MISSION
Stability; enhanced economic efficiency and activity; and effectiveness in the management of global challenges, would all benefit from informed, dispassionate and solution-minded communication among governments and the diverse interests or entities they serve. This, and some degree of ‘compartmentalization’, in view of the expectation of irritants alongside the separation of issues, have become increasingly difficult to accomplish between governments whose visibility provokes early politicization and polarization in their dealings.
This project is designed to convene the best non-governmental minds on a subject. The intention is to air issues among knowledgeable and informed individuals, representative of relevant geographic, subject matter and interest perspectives. A Working Group of participants would be dedicated to finding durable, mutually beneficial working relationships and understandings that could, at some point, inspire empowered authorities and public opinion to embrace the Working Group’s recommendations on selected subjects.
Scope and Agenda
Technology increasingly causes actions of one government to impact the citizens, economy and society of others. Effective governance more often requires global cooperation. Technological capacities increase the impact of non-government actors. At the same time, and likely in response to a sense of being in control of one’s community, the public and governments are more nationalistic. The U.S. and China believe multipolarity is increasingly dominant, while each is adversarial and distrustful of one another. Further, shifts in global power, relationships and capacities must ultimately be reconciled, if they are not to produce conflict as governments jockey for advantage. A new version of globalization is inevitable. A constructive public narrative would help. Stability requires a capacity to make room for one another and consider challenges and solutions in a global context.
New intergovernmental agreements today are expected to be voluntary; but, even ‘binding’ agreements are largely unenforceable, at least, against major powers. Business is experienced in competition and collaboration with the same parties – but on a shared and narrower commercial purpose; and, in a setting of rules established and enforced by governments. Nonetheless, global firms and relevant NGOs have something to contribute and should be part of seeking understandings and, if appropriate, adherents to any resulting agreements.
The focus of this project was initially primarily government behavior in ‘transactional’ matters. Conflicts of governance philosophy, or over practices on civil liberties or human rights, are not themselves intended to be subjects of this project’s attention. Irreconcilable ideological conflicts may be brewing or obsolete, but this strategy is most promising if that debate is at least somewhat ‘compartmentalized’. War seemed remote.
A Panel, that is representative and of diverse experience and perspectives would try to reach ‘rules of the road’ for as wide an application as possible. There are a lot of policy and practice issues from which to choose.
Security and Defense
Even if mutually-assured destruction between the major powers makes mobilization inconceivable, issues and conflicts, regional and international, abound - each with its own dynamics, parties and, sometimes, proxies. Current military assertiveness in Asia; risks of nuclear misinformation, misinterpretation, accident, escalation, proliferation, terrorism, missile launch-readiness; avoidance of civilian targets; arms control; covert activity; use of new technologies, such as cyber; military use of space; Europe interfacing with Russia and China; and, more regionally, Japan in wider Asia; the Iran/Sunni conflict in MENA; and sub-Saharan Africa, are all examples.
During the Cold War, the confronting powers managed to reach multilateral and international agreement on arms control and military-to-military dialogue. Scientists met; cultural exchange occurred; a cohabitation was achieved, despite military confrontation. Today, civilian/military and public/private intermingling of technologies; and, systems, infrastructures and governance of new and expanded capability technologies, loom large, as do the prospects of a costly arms race. Economic integration was not the issue then that it is now among the principal countries.
Economics
Technology is increasingly critical not only to security and defense, but also to economic, industrial and political leadership – a contemporary counterpart of the arms race. Economic and industrial strength is inextricably tied to geo-political position – economic power begets geopolitical power; and geopolitical position fosters economic opportunity. The central global economic dynamic is the rise of China – its competitiveness, technological progress and assertiveness. There are many contentious Chinese practices: demanding technology transfer as a condition of market access; reputed failure to respect technology rights of foreigners; and state support for Chinese industry and technology – in addition to the support afforded by tariffs, quotas, embargoes, subsidies or sanctions. Public ownership; exchange rates to favor its exports and resist imports; de facto resistance to market entry through regulation and standards; and subsidized infrastructure, each contributes to the complained-of result.
Nonetheless, a great many countries and firms want to participate in the large opportunity China represents and would prefer reliable agreements to ‘de-coupling’. The consequences vary with circumstances, but costs and efficiency loss in production and R&D are in play – and geopolitical tensions generally further impede efficient activity and productivity.
What nature or degree of public sector support represents a legitimate preferential resource allocation reflecting societal priorities? When does that selectivity become an inherently unacceptable subsidy? The nature or level is, of course, always subject to negotiated agreement among signatory parties. Is superiority more likely achieved by open competition and cross-fertilization, or by secrecy, restriction and containment of competitors? Circumstances do vary, but, history has demonstrated that even unsophisticated, but determined, rivals are hard to ‘shut out’ of a technology or capability. Geopolitical tensions and uncertainties of government interventions are reshaping supply chains from China, an example of investor risk aversion - which could prove very costly.
China, for its part, complains of arbitrary containment tactics of the West and its allies, abusing security and defense exemption claims as arguably exemplified in the U.S. efforts to block Huawei. When alternatives are found by the target of embargo, the initiating party’s purpose might be negated. Results are case specific. There is, however, room for significant economic and stability gain, if agreed principles were to permit transactions, despite tensions on other fronts. Across the global economy and years, a large unrecoverable, growing loss exists. Fair and reasonable competitive market criteria aimed at efficiency would seem able to benefit all those involved and to contribute to making room for one another.
Global Governance Challenges
Management of global social issues, including climate change/environment, disparity, migration, health, SDGs, claims of WTO security exemption, interim clean energy strategies, rich/poor divide, privacy, data management, and weaponization of space is an intimidating list affecting stability, economic performance and security. U.S. withdrawal can be disabling.
Each of the parties wants some changes to current conditions, justifying their participation in an initiative in search of new practical policies and practices. Stemming currently deteriorating conditions and relationships suggests a priority and urgency to this issue.
The challenge is great. The stakes are high. The effort is worthwhile.
