oxygen | 19 — 04.2013
Many emerging countries are growing and gaining economic power at the expense of democracy: i.e., Zambia, Mozambique, Liberia, and Niger were among the fastest growing economies in 2012, but they are in a low position in the Democracy Index of the Economist Intelligence Unit. “Growing economy = Low democracy” seems to be a widespread paradigm. Is that really so? What do you think? The Asian growth miracle has already weakened the linkage between economic progress and democracy. Remember how Singapore, China, Vietnam, and Malaysia have grown in recent decades without being full democracies. So this is not a new phenomenon. Good governance can be achieved through investing in infrastructures and enabling entrepreneurship. This does not always require democracy. The world is becoming increasingly multipolar: what consequences will this have on international diplomacy and governance? What kind of multilateral political and economic agreements will we see? Multipolarity is already a reality today. We have strong North American, South American, European, and Asian systems whose internal trade is now greater than with each other. So there is a major regionalization of the world going on. At the same time, there is also an interdependency of natural resources and other supply chains. So we have a world of “open regionalism.” Trade within Asia is greater than with North America and Europe, which shows how ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), for example, is gradually decoupling from the EU, yet there is still a big effort to have more FTAs between the EU and ASEAN, or the U.S. and key Asian allies like Thailand. Let’s talk about the three super-powers… first of all, the U.S. During Obama’s second term, what is going to change and what is going to be empowered in U.S. foreign policy? Obama wants to have a second term without any surprises, to complete the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to build economic and strategic ties with Asia. These are good goals. Every president since Richard Nixon has chased the dream of energy independence, promising to break U.S. reliance on foreign oil. Today, this seems to be possible: in 2012, the U.S. produced 83% of the energy it consumed, imports from OPEC have been cut by a quarter in the last four years, new drilling techniques
022
have unlocked vast reserves, and oil and natural gas production is increasing at its fastest rate in 50 years. Do you think the U.S. is really going to be 100% energy independent? Obviously, this goal would change many things, not only in foreign policy… It is not just about the U.S. producing for itself, but the creation of a full zone of energy independence across the entire Western Hemisphere. This means including in our calculation the tar sands of Canada and the oil and gas of Brazil, in addition to America’s shale gas. And that hemispheric resource wealth is not just hydrocarbons but also water and food, which are just as important! More widely: examples like U.S. energy independence lead to thinking about some kind of new form of protectionism… Do you think the economic crisis is leading some countries to some protectionist measures? Not protectionism, but exporters will have to re-evaluate the rapidly shifting (declining) demand from the Western hemisphere. Countries from Canada to Argentina will not need to import any natural resources, whether oil/gas, food, or other commodities. This will make North and South America stronger in the sense of resource autarky, but not necessarily more protectionist. Yet still, resource exporting nations will have to look for new markets for the long-term. Shortly, China is going to change its leadership, and there is the possibility this will lead to some important changes. Do you think China will really start a kind of democratic transition? What consequences could this have? China’s political and economic liberalization process is a very controlled process, even if there are surprises, such as the corruption scandals involving Bo Xilai and others. These changes will make China a more consultative political system, if not a truly democratic one. Last but not least, the EU: its role in global governance has been softened in the last years. How can Europe recover stability and have a renewed centrality in the global scenario? The EU needs to remain unified as a market and economic zone to retain global relevance, and it is good to see the strong ECB signals that it will support this. The next step is to keep up the role of being the largest importer and also an exporter of capital in terms of foreign investment, as this is crucial to global leverage.
Talking about global governance, two things seem to have a reverse trend: on the one hand, the power of the governments, and above all, of the supranational organizations, is becoming increasingly more weak; on the other hand, “new actors” of global governance are emerging and the power of some of them (such as corporations, stakeholders, social movements, etc.) is growing. Who are these new actors? What is their real power and who are the most powerful? How is this changing global governance? The world has truly become a multi-stakeholder in terms of governance. Most delivery of services takes place through supply chains or partnerships that involve some combination of governments, companies, and NGOs. These new players claim authority on the basis of their capacity to provide basic goods and services that governments have failed to do. I think this is a very healthy trend – it is what I call “all hands on deck.” We have a far greater capacity to address global problems than just what is controlled by governments. The Gates Foundation, for example, has not only taken the lead in addressing infectious disease treatment in Africa, but also provides 40 percent of the annual operating budget of the World Health Organization (WHO). So it is an NGO funding an international organization. Indonesian forests have been pillaged by the government and corporations, but now Asian Pulp and Paper has demanded that its supply chain not rely on the logging of virgin forests. WalMart’s supply chain emits more greenhouse gases than the country of Ireland, so it very much needs to have a seat at the table in negotiations concerning climate change. These are just some examples of how we need to bring in the players whose actions can have a decisive impact. And what about the power of terrorist organizations? Terrorism is a constant phenomenon in the world and cannot be eliminated. But we should not blow its influence out of proportion. Terrorist groups do not make very good governors, just look at the Taliban!