*After the end of the unipolar moment, larger and smaller powers are vying for the best positions in the new world order. *
Market access, infrastructure projects, trade agreements, energy supplies and technology transfers are more and more being evaluated from a geopolitical point of view. Companies are increasingly faced with the decision of choosing one IT infrastructure, one market and one currency system over the other . The major economies may not decouple from each other across the board, but diversification (‘not all eggs in one basket’) is gaining momentum, especially in the high-tech sector. As this develops, we cannot rule out the possibility that economic blocs will form.
The supply chain disruption has resulted in countries reorganizing their supply chains. It remains to be seen whether this is purely for economic or logistical reasons (re-shoring or near-shoring), or whether geopolitical motives also play a role (friend-shoring).
The article talks about China’s metamorphosis that is partially driving US economic warfare upon China. A shift from totally relying on export to a greater emphasis on internal consumption. Opening of new markets with its "Silk Road"Initiative plus new raw material access.
But it is not just China. Generally, for all of Asia as the new centre of the world economy, these geoeconomic disruptions are tantamount to a tsunami. And the disruptions could hit developing countries particularly hard. Whether they are being cut from global supply chains for the sake of resilience or due to geopolitical factors, this brings equally devastating results. Of course, some economies are hoping to benefit from the diversification strategies of developed countries (i.e. the ‘China plus one’ strategy).
AI & automation enters the fray making foreign cheap labor less important on manufacturing.
In this economic turmoil value-based foreign policy may be affected & even ignored. in the Global South, there is already a great deal of distrust towards the existing world order. In reality, according to some, this amounts to the creation of the old and new colonial powers, whose supposedly universal norms do not apply to everyone but are instead violated at will by the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Hey! The US can do its international meddling because no other power would DARE oppose us. WE will continue to do so with wrong or fake reasons as it fit into our leader’s strategic vision…even though such interventions results in death, mayhem and poor results.
The future of humanity will be decided on a battlefield in Ukraine. That’s no exaggeration. The conflict between the United States and Russia will determine whether global economic integration will expand within an evolving multi-polar system or if the “rules-based order” will succeed in crushing any opponent to its Western-centric model. This is what’s taking place in Ukraine today, in fact, all of the recent government-prepared documents related to national security identify Russia and China as the greatest threats to US hegemony. For example, take a look at this brief clip from the 2021 Congressional Research Service Report titled Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress:
The U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia… is a policy choice reflecting two judgments: (1) that given the amount of people, resources, and economic activity in Eurasia, a regional hegemon in Eurasia would represent a concentration of power large enough to be able to threaten vital U.S. interests….
From a U.S. perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted thatmost of the world’s people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia.In response to this basic feature of world geography, U.S. policymakers for the last several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element ofU.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia.”
Bottom line: The war in Ukraine is not about Ukraine.America’s clearly articulated strategic objectives are as follows: To weaken Russia, topple its leader, take control of its vast natural resources and move on to containing China.Simply put, Washington’s escalating aggression in Ukraine is a Hail Mary pass aimed at containing emerging centers of economic power in order to preserve its waning position in the global order.
And what did the US do to create the China "problem?
Did the US and western corporations move their operations en masse to China to escape the high costs of production in the US? And, did they betray US workers because they didn’t want a fair wage to interfere with their excessive profit-making? And, did they offshore their businesses, outsource their product manufacturing and do everything in their power to make themselves winners while robbing American workers of the opportunity of making a decent wage so they could put food on the table? Wasn’t the movement of factories to China a natural progression of NAFTA? So the US government created the China “problem”. This is a prime example of US elites failure of long term strategic thinking & planning.
Not really. Corporations chase profits worldwide, not just in the US. They produce wherever it is most reasonable to do so. As they are chasing worldwide profits, they go where there is a profit to be made. In general, the US is a low-turnover country in terms of buying many manufactured goods because the expected useful life of many items is years. So, no need to replace stuff often. However, in lesser-developed areas, the population does not have newer things because they either have not been available or they could not afford them. With a growing population with money to spend (key point), these areas are relatively high volume sales areas–so the companies all want to sell there. There is more profit in those areas than in the US. So, the companies are there to chase profits available in new/rapidly-growing areas of the world.
According to the Agreement on the NDB, “the Bank shall support public or private projects through loans, guarantees, equity participation and other financial instruments.” Moreover, the NDB “shall cooperate with international organizations and other financial entities, and provide technical assistance for projects to be supported by the Bank.”
On 27 February 2016, the NDB signed Headquarters Agreement with the Government of the P.R.C. and the Memorandum of Understanding with Shanghai Municipal People’s Government concerning the arrangements in relation to Headquarters of the bank in Shanghai.
The NDB received AA+ credit ratings from S&P Global Ratings (S&P) and Fitch Ratings (Fitch) in August 2018, which enables the bank to offer full suite of financial products to its public and private sector clients.