model – the exploitation of raw materials like oil, carbon, agriculture, and mining – that was supported by the right wing. This time around, some leaders (but not all), like Gustavo Petro and Gabriel Boric, are pursuing a path of radical energy transition which strongly deviates from the extractavist model. New emphasis is also being given to feminist and indigenous demands. On the other hand, in countries like Honduras and Mexico, the left came to power as “an option for change” and not so much because of their political agenda. Honduran President Xiomara Castro’s predecessor Juan Orlando Hernandez is now in jail for drug trafficking, while Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (“AMLO”) was chosen as a rejection of the Institutional Revolutionary Party which had governed the country for decades. It is not yet clear how long this second pink wave will last: “The popular enthusiasm generated by the return of the left may also be dampened by the reality of power.” Boric and Castro were not able to win a majority in Congress, and AMLO and Chilean President Alberto Fernandez have lost their majorities, demonstrating that the “reality of power” may prevent the left from maintaining leadership. Furthermore, popularity for several of these leftist leaders is waning and the far right is on the lookout.