Transcript IDSS Thursday August 18, 2005. A Vacuum in Strategic Thinking: The Repercussions for Strategic Thinking of Globalisation By: Adjunct Professor at CBS, Ambassador J.

IDSS Thursday August 18, 2005.
A Vacuum in Strategic Thinking: The
Repercussions for Strategic Thinking of
Globalisation
By:
Adjunct Professor at CBS, Ambassador J. Ørstrøm Møller.
www.oerstroemmoeller.com
I The Global Context
Key Sentence: The cold war ended in 1990.
The cold war´s geo-political structure and
the way world politic and economics
worked ended in February/March 2003.
1.The global trends.
More egoism, more self centred attitudes, more
nationalism. DAMN THE OTHERS.
The era/decade of fundamentalism
lower economic growth
multilateral trade policy loses steam. FTAs. New
players. Semi-protectionism?
social disparities inside and between nation-states
new security threats: Minorities inside nationstates, social upheavals, religious fervour
2.The US has thrown multilateralism
over board and chosen unilateral
multilateralism.
US as megapower but no international
institutionalisation reflecting this new
phenomenon
prevention and pre-emption, but what about other
countries
coalition of the willing
new US economic policy with the shining label
WHO CARES
3.Already now the following seems
abundantly clear
NATO, forget it fellows
US restructure its global military
positioning. Saudi-Arabia and Germany out.
Iraq, Central Asia, Australia in
Europe out of the American focus, Asia in.
What about UN? Wait a moment.
4.Besides political and moral
problems these trends give rise to a
number of analytical problems.
US cannot pay for its role as a megapower ref
deficit on balance of payments and the public
finances. Mismatch between policy objectives and
ability to pay for the party.
USA is starting to become a secluded nation-state.
Not compatible with a global empire.
No Windows 2000 or XP for the global political
and economic system.
5.Unquestionable a global
American Empire but
Not territorial possession.
An empire based upon other nation and other peoples
wish to emulate American values.
A virtual empire?
The gift to the world. Meritocracy.
II Challenges for Asia.
1.Institutionalisation
politically there is a strong need for reconciliation
between China and Japan. It is not forthcoming.
China is the rising power. Japan is a sullen inward
looking power. India on its way.
Economically China and India must be integrated
in an Asian context allowing for the advantages of
the strong economic growth in these two countries
to be shared with the rest of the pack.
Japan must try to get on board again
How to proceed? Which way to choose?
The first one: Weak political structure. US and
Australia into the picture. Not free trade at
least not encompassing agriculture. Ref EFTA
in Europe.
The second one:. For East Asia and among the
East Asian countries. Free trade in principle.
Ref EEC in Europe.
The forthcoming East Asian Summit.
2.Economic models.
Until the mid-19990´s all East Asian countries
were on one and the same economic model.
Growth by export.
Since the financial crisis and the repercussions on
their economies at least three models have
emerged.
The first one is export oriented. Singapore, Hong
Kong, Taiwan.
The second one is more emphasis on domestic
demand. Thailand, The Philippines, Malaysia,
Indonesia.
China is somewhere in between. Korea also
The third one is stagnation. Japan. Why?
Manufacturing economy parallel to Germany,
Sweden, Switzerland.
The joker. The resource-based economy is back on
track. (Australia).
Conclusion: Economic models and economic
policies used to be convergent but is now
becoming more and more divergent.
3.Two main problems:
social losers, mainly for China and the South East
Asia countries.
Immigration. Japans choice.
4. Key Sentences for Asia.
economically driven nations and societies
finding it difficult to get integration among
themselves going
and even more to safeguard their global interests
political systems in some countries find it difficult
to rise to the challenges.
III Europe
Totally wrong to write Europe off because the failure of
the Constitution.
Most likely scenario for Europe in the next 5 – 10 years.
First phase has already started. Europe moves closer to the
US.
Second phase will come in one or two years. An effort to
build a new Transatlantic partnership. Will fail because
the US will not pay sufficient attention to the Europeans.
Third phase. A revival of the Franco-German axis. The
famous phrase ´alliances do not persists, only interests
do´.
And that will lead to a new shape of European integration
and a stronger one probably with different groups of
members.
IV China and India move into the
system. Challenges for US and
Japan.
The world has been incredibly lucky that China
and India want to join the system. Imagine China
and India trying to set up an alternative system.
Unimaginable? Suppose the gang of four had
prevailed in China in late 70´s.
The US dilemma. Get them on board the fight
against terrorism, roque states but pay the price or
go alone and drain US resources.
The US dilemma is played on the Asian pitch. If
US opens the door for China and India
globalisation in its present form based upon a
semi-capitalistic American model and
convergence of political systems are likely. If not
China and India will either ask for indeed crave a
restructuring of decision making inside the system
or gradually put forward another version.
Why China AND India, why not China OR India.
Japan could have controlled Asian integration.
Now it has to accept a less important role. Seen in
an historical perspective this is extremely
worrying as Japanese nationalism or seclusion can
resurrect. US skirts the fundamental issue of
pushing Japan into an Asian integration not under
Japanese leadership or using Japan to spoil the
whole thing.
V Globalisation under pressure
Why is globalisation the preferred model
Economic growth versus identity
The challenges to globalisation – 4 points
1.The elite versus the population
2.Growing inequalities
3.Minorities
4.A sinister triangle of terrorism, crime and
infectious diseases
VI. Salient lines of the old model
Nationalism
Pursuance of national interests
Sovereignty
Von Clausewitz: Crisis – Conflict – Confrontation
→ War.
VII. Salient lines of a new model
Transnational forces
Supranational enterprises
International organisations
Cross border pressure groups
Multinational civic society
VIII. The transition from the old to
a new model.
The old model: Soviet Empire and Russian Empire
constituted a threat. Actually an old-fashioned
kind of threat.
Different kind of threats to deal with.
The new model: Threat against
our societies, not our nation-states,
the way our societies function, not our borders. Ref
the nature of the American Empire (not territory).
The key under the old model as well as under the new
model is survival but the character of the threat and how
to survive it has changed completely.
Survival of the Nation-State or survival of Globalisation
New Strategic thinking: Co-operation – Compromise –
Consensus → Global Governance.
The New Model is based upon three main
elements
Interventionism
Institutionalisation
A common set of values
A. Interventionism.
The international community cannot and
will not stand idly by if /when other players
pursue policies threatening internationalism.
Foreign policy, security, military
Economic policy, currency rates and maybe
trade policy
Infectious diseases.
pollution, environmental threats
Prevention and pre-emption may not
be new but the setting is.
B. Institutionalisation.
Sovereignty disappears as a barrier. Sounds nice
but non-provider of solutions, present excuse for
inactivity, used to be protection of the weak but
not any longer.
Sovereignty is defensive in its character but
what are required now is active and offensive
operations inside an international framework
going beyond a national framework.
Shape our societies in conformity with and not
in contradiction to international rules, behaviour,
patterns.
Institutionalisation emerges as the indispensable
counterpart as a safeguard against the stronger
abusing the weaker.
The rule of the law.
C. A common set of values.
The most difficult one. Easy to say, difficult to
define!
What is good, what is bad. What is permissible,
what is not permissible.
What justifies action and what does not.
Tolerance
Accountability
Transparency
Difficult yes but not impossible.
Look at recent years.
Genocide
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Certain kinds of violation of human rights
Ecological disasters.
Sure, there is still an element of double standards but
convergence and not divergence along these lines.
D. Iraq war revisited in this context.
VII. What is the alternative?
We may hope and think that the existing model for
internationalism may continue. Thinkable yes but……….
We may try to sketch a new model in the mould of
´response to challenge´. The problems are here. They do not
go away despite all kind of exorcisms.
If not successful:
Winners take all – the strongest.
Some kind of regional division of the world.
A revival of nationalism.
Clash of civilisations.
Some kind of chaos based upon egoism and a nice
little dose of destruction..
Make your choice!
Jørgen Ørstrøm Møller
www.oerstroemmoeller.com