Images

These terms seem to appear as God’s inevitable punishment and hang over us like a Damocles sword. At least since the 1979 World Climate Conference in Geneva. At that time, experts discussed climate change with the result that the continued burning of fossil fuels and the progressive destruction of forests on earth would lead to a massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  Huge states in his Environmental Threats to Security[1]

For many, a link between resource depletion and military power politics calculations began to become apparent in the economic downturn of the 1970s and then become firmly established after the conclusion of the Cold War.

But we humans do not want to blame ourselves for the misery we have caused. Specialists are insurance companies that are objectifying Climate Change thus profiting from risks and opportunities of climate change[2]. Much like life insurance is in fact death insurance. It would be important to put an end to the myths surrounding climate change. One of those tales is that the population will migrate from south to north. The assumption that refugees from disaster impacted areas would move beyond their homeland is not correct. Most of them, whether due to violence or natural hazards will stay close to their area of origin. Quite the reverse, the reason to leave the homeland is mostly man-made, and the result of irresponsible actions by politics and those elected to govern. Mixing both, distorting the chain of causation and numerous misconceptions create unnecessary fear and a hostile environment for refugees around the world.

Werrell et al[3], in their analysis of the connections between the uprisings in Syria and Egypt in 2011, examine the Failed States Index and the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index and conclude that

…measurements of state fragility in particular, but also climate vulnerability, may need to take into account a broader array of factors, draw from a more comprehensive array of sources

A similar scientific investigation is the 2018 report of the “Lancet Countdown on health and climate change” which tracks 41 indicators[4]. An impressive drawing shows how intertwined all this is.

Franz Josef Strauß, the legendary Prime Minister of Bavaria, used to say: “Speak simple, but think complicated – not the opposite way round” The topic is quite complicated. And there is no such thing as a “natural” disaster, the climate does not change, as well as security does not threaten us just by itself. We, humans, are responsible.

[1] Hough, Peter. “6. Environmental Threats to Security.” Understanding Global Security. 4th ed. Routledge, 2018, p. 147

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311340642_Objectifying_Climate_Change_Weather-Related_Catastrophes_as_Risks_and_Opportunities_for_Reinsurance

[3] Werrell, Caitlin E. & Femia, Francesco & Sternberg, Troy. “Did We See It Coming?: State Fragility, Climate Vulnerability, and the Uprisings in Syria and Egypt.” SAIS Review of International Affairs, vol. 35 no. 1, 2015, p. 44.

[4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32596-6/fulltext

The leading role of a great power does not last forever.  For over a century, the U.S. has been the world’s leading economic power. After WW II it became also the international political power. Looking at China it was already once the dominant empire at least in the eastern part of the world for a thousand years. The Roman Empire disintegrated but parts of it remained centers of power. The Nazi “Drittes Reich” could not make it for two decades. Also, it is rather rare that one single power is emerging. So, chances are that more centers of powers are coexistent. I was an excited reader of Huntington; I am not a great fan of him. Still, the rise (or resurgence?) of China into the leading power of the Eastern World alongside the United States as the leading power of the Western World could make sense.

While earlier it was the trade, later the industry, nowadays it is the technology and knowledge-based sectors which define economic leadership. Developing technology comes at a significant cost, but whoever succeeds to take the lead in this competition can set the direction for the future. China is focusing on IT, automation, aircraft, electrical equipment, energy-saving vehicles, biomedicine which is also declared in its technology strategy. Achieving leadership by the set deadline would make China from the workbench to the technology leader of the world as soon as 2025. 5G plays an important role as the knowledge-based world needs that technology. Therefore, without attacking or defending the China policy of the USA, there was some logic in the government actions to protect American IP against Chinese espionage and buyouts.

However, how can a shrinking and protectionist US economy, a country loaded with social tensions compete with China and keep high import tariffs? It is also no secret that the Chinese economy was sturdier than the American during the pandemic and COVID could be a game-changer for China. An IMF comparison of the GDP growth statistics gives a clear picture[1]

While the influence of partisanship on the foreign policy of the USA is also represented in the hiccups with international conventions (Bush: No to Kyoto. Obama: Yes to Paris. Trump: No to Paris), and the protectionist, separatist line would most likely continue if Trump wins, I am not sure that at least some parts of it would not infiltrate into Biden´s more conciliatory foreign policy. Whoever makes the run, he must find an answer on how to answer the Chinese challenge and maintain America’s leadership in the world. A brief answer to the Shifrinson piece “Should the United States Fear China’s Rise?”[2] would be: Yes and No. Yes, it could disrupt the American Dream about what the world makes go round. No, because it is the nature of the power that it comes and goes. And China comes again.

Trump, China, Pandemic. We live in times, we could not have imagined some years ago.  As Heinz Alfred (Henry) Kissinger told the Financial Times in Manhattan two years ago[3]

I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.

[1]https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/CHN/RUS/EU/USA

[2] Joshua Shifrinson, “Should the United States Fear China’s Rise?,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 65-83

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/926a66b0-8b49-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543