Consensus or Conflict?

Many times, history shows that pandemics kill millions and disrupt economic activity and linkages on a global level. COVID-19 will not be the end of globalization or global governance, but, policymakers seem to develop a convenient case of amnesia about the role of globalization as a transmission belt for a whole variety of threats, such as, pandemics, drug trafficking, people smuggling, money laundering, and environmental degradation. It likely that COVID-19 will further push the world beyond the US-dominated rules-based world order, and usher in a more pluralistic multiplex world. The concept of a multiplex world offers a window into how the emerging world order is likely to take form in the coming decade. This trend toward a multiplex world was already under way well before COVID-19. A multiplex would not be managed or lead by a single power or group, but formed through a G20 plus world where its main players would not be just big powers or nation-states but also institutions, corporations, and networks, operating at multiple and intersecting levels. In such a world order, the nature of threats would be increasingly transnational. These transnational perils would be beyond the ability of any single nation to address and defeat. There is now an opportunity to rethink and reinvent globalization and global governance to fit this new reality.

The challenges of an interconnected globalized world are more wide reaching than ever. They include the growing need to tackle climate change, the spread of extremism, the threat of natural disasters, future pandemics, world cyber-attacks and the fallout from conflict. These issues mean there is a need for a global one-stop-shop disaster relief unit, which should be formed under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). This UN global disaster relief unit needs the authority and capacity to help any country around the world—to be able to provide physical help, advance warning and post-disaster management. There is much to be learned from case studies—such as the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, which was the worst in Asia for decades. In another vein, outdated Bretton Woods institutions must be dealt with as they were created for global needs of a world shattered by World War II. These institutions are the multilateral organizations—the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—and they must be restructured for realities of the revolutionary digital and biosphere age. Crucially, there must be a focus on generating inclusive, equitable growth—something the global technological revolution makes more attainable than before.

The system of liberal US hegemony set up after World War II had very beneficial effects for Western Europe, Japan and some other countries. During this period of Pax Americana, there was no direct great power hot war and prosperity in many countries soared. The peaceful environment in Asia and open trading system in Asia and the open world trading system was also fundamental to China’s economic rise over the last 40 years. But, it should not be forgotten that this US-led international order was crafted as a military-strategic counter to the Soviet Union, which was labeled as an evil enemy. The rise of China poses a key challenge to US-dominance in that China’s economy is a rival to the US economy in a way that the Soviet economy never was. China’s increasing military capabilities also limit the ability of US forces to project power easily in Asia. Nothing in the history or military doctrine of the US suggests that it will recognize that it has few real interests in the region and thus adopt a policy of restraint. More likely, we are entering a dangerous period in which the US focuses on economically and strategically constraining China.

PublicBrown, Kerry perceptionsUK, The about China on social media outside of China often resemble a field of battle, but in words. Some users and groups produce endless statements bolstering their conviction that China is the epitome of wickedness. Others push out equivalent amounts that look remarkably like Chinese propaganda saying nothing but good things about the People’s Republic. The crucial space for neutrality seems to be closing down. This acknowledges, both for the US and EUEuropean Union (EU), the acceptance that a radical difference in viewpoints on China has to proceed alongside a similarly crucial admission that it would be self-defeating not to work with China. Comprehensive dis-engagement with China is not an option. Whatever the problems with China, those involving human impact on the environment causing climate changeClimate change and combating global public health issues are far more serious. The first poses, in the longer term, an existential threat to humanity. The stark reality is that a solution to this issue will not happen without partners like China, and it is likely that China will be a huge part of whatever ultimate solution must be found.

LivingHe, Yafei inForeign Affairs a period of historic transition, countries around the world need to rethink their own position and that of their counterparts in the context of the world as a whole. As this pandemic continues to disrupt the world order, it will play a crucial role in global history, marking a change in the “rules-based world order.” There are four major points that should guide the course of developing a new world order. First, is to be vigilant against the pitfalls of the zero-sum geopolitical game, and to avoid any form of cold or hot war. Second, is to staunchly defend economic globalizationGlobalisation and free tradeFree trade, and oppose protectionism while carrying out reforms to institutions like the WTOWorld Trade Organisation, The (WTO). Third, is to take global poverty alleviationGlobal poverty alleviation and poverty relief seriously, making concerted efforts to bridge North–South gaps. Fourth. is to restore the spirit of mutual assistanceMutual assistance in the face of common threats and a sense of community with a shared future for humanity facing common existential crises. Under the threat of a raging pandemic, climate changeClimate change, cybersecurity risks, collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and the grain crisis, there is no more important, pressing challenge than preserving the environment for human existence.

ThisKawai, Masahiro essay provides an analysis of global economic governanceGlobal economic governance from a Japanese perspective. There is an analysis of the “rules based world order” in the context of changing trends, such as the relative decline of the US economy and a rapid rise of the Chinaese economy. The essay focuses on the state of global economic governance from the perspectives of international forums—such as the G7G7 G20, Theand the G20 - and international organizations such as the IMFInternational Monetary Fund, The (IMF), World BankWorld Bank, The and the WTOWorld Trade Organisation, The (WTO) It tackles key questions: Can the international community build a new rules-based, liberal, multilateral economic governance order? If so, what needs to be done and what role can JapanJapan play as a strong supporter of such an order? How can Japan work with China for this purpose? The essay argues that Japan can play a major role in addressing such challenges. It also urges Japan to work with not only the US and the EUEuropean Union (EU) but also China and other major emerging economies in order to reform the WTO, and put it back on the center stage of global rule-making for twenty-first-century trade and investment.

Global governance trends from an East European perspective are the focal point of this analysis. The study suggests that in the future, none of the world’s great problems can be solved without China. Irreversible globalization requires proper reinstitutionalization of global governance, which cannot happen without China’s active participation. Understanding China will be key. The author coined the term 'Chinism' to advance understanding and he defines Chinism as a syncretic economic system based on multiple forms of ownership with strong macroeconomic policies and limited government control. Under this system, deregulation is subordinated to maintaining enterprises’ activities on a course that is in line with the social and political goals set by the Communist Party of China. The policy of the government and the central bank, and to a lesser extent local authorities, use classic instruments of market intervention. At the same time, Chinism has helped eliminate shortages and effectively keeps price inflation in check. This is a feat none of the former models of state socialism, including the Soviet Union and CEE economies, were able to accomplish, which was the main reason behind their economic and, consequently, political demise.

Some scholars call it the world legal economic order, while others describe it as the ‘rules-based’ global order. This essay contends that the world urgently needs a new economic order. While the world cannot, and should not, revolutionize the system that is currently in place, it does need to consider how it should be reorganized and subsequently replaced by a new order. It is essential that a new order serves not only the established world powers but a greater number of the newly emerging economies and nations. The development of this new order must ensure that it is representative of a world that is markedly different from the post Second World War ‘legal economic order’. Those creating the new order are dealing with new challenges that could not even be imagined at the end of the Second World War. Humanity now inhabits a world that is more interconnected, more interdependent and, in a word, more ‘global’. This connectivity is part and parcel of the process of globalization, which at this point cannot be avoided. China and other emerging powers will be greater contributors to the process of globalization if they follow fundamental principles that benefit all of mankind.

There is a need to find new mechanisms that will allow nations and civilisations to cooperate better on specific issues despite their ideological differences. The current crisis is global and systemic in nature. On the one hand, this is an inevitable result of globalisation. On the other hand, it is a result of defects in the existing economic model and global political system. In the context of the global order and governance crisis, the roles and responsibilities of states are strengthening and a new type of global leadership is required. The emergence of a global threat, or catastrophe, should motivate states to put aside ideological differences and economic and political competition in search of a joint solution in the name of survival of human civilisation. The most recent threat has been the danger of new diseases in the form of global pandemics. To combat such threats effectively, we need to cooperate within the paradigm of “a community for the shared future of mankind” that combines the positive human potential of diverse civilisational identities, state structures, social and economic features, as well as cultural and historical diversity. By working together, we can bring order to the existing global disorder and find a way to secure the greater prosperity of humanity.

Maintaining political order and governance on a global level should be centered on the United Nations, follow the principles in the UN charter and be supported by the IMF, World Bank and WTO. The role of China could potentially be key in global recovery as mankind conquers COVID-19. China’s ability to keep the virus under control, restart its economy and maintain growth, while, as of early 2021, much of the rest of the world continued to flounder, positions China as a driver for future economic development and trade growth. The importance of multilateral governance systems in the resolution of COVID-19 cannot be overstated. This is especially true of the G20 system. The G20 has the ability to mobilize the resources of the most influential and powerful countries in the world. G20 members, potentially in concert with China, have the power to put the world back on a path of multilateralism that emphasizes cooperation and consensus. COVID-19 transcends borders, nationalities and political systems. All nations must put aside pride and biases and replace them with more mutual respect, exchange suspicion for understanding and accusations with action. If nations are united, mankind can overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and work toward the continued development of economies and better manage the global community.

In the first half of the twentieth century, in the absence of effective global governance mechanisms, unchecked forces of fragmentation, economic hardship, and polarization led to two devastating world wars. To prevent this from happening again, after the Second World War, countries from around the world came together at Bretton Woods and other landmark conferences to build a new system of global governance that would promote international cooperation, stability, and peace and prosperity. Today, like after the Second World War, the world faces major challenges, not only in the short term to recover from the pandemic but also in the long term to overcome global threats like climate change, which no country can solve alone. As we emerge from COVID-19, there is a unique opportunity for a long-overdue “Bretton Woods 2.0” moment to rethink global governance and forge multilateral institutions that better reflect the realities of the post-pandemic world. China can, and should, help lead by supporting the update and strengthening of existing institutions. For example, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank should be transformed into the Global Infrastructure Investment Bank. Overall, China should be drawing on its knowledge as the longest continuous civilization in the world and using these strengths to propose its own solutions to pressing global issues.

Nearly 160 years ago, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded. Together with the Red Crescent Movement, both have wanted to combine mitigating measures for victims with respect for norms, principles and policies protecting civilians. All the signs today point to global chronic instability. This is driven by unresolved global and regional power competition; fragmentation and proliferation of nations; marginalization and stigmatization of populations in the aftermath of wars and slow, or non-existent, post-war reconstruction. In early 2021 the ICRC has identified around 90 ongoing armed conflicts. There is an urgent need to build on the experiences of the past few decades and forge innovative responses: (1) Putting human security at the center of our concerns and reconciling humanitarian, security, stability and peace-building agendas. (2) Engaging in quiet but robust dialogue with the armed actors of today’s conflicts. (3) Identifying humanitarian issues that can build minimal trust between the parties to break cycles of violence. And (4) striving for new forms of diverse partnerships to find a way through political stalemates. When discussing the political, security and strategic issues of concern to the world, it is urgent to keep human security as our focus. Without human security, we risk chronic instability and cycles of violence without end.

Public health and its management have come into very sharp focus due to COVID-19. In this analysis the writer suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has taught the world both the vulnerability and power of the human community. The power is symbolised by the creation of vaccines in a fraction of the time that was the norm before 2020. This essay also describes three major lessons that may have important implications for better protecting global public health security today and tomorrow. Any open-minded analysis, and serious reflection, on the world’s responses to COVID-19 should draw these vital conclusions. In order for the world to stand a better chance of preventing the next public health emergency, such as a new pandemic, all nations must learn how to work together and in the most effective manner. This must include important issues such as reforms of international health regulations and updating of international organisational structures. It also means we must learn how to strengthen (not weaken) multilateral mechanisms such as the UN and the WHO. Of course, any new cooperative spirit must be built on the keen recognition that we are really in this together. That realisation must be extended to how mankind interacts with all-natural life in our shared home—the Earth.

COVID-19 has exposed deep weakness in the governance of global health. Lessons can be learned for the reform of global public health from the ‘Global Review Into Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)’ that was created by Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK in 2014. The core problem of AMR is both a supply and demand problem. From a supply perspective, there is a lack of development of new useful antimicrobials. Fundamentally, the financial returns are not perceived to be suitably high for complex path of bringing new antibiotics to market. From a demand perspective, modern society has an excessive use of existing antibiotics, which is causing many of them to lose their ability to work as the microbes adapt and mutate to evade the effectiveness of treatments. The abuse is not just in humans. In many parts of the world, most definitely within the US, the use of antibiotics in animals is higher than in humans. If a solution to antibiotic abuse cannot be found, then by 2050, there could be as many as 10 million people a year dying from AMR-related illnesses. The COVID-19 pandemic has proved that there are massive economic and financial costs from global health threats when not met by fast robust actions.

Chinese ‘people to people’ links as an international strategy are deeply embedded in Chinese culture. Facilitating bonds between countries begins by creating connections between people. This essay describes the compelling need for nations and China to come together for mutual benefit to consider the economic and institutional frameworks that will make this possible. Case studies citing the value of links in science between UK and China are given here, but in this process, high priority must be given to building personal relationships. Personal experiences can demolish so many of the simplistic notions held by non-Chinese people about China. Often outside of China, Chinese stereotypes are mostly drawn from films and photographs of the old China—think Bruce Lee, the land of the bicycle and pastoral images of rice paddies farmed by hand. Through personal relations, visitors to China can discover a developing nation made up of millions of families keen to embrace technology and a better life for their children. China has opened up, and with it has a sense of possibility of trade, exchange and shared scholarship. Yet without a greater comprehension of China, its history and its language, any understanding of the world is incomplete.

A lesser known aspect of globalization has been the creation of a network of transnational universities. In this essay, there is an analysis for their value. Intellectual curiosity, academic freedom, and a radical openness to people who hold different worldviews—those norms are vital to humanity’s efforts to meet challenges like infectious disease, climate change, and social injustice. It is vital that governments work together to recognize the benefits that follow when they refrain from trying as governments to micromanage university life. Governments are right to punish spies and thieves, people who steal military technologies, and people who hack into businesses. But they are wrong to criminalize scholars’ normal contributions to, and withdrawals from, the global intellectual commons. Even more, governments must affirmatively encourage their citizens, who travel abroad as students and professors, to honor the norms of the university that is hosting them. I hope they will encourage their citizens to encounter other cultures with humility, recognizing that universal norms can express themselves in a wide variety of ways. If we are fortunate, the story of China and globalization in the year 2021 will feature the emergence of a stronger global consensus in support of the unique mission of transnational research universities.

Throughout the twentieth century think tanks stood at the forefront of academic work examining global developments, collecting and analyzing information to provide important insights that form and guide policy- and decision-making. However, the general trend of globalization, as well as digitalization, informatization, and changes in how information is obtained and consumed, has placed think tanks at a disadvantage. These trends are undermining the authoritative position of think tanks and requiring them to find new and innovative ways to present information so that they remain relevant in today’s world. Think tanks are uniquely equipped to provide policy suggestions that governments and business need to make correct and effective decisions. However, crises like COVID-19 also present new obstacles for think tanks in terms of how to communicate information and promote engagement to ensure that they remain relevant and valuable. Over the last decade, forces have redefined the strategy and structure of many think tanks. This momentum is primarily driven by changes in politics, how think tanks are funded, and advances in technology and communications. During this period, there have been five key trends originating in the fourth industrial revolution that will transform jobs and lives over the next 10 years.

A compelling case can be made that talent migration makes a very significant contribution to global economic development, but the global governance of talent migration has been sorely neglected compared to other economic sectors such as international trade and finance. This essay makes the case for the value of creating a new global infrastructure for talent migration. The focus of this new agency would be on the optimal management of talent migration to realize its great potential for the mutual benefit of all mankind. Global migration, especially of highly skilled talent, has pushed forward scientific and technological discoveries. However, many existing challenges impede global talent migration. Meanwhile, the world economy has reached a critical point in which many major economies with aging populations and declining birth rates might lose the engines that drive economic development. Competition for talent has become increasingly fierce and the accumulation, or loss, of talent can have a significant impact on the balance of power in international relations. In the short term, the physical mobility of international talent has been limited by COVID-19. In the long term the frequency of online intellectual mobility provides an alternative way to replace physical international mobility.

Story telling lies at the heart of both Chinese and British cultures. Stories impart truths which academic rigorous texts might not achieve. This essay uses the Chinese ‘Willow Pattern story’ that is deeply embedded in British culture as an example of the importance of ‘people to people’ exchange. This is also a study of the value of links between Chinese and British schools. It is impossible to quantify quite how formative exposure to another country early on in someone’s life can be. But it seems that it can only be formative. Four reasons present themselves for prioritising educational links between nations. Where divides exist in the world, be they ideological, religious or ethnic, those on both sides, and especially the young, need all the more urgently, opportunities to meet each other. The deeper the divide between China and Britain becomes in the 2020s, the greater the need for schools to cooperate. The shared history between China and Britain is a second reason. Both China and UK have much to learn from each other, is a third reason. Finally, China is predicted to become the world’s biggest economy within a decade. It is folly not to find ways of trading more with it, and befriending it, for all the difficulties and differences of opinion.

Data governance and the management of global digital data flows pose immense challenges for global governance. International digital data agreements must be embedded in revisions of the global “rules based” order that emerged out of Bretton Woods in the aftermath of World War II to manage global economic issues. In that spirit, the countries that value a rules-based global digital economy need to come together to enact new global data management rules. It is becoming more and more critical to treat data as the key driver of today’s global economy. Creating new rules will require policymakers to alter their current approaches, which have led to a stalemate in making progress on frameworks for the global internet. China should revise its restrictive approach so that it can play a more constructive role in debates and negotiations between like-minded countries. On China and internet rules, if the Chinese Government retains its restrictive approach to data, AI, and digital trade, it will increasingly find itself excluded or marginalized in global discussions on digital issues. Many other countries see the Chinese approach as far from the baseline of emerging global norms and as self-serving for China from a trade perspective.

This analysis exposes how the current revolution in the digital and biospheres creates threats to national sovereignty in new ways. The view of sovereignty built on military strength is outdated. Sovereignty of a nation is defined as the “supreme authority in a territory”, but it is better understood by examining the freedom from one-sided dependencies and military or economic coercion. In the past, sovereignty was mainly associated with military dependency and the resulting coercion by foreign states. This has changed with the rise of technology and its importance to the economy. Dependence on critical technologies can lead to economic coercion by states and large companies which are as effective as the military one. In the future, every nation or group of nations must ask itself three questions: Do we have control over critical technologies? If not, do we have access to critical technologies from a number of independent countries? If still not, do we have guaranteed, unfettered, long-term (more than 5 years) access to monopoly or oligopoly suppliers of a single country (Typically this will be the US or China)? If the answer to all three questions is no, then that nation is open to economic coercion that is no less severe than the military coercion of yesteryear.

This essay provides an analysis of the Internet of Things. The facts provided differ greatly from the opinions that dominate media both inside and outside of China. The Internet of Things needs to be considered in terms of not just a single part of the architecture, but rather, in terms of the comprehensive structure of global data transmission, storage and analysis. Huawei has a significant role within one segment of that structure. However, within the whole structure, Huawei has a small role in the Internet of Things. So far, the entire structure of the Internet of Things is dominated by firms from high-income countries, especially the US. Three super-large firms—Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet-Google—have leveraged their dominant position to establish an early lead in cloud computing software and services. These three behemoths account for 38% of the total R&D spending and 34% of the net sales revenue for the 321 firms in the G2500 ICT software and services sector. Collectively, they account for almost 60% of global revenue from software services for the public cloud. Huawei is China’s only high technology company with a significant global market share outside China.

The twenty-first century represents a new, dynamic period in world history in terms of the conduct of international science and technology (S&T) affairs. It is a “new era of science diplomacy”. The ability of science diplomacy to thrive has been aided by the onset of globalization. Globalization has enabled the almost unhindered movement of people, products and services, and knowledge across borders. Clearly, China has been a major beneficiary of globalization, utilizing access to the world’s leading corporations, best universities, most dynamic research institutes, and government and non-governmental international organizations and scholarly bodies as a way to support and advance its own modernization efforts. For most of the last 40 years, China has had increasingly unencumbered access to these critical repositories of know-how and information, though Chinese leaders also have felt steadily more and more anxious about the degree to which the openness of the world economy would continue to work in China’s favor. This essay analyzes China’s evolving strategy, policies, and practices regarding its international S&T relations, with special emphasis on the US–China relationship. The essay also highlights China’s strategic posture and footprint in terms of its goal of becoming a player of growing influence in the shaping of international S&T affairs.

This essay is built on three assumptions. Assumption one is that the American led “rules-based world order” is waning. Assumption two is that the world is witnessing an accompanying trend towards a growing geo-political bifurcation in two distinct global political ecologies; one under US suzerainty and the other under Chinese suzerainty. This essay proposes that Chinese suzerainty is not inevitable. Other major players must be engaged in this process and the European Union must be among them. Assumption three is that it is essential to block the drift towards a bi-polar world. That means that European Union foreign policy efforts must take a much more proactive and strategic role in revising the American led “rules-based” world order. To-date, Europe is struggling to develop a coherent position towards these challenges. This paper suggests the idea that the EU Commission should be (i) a “geopolitical commission” operating in an increasingly geo-political world and (ii) a continued the commitment of the EU to the values of multilateralism and cooperative, collective action problem-solving. While not necessarily contradictory, these are messages that do not normally sit easily together.

This essay contends that it is in the US interest to become fully engaged in the Asian economic landscape. Twenty years ago, Asia accounted for less than a third of global output. Twenty years from now, Asia will account for more than half the world’s total economy. Today, Asia is home to a burgeoning middle class and and a growing and dynamic market to many of the countries and companies that will shape the global economy for years to come. As most countries in the region have moved to put in place extensive trade agreements, including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and numerous bilateral and sectoral agreements, the US has substantially withdrawn from participating. Since the US exit from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017, there has been a steady march of new trade agreements across the Asia–Pacific region that do not include the United States. If this trend continues, there is a serious danger that the US will miss its window of opportunity to shape trade rules and norms within the largest and most rapidly growing region in the world.

The book called When China Rules The World was published in 2009. In this essay, the author updates his original statements based on his thoughts in the 12 years since publication. Great stress is placed on his belief that China and its governance system are little understood by the world outside of China. In particular, the author stresses how scholars deeply mislead the world with studies that attempt to compare the communism of the Soviet Union with the communism of China. There is a special focus on the Communist Party of China and how it has continually adapted to changes in the world. The latest change triggered by COVID-19 has increased awareness of how China is leading the world in economic development and innovation. This acceleration is described as the ‘great transition’, which was in turn also caused by a ‘test of governance’ forced by COVID-19. In that test, China scored well, while the EU and US failed. The evidence is in how the Chinese economy was able to achieve an annual growth rate of 6% by early 2021, while EU nations and the US were still struggling to control the pandemic.

At the heart of Southeast Asia is Singapore, a global center for finance and technology. This essay delivers an analysis of the future of the world from an Asian perspective. The analysis stresses core trends: first, imagination and creativity will be crucial as the world changes faster and faster. Technologies from AI to gene therapy are evolving at revolutionary speeds and are colliding in novel and unexpected ways. Second, complexity must be embraced. The chain reactions across economics, geopolitics, climate, and demographics make a mockery of linear projections. Asia represents more than half the world population and nearly fifty percent of global GDP in PPP terms. Coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, only Asia will grow beyond pre-COVID levels in the immediate aftermath. This means the world will become ever more shaped by Asia. But what will the Asian world look like? Can Asians embrace a cartographic pragmatism similar to what they have achieved in the economic and social spheres? What can be done to resolve Asia’s numerous legacy conflicts? What strategies might lead both to conflict resolution as well as to building a new and more stable Asian equilibrium?

Globalization has done more to improve the human condition over the past few decades than any other force in human history. Yet, many are predicting its imminent demise, especially in the West. This essay analyzes this paradox. The West has made three strategic mistakes in its management of globalization, the majority of which have been made by the US. These have been compounded by the failure of the second most powerful Western economic force, the European Union, to help and guide the US. The first mistake was made by the elites, the top 1% in the US. They reaped huge rewards from globalization, but they failed to help the bottom 50% in the US. The second mistake was to weaken governmental institutions. This mistake was made during the famous Reagan-Thatcher revolution. The third mistake was for the top 1% to create a functional plutocracy in America. The essential difference between a democracy and a plutocracy is that, in a democracy, you have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, while in a plutocracy, you have a government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%. Most Americans react with disbelief to the claim that their society has functionally become a plutocracy.

Demography will shape Africa’s future. Africa’s current population is 1.3 billion. Some forecast that, it will double by 2050. This essay contends that narratives about Africa tend to be negative. If Africa is home to 2.6 billion people, or a quarter of the world’s population, Africa will play a decisive role in shaping the future of the world. A number of socio-economic indicators support an African Century narrative, which would result in a shift from policies driven by perception to those driven by reality. The youth bulge in Africa, if managed properly is, for instance, not just a fuel for African economies, but also for the rest of the world, especially Europe. Chinese investors in Africa adjust to the local context extremely quickly, and are not perceived as expatriates having living standards way above the rest. They instill an entrepreneurial “can do” attitude against adversity. Chinese perception of risk is also very different from traditional western investors. These characteristics make China a good partner for the industrialization policies being pursued by African countries.

As the longest continuously active civilization in the world, China has a rich legacy in the written world with libraries and writings that go back three millennia. These libraries offer scholars vast archives to analyze the past. For example, in classical China, political thinkers developed rich and diverse theories on international politics that took the hierarchy between states for granted. We believe that these ancient theories can be mined for contemporary insights, such as the ideal of reciprocity between hierarchical political communities that formed the tributary system in imperial China. Under this system, China guaranteed security and provided economic benefits to tributary states, but regardless of its advantages in the past, this system would be problematic in the modern world. The most obvious reason is that the tributary system, by definition gives, the vassal states a secondary status and is incompatible with the ideal of the equality of sovereign states. However, while there may be a case for paying lip service to equal sovereignty, in reality, states are neither sovereign nor equal. The most viable path toward global peace involves a bipolar world with the United States and China leading two regional state hierarchies that benefit the weaker states.

The patterns of history provide important insights into current global political and economic trends. The ebb and flow of history illustrate that pivotal points create profound change. In the twentieth century, the obvious turning points were the two world wars. The emergence of China as an economic powerhouse, thanks to her ‘reform and opening-up’ policy, should be considered as the other significant event in the last century that is having a lasting impact in this century. Coupled with the United StatesUnited States, The’ retreat to isolationism, the world is likely to return to a more multilateral world order.

Innovation is driven by having a high degree of market competition, governmental support of education, efficiency-enhancing regulations, and a legal structure that supports property rights. Innovation also depends on society having people with both the desire and opportunity to exercise their creativity and their inventiveness by coming up with original ideas and the entrepreneurial spirit to build businesses based on those ideas. China has long had high growth rates based on catching up to the world standard technologies. If China is to make the next big leap from a middle-income country into a high-income country, then China will need to both promote indigenous innovation and continue improving its institutions. But, at least as importantly, it will have to foster creativity, originality, exploration, and entrepreneurship. China has taken big steps to encourage entrepreneurship in big cities, in rural areas and small cities, and that is great. Yet, it’s one thing to realize today’s standards of productivity, and it’s another thing to be generating new stuff all the time. China is going to need people who demonstrate their creativity by conceiving and introducing original things. Only this kind of indigenous innovation can lead to permanent growth.

This essay provides insights into future global governance from the scholar who invented the concept of soft power. China as its strategic weight grows increasingly insists on setting standards and rules. The United States resists, global institutions like the WTO atrophy, and appeals to sovereignty increase. One possible future is a China-dominated world order. China’s economy could well surpass that of a declining United States by the mid-2020s. With Western economies having been weakened relative to China by the pandemic, China’s government and major companies are able to reshape institutions and set standards to their liking. However, in a more universal future, public opinion in many democracies begins to place a higher priority on climate change. Even before COVID-19, one could foresee an international agenda in 2030 defined by countries’ focus on green issues. If the US president introduces a “COVID Marshall Plan” to provide prompt access to vaccines for poor countries and to strengthen the capacity of their health care systems, much like the Marshall Plan of 1948, it could have a profound effect on shaping the geopolitics of the ensuing decade. Such leadership could enhance US soft power and, by 2030, could have a similarly significant geopolitical impact.

The COVID-19 pandemic shows every sign of being a watershed moment. Months of lockdown have certainly given citizens and politicians alike plenty of time to reflect on the state of their societies. There’s been a huge upsurge of interest in the environmental and social costs that come with globalisation. Also, deep thought is needed about what we are going to have to pay for the extraordinary amount of debt that has been accrued to pay for COVID-19—just as we are having to pay for the investment to tackle climate change, to counter inequalities and to equip ourselves through education and re-skilling for the disruption caused by digitisation and to continue with globalisation. Globalisation is not going to disappear, but it will take a more fragmented form going forward, with governments and corporations having to make tough choices about which orbit of power they want to be a part of, and where their ultimate loyalties lie. Achieving consensus and real progress on vital issues like climate change, security and economic stability will get harder, not easier. And viewed from what we used to call the West, the economic prospects look daunting. The next few years offer short-term gain—but the prognosis further ahead is going to be painful.

TheMichie, Alistair richnessCenter for China and Globalization (CCG) in communication networks is deepening divisions and mistrust between nations. This trend is also corroding the cohesion of individual societies. If this erosion persists, it will create even more severe impediments for global society to change and introduce the measures needed to counter challenges such as climate changeClimate change. Discord has been a dominant pattern in the history of humanity. However, past conflicts did not raise this to a threat of catastrophe for humanity, a threat that shows us all the urgency of tackling the global communication crisis. This essay contends that resolving the communication crisis is core to the challenge of climate changeClimate change. The key rests with China and the US by virtue of their size and global leadership capabilities, and there can be no solution until the communication crisis between the US and China is resolved. Throughout 2020, the communication crisis deepened. One vital area is the communication of scientific facts. Failure to win trust through science means that reaching a consensus on remedial action will be extremely difficult. There is a mounting breakdown of trust between politicians, the public and scientists. China could break the deadlock. The pattern of Chinese history proves China is capable of huge ‘mindset’ changes to resolve the crisis, most recently evident in the reform and opening up‘Reform and opening’ up policy started in 1978.