Here is our take on the articles summarized below: 

Classical liberalism – advocating civil liberties and economic freedom under a set of properly defined laws – is one of the foundational ideas of the American experiment. For this week’s summaries, we look at four areas where this ideal has been challenged – in international relations, technological development, the pandemic, and global business. In these articles, China holds a prominent place; many have written extensively about the threat China poses as the world’s pre-eminent illiberal state. While the Chinese Communist Party’s excesses have certainly undermined liberal ideas worldwide, the free world also needs to be careful not to cross the line as well. We must be careful not to lose sight of our values in dealing with conflict, but rather utilize a carefully constructed strategy to navigate the difficulties of the present age to continue the march of progress. 

What’s Next for Multilateralism and the Liberal International Order?

World Politics Review

Read the full article here

The United Nations (UN) was created to maintain international peace by balancing sovereign equality with great-power politics, but its ability to do this has been constrained in recent years. One issue is the veto-power wielded by the five members of the Security Council – the US, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France. Each of these countries has the ability to limit the UN’s involvement in major conflicts, such as the civil wars in Syria and Yemen. An additional issue facing the organization is the lack of funding for the many UN agencies dedicated to specific issues such as health, and refugees.

Further inhibiting the impact and contribution of the UN in promoting international peace and cooperation is the fact that multilateralism has come under strain, thanks in part to a protectionist mindset and hostility towards global institutions and agreements such as the World Trade Organization, the Paris climate change agreement, and the World Health Organization, among others. The new Biden administration is making efforts to revamp America’s global role, repair the damage done, and support multilateralism through institutions like the UN, but it will take more than the US to save the liberal international order.

The Coming Tech Cold War with China

Adam Segal, Foreign Affairs

Read the full article here

The US and China are engaged in what some are calling a “tech cold war”. Over the last several months, both countries have been developing strategies to undermine each other’s technology ambitions and advance domestic capabilities. This article, which was written back in September 2020 but is still very much reflective of today’s environment (especially after Biden’s trip to Europe and the decisions made there), highlights the measures China and the US are taking to dominate the global technology sphere. The US strategy revolves around blocking the flow of technology to China, reshoring high-tech supply chains, and reinvigorating US innovation. To counter US efforts, China has been investing in domestic production of semiconductors and other core technologies, as is the US, in order to reduce its dependence on supply chains that pass through its tech rival. In addition, China is tightening its technological links with countries that are participating in its Belt and Road Initiative, therefore expanding their global technology footprint. China’s effort to reduce dependency and strengthen partnerships is also driving China’s larger economic agenda to boost self-sufficiency after an era of export-led growth. It is essential to the global success of the US technology sector that the Biden administration promotes a clear-cut, concrete strategy that receives bipartisan support because China has made it clear that it will adjust and respond to US efforts accordingly.

The Forever Virus

Larry Brilliant, Lisa Danzig, Karen Oppenheimer, Agastya Mondal, Rick Bright, and W. Ian Lipkin; Foreign Affairs

 Read the full article here

When running a 5K, the first 100 meters of the race give little indication of who will emerge victorious, for 98% of the race lies ahead. So it is with the coronavirus pandemic. With no cure available for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we are left to treat the infected and prevent its spread. As we have already seen, new and potentially more dangerous variants of the virus emerge with increasing regularity as the disease spreads. Even countries which saw success in containing the initial spread, such as Taiwan and Vietnam, have seen caseloads return with a vengeance despite ongoing mitigation efforts. On the other hand, the early-stage losers have gained strength as the pandemic has developed; for instance, while the United States still has the highest caseload of any country, it has also led the vaccination effort, and has already vaccinated over 43% of its population.

The road ahead is hard and long, and we must learn the lessons of the past if we are to be successful in addressing the next pandemic. Transparency is of the utmost importance, especially in the early phases; slow responses to the mounting crisis in Brazil, India, and the United States (due in part but not in entirety to China’s sandbagging investigation into Wuhan’s epidemic) led to preventable losses. Hindsight is always 20-20, and the warning signs are more obvious now than they were then, but the confounding role of politics in slowing the response to a public health emergency is undeniable. Even as the monumental vaccine development effort yielded one of the most impressive feats in modern medical history, the rollout of these vaccines across the world has been inefficient at best. Wealthier countries, fearing a shortage of vaccine supply, ordered doses in excess of their capabilities to distribute, and poorer countries in greater need have suffered for it. With many of these countries likely to have only their at-risk population vaccinated by 2023, many see the need for a more coordinated rollout – hence the coalition known as COVAX, a body created to organize and fund vaccine distribution to lower-income countries. Still, such efforts often suffer from lack of clear leadership. To mitigate this, the U.S. must continue to implement a cohesive and effective response domestically to provide a blueprint for other nations. Even if the U.S. meets with tremendous success, without a strong multilateral framework in place these efforts are unlikely to gain traction abroad. International cooperation is a lynchpin of any effective response. While the coronavirus pandemic is not the worst in human history, should the world give up the fight too quickly we may find ourselves in dire straits. Let us work together to ensure that does not happen.

The New Geopolitics of Global Business

The Economist

 Read the full article here

The process of “creative destruction,” a concept popularized by Joseph Schumpeter in the early 1940’s to describe how more efficient firms take over markets through superior efficacy, has upended the norms and popular beliefs of economies time and time again. Currently, the balance of power in the global markets lies in the technology sector (25% of the global stock market) and in American and Chinese companies (with 76 of the world’s top 100 most valuable companies between them). One partial explanation for this is European complacency; the Eurozone has been hampered by lumbering political meddling and multiple debt crises, and as a result has created no firms worth over $100 billion in the past twenty-five years. On the other hand, America and China’s success has had a self-amplifying effect – robust domestic markets, deep capital lines, widespread venture capitalism, and a culture exultant of business success have all facilitated creative destruction, much as a forest fire ultimately aids the health of the forest by burning away the weaker underbrush and leaving more for the stronger, more resilient trees. That said, as nationalism and great-power competition continue to dominate Sino-American relations, the free-market process will likely be hampered by protectionism and regulation, slowing the advance of efficiency. Such an outcome would ultimately have a detrimental effect on world economic progress as its two most powerful engines sputter out; it would take time for another country or region to build up the synergies driving so much of today’s efficiency.