The beginning of the year is a good time to consider the risks that lie ahead of us. There are of course important economic risks, including the mispricing of assets caused by a decade of ultra-low interest rates, the shifts in demand caused by the Chinese economy’s changing structure and European economies’ persistent weakness. However, the main longer-term risks are geopolitical, stemming from four sources: Russia, China, the Middle East and cyberspace.
Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia remains a formidable nuclear power, with the ability to project force anywhere in the world. Russia is also economically weak because of its dependence on oil revenue at a time when prices are down dramatically.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has already warned Russians that they face austerity, because the government would no longer be able to afford the transfer benefits that it provided in recent years.
Illustration: Constance Chou
The geopolitical danger arises from Putin’s growing reliance on military action abroad — in Ukraine and now in Syria — to maintain his popularity at home, using the domestic media — now almost entirely under Kremlin control — to extol Russia’s international importance. Russia also uses its gas exports to Western Europe and Turkey as an economic weapon, although Turkey’s recent decision to source gas from Israel shows the limits of this strategy. As Putin responds to this and other challenges, Russia would remain a source of substantial uncertainty for the rest of the world.
China is still a poor nation, with per capita GDP at roughly a quarter of the US level on the basis of purchasing power parity (PPP). However, because its population is four times larger, its total GDP is equal to the US’ in PPP terms. And it is total GDP that determines a nation’s ability to spend on military power, to provide a strategically significant market for other nations’ exports and to offer aid to other parts of the world. China is doing all of these things on a scale commensurate with its GDP. Looking ahead, even with the more moderate growth rates projected for the future, China’s GDP is to grow more rapidly than that of the US or Europe.
China is now expanding its strategic reach. It is asserting maritime claims in the East and South China seas that conflict with claims by other nations in the region including Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam. In particular, China is relying on the so-called “nine-dash line,” originally created by the Republic of China in 1947, to justify its claim to most of the South China Sea, where it has created artificial islands and asserted sovereignty over their surrounding waters. The US characterizes China’s policy as “anti-access area denial”: An effort to keep the US Navy far from the Chinese mainland and therefore from the coasts of US’ allies in the region.
China is also expanding its geopolitical influence through initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, aid programs in Africa and its “One Belt, One Road” plan to establish maritime and territorial links through the Indian Ocean and Central Asia, extending all the way to Europe. The current Chinese political leadership wants a peaceful and cooperative relationship with the US and other Western nations. However, looking to the future, the challenge for the US and its allies would be to deter future generations of Chinese leaders from adopting policies that threaten the West.
In the Middle East, much of the world’s focus has been on the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS) to civilian populations. However, the larger issue in the region is the conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, a divide that has persisted for more than 1,000 years. For most of that time, and in most places, Shiites have faced discrimination at the hands of Sunnis.
Thus, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-ruled Gulf states view Iran, the region’s Shiite power, as their strategic nemesis. Saudi Arabia, in particular, fears that Iran wants to settle old scores and attempt to shift custodianship of Islam’s holy sites in Mecca and Medina to Shiite control. A conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran would also be a fight over the vast oil riches of the Arabian Peninsula and the enormous financial wealth of small Sunni states like Kuwait and Qatar.
The final source of risk, cyberspace, might soon overshadow all the rest, because borders and armies cannot limit it. The threats include denial-of-service attacks on banks and other institutions; unauthorized access to personal records from banks, insurance companies and government agencies; and industrial espionage. Indeed, widespread theft of technology from US companies led to a recent agreement between China and the US that neither government would assist in stealing technology to benefit its nation’s firms.
These are important issues, but not nearly as serious as the threat that malware poses to critical infrastructure — electricity grids, air traffic systems, oil pipelines, water supplies, financial platforms and so on. Recent cases of malware use have been attributed to China, Iran, Russia and North Korea.
However, states need not be involved at all: Individuals and non-state actors could deploy malware simply by hiring the needed talent in the international underground marketplace.
Cyberweapons are relatively cheap, and thus widely accessible, and capable of reaching anywhere in the world. They are the future weapons of choice for attacking or blackmailing an adversary. And we still lack the ability to block such attacks or to identify unambiguously their sources.
These four sources of risk constitute an unusually serious set of geopolitical challenges. By highlighting them, I do not mean to downplay the importance of other issues — US monetary policy, weak commodity prices and debt crises — that are likely to affect the international economy this year. What is special about the threats emanating from Russia, China, the Middle East and cyberspace is that they would persist and threaten the economy for years to come.
Martin Feldstein is a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the US National Bureau of Economic Research.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS