As Serbia’s EU neighbors closed their borders and halted many medical exports, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic made an appeal.
“Serbia now turns its eyes to China,” he said. “All my personal hopes are focused and directed toward China and its president.”
As the world heads into uncharted territory amid the COVID-19 outbreak, it is undergoing stark and dramatic geopolitical shifts.
Assumptions over globalization and free movement have been torn up overnight. In their haste to address the outbreak, the vast majority of nations have been focused heavily within their borders. Structures such as the EU and UN that had been expected to be at the center of response to crises have been largely ignored.
Having managed to get much of its domestic outbreak under control, Beijing is now unambiguously positioning itself to build new friends and influence. That has included the shipment of medical supplies and small numbers of experts to affected European states, including Italy, France and Spain.
Russia, meanwhile, is also clearly watching closely, its media outlets vigorously broadcasting details of what it claims is a flawed and sometimes chaotic Western response.
Some international cooperation is clearly taking place — for example, to keep limited goods flowing across the EU, despite the lockdown.
However, even the battle for a vaccine is increasingly portrayed in terms of national competition rather than cooperation.
If headlines from major English-language outlets in both countries are any guide, the crisis has further damaged already difficult relations between China and the US. US President Donald Trump has clearly infuriated Beijing with his repeated references to the disease as a “Chinese virus,” comments he has said were a response to suggestions from a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman earlier this month that the disease had in fact originated in the US.
Beijing has largely avoided repeating that comment since, but if anything Trump has continued to double down on his rhetoric.
These multiple geopolitical battlefronts have many strands, few receiving much attention against the backdrop to the wider crisis.
Iran, among the most-affected countries, finds itself in a particularly complex position. It is lobbying furiously — albeit unsuccessfully — for the US to soften its sanctions to help it tackle the outbreak, even as its proxy forces gain influence against the US’ allies in Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.
Relations with China and Russia remain extremely hard to predict. Last week, China’s Global Times reported that Chinese fighter jets had made a show of force near Taiwan, while threatening potential electronic warfare or other unconventional attacks against US ships if they continued to probe waters the Chinese have claimed in the South China Sea.
Such rhetoric seems to have been scaled back, for now at least — but aggressive nationalism in multiple locations is at least one potential outcome of the crisis.
What is clear across the board is that almost every nation has looked to seal its borders against population moves from the outside world — and that in many cases, the virus has also exacerbated pre-existing racism and xenophobia.
Simultaneously, and paradoxically, nations such as Serbia have also become more aware of their dependence on the outside world, for economic and basic human needs.
That points to a much larger paradox from this crisis. In some respects, the global system has proved much more vulnerable than many anticipated.
However, in other ways, it is demonstrating impressive levels of resilience. For all the economic shock of hundreds of millions of people ceasing travel and working from home, food supplies and particularly communications are broadly holding up.
Huge swathes of the planet are locked down, but people are still talking to each other with relative ease.
What is happening is a challenge for globalization on a scale not previously seen — as well as an experience being simultaneously shared across the planet in ways that are at least equally unusual.
Who wins and loses from that is a very open question, but what is clear is that those contests are already under way.
Peter Apps, a former Reuters reporter who is now a columnist for the agency, writes on international affairs, globalization, conflict and other issues. He is founder and executive director of the Project for Study of the 21st Century, a non-national, non-partisan, non-ideological think tank. The opinions expressed here are those of the author.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.