Arts, Books, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Book Review: The Great Convergence

the-great-convergence

BOOK REVIEW

Intro: Globalisation has developed in waves. First it was free movement of goods, then ideas. The free exchange of people will be the hard part and likely to be problematic.

FORMER US President Bill Clinton once referred to globalisation as “the economic equivalent of a force of nature, like wind or water”. The concept, which has had a major impact on world trade and markets, pushes countries to specialise and swap. Such a force of inertia makes countries richer, but one in which the world becomes smaller. In this book “The Great Convergence”, by Richard Baldwin, the author, a Geneva-based economist, adds an important caveat.  Like wind and water, he argues, globalisation is powerful, but can be inconstant or even destructive. True. How often have we heard and witnessed the erosion of local markets to the price-dominance of globalisation? Unless beloved nations catch up with reality, politicians will be pushed to make grave mistakes.

In an economist’s ideal world, things, ideas and people would flow freely across borders. Reality is less pragmatic, stickier, and often far less mobile in terms of movement. Historically, constraints on trade once bundled consumption and production together, limiting its growth.

Mr Baldwin’s grand theory of globalisation is of a series of unbundlings, driven by sequential collapses in the cost of moving things and ideas across cyberspace. From the domestication of the camel around 1,000 BC to the first commercial steam engine in 1712, the first great wave of globalisation unbundled production and consumption. From 1820, prices in Britain were set by international demand, and consumers were offered an increasing range in diversity of goods and services. Café goers, for example, could sip Chinese tea sweetened with Jamaican sugar.

Although moving goods became cheap, it wasn’t until the end of the 20th century that expensive prices for moving ideas became more affordable for most. Mr Baldwin invites readers born in the mid-1960s to remember the price of making an international call at $5 a minute, or the $50 price of sending a single document by an overnight courier. Industries clustered by default. The centres of economic activity emerged in those countries we now know as the G7. In this form of globalisation, national groupings of ideas and workers battled for market share, and became richer in the process. Mr Baldwin uses the analogy of two sports teams swapping players to improve their performance.

Since the 1990s, however, globalisation has changed radically. The internet has lifted the cost of moving ideas, and fuelled a second unbundling. Because co-ordinating international production is now much cheaper, faster and safer, supply chains are afforded the enormous benefit of ignoring borders to go sprawling across the world. Thus, a Canadian aeroplane-maker can direct a team of Mexican engineers. Apple can combine American design with Chinese assembly lines. With many products made everywhere, trade has become, in effect, denationalised.

The pace and speed of change and the now modern ease with which rich-world companies can outsource work have eliminated the old boundaries around knowledge. But in doing so has created a new, more unsettling trade landscape. Once, textile-mill workers in South Carolina had exclusive access to American technology. Although some may suggest that they have lost out to competition from Mexican workers, more accurately they face an altogether more formidable competitor: Mexican workers have been made more productive by American know-how.

Continuing the sports analogy, Mr Baldwin implies that today’s trade is like the coach of a top team being allowed to offer his services to those less successful. The coach gets rich from the double market for his services, while the better team gets a sudden surprise from the newly skilled competition. Mr Baldwin makes the inference that discontent with globalisation stems in part from an “ill-defined sense that it is no longer a sport for national teams”. The sporting parallels offered by the author are well placed and provides the reader with an insightful grasp of the magnitude of issues that globalisation encompasses.

Raising tariffs to placate or appease voters in protecting its national goods and services is a mechanism and tool best suited to the 19th or 20th century, not one that should be utilised in tackling 21st century globalisation. Given the new world of global logistical supply chains, a tariff is like erecting a wall in the middle of a factory. Mr Baldwin’s 21st-century policies involve setting common rules and standards to make companies feel secure that their supply chains will work. These are the goals of trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or Britain’s membership of the European Union’s custom union – both of which are under threat. He says little on how to win over disgruntled voters, save a few lines on support for workers rather than jobs, and a vague plea that gains should be shared between winners and losers.

Critical also of the author is that he appears too sanguine about the politics of globalisation. A bright and rosy vision of the future imagines globalisation totally unshackled from its third constraint, as labour will invariably become replaced with robots and people being more routinely allowed to offer their services remotely.

–     The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalisation, by Richard Baldwin, is published by Belknap at $29.95 and £22.95.

Standard
Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

The tragic fate of Aleppo and the many lessons

WAR IN SYRIA

aleppo

Syrians walk through the former rebel-held Zebdiye district in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo on December 23, 2016.

Intro: The real victory, however, belongs to Russia, which has become another force to be reckoned with in the Middle East

SOME CITIES have made history by being destroyed. Grozny, Dresden and Guernica, for instance, were reduced to rubble in the face of a massive onslaught. Aleppo, once Syria’s largest metropolis, will soon join their ranks. The city is on the verge of annihilation. Its 1,000-year-old Muslim heritage has turned to dust; Russian aircraft have targeted its hospitals and schools; its citizens have been under constant bombardment ever since Mr Putin lent his weight to Bashar al-Assad’s cause, many of whom have been starved and gassed. Nobody knows for sure how many of the tens of thousands who remain in the last Sunni Arab enclave will perish inside the ruins where they are sheltering. But even if they receive the safe passage they have been promised from the United Nations, their four-year deal in Aleppo has blown apart the principle that innocent people should be spared the ravages of war. Rather, a noxious and fiercely unpleasant and brutish reality has taken hold – and it threatens a more dangerous and unstable world.

To be insightful or to gauge the depth of Aleppo’s tragedy, we should return first to the initial protests in 2011 against Syria’s president. Many Sunnis marched cheerfully alongside Shias, Christians and Kurds. From the start, with extensive help from Iran, Assad set out to destroy the scope for peaceful resistance by using violence and intimidation to radicalise his people. Early on, his iniquitous claim that all rebels were “terrorists” was brazen.

There were turning points in this war when the West might have stepped in. It could have established a no-fly-zone, say, or provided a haven by which civilians could shelter. It might even have offered a full-scale programme of arming the rebels. But, paralysed by the legacy of military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the West held back. As the fighting escalated into entrenched internecine warfare, the need for Western intervention grew, month by bloody month. The West may offer reasons as to why it refrained from becoming involved, such as how the risk and complexity of intervening grew faster by the week. As Syria’s tyrant was about to topple, Russia joined the fray, acting without conscience and to devastating effect. Mr Putin’s deliberate and timely act of helping with military force strengthened and recalibrated Assad’s hand once more. Aleppo’s fall is proof that Assad has prevailed and of Iran’s influence. The real victory, however, belongs to Russia, which has become another force to be reckoned with in the Middle East.

Similarly, the defeat is not just a striking blow to Assad’s opponents, but also to the Western conviction, particularly in foreign affairs, that values matter as well as interests. After the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, when Tutsis were slaughtered as the world turned its back, countries recognised that they have a duty to constrain brute force. When the UN accepted responsibility to protect the victims of war crimes, wherever they might be, conventions against the use of chemical weapons and the reckless killing of civilians took on a new relevance. The desire to then promote freedom and democracy was not far behind.

****

This notion of liberal intervention has suffered grievously. The U.S.-led campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq has clearly demonstrated that not even the powerfullest country in history can impose democracy by force alone. The tragedy of Aleppo maybe less conspicuous, but the battle there is just as significant. Directly confronted with the Syrian president’s atrocities, the West has done no more than offering rephrased diplomatic utterances. By failing to stand up for what it is supposed to believe in, it has shown that its values are just words, and ones that can be ignored with impunity.

Plenty of others are culpable of blame. After Assad drenched his people in nerve gas, crossing an ‘American red line’, Britain’s parliament voted against taking even limited military action. As millions of displaced people fled to the borders that Syria shares with its neighbours – including Lebanon and Jordan – most European countries looked the other way. Barriers were put up by many EU countries to stem the tide of refugees.

Blame might also be attributed to Barack Obama. America has treated Syria as a trap to be avoided. The self-satisfied and priggish prediction by Washington that Russia would be bogged down in a ‘quagmire’ there has proved a historic misjudgement. It has been noticeable that, throughout Mr Obama’s presidency, the U.S. has sought to move the world from a system where America often acted alone to defend its values, with a few countries like Britain acting in concert, to one where the job of protecting international norms fell to all countries – because everyone benefited from the rules. Aleppo is a measure of how that policy has failed. Yet, as America has stepped back, the vacuum has been filled not by responsible countries that support the status quo, but by the likes of Russia and Iran which perceives the promotion of Western values as an insidious plot to bring about regime change in Moscow and Tehran.

The next American president could seek to reverse this. The difficulty, though, is that liberal intervention is not a stance likely to be supported by Donald Trump. Mr Trump’s appointment of Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, as his secretary of state, reinforces the point of his campaign message that will dishearten many – of notching up deals, not shoring up values.

****

Striking deals is an essential part of diplomacy, especially with adversaries like Russia and Iran and competitors like China. Any foreign policy that lurches from deal to deal without a coherent strategy or of being anchored in values poses grave risks. Allies might become bargaining chips. Mr Trump has already stoked the flames by offering his support for democratic Taiwan as something to be traded in exchange for helping to cut America’s trade deficit with China. Beijing has declared Taiwan as a renegade province. Any grand bargain, too, that Mr Tillerson brokers with his friends in Russia which might result in American troops being pulled back from NATO’s front-line states in exchange for concerted diplomatic action against Iran or China would leave the Baltic States exposed to Russian aggression. One of America’s great strengths is its unparalleled network of alliances. Mr Trump must treat his allies with care, not freely trade them away.

Any emerging new order that is based purely on deals also risks being unpredictable and unstable. If Mr Trump fails to strike his much-anticipated deal with Russia, the two countries could rapidly fall out. In such an eventuality, never would Mr Obama’s cool and rational head be more missed. When might is right, small countries tend to be locked out or are forced to accept poor and meagre terms while the great powers of the world strut their stuff. Without a proper framework to bind them in, deals require frequent renegotiation, with uncertain outcomes. Complex, trans-border issues such as climate change become even harder to solve.

The world is witnessing what happens when values cannot hold back the chaos and anarchy of geopolitics. Aleppo has been abandoned in tragic circumstances amid the fighting which has been merciless. The people who have suffered the most at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are the poor and the innocent.

Standard