The greatest challenge of the global financial crisis is the seeming impossibility of comprehending and managing its diversity. Indeed, the way problems are proliferating appears almost uncontrollable. Plans to meet the crisis, in country after country, have been revamped and restructured time and again. The old models about how to understand the economy have had their day. Governments are facing fundamental decisions about the future of their economies and societies.
The subprime crisis in the early summer of 2007 developed first into a financial crisis and ultimately into a recession. New economic problems soon rushed in to add to the existing ones: energy and food prices rose and then fell like a yo-yo; the dangers of climate change became ever more clear; and the mal-distribution of global political power demanded action.
The recent social unrest in Greece, Latvia and Lithuania has shown that political stability is now vulnerable even in the EU. Indeed, around the world, from Mexico to Indonesia and even China, the social fabric is being stretched to the point of fraying. This anxiety is reinforced by the general lack of funds among large groups of people who had nothing to do with creating today’s crisis.
These anxieties are not being addressed because bailouts, stimulus packages and help for distressed industries with strong lobbies are testing many governments’ financial limits. That the advocates of unconditional privatization are now crying out for state support would be cause for laughter if the danger were not as big as it is. The question governments must now face is this: is there an alternative to the Icelandic crash course?
In the past, when state economic decision-making reached such an impasse, wars and/or revolutions were the inevitable result. As we face the type of turning-point decisions not seen since the darkest days of the 1930s, can we avoid such an outcome?
If we are to avoid the worst, fundamental change is not only necessary, but unavoidable. So politicians everywhere must do their duty and exercise responsible leadership. A combination of steely calm and bold experimentation is the only way that political and social harmony will be preserved.
To make the European Central Bank a lender of last resort for all of the euro-zone countries, for example, would give distressed European governments some added breathing space. But it will require global monetary reform of a fundamental order to right the imbalances between surplus and deficit countries, between happy savers and those who lived beyond their means, and between rich and poor.
Achieving this will not come without suffering. Some of those who brought the world to this perilous point with their toxic financial instruments and unscrupulous speculation may even turn out to profit from these reforms. So be it: a moral, and perhaps legal, reckoning must await the return of economic growth.
As governments move into uncharted territory, they will need to question themselves constantly. All assumptions will need to be assessed and reassessed, starting points found and refound, and new tools developed and perfected. The mechanics of the welfare state will need to be strengthened; public policy must stop deferring to the financial sector, regardless of the need for bailout packages.
As governments embark on their necessary and bold experiments, they must remember to take their citizens with them. For, unless these experiments in economic rejuvenation are transparent, they will lead to domestic political fights. There is a wide difference between pragmatic and opportunistic politics, and governments had better keep this distinction in mind in the months and years ahead.
That domestic transparency and pragmatism will need to be carried over into international economic diplomacy. Unless global imbalances are redressed, the next crash will be upon us before we have recovered from this one.
Today’s markets need rules that take into account the public good in every country and region. That much is clear. But the decision we are actually faced with is much more fundamental: global monetary and economic reform, or war and revolution. Twenty years after the world supposedly reached “the end of history,” we are instead at another historical turning point. Either we will write this history ourselves, or we will suffer through a dark era that could have been avoided.
Alfred Gusenbauer was prime minister of Austria from 2007 until last year.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with