Thinking in times of crisis is not easy. Most experts, including the author of these words, are tempted to find instant confirmation of their prior beliefs. The greater the uncertainty, the more attractive the comfort zone. This only reinforces the admiration for Marc Bloch, capable of discerning in the midst of a catastrophe the reasons behind the strange defeat of 1940. At this stage, while the country is only at the onset of the crisis, raising questions appears more sensible than attempting to find definitive answers.
Chinese-American Suez?
How the world will look like after Covid-19 is stirring up debate in Washington. Many foreign policy journals, such as Foreign Policy, offer interesting reviews by experts proposing scenarios of a post-crisis world. But very often, these articles reinforce pre-existing visions, rather than propose truly new grids of analysis. Harvard realist historian Steve Walt predicts a strengthening of conflicts, Singaporean strategist Kishore Mahbubani sees yet another sign of the United States passing the torch to China in a "China centric" globalization; while liberal John Ikenberry wants to believe in the emergence of a reformed internationalism. Foreign Affairs published extensive articles on the backlash against the flaws of globalization that this crisis, revealing the vulnerabilities of our integrated production chains, has highlighted. But, here again, are we witnessing a rupture or a reinforcement of a pre-existing trend in the United States as well as in Europe, between the protectionist wave, the demand for local production and environmental requirements? And to what extent can this popular demand really be matched by a concrete decline in the globalisation of companies? Does this crisis really demonstrate the dangers for companies of being exposed to Chinese production structures, when the danger is also widespread since Europe, the United States and China have been hit by the epidemic?
Eclipse of American power? Barack Obama's former Assistant Secretary of State for Asian Affairs, Kurt Campbell, and researcher Rush Doshi talk about a "Suez Moment", indicative of a transfer of power in favour of Beijing, reinforced by the White House's lone wolf: "The status of the United States as a global leader over the past seven decades has been built not just on wealth and power but also, and just as importantly, on the legitimacy that flows from the United States’ domestic governance, provision of global public goods, and ability and willingness to muster and coordinate a global response to crises. The coronavirus pandemic is testing all three elements of U.S. leadership. So far, Washington is failing the test." But historian Walter Russell Mead, the Jacksonian theorist, offers a more optimistic reading of American leadership in the Wall Street Journal, recalling the many crises in which the United States stumbled before making the right decisions, such as during World War II. On the other hand, it is possible to confidently predict a strengthening of great power strategic competition with Beijing. Two thirds of Americans believe that the development of the virus is China's fault. The White House is focused on the Chinese responsibility for the initial rise of the "Wuhan virus", to the point that the final G7 statement was halted because it did not use this terminology. The coronavirus will strengthen the influence of strategists advocating economic decoupling with China.
Add new comment