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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS